Comment on Security without submarines: the military strategy Australia should pursue instead of AUKUS
WhatAmLemmy@lemmy.world 3 days agoNo 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 3 days ago
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 2 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 days ago
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 3 days ago
The subs are for defending Australia. They don’t purely operate in one fixed location.
The coastline missiles is OPs articles suggestion instead.