Hi AC,

From your above, can we assume Morrison was the turd that DID flush.

SM,

I agree Australia needs a strong defence force, with the emphases on DEFENCE. Not wasting Billions (Morrison wasted $5 billion, future governments will waste $130 billion plus) on a handful of ineffective belligerent nuclear attack submarines.

You silly little man Paul. Nuclear attack submarines are a primary defense weapon. The last thing we with our small population & thus army can afford is to fight a landed force on our soil. Our only worthwhile defense is one that prevents a strong landing force from getting here. Nuclear subs, with their very long loiter time ability is the best available.

At the same time we need really strong anti aircraft & anti missile defense to stop a superior numerically force bombing us into oblivion.

The only thing we can afford to do the first part is nuclear armed nuclear subs.

The best defense against aircraft & missiles we can afford is a strong nuclear armed missile force to use as a deterrent, in the same way that MAD, mutually assured destruction, has protected the world from a nuclear war for the last 70+ years. Nothing like the ability to obliterate Beijing to stop the Chinese obliterating Sydney, although it might be to most Australian's advantage if they obliterated Canberra next time parliament was sitting.

The world has gone MAD Hasbeen.
At any point since WWII the US acted to de-escalate any conflict with Russia.
Now it acts to willfully escalate conflict with them, a nuclear armed nation.
FYI, Sarmat enters service in less than a month.
The US doesn't have hypersonic weapons or adequete defense against them so it's capital ships and homeland is exposed to attack.
Also it currently lacks the industrial base to produce weapons at a rate required for a war of attrition.

I'm happy for us to bolster our defense, but just so long as it is PURELY FOR DEFENSE.

The price, the AUKUS military pact is too high a price in my opinion. The US goes looking for conflict, and when it can't find any it orchestrates them itself.
- That's not someone you want to partner with for defense.
- For them it's about profits as much as anything.

If we abandon the US and instead take a path of neutrality, China 'probably' wouldn't have any need to see us as a threat to them.
I agree it's better to have a nuclear deterrent than not, but only if it's not being given to simply force our countrymen into helping America escalate (start) and fight wars.

If America starts losing they will hang us out to dry, and toddle off back to the other side of the Pacific and leave us to the mess with our neighbours.

Hassy old fella,

"Nothing like the ability to obliterate Beijing to stop the Chinese obliterating Sydney" is that before or after we obliterate Pakistan with nuclear weapons as YOU suggested on the Forum previously. Seems, given the opportunity YOU would make Hitler and Satlin look like a couple of bleeding heart softcocks when it comes to obliterating people. Only about 23 million in Beijing, a bit of a come down from the 200 million YOU would like to knock off in Pakistan. Hassy you must have something against Asians, did they slip you a crook prawn in your 'chow mein' down at the 'Golden Dragon' or something for you to want to murder millions of them.

Village idiot,

The submarines are nuclear powered not nuclear-armed.

Nuclear submarines can remain submerged almost indefinitely and can attack China's ships and aircraft carriers largely undetected which makes an invasion of Aus or its allies very difficult.

China wouldn't be stupid enough to use nukes against Aus as a counter-strike from the US could wipe out most of its population that is clustered in densely populated cities.

Besides, China's economy is in too much trouble at the moment to risk an expensive war that it would most probably lose.

Earlier I stated - "Look what it has done to Ukraine 150k dead."

Viral: EU Chief ‘admits’ Putin’s win; Says 100,000 Ukrainians killed in war, then edits speech
http://youtu.be/EB8GQnRJHWg

My numbers look a bit high, compared to Ursula.
Of course hers numbers probably don't include foreign fighters or the dead left to rot in fields or those left uncollected in Russian held towns and cities.

My numbers were 100K Ukrainians dead around September plus at least 12,000 in October,
Plus all the men thrown into the Bakhmut meat grinder (at least 300 day) and deaths from the other fronts in November, now were in December.

You could probably dial my 150K dead back to 125k if you wanted to be more conservative, but if you consider that the typical ratio of those wounded to those killed in conflict has historically hovered around the 3:1 mark, then we'd be looking at 500k dead and wounded Ukrainians since the war began.

Tweets from above video
"Two Times the Americans stopped negotiations by the Ukrainians.
Two times there would've been peace.
100 thousand Ukrainian dead.
The Americans instigated this war with the intention of destroying Russia's standing as a World Power"

"It cost 100 billion dollars in US Taxpayer funds for 100,000 Ukrainians to die so far.
That's called losing and a poor investment"