32
Aukus will cost Australia $368bn. What if there was a better, cheaper defence strategy?
(www.theguardian.com)
A place to discuss Australia and important Australian issues.
If you're posting anything related to:
If you're posting Australian News (not opinion or discussion pieces) post it to Australian News
This community is run under the rules of aussie.zone. In addition to those rules:
Congratulations to @[email protected] who had the most upvoted submission to our banner photo competition
Be sure to check out and subscribe to our related communities on aussie.zone:
https://aussie.zone/communities
Since Kbin doesn't show Lemmy Moderators, I'll list them here. Also note that Kbin does not distinguish moderator comments.
Additionally, we have our instance admins: @[email protected] and @[email protected]
The South China Sea is shallow, a poor operating environment for nuclear subs.
Containment of China to the South China Sea is a US strategy and one which Australia is subsiding, while materially hurting its ability to defend Australia’s coastline.
A nuke sub operating there for a couple of months is still better than a DE that leaves after a week (presuming it can reach that far at all).
If we're so concerned about the South China Sea, we can give Taiwan or Japan diesel subs. It's not like the nuclear subs would be of much use to us anyway if they're on the other side of Indonesia.
Although I can't imagine an Internal Combusion Engine sub being at all stealthy, so I'd hope there's some kind of third option.
Diesel-electric subs are actually far quieter than Nuclear subs, and have out performed them regularly in war games.
It isn’t a black and white case of one technology being better than the other but nuclear costs a lot more.