No doubt... But relying on subs, built by a criminally corrupt fascist state, who has already shown that they will abandon or turn on allies at any time, is the dumbest scenario to entertain.

Our agreements shouldn't completely abandon the US, but they should be kept at arms length, and the possibility that the US could be the invading force should not be neglected.

[–] Deceptichum@quokk.au 1 points 4 days ago (2 children)

Okay, so go with other subs. Don’t go with this stupid idea that we can defend our coastline with missiles and drones.

[–] philpo@feddit.org 5 points 3 days ago

And 8 subs that might not ever make it to Australia defend a coastline of 25.000km against the biggest navy in the world? With over half of it(and the important parts) are to shallow for nuclear subs to operate in?

Very possibly without US support because the orange got a wire transfer by Xi? Or another "cheque didn't clear"?

And no, they won't be able to limit the chinese navy go the south/east chinese sea - which are sea areas which again are hard for subs to operate in, especially hunt surface targets. And which are,by all means, very likely to be very very well guarded against subs via various installations. I would bet the chinese have something like SOSUS in place there - it's their home turf after all that has far less ingress channels as the GIUK Gap.

So... tbh: While I don't follow the conclusions of the author nuclear subs are still a bad idea.

[–] Cypher@lemmy.world 3 points 4 days ago (1 children)

The subs aren’t for defending the Australian coastline they’re to contain China to the South China Sea.

Which is stupid anyway because it’s a very shallow sea and subs are ineffective there. But that’s the strategy chosen by the US.

[–] Deceptichum@quokk.au 2 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

The subs are for defending Australia. Subs have been part of our naval doctrine since long before we were ever worried of China.

Likewise they don’t purely operate in one fixed location.

The coastline missiles is OPs articles suggestion.

[–] Whirlybird@aussie.zone 0 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

The subs deal has always been insanely stupid. It’s like when we spent like $10bil on a few fighter jets a while back - if China came knocking looking for an invasion, having 6 subs and a few dozen fighter jets may as well be a few mosquitos buzzing around chinas ears. Completely pointless.

No one is coming to invade Australia. We’re too far away, too barren, and we already give away all of our resources for almost free to anyone who asks.

Our military strategy should be “yeah nah she’ll be right” because we have nothing to worry about in terms of an army from another country pushing a full scale invasion.

Our bigger issue is that we are currently just welcoming in immigrants from anywhere in record numbers, and have been selling all of our land and assets to China and other countries for decades. We’ve imported ~20% of our population in the last 5 years, mostly from China and the Middle East. You know, 2 of the 3 places that are the most likely to invade/start a war with anyone, alongside Russia. Our government is essentially selling our country out as it is with welcoming arms, so there is no need for any military invasion.

[–] nevetsg@aussie.zone 1 points 2 days ago

We’ve imported ~20% of our population in the last 5 years

I had to check this claim for myself and as far as I can see your numbers are way off. Looking at the numbers supplied by the ABS I can see 2.485M arrivals over 5 years to 2024, or neally 10% of the 26M population. Not the 20% in your claim but feel free to correct me if I am wrong.

65% of these arrivals are Temporary visa holders, so they go home again...
13% were returning Australian Citizens.
6.3% were from NZ.
14% were Perminant Visa holders. 350K over 5 years is 1.34% of the Australian population.