This is an unofficial Bulletin Board - owned and run by its users. We welcome all fans of the Mighty Collingwood Football Club.
Ad blocker detected: Our website is made possible by displaying online advertisements to our visitors. Please consider supporting us by disabling your ad blocker on our website.
David wrote: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.
Not concerned at all. Have never been concerned with Lucas Heights, and I'd support a transition from fossil fuels to reliable nuclear power.
You travelled to France recently, and I suspect that their nuclear reactors didn't trouble you one iota.
I'm in the unconcerned space too. The tech is pretty much foolproof and it's only the power plant for the sub, we aren't going to have any nuclear weapons.
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down.
David wrote: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.
Not concerned at all. Have never been concerned with Lucas Heights, and I'd support a transition from fossil fuels to reliable nuclear power.
You travelled to France recently, and I suspect that their nuclear reactors didn't trouble you one iota.
Lol yeah, not sure I’d want to live in the same neighbourhood as one though…
"Every time we witness an injustice and do not act, we train our character to be passive in its presence." – Julian Assange
What'sinaname wrote:$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.
I don't thinks spending money on defence is a waste at all, but this deal is.
Correct weight. This is dumb and dumber. Giving away our sovereignty; moreover being in huge debt to give away our sovereignty. Albanese is a fool to follow Morrison’s lead. The only good thing Morrison did was lose the federal election.
Australian independence; yeah right.
“I even went as far as becoming a Southern Baptist until I realised they didn’t keep ‘em under long enough” Kinky Friedman
What Andrews said, if I understand correctly, is that the money would have been better spent on Medicare than these submarines that chew up hundreds of billions of dollars and that we may well never use. Hard to disagree with that.
"Every time we witness an injustice and do not act, we train our character to be passive in its presence." – Julian Assange
David wrote:What Andrews said, if I understand correctly, is that the money would have been better spent on Medicare than these submarines that chew up hundreds of billions of dollars and that we may well never use. Hard to disagree with that.
Not using them is kind of the point, though.
As much as anything it's a payment to the US and UK for their deterrent, so Australia is constrained by what they want. I do hope it has a science spillover, but again that's not really the point.
It wasn't necessary before China's bellicose turn because all the alliance could do was drag Australia into Vietnams and Iraqs. It's a different matter now, though, and Australia has to pay its way, even though dumb Anglo-American wars make the calculation less clear than the reflexive conservative view.
What'sinaname wrote:^ to be fair, I’d take Dan’s word on this as he a proven track record of wasting money.
Oh contraire, the people of Victoria have endorsed the thrice elected Premier of Victoria the Right Honourable Daniel Andrews (who increased his majority in every election btw) reckon your wrong
“I even went as far as becoming a Southern Baptist until I realised they didn’t keep ‘em under long enough” Kinky Friedman
David wrote:What Andrews said, if I understand correctly, is that the money would have been better spent on Medicare than these submarines that chew up hundreds of billions of dollars and that we may well never use. Hard to disagree with that.
Not using them is kind of the point, though.
As much as anything it's a payment to the US and UK for their deterrent, so Australia is constrained by what they want. I do hope it has a science spillover, but again that's not really the point.
It wasn't necessary before China's bellicose turn because all the alliance could do was drag Australia into Vietnams and Iraqs. It's a different matter now, though, and Australia has to pay its way, even though dumb Anglo-American wars make the calculation less clear than the reflexive conservative view.
Australia already pays its way. Paying its way does not have to be about AUKUS. There is more than one way to approach this and spending gazillions on technology and hardware that is not due to be built for many many hence is neither smart nor strategic.
Relying on anti - China Hawks, armament manufacturers and defence officials who have a history of massive f*ck ups with respect to materiel spending (Collins class submarines anyone) is repeating the same mistakes and hoping for a different outcome; in short insanity.
“I even went as far as becoming a Southern Baptist until I realised they didn’t keep ‘em under long enough” Kinky Friedman
What'sinaname wrote:^ to be fair, I’d take Dan’s word on this as he a proven track record of wasting money.
Oh contraire, the people of Victoria have endorsed the thrice elected Premier of Victoria the Right Honourable Daniel Andrews (who increased his majority in every election btw) reckon your wrong
