AUKUS – new submarine deal

[Skids]

<split from "Biden presidency and 2024 election campaign" thread>

He's giggling at the $300 billion or so we're wasting on Nuclear subs.... or as dodo says 'noocleeah'

[stui magpie]

I think the Submarine deal is a great one. Dumping the French Diesel sub deal in favour of Nuclear ones was right and Albo has cut a deal to bring it forward. We get some ready made (slightly used) from the USA to hold over while we build our own.

In my mind, the best endorsement of the decision is the shrill response from China, or even the shrill response from Keating who really seems to have put his plot down somewhere and forgot where it is.

[What'sinaname]

Agree. We should be pumping more into the armed forces. As the world's biggest island, we should have a robust Naval fleet including Supercarriers.

Our current armed forces, consisting of a dingy and a paper plane is embarrassing.

[stui magpie]

Technically we're considered a Continent and the worlds biggest Island is Greenland, but your point remains valid and I agree.

[pietillidie]

Yeah, I don't have an issue with the submarine deal in principle. The posturing and big mouthing of the Glibs pre-Albanese was the bigger problem, especially when that idiot Trump was causing random chaos, feeding paranoia and China's own nutters. Australia only needs to quietly align with the US and maintain decorum. Good defence is sensible risk management, strong alliances and likeability, not aggression, drum beating and dumb big mouthing.

My only question is on the subs themselves and getting locked into the wrong kind of technology for that amount of spending, but I don't have enough military knowledge to even sensibly question it.

But I don't have a problem with the size of the spending because it's not right to leave others with the bill for your own defence, and this makes Australia a genuine presence and partner. The risk is that the Americans elect another fruitcake or Australia's nutters get louder and bolder and misuse the subs in the region increasing the risk of mishaps, but hopefully the tide has turned against the worst of that.

Keating's mistake is failing to update his understanding of the world and his language with it. He was crucial and did the right thing in his time, but that time has passed. China's leadership is also very different and is now full of nationalist crazies who weren't dominant back then when China was opening up. He's right about multipolarity, but he forgets that now also means the EU plus a powerful developing bloc including India, Brazil, etc.

But Keating is beside the point now. Conservative crazies are the risk with Aukus, the worst name ever invented for an alliance.

[Jezza]

[Skids]

I'm not much of an ABC fan, but this article nails it IMO.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.abc.net.au/article/102089496

Given the eye-watering expense, it is probable that the Australian Defence Force will need to be reshaped and restructured to afford it.

Even if there are rises in defence spending announced in the forthcoming Defence Strategic Review, the nuclear-powered submarines are going to absorb every spare dollar, and many other dollars already being spent on defence in other ways.


The Australian Defence Force will probably have to stop doing some things that are core to war-fighting. Therefore, because of a narrow focus on an exquisite maritime capability, our nation may possess a less capable and less ready air force and army in the coming decades.

This opportunity cost for Australia's military capability is yet to be explained by the government.


This is a very big risk that is magnified by the fact that Australia will have no measurable enhancement in its submarine capability before the end of this decade, a period which many US military leaders and academics have described as the riskiest period for US-China relations


Given the cost, and technical risk, can we be sure that when they do eventually arrive in the 2040s, the effectiveness of the SSN AUKUS submarines has not been disrupted by new detection technologies as well as generations of new and capable autonomous underwater vessels in the same way the crewed combat aircraft are being disrupted now?... a bit like taking delivery of your 'new' VY Commodore or Nokia 6600 in 2025.


This Podcast (2021) with professor Hugh White is interesting listening.

https://podcasts.apple.com/au/podcast/everything-wrong-with-australias-nuclear-submarine-deal/id1461999702?i=1000536049465

[watt price tully]

[stui magpie]

@Skids,

Interesting article but there's a lot of "probably"s and "May"s in there.

The cost is estimated at $11Billion a year for 30 years. That will, of course, blow out, but there's no guarantee that the rest of the armed forces would need to suffer, that seems counter intuitive with the approach Labor is taking (which I agree with BTW) that our armed forces need to be beefed up, not put all our eggs in one basket.

I expect this to be used as part justification for cancelling the next round of tax cuts, and dusting off some of Shortens failed "Top end of town" tax grabs to increase the defence budget.

[What'sinaname]

$11b per year is far smaller than the $650b in direct cost (and 40,000 lives lost) of war, which the Ukraine are dealing with now. And that doesn't include the $3tn cost of war on the global economy

Even once hostilities finish, it'll cost the Ukraine $350b in re-building and decontamination costs.

Most everyone thinks defence spending is a waste until war breaks out.

[Skids]

[nomadjack]

I'm broadly in favour of significantly beefing up our defence capability and agree with the threat analysis regarding China's increasingly belligerent actions. My concern is we're pissing away north of $400 billion on hardware that is likely to be obsolete or at least much more vulnerable by the time it comes online. I'm normally quite happy to leave these kinds of decisions with the 'experts'. Given our recent track record of defence planning and acquisitions though, I have very little faith that this is the right course of action. It's a hell of a gamble led by a group of defence bureaucrats with a history of playing a really shit game of poker with other people's money. And mistakes will have incredibly high costs in limiting growth in defence capabilities in other areas.

Keating has a grossly overblown sense of his own importance and relevance and needs to accept he's yesterday's man. His moral position on China is repugnant and his reading on geo-politics in Asia is so outdated it's laughable.

[stui magpie]

https://www.theage.com.au/politics/federal/keating-is-wrong-that-beijing-means-no-harm-just-ask-xi-jinping-20230316-p5cskl.html

Surprisingly good artcicle with just a little self aggrandisation from WPT's old mate.

[David]

There's a lot of talk here about alliances, defence spending, threat posed by China and so on, but how do people feel about having miniature nuclear reactors stationed at Australian ports? I understand the odds of accidents happening are low, but I'm not particularly thrilled at the prospect of having a local Fukushima event.

[Skids]

The nuclear thing is of no concern to me. The sooner we embrace nuclear energy in a bigger way, the better.