The Forum > General Discussion > Choice: Nuclear Subs or None !
Choice: Nuclear Subs or None !
- Pages:
-
- Page 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
-
- All
The National Forum | Donate | Your Account | On Line Opinion | Forum | Blogs | Polling | About |
Syndicate RSS/XML |
|
About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy |
submarines not being possible for Australia for political reasons.
The subject has arisen because Tony Abbott raised the possibility.
It must be understood that diesel submarines are just not practical
for a country that imports 100% of its petrol and diesel fuels.
In a military standoff of one sort or another it would require only
one oil tanker to be sunk and the insurance companies would stop all.
However it does not require that Australia be involved in any sort
of military action, it could be an action that closed the Strait of Hormuz.
It could be an Iranian attack on Saudi Arabian oil installations.
It does not have to be a military action, it could be a fire in the
Singapore refinery. It could be an industrial dispute anywhere.
Australia requires a certain number of oil tankers to arrive.
Sydney alone requires two every day.
So in the case of a military action requiring our submarines to be
at sea when they use up their fuel they will be tied up at the dock for the duration.
Diverting stocks to the subs will not happen as the stock will be
needed to move food to the cities. Submarines or starvation ?
You think this is just waffle, then read these;
http://www.aspo-australia.org.au/References/Bruce/NRMA/Fuel_Security_Report_Pt2.pdf
http://www.aspo-australia.org.au/References/Bruce/NRMA_Fuel_Security_Infographic.pdf
The NRMA's reports to Senate enquiries into fuel security was ignored.
Just like the warnings on solar & wind electricity generation.
Politicians just never listen, they know it all !