AUKUS

[Power Raid]

Can someone explain to me, as I know nothing, why it takes so long to build these things, why it is so complicated and why it takes so long to be able to operate them? I mean, it takes something like 15 years before you are ready to captain a nuclear sub.

the scope hasn't been worked out and the weapon systems will be modern as opposed to last century

the reactor and sub is not complex, other than it will need to be large enough to support laser and drones

 

[Taylor]

The most logical, most sensible and most appeasing way to find $300bn over 30 years is to scrap the tax cuts that were going to cost us $250bn over 10. The risk that I see is that the ALP will need one of the Greens or the LNP to help get this through the senate. The LNP will not want to sacrifice one of their cornerstone policies and the spiteful campaigners would clearly rather go after the NDIS instead. The Greens, from what I'm reading, will probably go out of their way to be as obstructionist on this as possible so what the ALP would need to give up to placate them is anyone's guess, if it's even possible at all.

I'm in agreeance with you on the last part, and to be honest, it's been something that's irked me about NZ in a variety of fields for many years.

They could just project growth in the economy corresponding with higher tax receipts and it's done. Income tax is 230 billion. That only requires 3% grown to find the 360 billion extra all in year 30.

If you want the increase over those thirty years to total to the 360 billion odd it only needs to increase by 0.35% per year.

 

[fs88]

Is this just the mother of all rorts of legally syphoning taxpayer funds into private weapons companies which all the politicians have secret interests in?

I just cant understand how our biggest trading partner is our biggest threat. If China wanted to invade us, 6 subs aren't going to hold the fort.

 

[QuietB]

the scope hasn't been worked out and the weapon system will be modern as opposed to last century

the reactor and sub is not complex, other than it will need to be large enough to support laser and drones

How long is it until the weapons system does not need a sub. Or a plane. Or anything for that matter.

We are witnessing a war in real time in Ukraine where cheap mass produced drone weapons are arguably the most effective weapons being used.

The USA have their F22 and F35 fighter jets which will never ever engage in a single dogfight. Because they are simply a weapon delivery platforms. The only role they have to sneak weapons into range of their targets.

How long is it until the weapons don't need a mobile platform anymore?

 

[QuietB]

They could just project growth in the economy corresponding with higher tax receipts and it's done. Income tax is 230 billion. That only requires 3% grown to find the 360 billion extra all in year 30.

If you want the increase over those thirty years to total to the 360 billion odd it only needs to increase by 0.35% per year.

Nice idea except Murdoch and Dutton would start a civil war at the thought of more tax.

 

[Mofra]

Is this just the mother of all rorts of legally syphoning taxpayer funds into private weapons companies which all the politicians have secret interests in?

I just cant understand how our biggest trading partner is our biggest threat. If China wanted to invade us, 6 subs aren't going to hold the fort.

The subs are about protecting the sea-route between Australia and Singapore.

And gathering a crap-tonne of intelligence.

Edit: and of course, interoperability with military partners.

 

[Taylor]

Nice idea except Murdoch and Dutton would start a civil war at the thought of more tax.

It's not more tax, it's growth of the tax income by 0.35% per year above CPI. Which means that tiny group of people who pay most of the income tax have better years to the tune of just over half a percent per year.

Similar to how if the government took $1 from the sale of every $10 avocado sold and the number of avocado sold went up, the tax was still 10% but they've made more money.

 

[Power Raid]

How long is it until the weapons system does not need a sub. Or a plane. Or anything for that matter.

excellent question and I think before the AUKUS is finished. AUKUS will need to contemplate this in their design

A modern sub should be a "master vehicle" with 10s if not 100's of drone kamikaze vehicles waiting for instruction be that surveillance or kill. Similar to this

Russia Has Built Its First Batch of Terrifying Apocalypse Torpedoes

Poseidon is meant to attack cities and ports with a multi-megaton thermonuclear bomb.

www.popularmechanics.com

We are witnessing a war in real time in Ukraine where cheap mass produced drone weapons are arguably the most effective weapons being used.

The USA have their F22 and F35 fighter jets which will never ever engage in a single dogfight. Because they are simply a weapon delivery platforms. The only role they have to sneak weapons into range of their targets.

How long is it until the weapons don't need a mobile platform anymore?

agree drones be it sub surface, on surface (water or land, and the air are the future.

The question is do they drop bombs like some crude WW1 aircraft like we are witnessing from Ukraine, are they kamikaze like the iranian drones or are they going to "fire" laser, be a targeted lethal injection, blinding light, fire a bullet (I have seen a design in operation and it is truly frightening), other.

I am an optimist evidenced by "covid is a non event, islam is a non event, cold war is a non event" but I don't have a positive outlook on AI, future governments and drones.

what is certain is, at 50, I'm glad I'm in the final 1/3 of my life. What I'm concerned about is anyone over 30, may also be in the final 1/3 of thier lives.

 

[Power Raid]

Is this just the mother of all rorts of legally syphoning taxpayer funds into private weapons companies which all the politicians have secret interests in?

I just cant understand how our biggest trading partner is our biggest threat. If China wanted to invade us, 6 subs aren't going to hold the fort.

We currently have military superiority over china up to just north of Indo. That is quickly changing with the expanding Chinese military capability. In response I don't think we expect to maintain this superiority alone but rather through alliances deter China.

One has to remember you don't build military capability to go to war but rather avoid war.

Being unprepared is an invitation for trouble

 

[jerry springer]

now is a good time to invest in Property In Wollongong and Port kembla

 

[Taylor]

excellent question and I think before the AUKUS is finished. AUKUS will need to contemplate this in their design

There is space based weapons systems included in the AUKUS negotiations to be announced by end of decade.

 

[Nuggs Bunny]

now is a good time to invest in Property In Wollongong and Port kembla

Rockingham WA is also a good bet I'd say.

 

[jerry springer]

Rockingham WA is also a good bet I'd say.

already been booming for the last 10 years. Baldivis has grown from 9k around 2001 to over 32k people now

lots of people buying around pinjarra now.

 

[Power Raid]

Has anybody asked who is responsible for the holding of the waste after the submarine finishes its life.

in the 50s we just dumped low level radioactive waste into the yarra. we ended up dredging fisherman's bend when marvel was constructed and this now sits in drums in SA. The drums will be reprocessed and more importantly these drums are the catalyst/ argument for a low level waste facility.

I know the guys who won the contract for the low level waste facility but then the scope was changed to mid level waste facility..........but there is no such thing. It is either high or low, meaning the mid level waste facility is actually a high level facility. There are four or five places already built to be high level in terms of design but not operation.

we also changed the laws a number of years back, where we can export waste overseas for reprocessing. we did this for the material for lucas heights.

This concept of "waste" is a big false lie. The "waste material" is a valuable resource that can be reprocessed over an over again, where important medical and industrial materials can be produced and harvested. This will be a big industry in the years ahead. Imagine breeding gold and then calling this waste.

For this reason, and the fact the units are sealed, I see who ever builds the reactors wanting the fuel rods back.

Can see us having a specialised dumping site.

yes, likely a shipping container in a car park after being cooled (if it even needs cooling). Not to dissimilar to how we store medical waste.

There was an atomic commission paper written years ago that you need to hold your own waste.

who is "you" the reactor owner? I would suggest the reactor owner will be the manufacturer and simply leased

The Americans tried to make a deal with us to let them build a wastage site in underground caverns somewhere over the Nullarbor.
Native elders pointed out any disruption would be leaking into groundwater.

why bury a resource? keep it on the surface and reprocess

Pretty sure it was tabled in parliament not to allow waste into Australia. These countries tried to give us nuclear power for free if they could.
Yanks English and French have tried to sell us nuclear for years so they could piggy back waste at our site.

we should take all their waste if we were smart

 

[kranky al]

And for the love of god please just let us accept the 'off the shelf' version. Np special Australian bastardisations that turn the whole thing into a shitshow

No no no, we need subsiri to speak with an australian accent and understand when its an order and when we’re takin the piss, needs to understand vernacular like it grew up here and instead of saying that’s impossible it has to be pithy and sarcastic.

 

[Festerz]

 

[kranky al]

Is this just the mother of all rorts of legally syphoning taxpayer funds into private weapons companies which all the politicians have secret interests in?

I just cant understand how our biggest trading partner is our biggest threat. If China wanted to invade us, 6 subs aren't going to hold the fort.

Germanys biggest trading partner prior to ww2 was france. Germanys biggest trading partner prior to operation barbarrossa was the soviet union. Japans biggest trading partner prior to pearl harbour was the us. North koreas was south korea, Iraqs had kuwait as one of their top trading nations. China had Vietnam as one of their top bations before their failed invasion



Trade has zero to do with stopping wars, in some cases they incite wars… the british went to war with china because they would only accept silver for tea and it was breaking the british economy, they fought to sell opium to them. Iraq invaded kuwait because they owed kuwait so much money they figured it would be cheaper to roll them.

Theres endless examples of this.

 

[sataris]

Is there a seperate thread for the submarine deal?

 

[Gough]

What happens if another MAGA Republican ends up in the White House? I'm not convinced we can trust the US as it is right now.

 

[Taylor]

What happens if another MAGA Republican ends up in the White House? I'm not convinced we can trust the US as it is right now.

I suspect that similar line on NATO paying their fair share into an alliance would carry over to a US/AU alliance discussion and nearly 400 billion dollars is plenty of money going across.

As a side note, the US military loves the Australian military because almost every deployed Australian is attached to some form of special forces so our soldiers look like superheroes compared to fresh minted marines - especially when ours will sit on top of snowy mountains for weeks to direct air traffic without complaining.

Australia is so much in the pocket of the US they have their nuclear weapons here.

 

[QuietB]

What happens if another MAGA Republican ends up in the White House? I'm not convinced we can trust the US as it is right now.

If Trump gets back in we’ll be lobbing missiles on our own bushrangers in Ukraine

 

[Sphynx]

The main cost I am worried about is opportunity cost.

The massive multi-generational investment in enhancing Australia's defence capabilities in the face of enhanced global security threats is not without strong logical underpinnings.

But it is an investment that will be made by diverting billions of dollars from other public services.

Also thinking about the 'free-rider' effect for countries like New Zealand who get all the benefits of a massive enhanced defensive presence in our region of the world without the consequential budget impact.

I don’t see how Australian nuclear subs which would now be prohibited from entering NZ territorial waters under the New Zealand Nuclear Free Zone Act would be a game changer for them.

 

[Festerz]

Interesting counter-take on the nuclear submarine announcement from someone who has served as a submariner and spent some time on nuclear boats - former Senator for SA Rex Patrick:

I just want a Ferrari, sorry, a nuclear submarine, no matter the cost - Michael West

PM Albanese has just committed Australia to spending $368 billion on nuclear submarines, It’s a strategic blunder, not even going to happen.

michaelwest.com.au

 

[QuietB]

I put it to you that Australia's PM touring India's aircraft carriers and then signing a huge deal with our US and UK allies was actually Australia paying the lease on 500,000 US and UK marines coming to fight for Australia should the local region fall into conflict.

But I agree that nations like NZ will benefit from it for free and that Australia could invest in something else - such as a widespread bulk farming operation to make the Asian region dependent on Australia for food, or even energy via gas pipelines as another means of increasing security in the region.

Where and when was the last successful invasion and subsequent permanent occupation?

This talk of Australia getting invaded is fanciful.

NZ is the only country that has it right. Keep your heads down and get on with life.

 

[Taylor]

Where and when was the last successful invasion and subsequent permanent occupation?

This talk of Australia getting invaded is fanciful.

NZ is the only country that has it right. Keep your heads down and get on with life.

What makes you think a conflict in which the US throws it's own troops against the rocks so Australia doesn't need to has to involve Australia being invaded?