Priority, which is more important for Australia

A modern fleet of Subs for over $40 billion

or a modern National Broadband for around the same price.

If one had to be cut back, which one would you like to see cut and why?

____ wrote on May 4^th, 2012 at 9:15am:

Priority, which is more important for Australia A modern fleet of Subs for over $40 billion or a modern National Broadband for around the same price. If one had to be cut back, which one would you like to see cut and why?

$10billion from the subs and $20billion from the NBN

Then $30billion for food production infrastructure.

progressiveslol wrote on May 4^th, 2012 at 9:17am:

____ wrote on May 4th, 2012 at 9:15am: Priority, which is more important for Australia A modern fleet of Subs for over $40 billion or a modern National Broadband for around the same price. If one had to be cut back, which one would you like to see cut and why? $10billion from the subs and $20billion from the NBN Then $30billion for food production infrastructure.

Why the disproportion towards the Subs. What do they bring to the Australian economy.

Long range forward defence of our nation, pffft; give me faster down-loadable porn as my first priority, any day.



There is not question which is more important.

Never mind food production. The battle there is to get it overseas while still fresh because, as it may have escaped some of you, we're a long way from everyone else (assuming we're not talking live sheep or cattle exports which have their own problems).

Far better is to produce crops for fuels. No issues there with freshness once the crop has been converted to biofuel. We could supply the world with the next generation of green fuels.

____ wrote on May 4^th, 2012 at 9:22am:

progressiveslol wrote on May 4th, 2012 at 9:17am: ____ wrote on May 4th, 2012 at 9:15am: Priority, which is more important for Australia A modern fleet of Subs for over $40 billion or a modern National Broadband for around the same price. If one had to be cut back, which one would you like to see cut and why? $10billion from the subs and $20billion from the NBN Then $30billion for food production infrastructure. Why the disproportion towards the Subs. What do they bring to the Australian economy.

I don't know about you, but given that we are a land-locked country the Navy has an extremely important role to play in keeping our country secure and at present, of the six Collins Class submarines, only one at any time is able to be at sea. This is not good enough. While the chances of a confrontation with another country are low, that doesn't mean we should become complacent about our national security either.

Oh, and to answer the question (sorry Woody)...

The NBN infrastructure will make all kinds of new industry possible and will do it across Australia, not just in the capital cities. For the first time ever, regional centres could compete on an equal footing, not just with the capital cities but with the rest of the world.

Subs... well... if we could make a good one like the Japs did then maybe we could sell some. But our record so far isn't too good.

Armchair_Politician wrote on May 4^th, 2012 at 9:27am:

____ wrote on May 4th, 2012 at 9:22am: progressiveslol wrote on May 4th, 2012 at 9:17am: ____ wrote on May 4th, 2012 at 9:15am: Priority, which is more important for Australia A modern fleet of Subs for over $40 billion or a modern National Broadband for around the same price. If one had to be cut back, which one would you like to see cut and why? $10billion from the subs and $20billion from the NBN Then $30billion for food production infrastructure. Why the disproportion towards the Subs. What do they bring to the Australian economy. I don't know about you, but given that we are a land-locked country the Navy has an extremely important role to play in keeping our country secure and at present, of the six Collins Class submarines, only one at any time is able to be at sea. This is not good enough. While the chances of a confrontation with another country are low, that doesn't mean we should become complacent about our national security either.

Is this why we are unable to keep illegal Japanese Whalers out of our waters.

Because we have to use subs, not spy planes or boats.



If we are spending $40 billion on subs, will we defend our antarctic region from China and others when the mineral sector force LibLab to support mining after 2020?

____ wrote on May 4^th, 2012 at 9:32am:

Armchair_Politician wrote on May 4th, 2012 at 9:27am: ____ wrote on May 4th, 2012 at 9:22am: progressiveslol wrote on May 4th, 2012 at 9:17am: ____ wrote on May 4th, 2012 at 9:15am: Priority, which is more important for Australia A modern fleet of Subs for over $40 billion or a modern National Broadband for around the same price. If one had to be cut back, which one would you like to see cut and why? $10billion from the subs and $20billion from the NBN Then $30billion for food production infrastructure. Why the disproportion towards the Subs. What do they bring to the Australian economy. I don't know about you, but given that we are a land-locked country the Navy has an extremely important role to play in keeping our country secure and at present, of the six Collins Class submarines, only one at any time is able to be at sea. This is not good enough. While the chances of a confrontation with another country are low, that doesn't mean we should become complacent about our national security either. Is this why we are unable to keep illegal Japanese Whalers out of our waters. Because we have to use subs, not spy planes or boats. If we are spending $40 billion on subs, will we defend our antarctic region from China and others when the mineral sector force LibLab to support mining after 2020?

We dont use our war machines for greens ideology. Thank goodness the greens will never be in power.

Gist wrote on May 4^th, 2012 at 9:29am:

Oh, and to answer the question (sorry Woody)... The NBN infrastructure will make all kinds of new industry possible and will do it across Australia, not just in the capital cities. For the first time ever, regional centres could compete on an equal footing, not just with the capital cities but with the rest of the world. Subs... well... if we could make a good one like the Japs did then maybe we could sell some. But our record so far isn't too good.

Our current fleet of Collins Class submarines are very good submarines, they are just not up to scratch with their systems - there have been integration problems galore. Mechanically, our diesel submarines are far more quiet than nuclear-powered submarines of the US, UK or Russian Navies. My wife's uncle works on our Collins submarines in Western Australia. During an exercise off the US coast a few years ago, one of our submarines shadowed a US nuclear attack submarine for a number of hours and the Captain of the US submarine was oblivious to the presence of the Australian one until our submarine "pinged" the American one. The downside to diesel submarines is that they need to regularly surface to recharge the batteries and change the air onboard whereas nuclear submarines can (theoretically) stay submerged for as long as the crew wants to. A diesel submarine will almost always hear a nuclear submarine first - we just need submarines that have a higher availability rate and better combat systems integration.

progressiveslol wrote on May 4^th, 2012 at 9:34am:

____ wrote on May 4th, 2012 at 9:32am: Armchair_Politician wrote on May 4th, 2012 at 9:27am: ____ wrote on May 4th, 2012 at 9:22am: progressiveslol wrote on May 4th, 2012 at 9:17am: ____ wrote on May 4th, 2012 at 9:15am: Priority, which is more important for Australia A modern fleet of Subs for over $40 billion or a modern National Broadband for around the same price. If one had to be cut back, which one would you like to see cut and why? $10billion from the subs and $20billion from the NBN Then $30billion for food production infrastructure. Why the disproportion towards the Subs. What do they bring to the Australian economy. I don't know about you, but given that we are a land-locked country the Navy has an extremely important role to play in keeping our country secure and at present, of the six Collins Class submarines, only one at any time is able to be at sea. This is not good enough. While the chances of a confrontation with another country are low, that doesn't mean we should become complacent about our national security either. Is this why we are unable to keep illegal Japanese Whalers out of our waters. Because we have to use subs, not spy planes or boats. If we are spending $40 billion on subs, will we defend our antarctic region from China and others when the mineral sector force LibLab to support mining after 2020? We dont use our war machines for greens ideology. Thank goodness the greens will never be in power.

Protecting Australian water from illegal activity is now green ideology.

How about coastal drug running, do the right want to class this as green ideology too?

____ wrote on May 4^th, 2012 at 9:43am:

progressiveslol wrote on May 4th, 2012 at 9:34am: ____ wrote on May 4th, 2012 at 9:32am: Armchair_Politician wrote on May 4th, 2012 at 9:27am: ____ wrote on May 4th, 2012 at 9:22am: progressiveslol wrote on May 4th, 2012 at 9:17am: ____ wrote on May 4th, 2012 at 9:15am: Priority, which is more important for Australia A modern fleet of Subs for over $40 billion or a modern National Broadband for around the same price. If one had to be cut back, which one would you like to see cut and why? $10billion from the subs and $20billion from the NBN Then $30billion for food production infrastructure. Why the disproportion towards the Subs. What do they bring to the Australian economy. I don't know about you, but given that we are a land-locked country the Navy has an extremely important role to play in keeping our country secure and at present, of the six Collins Class submarines, only one at any time is able to be at sea. This is not good enough. While the chances of a confrontation with another country are low, that doesn't mean we should become complacent about our national security either. Is this why we are unable to keep illegal Japanese Whalers out of our waters. Because we have to use subs, not spy planes or boats. If we are spending $40 billion on subs, will we defend our antarctic region from China and others when the mineral sector force LibLab to support mining after 2020? We dont use our war machines for greens ideology. Thank goodness the greens will never be in power. Protecting Australian water from illegal activity is now green ideology. How about coastal drug running, do the right want to class this as green ideology too?

Dont be a fool. You said whales, not drugs. In any event, it should be coast guard activity, not war machines.

____ wrote on May 4^th, 2012 at 9:43am:

Protecting Australian water from illegal activity is now green ideology. How about coastal drug running, do the right want to class this as green ideology too?

No, but using our submarines to do the job, is.

We don't spend $40 bil to protect whales against the japs.


This happens every time you start a thread that has defence implications.


Subs are long range strategic defence assets, not a tool for greenpeace activist.


BTW you don't need Subs to catch drug runners, the coast guard has aircraft and surface ships for that.

progressiveslol wrote on May 4^th, 2012 at 9:47am:

____ wrote on May 4th, 2012 at 9:43am: progressiveslol wrote on May 4th, 2012 at 9:34am: ____ wrote on May 4th, 2012 at 9:32am: Armchair_Politician wrote on May 4th, 2012 at 9:27am: ____ wrote on May 4th, 2012 at 9:22am: progressiveslol wrote on May 4th, 2012 at 9:17am: ____ wrote on May 4th, 2012 at 9:15am: Priority, which is more important for Australia A modern fleet of Subs for over $40 billion or a modern National Broadband for around the same price. If one had to be cut back, which one would you like to see cut and why? $10billion from the subs and $20billion from the NBN Then $30billion for food production infrastructure. Why the disproportion towards the Subs. What do they bring to the Australian economy. I don't know about you, but given that we are a land-locked country the Navy has an extremely important role to play in keeping our country secure and at present, of the six Collins Class submarines, only one at any time is able to be at sea. This is not good enough. While the chances of a confrontation with another country are low, that doesn't mean we should become complacent about our national security either. Is this why we are unable to keep illegal Japanese Whalers out of our waters. Because we have to use subs, not spy planes or boats. If we are spending $40 billion on subs, will we defend our antarctic region from China and others when the mineral sector force LibLab to support mining after 2020? We dont use our war machines for greens ideology. Thank goodness the greens will never be in power. Protecting Australian water from illegal activity is now green ideology. How about coastal drug running, do the right want to class this as green ideology too? Dont be a fool. You said whales, not drugs. In any event, it should be coast guard activity, not war machines.

How do you know if this year the illegal Japan whaling fleet don't use the earthquake repair funding to finance and shift to illegal drug running to fund.

Since the old parties don't want to watch, why wouldn't an illegal business diversify to finance another illegal industry.

BigOl64 wrote on May 4^th, 2012 at 9:51am:

____ wrote on May 4th, 2012 at 9:43am: Protecting Australian water from illegal activity is now green ideology. How about coastal drug running, do the right want to class this as green ideology too? No, but using our submarines to do the job, is. We don't spend $40 bil to protect whales against the japs. This happens every time you start a thread that has defence implications. Subs are long range strategic defence assets, not a tool for greenpeace activist. BTW you don't need Subs to catch drug runners, the coast guard has aircraft and surface ships for that.

So are the subs aimed for picking a scrap with China ?

Are the Subs a part of USA foreign policy planning?

Using Australia as the fall guy for a sino-yank fight.

____ wrote on May 4^th, 2012 at 9:55am:

progressiveslol wrote on May 4th, 2012 at 9:47am: ____ wrote on May 4th, 2012 at 9:43am: progressiveslol wrote on May 4th, 2012 at 9:34am: ____ wrote on May 4th, 2012 at 9:32am: Armchair_Politician wrote on May 4th, 2012 at 9:27am: ____ wrote on May 4th, 2012 at 9:22am: progressiveslol wrote on May 4th, 2012 at 9:17am: ____ wrote on May 4th, 2012 at 9:15am: Priority, which is more important for Australia A modern fleet of Subs for over $40 billion or a modern National Broadband for around the same price. If one had to be cut back, which one would you like to see cut and why? $10billion from the subs and $20billion from the NBN Then $30billion for food production infrastructure. Why the disproportion towards the Subs. What do they bring to the Australian economy. I don't know about you, but given that we are a land-locked country the Navy has an extremely important role to play in keeping our country secure and at present, of the six Collins Class submarines, only one at any time is able to be at sea. This is not good enough. While the chances of a confrontation with another country are low, that doesn't mean we should become complacent about our national security either. Is this why we are unable to keep illegal Japanese Whalers out of our waters. Because we have to use subs, not spy planes or boats. If we are spending $40 billion on subs, will we defend our antarctic region from China and others when the mineral sector force LibLab to support mining after 2020? We dont use our war machines for greens ideology. Thank goodness the greens will never be in power. Protecting Australian water from illegal activity is now green ideology. How about coastal drug running, do the right want to class this as green ideology too? Dont be a fool. You said whales, not drugs. In any event, it should be coast guard activity, not war machines. How do you know if this year the illegal Japan whaling fleet don't use the earthquake repair funding to finance and shift to illegal drug running to fund. Since the old parties don't want to watch, why wouldn't an illegal business diversify to finance another illegal industry.

Coast guard. Hard of reading (hearing)

Yep submarines for me.

Always spend on defence.

Always.
At the end of the day when things go to sh*t, you want to be able to rely on your own capabilities to wage war and not the good friendship with others.

That is how empires fell.

____ wrote on May 4^th, 2012 at 9:55am:

How do you know if this year the illegal Japan whaling fleet don't use the earthquake repair funding to finance and shift to illegal drug running to fund. Since the old parties don't want to watch, why wouldn't an illegal business diversify to finance another illegal industry.

You ate two big bowls of stupid this morning didn't you?

Subs are only for keeping the Yanks Foreign Policy toward picking a fight with our largest trading partner.

By Australia selling uranium for nuke missiles in India, Yank bases in Northern Australia, Yanks dictating how Australia votes in the UN and now spending $40,000,000,000 of our taxes on subs so to provoke China more is just to disrupt Australia and China moving closer together.

America has to make China a boggy man and the old parties are so use to not thinking to realise that they are being used as pawns, pawns easily sacrificed.

Ah yes the good old Sea Shepherd watching the whalers eh?

You know when you have a non-violent pro-environment organisation like Greenpeace releasing a statement criticising your behaviour and calling it 'incredibly dangerous and reprehensible' that you are not a sane group of people.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on May 4^th, 2012 at 9:59am:

Yep submarines for me. Always spend on defence. Always. At the end of the day when things go to sh*t, you want to be able to rely on your own capabilities to wage war and not the good friendship with others. That is how empires fell.

I can see how it would concern you living in the USA and with England as your homeland .... but In good old OZ we're not about to get invaded by anybody anytime soon. We however, going to left so far behind the 8 ball technologically that if we don't catch up with the rest of the world soon, we run the danger of becoming another USA .... a has been.

Johnsmith wrote on May 4^th, 2012 at 10:39am:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on May 4th, 2012 at 9:59am: Yep submarines for me. Always spend on defence. Always. At the end of the day when things go to sh*t, you want to be able to rely on your own capabilities to wage war and not the good friendship with others. That is how empires fell. I can see how it would concern you living in the USA and with England as your homeland .... but In good old OZ we're not about to get invaded by anybody anytime soon. We however, going to left so far behind the 8 ball technologically that if we don't catch up with the rest of the world soon, we run the danger of becoming another USA .... a has been.

Didn't Darwin get totally shelled by the Japs?
I don't think that was expected either.

By the way, take a look at your neighbours.

One thing I thought when I lived in Australia was that having Indonesia as neighbours all of a suddent for me made me think that having the French next door didnt seem so bad.....

Your neighbours are countries made up of millions of Muslims - with extremists in their midst - and a history of murdering innocents.

Like I said, we don't have that with France.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on May 4^th, 2012 at 10:43am:

Johnsmith wrote on May 4th, 2012 at 10:39am: Andrei.Hicks wrote on May 4th, 2012 at 9:59am: Yep submarines for me. Always spend on defence. Always. At the end of the day when things go to sh*t, you want to be able to rely on your own capabilities to wage war and not the good friendship with others. That is how empires fell. I can see how it would concern you living in the USA and with England as your homeland .... but In good old OZ we're not about to get invaded by anybody anytime soon. We however, going to left so far behind the 8 ball technologically that if we don't catch up with the rest of the world soon, we run the danger of becoming another USA .... a has been. Didn't Darwin get totally shelled by the Japs? I don't think that was expected either. By the way, take a look at your neighbours. One thing I thought when I lived in Australia was that having Indonesia as neighbours all of a suddent for me made me think that having the French next door didnt seem so bad..... Your neighbours are countries made up of millions of Muslims - with extremists in their midst - and a history of murdering innocents. Like I said, we don't have that with France.

Darwin got shelled by Japan because we were fighting with the good old USA. Besides, we didn't have any subs then either.... and we did OK ... subs aren't a real lot of use against an aerial attack now are they

Johnsmith wrote on May 4^th, 2012 at 10:56am:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on May 4th, 2012 at 10:43am: Johnsmith wrote on May 4th, 2012 at 10:39am: Andrei.Hicks wrote on May 4th, 2012 at 9:59am: Yep submarines for me. Always spend on defence. Always. At the end of the day when things go to sh*t, you want to be able to rely on your own capabilities to wage war and not the good friendship with others. That is how empires fell. I can see how it would concern you living in the USA and with England as your homeland .... but In good old OZ we're not about to get invaded by anybody anytime soon. We however, going to left so far behind the 8 ball technologically that if we don't catch up with the rest of the world soon, we run the danger of becoming another USA .... a has been. Didn't Darwin get totally shelled by the Japs? I don't think that was expected either. By the way, take a look at your neighbours. One thing I thought when I lived in Australia was that having Indonesia as neighbours all of a suddent for me made me think that having the French next door didnt seem so bad..... Your neighbours are countries made up of millions of Muslims - with extremists in their midst - and a history of murdering innocents. Like I said, we don't have that with France. Darwin got shelled by Japan because we were fighting with the good old USA. Besides, we didn't have any subs then either.... and we did OK ... subs aren't a real lot of use against an aerial attack now are they

No but subs are good counter attacking measures.
Did the planes fly all the way from Tokyo or did they take off from aircraft carriers?

You'll find subs aren't too bad for taking them on....

You'll also find Australia was fighting not with the USA, but the free world.....

Ask the people of Nanjing whether the Japs were decent people...

We can't afford enough subs to defend our waters. With our limited budget and large territory more speedy aircraft would make sense. Our subs will be as potent as Japanese mini subs compared to real navies. That applies to every pathetic tokenistic force we have put forward since world war 2 though, good for brown nosing America though.

Any single submarine short of a nuclear launch platform is kind of irrelevant alone.

Johnsmith wrote on May 4^th, 2012 at 10:56am:

Darwin got shelled by Japan because we were fighting with the good old USA. Besides, we didn't have any subs then either.... and we did OK ... subs aren't a real lot of use against an aerial attack now are they

History and facts not one of your strong point, hey?

We were fighting the japs long before the US entered the war, the jap invasion plans were based on imperial expansionism, not who happened to be our allies at the time.

If you are totally devoid of knowledge in a given subject, might I suggest not posting any replies.

Submarines have their place.

I truly like the fact that in Britain, our submarines carry our nuclear capability.

It means we can deliver medium range nuclear weapons attack to any part of the globe and also the risk of our nuclear capability being attacked is reduced because its mobile.

For example Moscow could attack us in Britain but we could still deliver a nuclear response because it'll be coming out of the North Sea.

BigOl64 wrote on May 4^th, 2012 at 11:04am:

Johnsmith wrote on May 4th, 2012 at 10:56am: Darwin got shelled by Japan because we were fighting with the good old USA. Besides, we didn't have any subs then either.... and we did OK ... subs aren't a real lot of use against an aerial attack now are they History and facts not one of your strong point, hey? We were fighting the japs long before the US entered the war, the jap invasion plans were based on imperial expansionism, not who happened to be our allies at the time. If you are totally devoid of knowledge in a given subject, might I suggest not posting any replies.

might I suggest you go and bugger yourself?

Johnsmith wrote on May 4^th, 2012 at 11:06am:

BigOl64 wrote on May 4th, 2012 at 11:04am: Johnsmith wrote on May 4th, 2012 at 10:56am: Darwin got shelled by Japan because we were fighting with the good old USA. Besides, we didn't have any subs then either.... and we did OK ... subs aren't a real lot of use against an aerial attack now are they History and facts not one of your strong point, hey? We were fighting the japs long before the US entered the war, the jap invasion plans were based on imperial expansionism, not who happened to be our allies at the time. If you are totally devoid of knowledge in a given subject, might I suggest not posting any replies. might I suggest you go and bugger yourself?

Maybe you should not write utter crap and then expect people to let it slide, that way you won't have to resort to personal insults.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on May 4^th, 2012 at 10:58am:

Johnsmith wrote on May 4th, 2012 at 10:56am: Andrei.Hicks wrote on May 4th, 2012 at 10:43am: Johnsmith wrote on May 4th, 2012 at 10:39am: Andrei.Hicks wrote on May 4th, 2012 at 9:59am: Yep submarines for me. Always spend on defence. Always. At the end of the day when things go to sh*t, you want to be able to rely on your own capabilities to wage war and not the good friendship with others. That is how empires fell. I can see how it would concern you living in the USA and with England as your homeland .... but In good old OZ we're not about to get invaded by anybody anytime soon. We however, going to left so far behind the 8 ball technologically that if we don't catch up with the rest of the world soon, we run the danger of becoming another USA .... a has been. Didn't Darwin get totally shelled by the Japs? I don't think that was expected either. By the way, take a look at your neighbours. One thing I thought when I lived in Australia was that having Indonesia as neighbours all of a suddent for me made me think that having the French next door didnt seem so bad..... Your neighbours are countries made up of millions of Muslims - with extremists in their midst - and a history of murdering innocents. Like I said, we don't have that with France. Darwin got shelled by Japan because we were fighting with the good old USA. Besides, we didn't have any subs then either.... and we did OK ... subs aren't a real lot of use against an aerial attack now are they No but subs are good counter attacking measures. Did the planes fly all the way from Tokyo or did they take off from aircraft carriers? You'll find subs aren't too bad for taking them on....

I would think it more likely that they took of from way stations they had set up on the many islands between Tokyo and Darwin .... again, planes would be much better suited to defending against this situation .... lets face is, given Australia's land mass, we would need a few hundred subs to be able to claim it was for defensive purposes .... it's like having a dozen police officers to police all of NSW ....

Johnsmith wrote on May 4^th, 2012 at 11:10am:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on May 4th, 2012 at 10:58am: Johnsmith wrote on May 4th, 2012 at 10:56am: Andrei.Hicks wrote on May 4th, 2012 at 10:43am: Johnsmith wrote on May 4th, 2012 at 10:39am: Andrei.Hicks wrote on May 4th, 2012 at 9:59am: Yep submarines for me. Always spend on defence. Always. At the end of the day when things go to sh*t, you want to be able to rely on your own capabilities to wage war and not the good friendship with others. That is how empires fell. I can see how it would concern you living in the USA and with England as your homeland .... but In good old OZ we're not about to get invaded by anybody anytime soon. We however, going to left so far behind the 8 ball technologically that if we don't catch up with the rest of the world soon, we run the danger of becoming another USA .... a has been. Didn't Darwin get totally shelled by the Japs? I don't think that was expected either. By the way, take a look at your neighbours. One thing I thought when I lived in Australia was that having Indonesia as neighbours all of a suddent for me made me think that having the French next door didnt seem so bad..... Your neighbours are countries made up of millions of Muslims - with extremists in their midst - and a history of murdering innocents. Like I said, we don't have that with France. Darwin got shelled by Japan because we were fighting with the good old USA. Besides, we didn't have any subs then either.... and we did OK ... subs aren't a real lot of use against an aerial attack now are they No but subs are good counter attacking measures. Did the planes fly all the way from Tokyo or did they take off from aircraft carriers? You'll find subs aren't too bad for taking them on.... I would think it more likely that they took of from way stations they had set up on the many islands between Tokyo and Darwin .... again, planes would be much better suited to defending against this situation .... lets face is, given Australia's land mass, we would need a few hundred subs to be able to claim it was for defensive purposes .... it's like having a dozen police officers to police all of NSW ....

Nonsense.
For a start the likelihood of somebody coming up from Antarctica to the south is very minimal if at all.

Therefore you'd have stations in Perth covering that and the attacks from the west.

Your weak point - as has been shown through history - is the north.
You have not pleasant neighbours up there and the Asian threat.

That's your threat.

You don't just have hundreds of submarines swirling around looking for people....

I am thinking military technology and history is not your strong point?

Johnsmith wrote on May 4^th, 2012 at 11:10am:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on May 4th, 2012 at 10:58am: Johnsmith wrote on May 4th, 2012 at 10:56am: Andrei.Hicks wrote on May 4th, 2012 at 10:43am: Johnsmith wrote on May 4th, 2012 at 10:39am: Andrei.Hicks wrote on May 4th, 2012 at 9:59am: Yep submarines for me. Always spend on defence. Always. At the end of the day when things go to sh*t, you want to be able to rely on your own capabilities to wage war and not the good friendship with others. That is how empires fell. I can see how it would concern you living in the USA and with England as your homeland .... but In good old OZ we're not about to get invaded by anybody anytime soon. We however, going to left so far behind the 8 ball technologically that if we don't catch up with the rest of the world soon, we run the danger of becoming another USA .... a has been. Didn't Darwin get totally shelled by the Japs? I don't think that was expected either. By the way, take a look at your neighbours. One thing I thought when I lived in Australia was that having Indonesia as neighbours all of a suddent for me made me think that having the French next door didnt seem so bad..... Your neighbours are countries made up of millions of Muslims - with extremists in their midst - and a history of murdering innocents. Like I said, we don't have that with France. Darwin got shelled by Japan because we were fighting with the good old USA. Besides, we didn't have any subs then either.... and we did OK ... subs aren't a real lot of use against an aerial attack now are they No but subs are good counter attacking measures. Did the planes fly all the way from Tokyo or did they take off from aircraft carriers? You'll find subs aren't too bad for taking them on.... I would think it more likely that they took of from way stations they had set up on the many islands between Tokyo and Darwin .... again, planes would be much better suited to defending against this situation .... lets face is, given Australia's land mass, we would need a few hundred subs to be able to claim it was for defensive purposes .... it's like having a dozen police officers to police all of NSW ....

The Japanese launched 188 aircraft on 19th February to attack Darwin.
They took off from 4 aircraft carriers Akaqi, Kaga, Hiryu, Soryu - these carriers were escorted by a several surface destroyers.

All 4 took part in the Pearl Harbor attack on the United States.

BigOl64 wrote on May 4^th, 2012 at 11:09am:

Johnsmith wrote on May 4th, 2012 at 11:06am: BigOl64 wrote on May 4th, 2012 at 11:04am: Johnsmith wrote on May 4th, 2012 at 10:56am: Darwin got shelled by Japan because we were fighting with the good old USA. Besides, we didn't have any subs then either.... and we did OK ... subs aren't a real lot of use against an aerial attack now are they History and facts not one of your strong point, hey? We were fighting the japs long before the US entered the war, the jap invasion plans were based on imperial expansionism, not who happened to be our allies at the time. If you are totally devoid of knowledge in a given subject, might I suggest not posting any replies. might I suggest you go and bugger yourself? Maybe you should not write utter crap and then expect people to let it slide, that way you won't have to resort to personal insults.

Maybe you haven't noticed, but I really couldn't give a crap what you think. Let it slide, don't let it slide, good luck to you. USA may not have entered the war yet, but given their plans were to attack Pearl Harbour, they knew we would side with USA and that the US A's would present their largest problem ... by attacking and eliminating any staging points that would allow the USA to counter attack, they were trying to limit the US A's abilities .... it could have put a real dent in their expansion programmes to have the US navy based in Darwin or Pearl Harbour ... the further away the US had to base their operations, the less the risk to Japan. Now, like i said before , go and bugger yourself.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on May 4^th, 2012 at 11:17am:

Johnsmith wrote on May 4th, 2012 at 11:10am: Andrei.Hicks wrote on May 4th, 2012 at 10:58am: Johnsmith wrote on May 4th, 2012 at 10:56am: Andrei.Hicks wrote on May 4th, 2012 at 10:43am: Johnsmith wrote on May 4th, 2012 at 10:39am: Andrei.Hicks wrote on May 4th, 2012 at 9:59am: Yep submarines for me. Always spend on defence. Always. At the end of the day when things go to sh*t, you want to be able to rely on your own capabilities to wage war and not the good friendship with others. That is how empires fell. I can see how it would concern you living in the USA and with England as your homeland .... but In good old OZ we're not about to get invaded by anybody anytime soon. We however, going to left so far behind the 8 ball technologically that if we don't catch up with the rest of the world soon, we run the danger of becoming another USA .... a has been. Didn't Darwin get totally shelled by the Japs? I don't think that was expected either. By the way, take a look at your neighbours. One thing I thought when I lived in Australia was that having Indonesia as neighbours all of a suddent for me made me think that having the French next door didnt seem so bad..... Your neighbours are countries made up of millions of Muslims - with extremists in their midst - and a history of murdering innocents. Like I said, we don't have that with France. Darwin got shelled by Japan because we were fighting with the good old USA. Besides, we didn't have any subs then either.... and we did OK ... subs aren't a real lot of use against an aerial attack now are they No but subs are good counter attacking measures. Did the planes fly all the way from Tokyo or did they take off from aircraft carriers? You'll find subs aren't too bad for taking them on.... I would think it more likely that they took of from way stations they had set up on the many islands between Tokyo and Darwin .... again, planes would be much better suited to defending against this situation .... lets face is, given Australia's land mass, we would need a few hundred subs to be able to claim it was for defensive purposes .... it's like having a dozen police officers to police all of NSW .... The Japanese launched 188 aircraft on 19th February to attack Darwin. They took off from 4 aircraft carriers Akaqi, Kaga, Hiryu, Soryu - these carriers were escorted by a several surface destroyers. All 4 took part in the Pearl Harbor attack on the United States.

Ok, I stand corrected, they took of from aircraft carriers, but that doesn't change the fact that Australia would be much better increasing it's aircraft numbers rather than trying to rely on such a low number of submarines that it's pointless to even try. Anyway, this is going of topic ... the NBN deals with the here and now, the subs deal with something that may happen sometime in the future ... The real threat of attack at the moment comes from terrorists, not governments, and terrorist groups don't deal with aircraft carriers and submarines ... they send one man and a bomb ... if they had used the heavy machinery, the USA would have eneded the war on terror a decade ago ... big ships, subs and planes don't help against individuals with backpacks or guns

Does it really matter ?

Both the subs and the NbN are under water.

Why would you roll out the NBN to people in the countryside first?

I don't know - Governments just seem very poor at making business-based decisions?

You'll never get early or decent payback rolling it to the most underpopulated regions first and excluding where the real revenue is - the capital cities.

The way I see it - it makes more cost sense to roll out a two tier plan.
One to the capital cities and populated areas.
Another less capital intensive one to areas where much fewer people are.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on May 4^th, 2012 at 1:27pm:

Why would you roll out the NBN to people in the countryside first? I don't know - Governments just seem very poor at making business-based decisions? You'll never get early or decent payback rolling it to the most underpopulated regions first and excluding where the real revenue is - the capital cities. The way I see it - it makes more cost sense to roll out a two tier plan. One to the capital cities and populated areas. Another less capital intensive one to areas where much fewer people are.

Yeah but nobody in Australia cares about how you do it in that cesspit country you live in. We'll do it our way thanks.

Johnsmith wrote on May 4^th, 2012 at 10:56am:

Darwin got shelled by Japan because we were fighting with the good old USA. Besides, we didn't have any subs then either.... and we did OK ... subs aren't a real lot of use against an aerial attack now are they

Taken from the Bollocks Book of History…… ;D

Gist wrote on May 4^th, 2012 at 9:29am:

Oh, and to answer the question (sorry Woody)... The NBN infrastructure will make all kinds of new industry possible and will do it across Australia, not just in the capital cities. For the first time ever, regional centres could compete on an equal footing, not just with the capital cities but with the rest of the world. Subs... well... if we could make a good one like the Japs did then maybe we could sell some. But our record so far isn't too good.

Please don't go spare, just asking....what kinds of new industires?

FriYAY wrote on May 4^th, 2012 at 2:51pm:

Gist wrote on May 4th, 2012 at 9:29am: Oh, and to answer the question (sorry Woody)... The NBN infrastructure will make all kinds of new industry possible and will do it across Australia, not just in the capital cities. For the first time ever, regional centres could compete on an equal footing, not just with the capital cities but with the rest of the world. Subs... well... if we could make a good one like the Japs did then maybe we could sell some. But our record so far isn't too good. Please don't go spare, just asking....what kinds of new industires?

Me? Go spare?? Never!

Well, not for reasonable questions anyway.  ;)

But I can't answer it. It's like going back to say the late 1800s and asking then what new industries could spring up by providing decent paved roads across the nation. Horses and carts didn't need them. Well as it turned out, cars and trucks did. What new industries have sprung up from that?

Or a more recent example - who would have imagined 20 years ago that one day we'd have a burgeoning industry to develop websites? There was no web back then except maybe for the US military.

Or who would imagine that someone could make a business out of selling ringtones that play on your phone?

The thing with the NBN is that it provides a huge increase in bandwidth. Todays internet just wasn't possible when we were all on dialup. It was just too friggin' slow. Now look! We have a guy running a politics forum which people can use for free and presumably some or all of the cost is met by income from ads.

Gist wrote on May 4^th, 2012 at 3:24pm:

FriYAY wrote on May 4th, 2012 at 2:51pm: Gist wrote on May 4th, 2012 at 9:29am: Oh, and to answer the question (sorry Woody)... The NBN infrastructure will make all kinds of new industry possible and will do it across Australia, not just in the capital cities. For the first time ever, regional centres could compete on an equal footing, not just with the capital cities but with the rest of the world. Subs... well... if we could make a good one like the Japs did then maybe we could sell some. But our record so far isn't too good. Please don't go spare, just asking....what kinds of new industires? Me? Go spare?? Never! Well, not for reasonable questions anyway.  ;) But I can't answer it. It's like going back to say the late 1800s and asking then what new industries could spring up by providing decent paved roads across the nation. Horses and carts didn't need them. Well as it turned out, cars and trucks did. What new industries have sprung up from that? Or a more recent example - who would have imagined 20 years ago that one day we'd have a burgeoning industry to develop websites? There was no web back then except maybe for the US military. Or who would imagine that someone could make a business out of selling ringtones that play on your phone? The thing with the NBN is that it provides a huge increase in bandwidth. Todays internet just wasn't possible when we were all on dialup. It was just too friggin' slow. Now look! We have a guy running a politics forum which people can use for free and presumably some or all of the cost is met by income from ads.

Oh........

Considering Labor mauled Defence to make up their surplus funds, I think the Subs aren't really high on the agenda.

Also, f*ck complacency. We can afford to have both.

Gist wrote on May 4^th, 2012 at 3:24pm:

FriYAY wrote on May 4th, 2012 at 2:51pm: Gist wrote on May 4th, 2012 at 9:29am: Oh, and to answer the question (sorry Woody)... The NBN infrastructure will make all kinds of new industry possible and will do it across Australia, not just in the capital cities. For the first time ever, regional centres could compete on an equal footing, not just with the capital cities but with the rest of the world. Subs... well... if we could make a good one like the Japs did then maybe we could sell some. But our record so far isn't too good. Please don't go spare, just asking....what kinds of new industires? Me? Go spare?? Never! Well, not for reasonable questions anyway.  ;) But I can't answer it. It's like going back to say the late 1800s and asking then what new industries could spring up by providing decent paved roads across the nation. Horses and carts didn't need them. Well as it turned out, cars and trucks did. What new industries have sprung up from that? Or a more recent example - who would have imagined 20 years ago that one day we'd have a burgeoning industry to develop websites? There was no web back then except maybe for the US military. Or who would imagine that someone could make a business out of selling ringtones that play on your phone? The thing with the NBN is that it provides a huge increase in bandwidth. Todays internet just wasn't possible when we were all on dialup. It was just too friggin' slow. Now look! We have a guy running a politics forum which people can use for free and presumably some or all of the cost is met by income from ads.

he asked what new industries would spring up and you gave him NOTHING. ans nobody ever does becasue there wont be anything new.

longweekend58 wrote on May 4^th, 2012 at 5:00pm:

he asked what new industries would spring up and you gave him NOTHING. ans nobody ever does becasue there wont be anything new.

So your ban is over eh? For now... won't be long until another one!  :D :D :D

Oh and yeah, you're right. There's no such thing as innovation in rightyretardworld where you reign supreme. Just like there's infinite supplies of oil.

However most of us live on planet Earth, not in rightyretardworld.

Gist wrote on May 4^th, 2012 at 5:29pm:

longweekend58 wrote on May 4th, 2012 at 5:00pm: he asked what new industries would spring up and you gave him NOTHING. ans nobody ever does becasue there wont be anything new. So your ban is over eh? For now... won't be long until another one!  :D :D :D Oh and yeah, you're right. There's no such thing as innovation in rightyretardworld where you reign supreme. Just like there's infinite supplies of oil. However most of us live on planet Earth, not in rightyretardworld.

you might make a more cogent argument if you could actually give and example of a new technology or industry that the NBN gives us that we currently cant. Since the standard offering is basically the same speed and ability as ADLS 2+ the argument that the NBN will revolutionise us seems ludicrous at best or more likely - fantasy.

longweekend58 wrote on May 4^th, 2012 at 5:34pm:

you might make a more cogent argument if you could actually give and example of a new technology or industry that the NBN gives us that we currently cant. Since the standard offering is basically the same speed and ability as ADLS 2+ the argument that the NBN will revolutionise us seems ludicrous at best or more likely - fantasy.

An artificial constraint which can be easily lifted as demand increases. The important thing is that the infrastructure is there. If it isn't there then we're stuffed with nowhere to go.

Hell! Cobb & Co did pretty well getting the message delivered! So why bother upgrading infrastructure?

Typical righty thinking.

Gist wrote on May 4^th, 2012 at 5:42pm:

longweekend58 wrote on May 4th, 2012 at 5:34pm: you might make a more cogent argument if you could actually give and example of a new technology or industry that the NBN gives us that we currently cant. Since the standard offering is basically the same speed and ability as ADLS 2+ the argument that the NBN will revolutionise us seems ludicrous at best or more likely - fantasy. An artificial constraint which can be easily lifted as demand increases. The important thing is that the infrastructure is there. If it isn't there then we're stuffed with nowhere to go. Hell! Cobb & Co did pretty well getting the message delivered! So why bother upgrading infrastructure? Typical righty thinking.

so in essence what you are saying is that you too have no idea what you are going to do with it either. THAT is the failing in the NBN case; that we are spending $50B on a network with no identificable benefits beyons the 15% that currently cannot get ADSL 2+. thats a lot of money for not much payoff.

longweekend58 wrote on May 4^th, 2012 at 5:51pm:

so in essence what you are saying is that you too have no idea what you are going to do with it either. THAT is the failing in the NBN case; that we are spending $50B on a network with no identificable benefits beyons the 15% that currently cannot get ADSL 2+. thats a lot of money for not much payoff.

In essence I am saying that I'm not in the business of gazing at crystal balls trying to guess what technology will come about tomorrow.

But anyone with any sense can see that demand is growing rapidly. Ten years ago if someone had told me that I'd be downloading entire CDs and movies from some site somewhere I'd have laughed at them. And I'm in the industry! Today we have servers that don't physically exist being hosted on other servers which could be anywhere in the world running critical applications that I can control from my bedroom. I do it every morning while I'm having my coffee in bed. No kidding.

The NBN isn't for anything. It's infrastructure. It's an enabler. It enables other things to happen. And it represents a huge increase in capacity that we're going to need regardless. If we didn't do it now as a concerted project then it would have to be done piecemeal later at much higher cost and with poorer outcomes. You'd get the situation just as now where a big chunk of the population gets stuff all service at ripoff prices.

By including them, they have the opportunity to contribute. It means regional centres can compete in certain industries just as effectively as CBDs. That finally allows some provision for decentralisation which is sorely needed in Australia - certainly in Sydney and Melbourne. The current centralisation into a few big cities costs Australia enormously in terms of having to build road and public transport infrastructure, higher housing costs, etc, etc. The NBN enables that to be alleviated. What savings would that generate?

Tell me, what benefit was there in installing the existing copper network? How much did that cost? Seems YOU wouldn't have built it.

longweekend58 wrote on May 4^th, 2012 at 5:51pm:

Gist wrote on May 4th, 2012 at 5:42pm: longweekend58 wrote on May 4th, 2012 at 5:34pm: you might make a more cogent argument if you could actually give and example of a new technology or industry that the NBN gives us that we currently cant. Since the standard offering is basically the same speed and ability as ADLS 2+ the argument that the NBN will revolutionise us seems ludicrous at best or more likely - fantasy. An artificial constraint which can be easily lifted as demand increases. The important thing is that the infrastructure is there. If it isn't there then we're stuffed with nowhere to go. Hell! Cobb & Co did pretty well getting the message delivered! So why bother upgrading infrastructure? Typical righty thinking. so in essence what you are saying is that you too have no idea what you are going to do with it either. THAT is the failing in the NBN case; that we are spending $50B on a network with no identificable benefits beyons the 15% that currently cannot get ADSL 2+. thats a lot of money for not much payoff.

if anyone here could predict future technology, they probably wouldn't be on here but out there making money ... I didn't predict the Internet 30 years ago, but like magic, here it is .. i didn't predict mobile phones ... but guess what, I've got one too .... the fact is the sky's the limit in what we can do with the NBN, the only problem is that most people won't realise exactly what it is we can do with it until someone smarter shows them

____ wrote on May 4^th, 2012 at 9:15am:

Priority, which is more important for Australia A modern fleet of Subs for over $40 billion or a modern National Broadband for around the same price. If one had to be cut back, which one would you like to see cut and why?

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmn?

THE COST OF FREEDOM AY?

SO LET ME GET THIS STRAIGHT, BECAUSE HOWARD SPENT ALL THAT MONEY ON ADVERTSING ALL THE SILVER SPOONERS RECKON WE CAN'T AFFORD AN NBN EVEN THOUGH WE ARE BUILDING FRIGGING CHINA?

  :o :o :o :o :o  ;D

longweekend58 wrote on May 4^th, 2012 at 5:51pm:

so in essence what you are saying is that you too have no idea what you are going to do with it either. THAT is the failing in the NBN case; that we are spending $50B on a network with no identificable benefits beyons the 15% that currently cannot get ADSL 2+. thats a lot of money for not much payoff.

Where the hell did you get 50 billion from. My god there is no lie you won't tell to try and defend your ignorance is there. It is 36 billion down from 45 billion because of the telstra deal.

And if you don't already understand why it will pay and what it will be used for you should stay away from the debate. The matter is the new uses that have not been yet conceived that sure as hell will never happen on wireless.

nairbe wrote on May 5^th, 2012 at 12:50pm:

longweekend58 wrote on May 4th, 2012 at 5:51pm: so in essence what you are saying is that you too have no idea what you are going to do with it either. THAT is the failing in the NBN case; that we are spending $50B on a network with no identificable benefits beyons the 15% that currently cannot get ADSL 2+. thats a lot of money for not much payoff. Where the hell did you get 50 billion from. My god there is no lie you won't tell to try and defend your ignorance is there. It is 36 billion down from 45 billion because of the telstra deal. And if you don't already understand why it will pay and what it will be used for you should stay away from the debate. The matter is the new uses that have not been yet conceived that sure as hell will never happen on wireless.

LONGWEEKEND DOESN'T UNDERSTAND THE NBN DEBATE!

SIMPLE!!

hE SIMPLY WANTS TO STICK HIS HAND DOWN EVERY SINGLE PERSONS PANTS THAT HANGS AROUND LONG ENOUGH TO LET HIM DO IT!

LIKE EVERY OTHER PRETEND CONSERVATIVE IN THE WORLD!!  ;D ;D :o

____ wrote on May 4^th, 2012 at 9:15am:

Priority, which is more important for Australia A modern fleet of Subs for over $40 billion or a modern National Broadband for around the same price. If one had to be cut back, which one would you like to see cut and why?

The question is faulty.

The NBN is an off-budget investment. The "$40bn" (It's actually a total of $37bn capex, $27bn of which comes from Govt) is returned to the Govt from user revenue.

Submarines on the other hand, do not provide any financial return on investment and are funded from consolidated revenue.

For argument's sake, even if you wanted to keep the total value of Govt debt the same and therefore had to choose between the NBN and some other investment, to keep that investment off-budget would require that it also provide a positive return.

For example, you could build a toll-road or a railway that charged users a sufficient amount to cover the capital cost plus the associated interest, as for the NBN.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on May 4^th, 2012 at 1:27pm:

Why would you roll out the NBN to people in the countryside first? I don't know - Governments just seem very poor at making business-based decisions? You'll never get early or decent payback rolling it to the most underpopulated regions first and excluding where the real revenue is - the capital cities. The way I see it - it makes more cost sense to roll out a two tier plan. One to the capital cities and populated areas. Another less capital intensive one to areas where much fewer people are.

The NBN is actually being rolled out in both city/suburban areas and country areas at the same time. It's certainly not only the country going first. There are 121 Points of Interconnect around the nation, and work has commenced at each one, fanning outwards from them. The ACCC mandated the locations of the PoI last year, after taking submissions from the Telco industry as to the locations of their existing transit networks (A PoI is where the NBN leaves off, and the ISP's network takes over).

The reason behind this is that the NBN is about delivering infrastructure to everyone, especially those that have the poorest services now. Many city areas already have access to HFC, which will keep them going until the NBN is finished. It's not purely a business decision, it's as much a service decision.

Tax payers money should not be used to fund and build cash cows for corporate maggots and 'rselickers. :) :) :) :)