Get use to it. Wake up to the fact that none of the major imperialist powers make any pretense, however, that they do not use murder and aggressive war as routine tools of statecraft as the US war drive against China provokes one of the deepest diplomatic crises since the end of the Cold War.

Didn't take long...

Marla wrote on Sep 22^nd, 2021 at 7:40am:



That's it!  Blame Whartey!!  Them innocent Chinkers was just standing on the street corner cleaning their nails with their nuke subs, carriers and ICBMs... just legitimate self-defence, no?  Those aren't escalating conflict with anyone!  NAH!! NAAAH!

Threatening Taiwan, Japan and Australia?  Them's just local issues, no?  Diblomadic Immunidy!

How DARE Australia even consider having nuke subs - or heaven forbid - maybe even a carrier or two!

Ayn Marx wrote on Sep 22^nd, 2021 at 8:48am:



Boomers or HKs?

I wonder how many RMB the union was paid to put that position?

Bobby. wrote on Sep 22^nd, 2021 at 2:16pm:

It's a massive undertaking for sure but there has been some tentacles extended regarding submarine information, communication, technology and training lines since the Collins Class as far back as 2002.
It's a whole other level but some of the groundwork enabling exchange structures between ASC, Navy and USA bodies is actually already in place to start building on. The real cost is going to be almost undefinable and the time frames.....well.
Unfortunately the French continually shot themselves in the foot in this area, the constant missing of deadlines and cost re-evaluations before even really starting was just too scary for everyone, especially for technology some say is basically already too outdated and limiting. We've had experience in this area before only resolved by switching to USA guidance. That has already brought about a sharing of weapons combat systems with existing USA Nuclear subs by the way, a first for non nuclear based subs.
From my own small personal exposure I can say the USA does hands down provide the best contract fulfillment and performance guarantee.
I get the decision, on many levels but geeze, it really is a big leap. There is going to be lots of pressure, throughout all Navy and associated entities for decades.

Bobby. wrote on Sep 22^nd, 2021 at 2:57pm:

I think perhaps people aren't fully cognisant of the abilities in Australia regarding Submarine build and maintenance. Outside of the few major entities around the world we literally are next best developed. I do believe we can get it done but the cost will be exorbitant for this little country and the pressure throughout organizations will be very high. We will obviously be relying ever more intently on foreign input and support of the Australian Defense forces single biggest investment for decades and that leads to other questions surrounding self reliance and possible leverage.
In short, we'll find a way eventually, but it will be long, costly and political. The question really is at what cost both financially (yes including other ally negotiations in numerous areas) and in the defense independence and sovereignty realm.

goosecat wrote on Sep 22^nd, 2021 at 9:32pm:


It is a slippery slope to nuclear capacity and advancing the industry....I am against nuclear proliferation and the threat it poses to all humanity!!!



Usually, terrible things that are done with the excuse that progress requires them are not really progress at all, but just terrible things.
Russell Baker (1925 - )

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Sep 22^nd, 2021 at 8:41am:

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2021 at 12:35am:



Blow it out your ass, hippie. These subs are there to bring American imperialism to Kangarooland. There is no other purpose for them. 

Listen to Biden's speech he gave to the U.N. His administration has taken on the most aggressive military buildup since the end of the Second World War. Within months of taking office, the Biden administration declared the effective end of the “One China” policy, moving toward the proclamation of a military alliance with Taiwan that China sees as an act of war.

And not only that, Biden has hoodwinked Congress into spending billions in the Pacific theater, while working to deploy offensive missiles in Japan, South Korea and even Taiwan.

And then there is the biggest prize of all: the anti-China alliance with Australia and the toothless limeys, which in case, most of you right-wing kangaroo rooters are too stupid to see has effectively ended Australia’s status as a non-nuclear state. Thanks to Yankee imperialism you now have nuclear submarines that, with minor modifications, would be capable of launching nuclear missiles.

Stick to being a stupid right-wing gullible hippie. 

whiteknight wrote on Sep 22^nd, 2021 at 7:06am:



They sound like the Global Times.

Never underestimate Labor's ability to self-destruct. 

Labor MPs lash Paul Keating for China comments

By Anthony Galloway
September 23, 2021 — 5.00am

Labor MPs have blasted former prime minister Paul Keating for claiming the federal opposition was complicit in the Morrison government’s surrender of its military to the United States as part of a new defence pact to build nuclear-powered submarines.

Mr Keating on Wednesday escalated his attack on the AUKUS defence partnership between Australia, the US and Britain, criticising his own side for promoting a “false representation of China’s foreign policy” by implying that Beijing presented a military threat to Australia.


Labor MPs have criticised Paul Keating for his comments on Australia’s new submarine deal.CREDIT:KATE GERAGHTY

Mr Keating’s attack on the opposition’s foreign affairs spokeswoman Penny Wong, who he claimed had “neutered Labor’s traditional stance as to Australia’s right to strategic autonomy” in an opinion piece for The Sydney Morning Herald and The Age, has particularly angered federal MPs on his own side.

In a speech to the United States Studies Centre on Thursday, Senator Wong will warn Beijing is becoming “more assertive, and at times aggressive”, but will also say the debate shouldn’t be reduced to the “two fatalisms” of acquiescing to China or going to war.

Labor MP Anthony Byrne, deputy chair of Parliament’s intelligence and security committee, said Mr Keating had done his party a “great disservice by attacking, in my mind, one of the best Labor parliamentarians to ever grace the floor of the Senate” in Senator Wong.

“Penny has always put the national interest first. And argues a Labor position in a forceful, elegant and nuanced way – something Paul Keating should take note of,” he said.

Mr Byrne said the analysis by Mr Keating was “like looking at life as he wants it to be, not at life as it is”.

“The fact is that we are responding to a different China to the one Keating is trying to display,” he said. “The best thing Paul could do is put the kaleidoscope down, look realistically at what’s happening and put his Montblanc pen away so that he doesn’t trivialise and mock our national security priorities, and actually writes a proper analysis of the existential threat Australia faces in a geopolitical sense.”

Labor MP Peter Khalil, a former national security advisor, said Mr Keating was a “living legend” but was wrong to “so casually discount China’s aggressiveness” in areas like the South China Sea, Xinjiang and Tibet.

“Keating is wilfully blind to China’s international aggression through cyber attacks, which have caused major disruption to our university and corporate sectors,” Mr Khalil has written in an opinion piece.

“His article yesterday colourfully and rightly highlights the narrowness of the Morrison foreign and defence policy, yet Keating’s attacks reveal that like Morrison, he has fallen into the trap of binary thinking – that Australia’s only choice is between a declining US or a rising China.”

The Victorian MP also said Mr Keating was wrong to argue the AUKUS submarine deal reduced Australia’s sovereignty and operational independence by bringing the nation under the “command” of the US. “We buy equipment from all over the world, but this does not reduce our sovereignty and interoperability allows our equipment to work with those of our allies,” Mr Khalil said. “It does not tie us to their operational command.”

Mr Khalil also disagreed with Mr Keating that Australia was accelerating towards an inevitable conflict with China, saying having a stronger military posture was more likely to deter other nations from conflict and channel them towards diplomacy.

Prime Minister Scott Morrison last week announced the AUKUS three-way defence pact to build nuclear-propelled submarines and its decision to dump a $90 billion agreement with France to deliver a conventionally powered fleet.



In her speech, Senator Wong will say the deal raises an “important question” about Australia’s sovereignty because there would be a higher level of technological dependence on the US.

But she will say it was important to remember AUKUS was not a formal alliance, but rather an agreement to share military technology, and the anxiety in some reactions suggested the government did not do enough “diplomatic legwork”.

“France ought to have been shown the due respect of a partner with shared Indo-Pacific interests,” she will say. “Instead, it’s been reported, that having failed to put in the work before the announcement, members of the government are now describing the French as ‘having a sook’.”

Senator Wong will also warn against relying on “unhelpful binaries” that reinforce “existing prejudices of Australia in the region or reduce our complex environment to Cold War analogies”.

“There is no scenario in which China doesn’t matter, and no responsible scenario where we can opt out of engagement,” she will say. “Equally, we know that China is becoming more assertive, and at times aggressive – which, when combined with its military modernisation program, often reduces our strategic policy debate to the two fatalisms.”

Captain Nemo wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2021 at 11:34am:


We pay these people and handsomely.  WTF is the difference between a HUNTER KILLER defence submarine designed and equipped to sink ATTACKERS, run by either diesel electric or nuclear (apart from the simple operational differences of surface time and potential evasion of detection - the submarines primary defence)?

So Australia is giving up its national sovereignty to the US by using nuclear power, but it is not surrendering its national sovereignty and national defence to China (et al) by not having an effective deterrent against ATTACK?  The Chinese Prez has already said he'll nuke Australia..... FFS.

For the last time - these subs are NOT designed to blast Beijing, unlike the Chinese nukes that carry ICBMs are designed to blast Canberra etc... they are  fitted out to prevent Chinese (et al) submarines blasting Canberra, and it is your sons and daughters who will suffer the consequences of poor decision making now.

Labor is farther to the left and sucking up China's arsehole far more than I suspected... either abysmally stupid or abysmally communist ideologised in the Lenininst (segueing into Stalinist) mold rather than the Trotskyist.

goosecat wrote on Sep 22^nd, 2021 at 11:16pm:


I do not believe nuclear subs are the only nuclear capacity this Government is considering....The Coalition is on path to building a nuclear industry in Australia???

Quote:




https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/nationals-senators-call-for-end-to-nonse...

https://www.news.com.au/technology/innovation/military/inescapable-problem-with-...

When even Greg Sheridan thinks a lib PM has done the wrong thing, you know this wasn't the best plan.

The why is Mr Chinker so restive?    .....

You'd think Australia had nuke subs armed to the teeth with H-bombs knocking on Beijing's door.... what ARE they so frightened of?  White Man's Superiority?

Gordon wrote on Sep 30^th, 2021 at 8:36pm:


But he is a liberal butt kisser.

issuevoter wrote on Oct 1^st, 2021 at 9:04am:


Remember nukes are relatively 'noisy' with extra cooling pumps and such and each has its own 'signature' ...  where's Vic?  He'll know more about subs.  Obviously would be noisier than running on batteries.

https://spp.fas.org/eprint/snf03221.htm

No to nuclear - full stop.

I've been opposed to nukes for over 50 years, and I've seen NOTHING
recently which would persuade me to change that stance.

Quite the contrary, actually. Recent events simply reinforce that stance.

Kat wrote on Oct 1^st, 2021 at 7:35pm:


So China can have nuke powered subs and nuke armed subs - but Australia can't?  Because China says so?



Who do you think you are kidding, Mr Chinker?

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2021 at 2:49am:


Socialism IS the answer

Jasin wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2021 at 9:33pm:


Over 40 and still living with your mother, I see

Jasin wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2021 at 3:51am:





The incel battle cry.

Jasin wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2021 at 4:21am:





All this and over 40, too.

Jovial Monk wrote on Oct 4^th, 2021 at 9:47pm:


We could fit it up on the Faropen Plains area, and then hand it to the Kaffir ...... national parks held in trust for all, you know, so we hand it to a bunch of layabouts....

Nothing will come of it , just scomao trying to stay relevant. Boot this mob out

These are not 'weapons of mass destruction' - they are attack submarines used to counter weapons of mass destruction.... and it is those purveying mass destruction, and who possess the ability to unleash it, and who have threatened to do so, who are complaining that someone might have the means to foil their evil intentions...

Something wrong with some of you people?

Get with it!!

         

P.S.  Would you have the same problem with our destroyers etc having enormous anti-submarine capability, or becoming more capable in delivering it?  Or our maritime recon aircraft?  If they spot a hostile nuke about to launch - you reckon they shouldn't have the ability to attack and destroy it?