7 ms·

I'm no "submarine warfare expert" but I believe the purpose/value of nuclear submarines is not defense of close coastal waters, but rather as a deterrence that

I'm no "submarine warfare expert" but I believe the purpose/value of nuclear submarines is not defense of close coastal waters, but rather as a deterrence that can come "from anywhere". I don't believe shallow waters would hamper the operation of a submarine launching ICBMs or similar. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong. I also know nothing of Australian politics but Paul Keating seems to have some curious views regarding China: > Keating brushed aside human rights concerns about China by arguing there are “disputes about what the nature of the Chinese affront to the Uyghurs” > Keating is a noted dove towards China. He has previously labelled Taiwan “not a vital Australian interest” but rather a “civil matter” for China. > On Wednesday Keating said China “is not the Soviet Union” because it is involved in international institutions and would “fall over themselves to have a proper relationship” with Australia, except that Australia has “manufactured a problem” through its increasing alignment with US. > Keating said the “great sin” China had committed in the eyes of the west was developing its economy to equal the size of the US Yikes.

throwawaythekey 2y ago
A decent portion of the Australian population think the realpolitik of our situation means we should adopt a neutral approach towards China, even if it means a weakening of our relationship with the US. The need to act as world police (re uyghurs, taiwan) can be a game for the major powers. > Keating said the “great sin” China had committed in the eyes of the west was developing its economy to equal the size of the US This is somewhat supported by some of the wikileaks releases, but it's a little hard to disentangle if the economy is the sin or just an intensifier. > At the lunch, Mrs Clinton confided in Mr Rudd about America's fears about China's rapid economic rise and Beijing's multibillion-dollar store of US debt, asking Mr Rudd: ''How do you deal toughly with your banker?'' https://www.smh.com.au/national/explosive-wiki-rudd-cable-20101205-18lbz.html https://www.smh.com.au/national/explosive-wiki-rudd-cable-20...
defrost 2y ago
> I don't believe shallow waters would hamper the operation of a submarine launching ICBMs or similar. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong. The AUKUS submarines are conventionally-armed, nuclear-powered submarines. ICBM's don't come into this.
- josefresco 2y ago
  Pretty sure conventionally-armed submarines launch ICBMS. Not nuclear tipped, but basically "big long range missiles". Regardless, I think my point stands: These subs are not for close water/shore patrol.
  - defrost 2y ago
    Sure, your point stands, you don't know much about Australian politics and these subs aren't especially suited for Australia. They're a symptom of the former governments attraction to big (albeit stupid) grand actions and excessive sucking up to the US | UK at the expense of Australian taxpayers for no real specific local benefit.

throwawaythekey 2y ago

A decent portion of the Australian population think the realpolitik of our situation means we should adopt a neutral approach towards China, even if it means a weakening of our relationship with the US. The need to act as world police (re uyghurs, taiwan) can be a game for the major powers. > Keating said the “great sin” China had committed in the eyes of the west was developing its economy to equal the size of the US This is somewhat supported by some of the wikileaks releases, but it's a little hard to disentangle if the economy is the sin or just an intensifier. > At the lunch, Mrs Clinton confided in Mr Rudd about America's fears about China's rapid economic rise and Beijing's multibillion-dollar store of US debt, asking Mr Rudd: ''How do you deal toughly with your banker?'' https://www.smh.com.au/national/explosive-wiki-rudd-cable-20101205-18lbz.html https://www.smh.com.au/national/explosive-wiki-rudd-cable-20...

defrost 2y ago

> I don't believe shallow waters would hamper the operation of a submarine launching ICBMs or similar. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong. The AUKUS submarines are conventionally-armed, nuclear-powered submarines. ICBM's don't come into this.

josefresco 2y ago
Pretty sure conventionally-armed submarines launch ICBMS. Not nuclear tipped, but basically "big long range missiles". Regardless, I think my point stands: These subs are not for close water/shore patrol.
- defrost 2y ago
  Sure, your point stands, you don't know much about Australian politics and these subs aren't especially suited for Australia. They're a symptom of the former governments attraction to big (albeit stupid) grand actions and excessive sucking up to the US | UK at the expense of Australian taxpayers for no real specific local benefit.