Thoughts on Australia as a nuclear power?

Remove this Banner Ad

Schneebly11

Team Captain
Apr 7, 2020
427
645
AFL Club
Richmond
Thinking our feds annoying China at every opportunity is dumb is ‘leftie’ LOL twice
Don't worry, I've been called a "woke greenie" and a "Commie" on this site for pointing out the heads and CEOs of major Australian corporations and business groups like BHP, Rio Tinto, Woodside and FMG support better relations with China to fuel economic growth in both countries.

Their opinions are so skewed they think Twiggy Forrest and Gina Rinehart are full blown marxists now
 

Festerz

Club Legend
May 20, 2019
1,666
6,119
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Other Teams
PAFC Maggies SANFL
Thinking our feds annoying China at every opportunity is dumb is ‘leftie’ LOL twice
Sadly there are many who can think political discussion on any topic is a like a footy game - 'my team is good...your team is bad'.

It's global trend that leads to lazy and counterproductive binary pettiness and destroys any hope of a nuanced and intelligent evidence-based long term policy discussion.

It happens daily in Federal Parliament so I'm not sure why we should expect anons on a footy forum to be any different.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Rob R

Club Legend
Aug 17, 2009
2,937
2,952
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Politicians or at least cabinet minsters should get very generous pensions and in exchange they should be essentially banned from jobs they can undertake in a "consulting" capacity with both foreign government enterprises and big businesses
They do get very very generous pensions already but there certainly needs to be bans on future work for foreign powers (any) or anything even vaguely connected to their portfolio (and an ICAC to deal with the dodgy ones)

On SM-G570F using BigFooty.com mobile app
 

Festerz

Club Legend
May 20, 2019
1,666
6,119
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Other Teams
PAFC Maggies SANFL
China Development Bank which is CCP owned.
So?

Keating is a non executive member of the Bank's International Advisory Board which also has representatives from Germany, Switzerland and Japan. He is in that capacity as a private citizen and, I suspect, for his long held and well publicised views on Australia being part of the Asian region since his time as PM.

While it is something that gets Alan Jones and the tabloids chattering, having retired politicians serving in an advisory capacity role in foreign owned corporations and boards is nothing unusual. And nor is it something that in any way threatens our national security as you seem to be suggesting. It is actually something that many regard as being beneficial to our international trade and foreign affairs position if publicly declared.

Also not sure how this makes his views less relevant compared to say, Clive Palmer, Twiggy Forrest AO or countless other Australians with significant business relationships with Chinese companies and the Chinese Government.

just remembers which country to our north gave him millions after he left politics.
How many millions? Got a link?
 
Last edited:

QuietB

Brownlow Medallist
May 13, 2008
29,750
42,480
Melbourne
AFL Club
Hawthorn
So?

Keating is a non executive member of the Bank's International Advisory Board which also has representatives from Germany, Switzerland and Japan. He is in that capacity as a private citizen and, I suspect, for his long held and well publicised views on Australia being part of the Asian region since his time as PM.

Not sure how this makes his views less relevant compared to say, Clive Palmer, Twiggy Forrest AO or countless other Australians with significant business relationships with Chinese companies and the Chinese Government.



How many millions? Got a link?
Meanwhile, it is perfectly ok to do anything for a dollar, so long as your side gets the dollar

1632743950560.jpeg
 

Number37

Anyhow, have a Winfield 25.
Oct 5, 2013
19,153
19,884
AFL Club
Sydney
Meanwhile, it is perfectly ok to do anything for a dollar, so long as your side gets the dollar

View attachment 1247677

The whole country has gotten richer on the back of selling stuff to China.



CHINA WILL NEVER EVER BE ALLOWED TO INVADE AND TAKE AUSTRALIA. EVER
Invasion is old school.
China will take over the world without anyone noticing (until it's too late).
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Festerz

Club Legend
May 20, 2019
1,666
6,119
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Other Teams
PAFC Maggies SANFL
Reminds me of a retired RAAF guy I know who told me at the first sign of war they'd be telling the Russians that the Defence of Australia was only during office hours 9-5, Monday to Friday.
Or, as was noted in an excellent article on the nuclear submarine announcement from last week in the journal of the Australian Strategic Policy Institute:

'Slow and complex is Defence’s happy place.'


Which makes it deeply troubling how such a seismic strategic shift in Australia's defence policy will be handled by the bureaucracy.

As more time is building since Morrison's press conference announcement, we are starting to get more informed analysis of the decision from those with a deeper understanding of the politics and practicalities of translating the press conference into reality. While opinion on the merits of the shift are pretty evenly balanced it seems universally accepted that the PM's claim that it will take 18 months for a working group to come up with even broad details of what our future submarine fleet will look like is wildly optimistic.

My take from extensive reading on the matter is that if we thought negotiating with the French on a conventionally powered submarine fleet was proving a costly exercise, negotiating with the US and UK governments on a shift to a nuclear fleet will be a political and administrative nightmare, even if we choose to ignore the Elephant in the Room that the administrations and leaders of all three governments which will be around when (and if) these boats hit the water will look nothing like the ones that held that press conference a few weeks ago.

As noted in the InDaily blog, Hans Ohff, who was managing director and CEO of the then-Australian Submarine Corporation from 1993 to 2002, says he does not believe the mooted submarine deal will materialise as planned for Australia, saying: “I believe it will be stymied because the US military establishment will not underwrite the tacit agreement made between the US President, the British and Australian PMs.” Ohff insists “there will be no transfer of technical know-how to Australia”, arguing “the submarine propulsion train – not just the reactor – will be a black box accessible only to the US”.

This view is shared by respected senior journo Brian Toohey who writes that:

"One reason not to incur the reported cost of well over $100 billion for eight nuclear powered submarines is that we would have to meet our obligations to declare any fissile material under our control to the International Atomic Energy Agency which acts on behalf of the Nuclear non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). The US will refuse to tell us the required information about the highly enriched uranium in the reactors. However, Australia has ratified the NPT. It should not put itself in a position where it refuses to declare this information."


But it seems pretty clear to me that the primary concern of our PM atm is to secure his position as PM in an election expected within the next 6 months. Facing mounting pressure from within his own Coalition on things like climate change and the pandemic, the finer details of his momentous nuclear sub and AUKUS defence pact is something he is quite happy to be parked for now.

IMHO delaying public discussion of what exactly our PM has signed us up for with his US/UK colleagues until after the next election would not be in our own best interests.
 
Last edited:

QuietB

Brownlow Medallist
May 13, 2008
29,750
42,480
Melbourne
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Or, as was noted in an excellent article on the nuclear submarine announcement from last week in the journal of the Australian Strategic Policy Institute:

'Slow and complex is Defence’s happy place.'


Which makes it deeply troubling how such a seismic strategic shift in Australia's defence policy will be handled by the bureaucracy.

As more time is building since Morrison's press conference announcement, we are starting to get more informed analysis of the decision from those with a deeper understanding of the politics and practicalities of translating the press conference into reality. While opinion on the merits of the shift are pretty evenly balanced it seems universally accepted that the PM's claim that it will take 18 months for a working group to come up with even broad details of what our future submarine fleet will look like is wildly optimistic.

My take from extensive reading on the matter is that if we thought negotiating with the French on a conventionally powered submarine fleet was proving a costly exercise, negotiating with the US and UK governments on a shift to a nuclear fleet will be a political and administrative nightmare, even if we choose to ignore the Elephant in the Room that the administrations and leaders of all three governments which will be around when (and if) these boats hit the water will look nothing like the ones that held that press conference a few weeks ago.

As noted in the InDaily blog, Hans Ohff, who was managing director and CEO of the then-Australian Submarine Corporation from 1993 to 2002, says he does not believe the mooted submarine deal will materialise as planned for Australia, saying: “I believe it will be stymied because the US military establishment will not underwrite the tacit agreement made between the US President, the British and Australian PMs.” Ohff insists “there will be no transfer of technical know-how to Australia”, arguing “the submarine propulsion train – not just the reactor – will be a black box accessible only to the US”.

This view is shared by respected senior journo Brian Toohey who writes that:

"One reason not to incur the reported cost of well over $100 billion for eight nuclear powered submarines is that we would have to meet our obligations to declare any fissile material under our control to the International Atomic Energy Agency which acts on behalf of the Nuclear non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). The US will refuse to tell us the required information about the highly enriched uranium in the reactors. However, Australia has ratified the NPT. It should not put itself in a position where it refuses to declare this information."


But it seems pretty clear to me that the primary concern of our PM atm is to secure his position as PM in an election expected within the next 6 months. Facing mounting pressure from within his own Coalition on things like climate change and the pandemic, the finer details of his momentous nuclear sub and AUKUS defence pact is something he is quite happy to be parked for now.

IMHO delaying public discussion of what exactly our PM has signed us up for with his US/UK colleagues until after the next election would not be in our own best interests.
He won’t be able to delay the public discussion about the sunk costs with the French or the foreign relations implications.

I also think this whole China bad thing has a very short shelf life in Australia. We are not the USA. China takes 43% of our exports - you cannot be the party of good economic managers and simply ignore that.
 

madmug

Brownlow Medallist
Mar 17, 2009
18,715
13,141
Hobart
AFL Club
Collingwood
He won’t be able to delay the public discussion about the sunk costs with the French or the foreign relations implications.

I also think this whole China bad thing has a very short shelf life in Australia. We are not the USA. China takes 43% of our exports - you cannot be the party of good economic managers and simply ignore that.
The LNP have proven not to be good economic managers anyway. Doubling the debt between 2013 & pre Covid, plus things like the massive give away to corporations in undeserved Covid support monies, as well as the number of corrupt pork barreling schemes shows how crook this LNP really is.

Scumo is the PM for announcements & slogans. Not much else.

China has drastically changed its economic & political path. Their is every chance it will become even more unstable as the anti Xi Jinping forces grow in response.

Either more unstable or more a reversion to Maoist tendencies means our whole relationship with China is, & will continue to change drastically.

I think the Subs issue is the least of our worries.
 

Festerz

Club Legend
May 20, 2019
1,666
6,119
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Other Teams
PAFC Maggies SANFL
I think the Subs issue is the least of our worries.
Only if your attention span is measured in weeks rather than years.

The AUSUK announcement, of which the shift to nuclear subs is but a part, is THE most important change in tack in Australian foreign and defence policy in the past few decades. It sits alongside climate change as being a key determinant of what our country will look like for the rest of this century.

How it happened and why will be one of the key political and policy discussions in Australia for people who care about our place in the world going into 2022 and beyond.
 

madmug

Brownlow Medallist
Mar 17, 2009
18,715
13,141
Hobart
AFL Club
Collingwood
Only if your attention span is measured in weeks rather than years.

The AUSUK announcement, of which the shift to nuclear subs is but a part, is THE most important change in tack in Australian foreign and defence policy in the past few decades.

How it happened and why will be one of the key political and policy discussions in Australia for people who care about our place in the world going into 2022 and beyond.
The China situation is a massive foreign affairs concern & one likely to affect us now & forever more.

The Sub situation has arisen due to the radical shift in the China situation. It was probably seen by Scumo as an opportunity. An opportunity to follow the Sky news foreign policy objective. ;)

Longer term, many have for a long time believed we needed Nucsubs. That, given out strategic needs & huge Ocean distances. Certainly far more than we needed the expensive F35 ducks.

How we actually got to the Subs decision is a different matter however. Scumo is a short term political 'thinker'. His past history in marketing just exemplifies that opinion. He's a marketing nufty who thinks & acts 'in the moment'. Hence his penchant for slogans & the big announcement thing.

I'm sure it could have been handled much better by someone who had a clue how to represent the nation on the world stage.
 

Festerz

Club Legend
May 20, 2019
1,666
6,119
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Other Teams
PAFC Maggies SANFL
Scumo is a short term political 'thinker'. His past history in marketing just exemplifies that opinion. He's a marketing nufty who thinks & acts 'in the moment'. Hence his penchant for slogans & the big announcement thing.
Absolutely agree. And, despite what the opinion polls say I would not be surprised if we see him call an election sometime in the coming couple of weeks to capitalise on the public perceptions of the subs and security alliance announcement (which the Labor Party have agreed with) and giving him a legitimate reason to avoid the Glasgow climate summit next month.
 

Kwality

Hall of Famer
Aug 14, 2011
35,298
13,200
Trafalgar
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
Mclaren Mercedes F1

French Foreign Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian this week accused Australia of lying, claiming that the Defence Department sent a letter to Paris on the day the contract was cancelled that said Australia was ready for the “rapid signature for the second phase of the program”.

“Everything I have told you is confirmed by the letter I received on 15 September from the Australian ministry of defence that said everything is OK let’s continue,” Mr Le Drian told a parliamentary hearing in France. “Someone lied.”

However, the letter sent by Defence to Paris on that day, obtained by The Weekend Australian, says no such thing. The Defence letter says only that the French shipbuilder Naval Group had completed a “systems review” — a formal engineering design review — and could now formally “exit” that review as required under the submarine design contract.

But the letter, written in dry contractual language by the director-general of the Future Submarine Program, Commodore Craig Bourke, and sent to Naval Group, makes no reference to any decision to authorise or even mention the next phase of design work.

In fact, it goes out of its way to state the completion of the systems review in no way automatically leads to the next phase in the contract.
“The matters addressed in this correspondence do not provide any authorisation to continue work or for the reimbursement of that work under (the) Core Work Scope 1 (contract),’ the letter states.

Naval Group had been aware since late last year that a decision to start the next phase of work would be subject to further government consideration.
 

Kwality

Hall of Famer
Aug 14, 2011
35,298
13,200
Trafalgar
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
Mclaren Mercedes F1
Absolutely agree. And, despite what the opinion polls say I would not be surprised if we see him call an election sometime in the coming couple of weeks to capitalise on the public perceptions of the subs and security alliance announcement (which the Labor Party have agreed with) and giving him a legitimate reason to avoid the Glasgow climate summit next month.
At some point before the election both sides should be required to let us all know the cost of any Glasgow aspirational target. Turn the hot air into jobs and dollars. What they are promising for the generations coming through.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad