cz515 wrote:That's keeting comments. Go read what he said in full ya lazy. Pity if only some of the brains had been transferred down you won't have needed to ask the question. But maybe I need to explain so to appease the sheeple and spoon feed them.
the arrangement results in a loss of Australian sovereignty and commits Australia to further involvement with Americans. but the question is do we stand independent or be slaves to US (or for that matter China). I rather we stand independent and neutral.
So the choice is between independence and becoming "slaves to the US?"
The Canadian Armed Forces are more tightly integrated with the US DoD than may ever be practical for the Australian DoD. Go and ask a Canadian if he is a slave. The RCAF fies F18s, just as does the RAAF. Both are somehow still free to choose to buy Swedish or French planes. Go figure.
cz515 wrote:There is huge doubt about Australia’s ability to cope with advanced submarine technology. We have had difficulty in running a bunch of Australian built conventional submarines – imagine the difficulty in moving to sophisticated nuclear submarines, their maintenance, and operational complexity.
Doubt? Among whom? You doubt that Australians can "cope" with technology mastered by Americans, Canadians, and the British over 50 years ago? Do you understand how a reactor works? If not, don't worry; there are plenty of Aussies who do.
cz515 wrote:Historically most of our defence contracts have always been failures or compromises and run way over budget. It generally costs USD3+ billion dollars in the states to build a nuclear submarine with industry already in place (a conventional submarine
lot less) These new subs with their 40% Australian content will mean we will need to setup some of those industries here
Tragic.
cz515 wrote: and unlike a chook raffle it's extremely complex stuff (or everyone be building nuclear subs). But we are still dependant on US for fixing all of the complex systems. So we be driving a bus and America will be the manufacturer and the mechanic. At terms set by the whim of any future president of America.
You will be dependent on us for submarines and infrastructure you build yourselves? Is the USN dependent on Australia for the warships it buys from Austal? Have we become your "slaves?"
cz515 wrote:But let's go back a step
Let's.
cz515 wrote: we were getting 12 s**ty subs from France for 90 billion. How much do you think these nuclear subs will cost each? The devil is in the detail boys... and you will never know. But lets guess if a diesel sub was going to cost 8 billion dollars (there is a lot of fat there seeing USA builds a nuclear one for 5billion aud) you can bet the nuclear one would end up double that before cost over runs so likely 20+ billion to build one of them. And what could you get for all these billions of dollars worth of black shiny rocks?
I bet the French would still take you back, if you think $90B of "s**ty subs" is what is best for Australia.
cz515 wrote:And finally the other argument, where with a defence force of 50,000 people and I repeat with no nuclear missile capabilities how do you even expect to stop an invasion long enough for the yanks to get here.
Does Isreal have nuclear weapons? Probably not, I guess.
cz515 wrote:The reality is no country wants a war now a days. The biggest warmongering countries at the moment are Israel, China and India. While they might have skirmishes with their neighbours but there hasn't been an actual war for 40+ years. India does not even have a toilet for 70% of their population but yet they spend billions every year on military, the question is do we want to be like that?
Do we want to waste hundreds of billions for 40 years preparing for a war that will not happen. As China is more interested in $$$ than outright war. Or it would have already taken over Taiwan. And tiawan have an army 6 times larger than ours and a fraction of the area to defend.
China has not taken over Taiwan in the past, because they had a sense of the consequences, but the American government has not exactly ramped up their rhetoric around this question of late. Do you think the Chinese will never try? Do you think Taiwan's 6X army will help them then?
Do you think any of Israel's neighbors (e.g. Iran) with "an army 6 times larger" are contemplating an invasion of Israel?
cz515 wrote:And finally I rather this money be spent in Australia on Australians, including heath, education etc. our universities deserve more money so they don't have to rely on foreign students. Our old shouldn't be waiting for 3 to 5 years in pain to get a hip replacement. Our diggers shouldn't have to live a life of poverty and pain after retirement, Our RSL clubs shouldn't need to run pokies to fund activities. I could go on, hopefully some of you get the point
So did I have an answer. Yes I did. Will you be willing to open your sheeple minds and digest the info.... I doubt some would
I get that you prefer hospitals and schools to weapons, but
all of the arguments you have made are specious. Australia already spends tens of billions each year on defence.
You have many available choices, but if I were to attempt to reduce them, as you have, I'd say they are
* Stop acquiring weapons and build more hospitals. Then you can rely on the UK/US/CA for your defence, and see where that leads you.
* Keep your Collins subs going for another 50 years, for the good that would do you in a future crisis.
* Buy new diesel subs from the French or Swedes or whomever (we don't make them anymore.)
* Acquire new, terrible, and convincing means to defend yourselves in your own right, with the attendant costs and benefits.
Australia is at the end of the world, and you are right that in the event of a major threat, time will be short. As it is today, no foreign foe dare set foot in that Commonwealth of yours; the trick is keeping it that way. Your view that "no country wants war now a days" is facile. Even childish. Keep an eye on Taiwan.
In the end, the Australian people will choose the path most beneficial to them, and consistent with their character.