The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > General Discussion > Choice: Nuclear Subs or None !

Choice: Nuclear Subs or None !

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All
Greg Sheriden in the Weekend Australian has written about nuclear
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 !
Posted by Bazz, Saturday, 1 July 2017 4:54:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The folly of war. Use the money where it can do some good. Not on big toys for the boys.
Posted by Paul1405, Monday, 3 July 2017 5:58:52 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
We do have plenty of allies, so it's NOT imperative for diesel subs to refuel in Australia.

The deep water requirements of nuclear subs make them unsuitable for our needs.
Posted by Aidan, Monday, 3 July 2017 10:52:40 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Nuclear is the the only thing that makes sense for Australia. The other thing that would have been sensible is to have bought off the shelf vessels from Japan or America. The over-priced French rubbish is unlikely to ever eventuate in South Australia. It was just a ruse by the Turbull government to help Squeaky Pyne to retain his precarious seat (and look how he has said thank you!). We can't even produce cars here anymore, and we don't have the electricity for manufacturing: it's unreliable and the dearest in the world.

Stick to the Collins until we have underwater drones. Sailors don't want to man submarines any more.
Posted by ttbn, Monday, 3 July 2017 11:04:48 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Nuclear subs are noisy, in the past, our "Oxley" diesel subs ran rings around US nuclear subs as ours were virtually undetectable.

There was the famous occasion when one of our subs penetrated the screen of high-tech ships around the USS "Enterprise", passed under her, surfaced and gleefully signalled "You're sunk".

Better efficiency than nuclear power.
Posted by Is Mise, Monday, 3 July 2017 11:55:07 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I don't know what the best choices are. However I do know that there are many trustworthy and highly skilled professionals to give the government and Parliament the necessary advice.

What is very concerning though is the impression given to Asian countries to the north during the years of Rudd and Gillard and still being echoed by Labor and Greens, that Australians don't value what they have and do not have the interest and will to defend any of it, particularly the Australian way of life and culture.

Allies find value in their own interests, not in being friendly with us because we are so 'nice'. If the North was being swamped with so-called 'asylum seekers', the Greens and Labor would find cynical political capital in frustrating every effort to return or contain them. They would be rolling out the welcome mat instead and giving further encouragement.

A far as 'allies' are concerned, a partitioned Australia would serve their interests just as well and they might gain some trade-off benefits, a certain one being that they were not required to take military action, "Hey, you Aussies, you were already multicultural right? Some tens of thousands of migrants followed by 'police' to protect them and millions more to follow, that just gets your desired 'Big Australia' even sooner, huh?".
Posted by leoj, Monday, 3 July 2017 12:18:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy