-
@chimoaus said in Aussie Politics:
@kirwan said in Aussie Politics:
@chimoaus said in Aussie Politics:
@kirwan said in Aussie Politics:
@chimoaus How to you propose to protect trade routes without jets or subs?
hopefully, the same way NZ does it or any other country that does not have subs and fighter planes? Clearly, I am ignorant when it comes to the risk China poses in taking over the world and enforcing communism on us all.
NZ does it by relying on the US, UK and Oz. That line of dominos relies on other people spending money.
I appreciate the debate and I do grasp the concept of military spending it just seems there is very little scrutiny in terms of value for money. In most business and other forms of Govt the budgets are very tight, and it can be very difficult to get funding. But when it comes to Military spending there seems to be so many fuck ups and billions wasted that we just accept it as part of being prepared.
Absolutely no argument that the taxpayer doesn't get value for money in defence procurement. There is grotesque waste and mismanagement. But if it wasn't for that willingness to chase 10% of capability at double the cost, I'd have to go back to working in the finance industry. And I don't want to live in Sydney (or more accurately the bits I can afford).
-
@antipodean said in Aussie Politics:
@chimoaus said in Aussie Politics:
@kirwan said in Aussie Politics:
@chimoaus said in Aussie Politics:
@kirwan said in Aussie Politics:
@chimoaus How to you propose to protect trade routes without jets or subs?
hopefully, the same way NZ does it or any other country that does not have subs and fighter planes? Clearly, I am ignorant when it comes to the risk China poses in taking over the world and enforcing communism on us all.
NZ does it by relying on the US, UK and Oz. That line of dominos relies on other people spending money.
I appreciate the debate and I do grasp the concept of military spending it just seems there is very little scrutiny in terms of value for money. In most business and other forms of Govt the budgets are very tight, and it can be very difficult to get funding. But when it comes to Military spending there seems to be so many fuck ups and billions wasted that we just accept it as part of being prepared.
Absolutely no argument that the taxpayer doesn't get value for money in defence procurement. There is grotesque waste and mismanagement. But if it wasn't for that willingness to chase 10% of capability at double the cost, I'd have to go back to working in the finance industry. And I don't want to live in Sydney (or more accurately the bits I can afford).
Yes, I appreciate that it does create employment and a lot of that spending does return to the economy, I just wonder who profits the most from the spending?
-
@gibbonrib said in Aussie Politics:
Doesn't matter if you're a dove or a hawk, that is a catastrophic failure of government.
Unless your government is all about supporting the Military Industrial Complex, in which case:
-
@nevorian said in Aussie Politics:
@kirwan said in Aussie Politics:
@chimoaus How to you propose to protect trade routes without jets or subs?
Which trade routes? The ones we have with China?
A quick google example
-
@chimoaus said in Aussie Politics:
@kirwan said in Aussie Politics:
@chimoaus said in Aussie Politics:
@kirwan said in Aussie Politics:
@chimoaus said in Aussie Politics:
@majorrage Maybe I'm ignorant but I find it farcical to think in 2021 that a developed nation would "invade" another developed nation, it's not 1939.
The world economy is so intertwined that we are all reliant on one another, it makes no sense, I really cannot see why China would invade any nation for their resources when they can just buy them. Yes, there are long standing tensions between certain nations but that is very much localised land disputes, and they are not going to blitzkrieg the world.
Wouldn't it be great if the world could somehow come together and agree to drastically reduce military spending, very much like the Paris climate agreement.
I noticed that Costa Rica has not had an army since 1949. "Costa Rica's track record of 72 years without a standing army demonstrates in a convincing way that it is possible, as well as positive, to organize a state on the principles of mutual trust, peace and non-violence." https://www.canberratimes.com.au/story/7038431/costa-rica-abolished-its-military-other-countries-can-too/
Crimea says hi. 2.5 million people invaded by Russia.
This post reminds me of Helen Clark talking about the end of war, a few short years before 9/11.
Yep the 100's of billions the US spends on military definitely helped prevent 9/11 and I would hardly call that an invasion.
I did mention that land/religious disputes between neighbours was a reality but what is the likelihood any nation would invade Australia? Very few nations have a naval force and China is the only obvious concern, the question is would China ever invade Australia in the WW2 sense, I highly doubt it, what would be the benefit for them?
Am I the only one who thinks the billions we spend is a gross waste of expenditure when the risk of lifes lost from pandemics, climate change and wellbeing are significantly higher.
It just seems like a giant pissing contest and instead of urine we are pissing taxpayers money.
Indonesia must look south at all that empty Aussie land being under population strain and be tempted.
I'm not sure if you have noticed, but there are a shit load of conflicts going on around the world. Not having a capable miltary is negligence IMO.
I am not saying not to spend anything I am questioning if spending 90 billion on submarines and billions on fighter planes is going to make any significant difference to the thoughts of these dictators and enemies. I want our politicians to be responsible and realistic about it, it seems we can waste 2 billion on these failed subs and billions more on boats that don't work properly etc and write it off as "being prepared". I fully support the expenditure on Hercules and Helicopters etc that are actually used in humanitarian operations etc. But nuclear subs, their usefulness is a stretch.
The nuclear powered subs are far more advanced and their speed is exceptional.
Which brings me to another point, and you mentioned climate change, why there is not nuclear power generation in Australia always staggers me. I understand the (strange) politics of it but it could provide a clean base load energy source.
Up until earlier this year Australia had one of the most productive high grade uranium mines in the world, but there are many other uranium deposits and its predominantly being exported. Nuclear power technology has come a long way and yet there are many in my view that look very backwards at the issue.
-
@nta said in Aussie Politics:
@gibbonrib said in Aussie Politics:
Doesn't matter if you're a dove or a hawk, that is a catastrophic failure of government.
Unless your government is all about supporting the Military Industrial Complex, in which case:
Good point. Maybe I've catastrophically misunderstood the purpose of government.
-
@chimoaus said in Aussie Politics:
we can waste 2 billion on these failed subs and billions more on boats that don't work properly etc and write it off as "being prepared"
In the Falklands War, one nearly obsolete Royal Navy nuclear submarine (the sexy ones were watching the Soviets) pretty much neutralised the entire Argentinian Navy. And they didn't use expensive homing torpedoes either, just a cheaper design dating from WWII
-
@act-crusader said in Aussie Politics:
@chimoaus said in Aussie Politics:
@kirwan said in Aussie Politics:
@chimoaus said in Aussie Politics:
@kirwan said in Aussie Politics:
@chimoaus said in Aussie Politics:
@majorrage Maybe I'm ignorant but I find it farcical to think in 2021 that a developed nation would "invade" another developed nation, it's not 1939.
The world economy is so intertwined that we are all reliant on one another, it makes no sense, I really cannot see why China would invade any nation for their resources when they can just buy them. Yes, there are long standing tensions between certain nations but that is very much localised land disputes, and they are not going to blitzkrieg the world.
Wouldn't it be great if the world could somehow come together and agree to drastically reduce military spending, very much like the Paris climate agreement.
I noticed that Costa Rica has not had an army since 1949. "Costa Rica's track record of 72 years without a standing army demonstrates in a convincing way that it is possible, as well as positive, to organize a state on the principles of mutual trust, peace and non-violence." https://www.canberratimes.com.au/story/7038431/costa-rica-abolished-its-military-other-countries-can-too/
Crimea says hi. 2.5 million people invaded by Russia.
This post reminds me of Helen Clark talking about the end of war, a few short years before 9/11.
Yep the 100's of billions the US spends on military definitely helped prevent 9/11 and I would hardly call that an invasion.
I did mention that land/religious disputes between neighbours was a reality but what is the likelihood any nation would invade Australia? Very few nations have a naval force and China is the only obvious concern, the question is would China ever invade Australia in the WW2 sense, I highly doubt it, what would be the benefit for them?
Am I the only one who thinks the billions we spend is a gross waste of expenditure when the risk of lifes lost from pandemics, climate change and wellbeing are significantly higher.
It just seems like a giant pissing contest and instead of urine we are pissing taxpayers money.
Indonesia must look south at all that empty Aussie land being under population strain and be tempted.
I'm not sure if you have noticed, but there are a shit load of conflicts going on around the world. Not having a capable miltary is negligence IMO.
I am not saying not to spend anything I am questioning if spending 90 billion on submarines and billions on fighter planes is going to make any significant difference to the thoughts of these dictators and enemies. I want our politicians to be responsible and realistic about it, it seems we can waste 2 billion on these failed subs and billions more on boats that don't work properly etc and write it off as "being prepared". I fully support the expenditure on Hercules and Helicopters etc that are actually used in humanitarian operations etc. But nuclear subs, their usefulness is a stretch.
The nuclear powered subs are far more advanced and their speed is exceptional.
Which brings me to another point, and you mentioned climate change, why there is not nuclear power generation in Australia always staggers me. I understand the (strange) politics of it but it could provide a clean base load energy source.
Up until earlier this year Australia had one of the most productive high grade uranium mines in the world, but there are many other uranium deposits and its predominantly being exported. Nuclear power technology has come a long way and yet there are many in my view that look very backwards at the issue.
For people that don't live here, they can't grasp how much the aphorism "the lucky country" holds true. At every step we implement stupid policies only to be saved by the need of other countries to use our natural resources. We should be an energy superpower.
-
Yeah. I'm not seriously advocating subsidies.
Hell, subsidies and other protectionisms (by our allies and formerly biggest trading partners) is ironically a major reason why we (NZ) are now so beholden to China and our FTA.
But that is a very expensive price to pay so that your PM can feel free to say some stern words about China occasionally for domestic politics reasons.
-
-
@act-crusader said in Aussie Politics:
@chimoaus said in Aussie Politics:
@kirwan said in Aussie Politics:
@chimoaus said in Aussie Politics:
@kirwan said in Aussie Politics:
@chimoaus said in Aussie Politics:
@majorrage Maybe I'm ignorant but I find it farcical to think in 2021 that a developed nation would "invade" another developed nation, it's not 1939.
The world economy is so intertwined that we are all reliant on one another, it makes no sense, I really cannot see why China would invade any nation for their resources when they can just buy them. Yes, there are long standing tensions between certain nations but that is very much localised land disputes, and they are not going to blitzkrieg the world.
Wouldn't it be great if the world could somehow come together and agree to drastically reduce military spending, very much like the Paris climate agreement.
I noticed that Costa Rica has not had an army since 1949. "Costa Rica's track record of 72 years without a standing army demonstrates in a convincing way that it is possible, as well as positive, to organize a state on the principles of mutual trust, peace and non-violence." https://www.canberratimes.com.au/story/7038431/costa-rica-abolished-its-military-other-countries-can-too/
Crimea says hi. 2.5 million people invaded by Russia.
This post reminds me of Helen Clark talking about the end of war, a few short years before 9/11.
Yep the 100's of billions the US spends on military definitely helped prevent 9/11 and I would hardly call that an invasion.
I did mention that land/religious disputes between neighbours was a reality but what is the likelihood any nation would invade Australia? Very few nations have a naval force and China is the only obvious concern, the question is would China ever invade Australia in the WW2 sense, I highly doubt it, what would be the benefit for them?
Am I the only one who thinks the billions we spend is a gross waste of expenditure when the risk of lifes lost from pandemics, climate change and wellbeing are significantly higher.
It just seems like a giant pissing contest and instead of urine we are pissing taxpayers money.
Indonesia must look south at all that empty Aussie land being under population strain and be tempted.
I'm not sure if you have noticed, but there are a shit load of conflicts going on around the world. Not having a capable miltary is negligence IMO.
I am not saying not to spend anything I am questioning if spending 90 billion on submarines and billions on fighter planes is going to make any significant difference to the thoughts of these dictators and enemies. I want our politicians to be responsible and realistic about it, it seems we can waste 2 billion on these failed subs and billions more on boats that don't work properly etc and write it off as "being prepared". I fully support the expenditure on Hercules and Helicopters etc that are actually used in humanitarian operations etc. But nuclear subs, their usefulness is a stretch.
The nuclear powered subs are far more advanced and their speed is exceptional.
Which brings me to another point, and you mentioned climate change, why there is not nuclear power generation in Australia always staggers me. I understand the (strange) politics of it but it could provide a clean base load energy source.
Up until earlier this year Australia had one of the most productive high grade uranium mines in the world, but there are many other uranium deposits and its predominantly being exported. Nuclear power technology has come a long way and yet there are many in my view that look very backwards at the issue.
and there is no shortage of space to stick them as far away from population as is practical
-
@kiwiwomble said in Aussie Politics:
@act-crusader said in Aussie Politics:
@chimoaus said in Aussie Politics:
@kirwan said in Aussie Politics:
@chimoaus said in Aussie Politics:
@kirwan said in Aussie Politics:
@chimoaus said in Aussie Politics:
@majorrage Maybe I'm ignorant but I find it farcical to think in 2021 that a developed nation would "invade" another developed nation, it's not 1939.
The world economy is so intertwined that we are all reliant on one another, it makes no sense, I really cannot see why China would invade any nation for their resources when they can just buy them. Yes, there are long standing tensions between certain nations but that is very much localised land disputes, and they are not going to blitzkrieg the world.
Wouldn't it be great if the world could somehow come together and agree to drastically reduce military spending, very much like the Paris climate agreement.
I noticed that Costa Rica has not had an army since 1949. "Costa Rica's track record of 72 years without a standing army demonstrates in a convincing way that it is possible, as well as positive, to organize a state on the principles of mutual trust, peace and non-violence." https://www.canberratimes.com.au/story/7038431/costa-rica-abolished-its-military-other-countries-can-too/
Crimea says hi. 2.5 million people invaded by Russia.
This post reminds me of Helen Clark talking about the end of war, a few short years before 9/11.
Yep the 100's of billions the US spends on military definitely helped prevent 9/11 and I would hardly call that an invasion.
I did mention that land/religious disputes between neighbours was a reality but what is the likelihood any nation would invade Australia? Very few nations have a naval force and China is the only obvious concern, the question is would China ever invade Australia in the WW2 sense, I highly doubt it, what would be the benefit for them?
Am I the only one who thinks the billions we spend is a gross waste of expenditure when the risk of lifes lost from pandemics, climate change and wellbeing are significantly higher.
It just seems like a giant pissing contest and instead of urine we are pissing taxpayers money.
Indonesia must look south at all that empty Aussie land being under population strain and be tempted.
I'm not sure if you have noticed, but there are a shit load of conflicts going on around the world. Not having a capable miltary is negligence IMO.
I am not saying not to spend anything I am questioning if spending 90 billion on submarines and billions on fighter planes is going to make any significant difference to the thoughts of these dictators and enemies. I want our politicians to be responsible and realistic about it, it seems we can waste 2 billion on these failed subs and billions more on boats that don't work properly etc and write it off as "being prepared". I fully support the expenditure on Hercules and Helicopters etc that are actually used in humanitarian operations etc. But nuclear subs, their usefulness is a stretch.
The nuclear powered subs are far more advanced and their speed is exceptional.
Which brings me to another point, and you mentioned climate change, why there is not nuclear power generation in Australia always staggers me. I understand the (strange) politics of it but it could provide a clean base load energy source.
Up until earlier this year Australia had one of the most productive high grade uranium mines in the world, but there are many other uranium deposits and its predominantly being exported. Nuclear power technology has come a long way and yet there are many in my view that look very backwards at the issue.
and there is no shortage of space to stick them as far away from population as is practical
actually, and I may have read this wrong, but a paper said the waste could be going to SA and there are all sorts of confused reactions but apparently the subs won't be built until 2040 or so...
https://www.portlincolntimes.com.au/story/7433771/submarine-boost-for-south-australia/
Aussie Politics