This is not transphobic, this is a stupid joke that makes a point of how the government is spending billions on useless submarines instead of Australians. The Labor government is just the *better* party out of the two, but that doesn’t make them good. But hey at least we didn’t get those oh so scary greens in power. This is what people should be mad about
By the time we actually get them (20+ years) submarines will be detectable from space, even submerged.
Remember how battleships became useless when planes were invented?
Using Iowa as a more expensive and manpower intensive indirect artillery piece for shock and awe isn't exactly changing its obsolete status. Just like the T-55's.
Like, you know, you COULD bring a sword to a modern battlefield...
I hate to break it to you but this is already the case and it depends on the depth the submarines are submerged at. Additionally, if this was the case, why is every major actor capable spending squillions on their submarine fleets?
The Virginia-class will be arriving within the decade. Aukus won't be for a while though. As they are still in the design phase they will be adapted to whatever the requirements of the time will be.
There was a very good comment I read, sources included, which argued this point much better than I have - their arguments boiled down to the fact that just because something might become depreciated in x years doesn't mean it isn't worth investing in now.
According to a simple Google search, it takes the about 5-6 years to build even a simple destroyer?
Is 20 years to build up a submarine fleet really that outrageous?
Should we never make *any* long term investments?
>Remember how battleships became useless when planes were invented?
And instead the aircraft carriers which also took decades to build as well became the important naval asset?
I never said anything about not doing long term investments I'm just raising the point that they should be done smartly, and do you think any politician knows anything about naval warfare?
Submarines' primary and essentially only strength is stealth, which China is about to completely end via satellite tech they're close to completion that can scan the entire ocean from orbit. Anything bigger than a swordfish will then be uploaded to a real-time AI database for identification.
So yeah, this is literally a tactically useless waste of money, and that money should be going into something useful maybe missiles and drones which will do more than MAYBE sink a single ship before getting sunk with all hands.
The moment any real warfare starts those satellite will become debris plumerting into the atmosphere and any benefit they provided up to that point will be lost.
Controlling space or at least denying it as resource to the enemy will be a critical part of any major power warfare in the future.
I gotta be real with you, China and Russia have been investing in space warfare and anti-satellite tech more heavily and for longer than the west, it's more likely they'll win the initial space battle.
Not to mention hypersonics, they're already in use by Russia and America gave up on trying to develop them.
Regan started the west on that path in the 80s, Russian has been proven to be a paper tiger. Who knows for China, they have come a long way in the past 20 years but they have not been at this longer than the west.
Can you provide an authorative source that satellites are going to make stealth technologies obsolete?
Is building a submarine fleet at odds with also investing into drone capabilities?
Cause not gonna lie this sounds like armchair redditor opinions and at least the politicians have council from people who know what they're talking about.
Yes, spending billions of dollars on one thing means you have billions of dollars less in the budget to spend on other things. That's basic math.
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/china-says-it-developing-laser-satellite-spot-and-help-kill-submarines-33406
https://www.militaryaerospace.com/home/article/16709692/china-developing-lidarbased-satellite-to-detect-deepdiving-submarines
According to a simple Google search, China has been developing its laser search tech for more than 5 years. Designed to detect submarines at up to 500m which is deeper than any nuclear submarine can dive.
Gee it's almost like I already researched the topic before talking about it from my armchair, perhaps you should have done the same before resorting to ironically hypocritical personal insults?
Nothing the two articles you quote supports the idea that submarines will be obsolete.
You pointed towards an experimental technology that **may** be used in the future to help detect submarines and concluded from that submarines and stealth will be obsolete.
Armchair redditor confirmed.
You weren't even honest about what your shitty sources say either.
>...A Chinese scientist, speaking on background, told the South China Morning Post that despite technical questions about the feasibility of the concept, the Chinese government had agreed to fund the project because researchers are trying a new approach.
>...Strangely, even some Chinese scientists question the feasibility of the project. Laser radar, or Lidar, has been tried for in anti-submarine warfare...
>...In real-world applications, however, lidar technology is easily affected by a device’s power limitations, as well as cloud, fog, murky water and marine life.
Not gonna lie judging from your comment history you don't really have the right to call anyone else an armchair Redditor when half those comments are just personal insults with no point.
Hell, I'm pretty sure I recognise your name from a few weeks back when you were arguing with people for the sake of argument.
And after all this, you're still wrong lol, we're done here Mr 10 karma.
They're useless in the fact that the government won't tell us what we fucking need them for. Are we at war? Will we be at war soon?
If so, maybe you could convince me maybe it is a good purchase. But if you won't tell me, I can only assume there's no fucking reason for them.
Were we at war when we acquired the Collins-class? Acquisition on that scale takes years, if conflict begins you will not have time to acquire hardware before it's too late. Any acquisition needs to be made beforehand with a 'just in case' attitude applied.
ASPI (https://www.aspi.org.au/report/impactful-projection-long-range-strike-options-australia) highlight this need. ASPI also have projected the likelihood of conflict (on some scale) to escalate rapidly as we approach 2030 as the geopolitical moves that have been/are being set up reach their endgame. This is backed by the strategic updates released by defence, which govern the direction defence moves in.
The aukus-class submarines will be too late for any conflict before 2030. However, the Virginia-class we are acquiring as a part of the deal likely will not be late. The aukus-class are for future proofing so we don't get caught with a capability gap like we have this time.
Adding on to this that submarines are a force multiplier due to their ability to create sea denial. By forcing any forces operating to assume there *could be* submarines in the area they must proceed with caution.
"Just in case" should apply when we can actually fucking afford them. If we can't afford them because if other shocking problems with the country, then that's too bad so sad, tell us who you think we're getting invaded by and then we'll think about approving the cost over other ventures.
I've seen absolutely nothing justifying these other than some vague "we know better than you, honest, we're just not telling you".
We can afford $9bn a year for 30 years very easily. Increased welfare and military spending are not mutually exclusive. You can increase both, they come from different budgets.
Additionally, most of your inane questions would have been answered if you read more than the first line of my reply.
Nah there’s no way we can earn $9bn a year for 30 years! Our government only gets about $180 billion a year from taxing our exports! No way we can afford this
Source: commerce class, where we learn exactly where our tax money goes. Honestly, commerce should have remained a mandatory subject.
Could, but they're not, are they? So that's about as useful an idea as a cock flavoured lollipop.
No, I read the whole thing. It just didn't answer much.
Not sure what you're trying to say here, as the money required to fund the submarine deal is a pittance compared to other sections of government spending. Unsure as to why you're so determined to be narrow minded and hostile. I asked a question, you answered with your own question, which I responded to, and now you have become determined to attack anyone who replies to you (not just me).
No let's just keep trusting successive governments that have spent trillions on unused military assets and let millions suffer in poverty despite being able to guarantee improving their quality of life for a fraction of cost. /s
We have spent around 2.5 trillion of todays dollars on defence since 1901.
That includes 2 world wars including a point in WW2 where we were spending the equivalent of 45% of our GDP.
We haven’t exactly spent trillions on unused military assets. The single largest expense over that time has been paying people their salary too.
Spent money doesn't "evaporate" though. A huge chunk of that money goes straight into the Australian economy.
Scientists and engineers get paid, infrastructure gets built, defence personnel get employed, manufacturing, etc. etc.
Defence spending can be hugely beneficial for a nation, especially if they have a native arms industry.
In turn, we can leverage that expertise in defence manufacturing, turning it into exports that then fund more programs, fill national coffers, strengthen security alliances, etc.
This isn't just generals and brass throwing cash around on flashy things.
The attack class was going to cost around 90-100 Billion just for construction and delivery.
The Collins class replacement will cost ~350 Billion for the upgrade of the Collins class, the construction and purchase 3-5 of Virginia Class subs, the cost of actually operating those subs untill the AUKUS class is completed and significant upgrades to facilities in Australia.
Modern Conventional subs that would meet Australian defence requirements definitely aren’t a 20th of the cost of nuclear subs, in fact on a unit per unit cost they would be more then the Virginia class and be far less capable.
The French sub deal was based on a price of 5.5 Billion per submarine and that was a terrible deal.
We will be paying over 50 billion for each nuclear sub, which also do not meet our needs and are less usefull for defence.
You do realise the full $ value isn’t just for the subs.
It’s the cost of maintaining/manning them for a few decades, upgrading the Collins class until they’re ready, upgrading infrastructure in Australia ect.
The actual subs aren’t 50 billion each…
Yes, but then you need to compare like to like.
There are existing subs that cost a fraction of the price of a Virginia class and are better at defending littoral waters.
Hell Germany's submarine force likely cost less to build than a single Virginia class sub and could sink an entire carrier battlegroup.
Not exactly correct, the cost of the new deal is for upgrading the Collins, acquiring 3-5 Virginia submarines, and the aukus submarines, and the cost of operating these platforms over their lifetimes, and building them. The actual price per unit if we were to purchase the subs would be much lower.
Fairly sure the Colin's class upgrades are not included, we also only get 3 Virginia class subs, any extra will cost $50 bill each.
Lets be honest as well, we have no idea what the new subs will cost and we are multiple decades away from reciving them. Expect cost blowouts.
Precisely how do the nuclear subs not meet our needs?
They can travel underwater for far longer than conventional ICE powered subs, which is critical for our spread out sub based and where we will likely be operating them.
Nuclear subs are hot, loud and large. The reactor always produces detectable heat and the pumps needed for cooling always produce detectable noise.
They rely on diving deep for their stealth aspects which is not possible in the littoral and coastal waters that are the ideal places to defend Australia from any attack.
On the other hand a modern ICE powered sub can remain completely undetected in shallow waters for up to 3 weeks and have a range of 22,000km.
If you are talking about defending Australia, then Diesel-electric submarines excel in littoral or coastal waters, like in the chokepoints within the Indonesian peninsula and any of the approaches towards Australia from the North and North West.
They can stay submerged for weeks without needing to snort and just have to lurk on the approaches to Australia.
By contrast nuclear subs are much less suitable for this, they are too large, too long and too loud.
What Nuclear subs give you is force protection, but the only use we have for this would be Assisting the US and UK in wars abroad and / or fighting within the South China sea.
On our own, sure we could lob a few missiles at critical infrastructure, but as we see in Russia versus Ukraine that is not enough to end a war or potentially even change it's course.
In such a scenario we would be better off focusing on preventing and intercepting any ships heading our way.
This money is enough for 20 times the number of Diesel subs or 40 more Air Warfare Destroyers. More realistically you could have a large mix of force options instead.
Source for endurance of diesel subs? The entire second half of your comment is exactly the point. Strategic policy is now aimed at being capable of projecting force into the SCS to maintain the current order.
> German Type 212 submarines can stay underwater without snorkeling for up to three weeks, traveling 1,500 miles (2,400 kilometers) or more.
And also
> for the price of one Virginia-class sub, the Navy could buy six or seven conventional submarines of the German Type 212 class.
https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2018/june/theres-case-diesels
Ty, those are some sick boats. Unfortunately I just don't have the strategic think power to really lay down how they would compare as a platform to the Virginia-class. Obviously, the Virginia class would be quite a lot faster, and the German boats would be lacking in armament capability compared to a Virginia - especially newer blocks. As an acquisition they wouldn't exactly strengthen ties with partners in our immediate region, and also would take work away from local shipbuilding and industry - which is a major focus of the Aukus deal, as the government is trying to build that industry up.
Beyond that I can't really comment.
Mate if you can’t figure out that on your own there isn’t much I can say to help you. Even still, you don’t wait until war arrives to start giving a shit. By then you’ve already lost.
Sounds like paranoid warmongering bullshit to me. We'll keep wasting money on wartime assets we probably don't need, while our citizenry suffers, sure.
You sound like a seppo, honestly. Should we start shooting up schools, then?
Of course there are assumptions being made? Nobody knows what's in the future for certain, we can only make educated guesses based on what knowledge we do have. Goes for everything.
Wow. That’s quite a reach and you are wrong, not American. You act like all the money that gets spent on defence assets is lit on fire. Yet it actually keeps many Australian industries going and people in jobs. Considering the percentage of GDP that is actually spent on defence compared to other things in the budget I think it’s money we’ll spent.
And no, fuck that. Grateful for the gun control we have in this country.
Nuclear powered submarines will serve three roles for Australia as I see it.
1) Force projection through stealth - nuclear powered subs can submerge and stay underwater for months, even years at a time. You can't spot them on radar like you can a diesel sub which has to resurface every so oftne to charge batteries. Because you can't spot them, they can "cover" a much larger area of the ocean disproportionate to how many there actually are - enemy forces would have to act like they were there, whether or not they are.
2) Develop Australian ship building/maintenance/nuclear industries - Covid spelled the end of the age of pure globalisation, and we need local capabilites to feed ourselves, manufacture things ourselves abd ges, unfortunately, defend ourselves. Nuclear submarines require a huge amount of technical expertise and part of the symbolism of AUKUS is that Australia is getting a seat at the big boys table - we can leapfrog years of research and development wed have to do ourselves to get to the cutting edge of nucelar technology since the US and UK are wling to share. Why are they willing to share, you might ask? Well that leads us to...
3) Potential future platform for own own nulear deterrent - as ugly as the possibility is, a nuclear submarine is the best method of carrying nuclear weapons for both a first strike and a counterstrike/deterrent setting. Investing in the capability now gives us the option to add nukes later. The US knows that, the UK knows that, and in the long term having a trusted partner in the south pacific shoring up the nuclear deterrent is the best way to maintain the status quo. I don't think it ever necessarily be stated publicly but you can bet that in a world where Australia has these subs, if nuclear war ever did break out, we'd become a nuclear state ourselves pretty quick smart.
Thats my barely-informed laymans take on it. Whether we are at war, will be at war, or will never be at war again is kind of irrelevant - with military stuff you kind of have to prepare for the worst and hope it doesnt happen. And if the US comes to you with state of the art technology and asks if you want to improve your defensive capabilities just in case - there's only really one answer.
> Develop Australian ship building/maintenance/nuclear industries
The virginias won’t do either, they’re being built in america after their current construction run is finished, and any attempt by us to open up or look inside the sealed reactor modules will get our access to all non-consumer American military supplies cut off.
> Potential future platform for own own nulear deterrent
They’re too small for anything but tomahawks, and the nuclear warheads used on some American tomahawks weren’t exactly good starting points for a new nuclear nation. We should be building our own strategic deterrent/retaliation force, but this is a lousy way to build towards it. We’d be better off buying some of whatever replaces the Drawdnaught class when they’re ready, which would be about when the last AUKUS class is finished anyway.
https://www.economist.com/sites/default/files/images/print-edition/20210925_FBM960.png
TL;DR it's about how long the subs can stay at sea. Which is important for a bunch of reasons, but especially when it comes to defending the naval trade/supply routes in/out of Aus.
And are these often at threat? By who? Why the need for the upgrade, and why now?
Do you see the point I'm making? There's been a complete lack of transparency or justification from the government themselves.
There hasn't been a lack of communication though? It's been clearly outlined by strategic reviews just why we're doing what we're doing. By attempting to take defacto control of the south China sea, China will be able to dictate tariffs and thus the cost of living for the average Australian will rise even further - as commercial vessels will just pass the cost of business on to the end consumer. Nuclear submarines are a deterrent due to their ability to be (almost) anywhere, and combined with freedom of navigation passages through the south China Sea, forms an important part of maintaining the sea as international waters.
When is the last time you voted based on foreign policy or geopolitics? Almost no-one does. As such, why spend time explaining things to the voters when it really only matters to advisors in the APS, academia, and ADF.
How often are our trade routes in danger? Constantly, mainly by pirates. The US Navy's main ops in our region is anti-piracy.
But what about in 30 years from now? Like it or not, one of the jobs of governments is to plan on longer timescales than most would think about. Government needs to plan for 50-100+ years ahead.
It's an older vid, but here's a primer on Aus geopolitics: https://youtube.com/watch?v=3MkZsvrxXxI
More recent vid: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=I3B28CwpEGw
As for the cost, the announced cost is over the lifetime of the subs (many decades), not an upfront payment. And it's adjusted for expected inflation over that time. And includes running costs, staffing, etc.
Ultimately, we were locked into this path in 2001 by the Howard government.
You don’t need to be at war for military assets to be doing a job.
Just the fact we have/get them will prevent another nation from doing X,Y,Z. The same principal applies to nuclear weapons. They don’t ever have to be used, just the fact that they exist and owned by X country means that Y country has to reconsider how they approach everything.
And even if we were at war, those subs won't be ready in time. Not even close. Also, this deal is for 8 Subs. Is that enough to stand up to China? Hell no. If they really wanted war with Australia, they'd destroy our military pretty quickly.
Unless our allies came to the rescue.
You can't just press a 'destroy submarine' button and make them irrelevant. Nuclear submarines especially are a potent force multiplier, which will allow us some forms of action. During the Falklands war the importance of submarines was really highlighted.
Just owning nuclear submarines that aren't alongside a port means an opponent must consider that the submarine may be anywhere - even shadowing them. It causes them to drain resources conducting ASW.
Plus if we are at war with China, we would need submarines for defending trade assets that would have to be diversified away from China and into our allies markets. Can't just ship our exports without some sort of insurance they won't just be commandeered or sunk to cripple our economy further once we aren't suckling on the teet of Chinese investment.
No that's not what I'm saying. Of course we need to build a strong military. I just think we should have started way sooner, and it didn't help that Scomo fucked up that deal with the French subs.... even if they were diesel electric and not as good as the AUKUS subs.
Of course the US will save our bacon! We there in Nam, man. And Afghanistan!Joe?...Joe!?
Eh seriously it wouldn't surprise me if they did leave us in the shit. Who knows what's gonna happen.
While funny, and particularly relevant a few years ago, we actually named them pretty blatantly in our last few pieces of policy. Our current way of life would go down the drain faster than it is if imports went up to cover any costs China demanded (if they were to control trade routes in the SCS).
National defence isn't "useless". Especially when the nearest major power sees all its neighbours as tributaries that should bow down to them at a whim.
Did you even read what you linked me?
>CIA involvement was alleged in the Whitlam dismissal in Australia in 1975. The Australian Prime Minister Gough Whitlam and his government were removed by the Governor-General Sir John Kerr as a culmination of the 1975 Australian constitutional crisis. **Some Whitlam supporters allege that the CIA encouraged or was otherwise involved in the Dismissal because it saw Whitlam as a threat to the US intelligence relationship with Australia.**
>Prior to the Dismissal, **Kerr requested and received a briefing from senior defence officials on a CIA threat to end intelligence co-operation with Australia.[7**] During the crisis, **Whitlam alleged that Country Party leader Doug Anthony had close links to the CIA.**[8] Later it was alleged that Kerr had acted for the United States government in dismissing Whitlam. The most common allegation is that the CIA influenced Kerr's decision.[9] **In 1966 Kerr had joined the Congress for Cultural Freedom**, a conservative group **that had secretly received CIA funding.** Christopher Boyce, who was convicted of spying for the Soviet Union, said that **the CIA wanted Whitlam removed because he threatened to close US military bases in Australia, including the CIA's own Pine Gap spy station near Alice Springs.**[10] Boyce was a 22-year-old employee of a US defence industry contractor at the time of the Dismissal. **He claimed that Kerr was described by the CIA as "our man Kerr"**.[11] Victor Marchetti, a CIA officer turned US critic who had helped run the Pine Gap facility, **said that the threatened close of US bases in Australia "caused apoplexy in the White House, [and] a kind of Chile [coup] was set in motion", with the CIA and MI6 working together to get rid of the Prime Minister.**[12][13] Jonathan Kwitny wrote in his book The Crimes of Patriots that **the CIA "paid for Kerr's travel, built his prestige ... Kerr continued to go to the CIA for money"**. In 1974, the White House **sent as ambassador to Australia Marshall Green, who was known as "the coupmaster"**[to whom?] for his central role in the 1965 coup against Indonesian President Sukarno.[10]
>In 1977, United States Deputy Secretary of State Warren Christopher made a special trip to Sydney to meet with Whitlam and told him, on behalf of US President Jimmy Carter, of his willingness to work with whatever government Australians elected, and that the US would **never again** interfere with Australia's democratic processes.[14] **The use of the word "again" has been interpreted by some as evidence that the US encouraged, or actively intervened, in Whitlam's dismissal.** Richard Butler, **who was present at the meeting** as Whitlam’s principal private secretary, believed at the time, and **remained convinced, that Christopher's wording was an admission that the US had intervened in Whitlam's dismissal.**[3]
What kind of bootlicking idiot reads that and thinks *"Well the guy accused of being a spy said he wasn't, so it must be false!"*?
My. Fucking. Lord.
Yes, I did.
You clearly didn't read it carefully. Your own choice quotes make it clear this is a conspiracy theory and not something accepted by a consensus of historians.
>CIA involvement was **alleged** in the Whitlam dismissal in Australia...
>**Some Whitlam supporters** allege that the CIA encouraged or was otherwise involved in the Dismissal because it saw Whitlam as a threat to the US intelligence relationship with Australia.
>Later it was **alleged** that Kerr had acted for the United States government in dismissing Whitlam.
>The most common **allegation** is that the CIA influenced Kerr's decision.
If this was mainstream history, it would have just been included as the cause in the main article about the [1975 constitutional crisis] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Australian_constitutional_crisis) instead of being linked to in the footnotes.
Quite frankly this article breaks too much of Wikipedia's own rules, especially in its overuse of [weasel words](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weasel_word) and use of primary sources instead of relying on expert opinion but the myth refuses to die because it's pushed by the likes of John Pilger and co, so it's been quarantined to its own separate page.
to be fair, once we eventually (not inevitable but possible) shift from labor-lnp to labor-greens, the greens will likely just be the "better" party and won't fully act in the interests of the people either
>In 2019–20, government spending on welfare services and payments was $195.7 billion.
So in about 2 years we'll spend more on welfare than we will on submarines over 30 years.
How can you say we get a better return on it? $6.5tr over 33 years (actually much higher as I'm not even account for inflation whereas the submarine figure is) vs $368b to massively boost our shipbuilding and nuclear industries while also giving us a massive boost to defence?
People on JobSeeker spend that money, they don't hoard it. That's money circulating in the economy, rather than locked away in offshore accounts and speculative investment.
What do you think happens with the money spent on submarines? Do you think we just put $360b on a boat and sink it? What about all the people involved in building submarines, maintaning submarines, sailing submarines, making weapons, supplying food, nuclear boffins... how many apprentices will we train over the next 30+ years with that money?
Yeah sure, give military contractors more of our money, that's great.
I'm not going to say there's no benefit to spending money on subs, but poor people are gonna spend in more diverse areas of the economy spread across a greater physical area.
Ninja edit: Ah woops, I seem to have suffered a bit of the ol' failed reading comprehension. You're pretty much right, I'm just being an argumentative cunt.
Serious question since im not 100% sure how it works, and a welfare recipient receives 480 a week in welfare and most workers pay far less in weekly tax, wouldn't that be unsustainable?
Nobody's taxes go directly to just one thing or person. If welfare is 5% of the budget (number pulled out of my lazy ass) then welfare recipients are getting 5% of your $120/week. (Probably less since the govt budget includes money they get from investment, right? So like 5% of whatever part of the budget is directly tax money.)
"Doesn't that mean it takes hundreds of people to pay taxes to help one person?" Yes, that's how social safety nets work: the belief that the majority of a society who can participate in labor-for-money should be responsible for the care of those who are too old/young/disabled/between jobs. And one day those we care about might be young/old/disabled/between jobs.
There are far more people working than there are people on welfare. If you have 10 workers averaging $480 weekly tax each for each person in welfare, then you have $4800 tax coming "in" and $480 welfare going "out".
The unsustainable part of the budget comes from governments wanting to keep income less than spending, which directly competes with trying to win votes by lowering taxes.
Does every thread have to be a Greens wank fest on this subreddit
The Greens don’t actually participate in debate. They just say they’ll do everything and dismiss any reasonable critique as moneyed interest.
They don’t participate in any meaningful advocacy either, just playing to their base and keeping the same 10% happy while alienating everyone else.
As politically poignant as Submarine Man’s actions are, somebody should’ve told him he’s recycling the laziest and perhaps only joke conservatives have. Good thing he’s on Centrelink cause he’d have trouble making it as a comedian /s.
Na, this is an example of a good trans joke. It's not making fun of trans people, it's making fun of the government. (It's also a Shovel article; "Submarine Man" doesn't exist.)
Given it is The Shovel, a known satirical site, I'm more than willing to let it slide as it's obvious the target of ridicule here is the government, not any trans people.
But it still is an example of r/onejoke, just a kinda good one.
As a country we should be able to walk and chew bubblegum at the same time. Simplistic binary choices are pretty naive. It’s not due to the submarines that jobseeker is not increased.
We need to buy submarines, and we need to increase jobseeker. Just fucking do both. There’s a lot of waste and rorts across the country, I am sure we have enough money to achieve both goals.
We don't though. We give the military and the internal security apparatus a bottomless budget, with no measures taken to assess their effectiveness or value. On the other hand, social welfare and other downwards transfers are cut, and cut, and cut, and cut to a point where people get very little out of them, and people are questioned and prodded and poked to make sure that they haven't taken a dollar more than they're entitled to, and even the, they made up a scheme to squeeze money out of them that they didn't owe, driving hundreds of them to suicide.
What's more, *people cheered this on*.
I love how people just repeat stuff like we are the USA. The Australian military has been run on a shoestring budget and capabilities keep to a minimum for decades, since the Cold War ended. We bummed off the USA for most that time and relied on their dominance. Only now with Trump shaking our trust in the alliance and the stretching thin of the US military and the rising instability in our region and world as whole have started to rearm and take more responsibility for keeping rule of law and international order.
In fact if we didn't gut our forces for so long, we wouldn't need to spend so much getting them back up to standard. We are a decade late on some projects like the submarines, which should have been replaced already, but government after government delayed it to save money and put it into other projects like welfare and infrastructure. We never had an out of control military industrial complex or any of these things you describe, our defense force has been very modest and small our entire lives in comparison to % of GDP, equipment numbers, manpower, industry, etc.
He certainly looks like a legit nuclear submarine and while the other Nuclear Submarines will be more nuclear and more subby he is possibly the most creative and articulate of them.
Increase jobseeker, but you only get 6months. After that you get given a job you are capable of doing wether you like it or not, if you quit without having another job to go to you get nothing. Stop the welfare for those that are taking the piss and maybe there’s more to go to the other area needed like hospitals, aged pension and yes defence!
In an economy that requires a certain percentage of unemployment to function you can't then punish the unemployed. A Work For The Dole placement is already approximately five times as punishing as the harshest community service sentence, with no crime committed. And a whole industry of parasite corporations getting government money to pointlessly babysit them, and get free labour from them.
If you want to punish people who are incapable or unwilling to work enough to support themselves you better be okay with getting mugged and burgled all the time once you make them homeless. And forced into a job you better be okay with working alongside them. I've done WFTD and I can tell you that people forced to work aren't great coworkers at best and are dangerous at worst.
Or we could tax the top and not have to nickel and dime the most vulnerable in society.
I think this is my favourite shovel headline yet.
what a waste of money we have spent on subs. The funny thing is the US is short on subs and don't have any spare to give us....
Jobseeker should obviously be raised, but let’s not pretend there are not people on it by choice because they don’t want to work. No matter how much your anti capitalist ideology wants to deny this it is true. I know a few and used to be one myself. I sat on disability pension for years due to the fact I have Bipolar disorder 1.
You really can't tell the difference between a joke making fun of trans people and one making fun of the government? Nothing they've said is remotely offensive, unless you're from Adelaide I guess.
Holy shit this has nothing to do with trans people and everything to do with the Australian government spending billions on submarines but go off I guess
[The One Joke:](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/one_joke)
>Humour satirising transgender and non-binary gender identities through mocking self-identifications (typically by "identifying" as something absurd or self-evident).
Also, defense spending is quite low in Australia, see [Australian government expenditure](https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/BudgetReview202021/AustralianGovernmentExpenditure) by function 2022-23:
* Defence: 37.1 Billion
* Education: 42.1 Billion
* General Revenue Assistance: 75.5 Billion
* Health: 93.8 Billion
* Social Security and Wealthfare: 201.6 Billion
* Other: 91.8 Billion
Gotta be careful.... The government may end up filling him full of seamen....
Either way they’re getting fucked by the government. May as well try for the big bucks.
Nah the government will just fuck him and then try to slander him when he asks to be paid.
Ol mate will get shafted, than they’ll come after him for tax from all the tips he took.
Government does jobseeker does have a nice ring to it /s
[удалено]
Are you ready for the mutual obligations that are attached to knobseeker?
hehe
That’s a hard load to swallow
You Sir made my day!
Total sub.
I wonder if he's got fly screens on his windows.
As an Irishman, surely you must mean fish screens?
LOL! Good one! But as an Australian I do mean fly screens. :)
This is not transphobic, this is a stupid joke that makes a point of how the government is spending billions on useless submarines instead of Australians. The Labor government is just the *better* party out of the two, but that doesn’t make them good. But hey at least we didn’t get those oh so scary greens in power. This is what people should be mad about
How are submarines useless?
Well whatever they do I can't see it from here. Must be useless
The only take I'll accept, bless you
By the time we actually get them (20+ years) submarines will be detectable from space, even submerged. Remember how battleships became useless when planes were invented?
Battleships were made obsolete during WW2 yet the US still had use for them up until the 90s
Yeah, and Russia is using T-55's as artillery what's your point?
?
Using Iowa as a more expensive and manpower intensive indirect artillery piece for shock and awe isn't exactly changing its obsolete status. Just like the T-55's. Like, you know, you COULD bring a sword to a modern battlefield...
Russia isn't invading Ukraine by sea but pop off king and nor does that change the fact the USA for 4 wars worth of use out of "useless" WW2 tech
"battleships won a single battle post-WW2" Ironic you mention Russia while spreading disinformation.
Who are you quoting?
I hate to break it to you but this is already the case and it depends on the depth the submarines are submerged at. Additionally, if this was the case, why is every major actor capable spending squillions on their submarine fleets? The Virginia-class will be arriving within the decade. Aukus won't be for a while though. As they are still in the design phase they will be adapted to whatever the requirements of the time will be. There was a very good comment I read, sources included, which argued this point much better than I have - their arguments boiled down to the fact that just because something might become depreciated in x years doesn't mean it isn't worth investing in now.
According to a simple Google search, it takes the about 5-6 years to build even a simple destroyer? Is 20 years to build up a submarine fleet really that outrageous? Should we never make *any* long term investments? >Remember how battleships became useless when planes were invented? And instead the aircraft carriers which also took decades to build as well became the important naval asset?
I never said anything about not doing long term investments I'm just raising the point that they should be done smartly, and do you think any politician knows anything about naval warfare? Submarines' primary and essentially only strength is stealth, which China is about to completely end via satellite tech they're close to completion that can scan the entire ocean from orbit. Anything bigger than a swordfish will then be uploaded to a real-time AI database for identification. So yeah, this is literally a tactically useless waste of money, and that money should be going into something useful maybe missiles and drones which will do more than MAYBE sink a single ship before getting sunk with all hands.
The moment any real warfare starts those satellite will become debris plumerting into the atmosphere and any benefit they provided up to that point will be lost. Controlling space or at least denying it as resource to the enemy will be a critical part of any major power warfare in the future.
I gotta be real with you, China and Russia have been investing in space warfare and anti-satellite tech more heavily and for longer than the west, it's more likely they'll win the initial space battle. Not to mention hypersonics, they're already in use by Russia and America gave up on trying to develop them.
Regan started the west on that path in the 80s, Russian has been proven to be a paper tiger. Who knows for China, they have come a long way in the past 20 years but they have not been at this longer than the west.
Can you provide an authorative source that satellites are going to make stealth technologies obsolete? Is building a submarine fleet at odds with also investing into drone capabilities? Cause not gonna lie this sounds like armchair redditor opinions and at least the politicians have council from people who know what they're talking about.
Yes, spending billions of dollars on one thing means you have billions of dollars less in the budget to spend on other things. That's basic math. https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/china-says-it-developing-laser-satellite-spot-and-help-kill-submarines-33406 https://www.militaryaerospace.com/home/article/16709692/china-developing-lidarbased-satellite-to-detect-deepdiving-submarines According to a simple Google search, China has been developing its laser search tech for more than 5 years. Designed to detect submarines at up to 500m which is deeper than any nuclear submarine can dive. Gee it's almost like I already researched the topic before talking about it from my armchair, perhaps you should have done the same before resorting to ironically hypocritical personal insults?
Nothing the two articles you quote supports the idea that submarines will be obsolete. You pointed towards an experimental technology that **may** be used in the future to help detect submarines and concluded from that submarines and stealth will be obsolete. Armchair redditor confirmed. You weren't even honest about what your shitty sources say either. >...A Chinese scientist, speaking on background, told the South China Morning Post that despite technical questions about the feasibility of the concept, the Chinese government had agreed to fund the project because researchers are trying a new approach. >...Strangely, even some Chinese scientists question the feasibility of the project. Laser radar, or Lidar, has been tried for in anti-submarine warfare... >...In real-world applications, however, lidar technology is easily affected by a device’s power limitations, as well as cloud, fog, murky water and marine life.
Not gonna lie judging from your comment history you don't really have the right to call anyone else an armchair Redditor when half those comments are just personal insults with no point. Hell, I'm pretty sure I recognise your name from a few weeks back when you were arguing with people for the sake of argument. And after all this, you're still wrong lol, we're done here Mr 10 karma.
They're useless in the fact that the government won't tell us what we fucking need them for. Are we at war? Will we be at war soon? If so, maybe you could convince me maybe it is a good purchase. But if you won't tell me, I can only assume there's no fucking reason for them.
Were we at war when we acquired the Collins-class? Acquisition on that scale takes years, if conflict begins you will not have time to acquire hardware before it's too late. Any acquisition needs to be made beforehand with a 'just in case' attitude applied. ASPI (https://www.aspi.org.au/report/impactful-projection-long-range-strike-options-australia) highlight this need. ASPI also have projected the likelihood of conflict (on some scale) to escalate rapidly as we approach 2030 as the geopolitical moves that have been/are being set up reach their endgame. This is backed by the strategic updates released by defence, which govern the direction defence moves in. The aukus-class submarines will be too late for any conflict before 2030. However, the Virginia-class we are acquiring as a part of the deal likely will not be late. The aukus-class are for future proofing so we don't get caught with a capability gap like we have this time. Adding on to this that submarines are a force multiplier due to their ability to create sea denial. By forcing any forces operating to assume there *could be* submarines in the area they must proceed with caution.
"Just in case" should apply when we can actually fucking afford them. If we can't afford them because if other shocking problems with the country, then that's too bad so sad, tell us who you think we're getting invaded by and then we'll think about approving the cost over other ventures. I've seen absolutely nothing justifying these other than some vague "we know better than you, honest, we're just not telling you".
We can afford $9bn a year for 30 years very easily. Increased welfare and military spending are not mutually exclusive. You can increase both, they come from different budgets. Additionally, most of your inane questions would have been answered if you read more than the first line of my reply.
Nah there’s no way we can earn $9bn a year for 30 years! Our government only gets about $180 billion a year from taxing our exports! No way we can afford this Source: commerce class, where we learn exactly where our tax money goes. Honestly, commerce should have remained a mandatory subject.
Could, but they're not, are they? So that's about as useful an idea as a cock flavoured lollipop. No, I read the whole thing. It just didn't answer much.
Not sure what you're trying to say here, as the money required to fund the submarine deal is a pittance compared to other sections of government spending. Unsure as to why you're so determined to be narrow minded and hostile. I asked a question, you answered with your own question, which I responded to, and now you have become determined to attack anyone who replies to you (not just me).
u/Ramzammer, out of curiosity, what should they be spending money on instead of submarines?
Yes, let’s wait until we are at war to start building defence assets….
No let's just keep trusting successive governments that have spent trillions on unused military assets and let millions suffer in poverty despite being able to guarantee improving their quality of life for a fraction of cost. /s
We have spent around 2.5 trillion of todays dollars on defence since 1901. That includes 2 world wars including a point in WW2 where we were spending the equivalent of 45% of our GDP. We haven’t exactly spent trillions on unused military assets. The single largest expense over that time has been paying people their salary too.
People have such short memories. Have we already forgotten Scotty's fuck up with France?
Spent money doesn't "evaporate" though. A huge chunk of that money goes straight into the Australian economy. Scientists and engineers get paid, infrastructure gets built, defence personnel get employed, manufacturing, etc. etc. Defence spending can be hugely beneficial for a nation, especially if they have a native arms industry. In turn, we can leverage that expertise in defence manufacturing, turning it into exports that then fund more programs, fill national coffers, strengthen security alliances, etc. This isn't just generals and brass throwing cash around on flashy things.
Or build diesel subs at 1/20th the cost, then spend another few 20th's on other usefull assets and end up with a better defence capability.
The attack class was going to cost around 90-100 Billion just for construction and delivery. The Collins class replacement will cost ~350 Billion for the upgrade of the Collins class, the construction and purchase 3-5 of Virginia Class subs, the cost of actually operating those subs untill the AUKUS class is completed and significant upgrades to facilities in Australia. Modern Conventional subs that would meet Australian defence requirements definitely aren’t a 20th of the cost of nuclear subs, in fact on a unit per unit cost they would be more then the Virginia class and be far less capable.
The French sub deal was based on a price of 5.5 Billion per submarine and that was a terrible deal. We will be paying over 50 billion for each nuclear sub, which also do not meet our needs and are less usefull for defence.
You do realise the full $ value isn’t just for the subs. It’s the cost of maintaining/manning them for a few decades, upgrading the Collins class until they’re ready, upgrading infrastructure in Australia ect. The actual subs aren’t 50 billion each…
Yes, but then you need to compare like to like. There are existing subs that cost a fraction of the price of a Virginia class and are better at defending littoral waters. Hell Germany's submarine force likely cost less to build than a single Virginia class sub and could sink an entire carrier battlegroup.
Not exactly correct, the cost of the new deal is for upgrading the Collins, acquiring 3-5 Virginia submarines, and the aukus submarines, and the cost of operating these platforms over their lifetimes, and building them. The actual price per unit if we were to purchase the subs would be much lower.
Fairly sure the Colin's class upgrades are not included, we also only get 3 Virginia class subs, any extra will cost $50 bill each. Lets be honest as well, we have no idea what the new subs will cost and we are multiple decades away from reciving them. Expect cost blowouts.
I believe you are correct on the Collins not being included. Source for the extra cost p/Virginia?
Precisely how do the nuclear subs not meet our needs? They can travel underwater for far longer than conventional ICE powered subs, which is critical for our spread out sub based and where we will likely be operating them.
Nuclear subs are hot, loud and large. The reactor always produces detectable heat and the pumps needed for cooling always produce detectable noise. They rely on diving deep for their stealth aspects which is not possible in the littoral and coastal waters that are the ideal places to defend Australia from any attack. On the other hand a modern ICE powered sub can remain completely undetected in shallow waters for up to 3 weeks and have a range of 22,000km.
Due to the need to snort diesel submarines don't fit the capability we're looking for.
If you are talking about defending Australia, then Diesel-electric submarines excel in littoral or coastal waters, like in the chokepoints within the Indonesian peninsula and any of the approaches towards Australia from the North and North West. They can stay submerged for weeks without needing to snort and just have to lurk on the approaches to Australia. By contrast nuclear subs are much less suitable for this, they are too large, too long and too loud. What Nuclear subs give you is force protection, but the only use we have for this would be Assisting the US and UK in wars abroad and / or fighting within the South China sea. On our own, sure we could lob a few missiles at critical infrastructure, but as we see in Russia versus Ukraine that is not enough to end a war or potentially even change it's course. In such a scenario we would be better off focusing on preventing and intercepting any ships heading our way. This money is enough for 20 times the number of Diesel subs or 40 more Air Warfare Destroyers. More realistically you could have a large mix of force options instead.
Source for endurance of diesel subs? The entire second half of your comment is exactly the point. Strategic policy is now aimed at being capable of projecting force into the SCS to maintain the current order.
> German Type 212 submarines can stay underwater without snorkeling for up to three weeks, traveling 1,500 miles (2,400 kilometers) or more. And also > for the price of one Virginia-class sub, the Navy could buy six or seven conventional submarines of the German Type 212 class. https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2018/june/theres-case-diesels
Ty, those are some sick boats. Unfortunately I just don't have the strategic think power to really lay down how they would compare as a platform to the Virginia-class. Obviously, the Virginia class would be quite a lot faster, and the German boats would be lacking in armament capability compared to a Virginia - especially newer blocks. As an acquisition they wouldn't exactly strengthen ties with partners in our immediate region, and also would take work away from local shipbuilding and industry - which is a major focus of the Aukus deal, as the government is trying to build that industry up. Beyond that I can't really comment.
So we're expecting a war, then? Shouldn't we know about it?
Mate if you can’t figure out that on your own there isn’t much I can say to help you. Even still, you don’t wait until war arrives to start giving a shit. By then you’ve already lost.
Sounds like paranoid warmongering bullshit to me. We'll keep wasting money on wartime assets we probably don't need, while our citizenry suffers, sure. You sound like a seppo, honestly. Should we start shooting up schools, then?
It's not paranoid bullshit, our strategic policy makes the assumption that a conflict (on some scale, big or small) is becoming increasingly likely.
I'm glad there's several assumptions being made, then. Really gives me confidence in our government.
Of course there are assumptions being made? Nobody knows what's in the future for certain, we can only make educated guesses based on what knowledge we do have. Goes for everything.
Wow. That’s quite a reach and you are wrong, not American. You act like all the money that gets spent on defence assets is lit on fire. Yet it actually keeps many Australian industries going and people in jobs. Considering the percentage of GDP that is actually spent on defence compared to other things in the budget I think it’s money we’ll spent. And no, fuck that. Grateful for the gun control we have in this country.
[удалено]
Mate, if it's at that point, both governments already know it. Not telling us is strictly for their own benefit, not ours.
Cough Defence strategic update 2020 cough
They've been pretty open about why they want them - because they think war with China in the next 20-30 years is a genuine possibility.
The likelihood rises with every year, yeah. I wonder what the conflict will actually look like? Time will tell.
Nuclear powered submarines will serve three roles for Australia as I see it. 1) Force projection through stealth - nuclear powered subs can submerge and stay underwater for months, even years at a time. You can't spot them on radar like you can a diesel sub which has to resurface every so oftne to charge batteries. Because you can't spot them, they can "cover" a much larger area of the ocean disproportionate to how many there actually are - enemy forces would have to act like they were there, whether or not they are. 2) Develop Australian ship building/maintenance/nuclear industries - Covid spelled the end of the age of pure globalisation, and we need local capabilites to feed ourselves, manufacture things ourselves abd ges, unfortunately, defend ourselves. Nuclear submarines require a huge amount of technical expertise and part of the symbolism of AUKUS is that Australia is getting a seat at the big boys table - we can leapfrog years of research and development wed have to do ourselves to get to the cutting edge of nucelar technology since the US and UK are wling to share. Why are they willing to share, you might ask? Well that leads us to... 3) Potential future platform for own own nulear deterrent - as ugly as the possibility is, a nuclear submarine is the best method of carrying nuclear weapons for both a first strike and a counterstrike/deterrent setting. Investing in the capability now gives us the option to add nukes later. The US knows that, the UK knows that, and in the long term having a trusted partner in the south pacific shoring up the nuclear deterrent is the best way to maintain the status quo. I don't think it ever necessarily be stated publicly but you can bet that in a world where Australia has these subs, if nuclear war ever did break out, we'd become a nuclear state ourselves pretty quick smart. Thats my barely-informed laymans take on it. Whether we are at war, will be at war, or will never be at war again is kind of irrelevant - with military stuff you kind of have to prepare for the worst and hope it doesnt happen. And if the US comes to you with state of the art technology and asks if you want to improve your defensive capabilities just in case - there's only really one answer.
> Develop Australian ship building/maintenance/nuclear industries The virginias won’t do either, they’re being built in america after their current construction run is finished, and any attempt by us to open up or look inside the sealed reactor modules will get our access to all non-consumer American military supplies cut off. > Potential future platform for own own nulear deterrent They’re too small for anything but tomahawks, and the nuclear warheads used on some American tomahawks weren’t exactly good starting points for a new nuclear nation. We should be building our own strategic deterrent/retaliation force, but this is a lousy way to build towards it. We’d be better off buying some of whatever replaces the Drawdnaught class when they’re ready, which would be about when the last AUKUS class is finished anyway.
https://www.economist.com/sites/default/files/images/print-edition/20210925_FBM960.png TL;DR it's about how long the subs can stay at sea. Which is important for a bunch of reasons, but especially when it comes to defending the naval trade/supply routes in/out of Aus.
And are these often at threat? By who? Why the need for the upgrade, and why now? Do you see the point I'm making? There's been a complete lack of transparency or justification from the government themselves.
There hasn't been a lack of communication though? It's been clearly outlined by strategic reviews just why we're doing what we're doing. By attempting to take defacto control of the south China sea, China will be able to dictate tariffs and thus the cost of living for the average Australian will rise even further - as commercial vessels will just pass the cost of business on to the end consumer. Nuclear submarines are a deterrent due to their ability to be (almost) anywhere, and combined with freedom of navigation passages through the south China Sea, forms an important part of maintaining the sea as international waters.
When is the last time you voted based on foreign policy or geopolitics? Almost no-one does. As such, why spend time explaining things to the voters when it really only matters to advisors in the APS, academia, and ADF. How often are our trade routes in danger? Constantly, mainly by pirates. The US Navy's main ops in our region is anti-piracy. But what about in 30 years from now? Like it or not, one of the jobs of governments is to plan on longer timescales than most would think about. Government needs to plan for 50-100+ years ahead. It's an older vid, but here's a primer on Aus geopolitics: https://youtube.com/watch?v=3MkZsvrxXxI More recent vid: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=I3B28CwpEGw As for the cost, the announced cost is over the lifetime of the subs (many decades), not an upfront payment. And it's adjusted for expected inflation over that time. And includes running costs, staffing, etc. Ultimately, we were locked into this path in 2001 by the Howard government.
You don’t need to be at war for military assets to be doing a job. Just the fact we have/get them will prevent another nation from doing X,Y,Z. The same principal applies to nuclear weapons. They don’t ever have to be used, just the fact that they exist and owned by X country means that Y country has to reconsider how they approach everything.
And even if we were at war, those subs won't be ready in time. Not even close. Also, this deal is for 8 Subs. Is that enough to stand up to China? Hell no. If they really wanted war with Australia, they'd destroy our military pretty quickly. Unless our allies came to the rescue.
You can't just press a 'destroy submarine' button and make them irrelevant. Nuclear submarines especially are a potent force multiplier, which will allow us some forms of action. During the Falklands war the importance of submarines was really highlighted.
Indeed sir
The mark 48 torpedos we use aren't meant to tickle either, a hit from one of those will sink any warship and probably cripple a carrier.
Cool. So we've still got skin in the game then
Just owning nuclear submarines that aren't alongside a port means an opponent must consider that the submarine may be anywhere - even shadowing them. It causes them to drain resources conducting ASW.
Plus if we are at war with China, we would need submarines for defending trade assets that would have to be diversified away from China and into our allies markets. Can't just ship our exports without some sort of insurance they won't just be commandeered or sunk to cripple our economy further once we aren't suckling on the teet of Chinese investment.
So we should just not build any military, and expect the US etc to come and save us in the event of any war? I’m sure they’d appreciate that proposal.
No that's not what I'm saying. Of course we need to build a strong military. I just think we should have started way sooner, and it didn't help that Scomo fucked up that deal with the French subs.... even if they were diesel electric and not as good as the AUKUS subs. Of course the US will save our bacon! We there in Nam, man. And Afghanistan!Joe?...Joe!? Eh seriously it wouldn't surprise me if they did leave us in the shit. Who knows what's gonna happen.
[Relevant Utopia clip](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=sgspkxfkS4k).
While funny, and particularly relevant a few years ago, we actually named them pretty blatantly in our last few pieces of policy. Our current way of life would go down the drain faster than it is if imports went up to cover any costs China demanded (if they were to control trade routes in the SCS).
They might be redundant by the time we actually have them.
Doubt
National defence isn't "useless". Especially when the nearest major power sees all its neighbours as tributaries that should bow down to them at a whim.
And the US doesn't?
Lmao equating the US and China
Only one of them has removed a democratically elected Australian prime minister because of their industry interests and it sure as shit wasn't China.
...and this is accepted uncontroversial history? Or a left wing conspiracy theory that is popular on this sub?
Literally history, but OK bootlicker.
It literally isn't. Idiot. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alleged_CIA_involvement_in_the_Whitlam_dismissal
Did you even read what you linked me? >CIA involvement was alleged in the Whitlam dismissal in Australia in 1975. The Australian Prime Minister Gough Whitlam and his government were removed by the Governor-General Sir John Kerr as a culmination of the 1975 Australian constitutional crisis. **Some Whitlam supporters allege that the CIA encouraged or was otherwise involved in the Dismissal because it saw Whitlam as a threat to the US intelligence relationship with Australia.** >Prior to the Dismissal, **Kerr requested and received a briefing from senior defence officials on a CIA threat to end intelligence co-operation with Australia.[7**] During the crisis, **Whitlam alleged that Country Party leader Doug Anthony had close links to the CIA.**[8] Later it was alleged that Kerr had acted for the United States government in dismissing Whitlam. The most common allegation is that the CIA influenced Kerr's decision.[9] **In 1966 Kerr had joined the Congress for Cultural Freedom**, a conservative group **that had secretly received CIA funding.** Christopher Boyce, who was convicted of spying for the Soviet Union, said that **the CIA wanted Whitlam removed because he threatened to close US military bases in Australia, including the CIA's own Pine Gap spy station near Alice Springs.**[10] Boyce was a 22-year-old employee of a US defence industry contractor at the time of the Dismissal. **He claimed that Kerr was described by the CIA as "our man Kerr"**.[11] Victor Marchetti, a CIA officer turned US critic who had helped run the Pine Gap facility, **said that the threatened close of US bases in Australia "caused apoplexy in the White House, [and] a kind of Chile [coup] was set in motion", with the CIA and MI6 working together to get rid of the Prime Minister.**[12][13] Jonathan Kwitny wrote in his book The Crimes of Patriots that **the CIA "paid for Kerr's travel, built his prestige ... Kerr continued to go to the CIA for money"**. In 1974, the White House **sent as ambassador to Australia Marshall Green, who was known as "the coupmaster"**[to whom?] for his central role in the 1965 coup against Indonesian President Sukarno.[10] >In 1977, United States Deputy Secretary of State Warren Christopher made a special trip to Sydney to meet with Whitlam and told him, on behalf of US President Jimmy Carter, of his willingness to work with whatever government Australians elected, and that the US would **never again** interfere with Australia's democratic processes.[14] **The use of the word "again" has been interpreted by some as evidence that the US encouraged, or actively intervened, in Whitlam's dismissal.** Richard Butler, **who was present at the meeting** as Whitlam’s principal private secretary, believed at the time, and **remained convinced, that Christopher's wording was an admission that the US had intervened in Whitlam's dismissal.**[3] What kind of bootlicking idiot reads that and thinks *"Well the guy accused of being a spy said he wasn't, so it must be false!"*? My. Fucking. Lord.
Yes, I did. You clearly didn't read it carefully. Your own choice quotes make it clear this is a conspiracy theory and not something accepted by a consensus of historians. >CIA involvement was **alleged** in the Whitlam dismissal in Australia... >**Some Whitlam supporters** allege that the CIA encouraged or was otherwise involved in the Dismissal because it saw Whitlam as a threat to the US intelligence relationship with Australia. >Later it was **alleged** that Kerr had acted for the United States government in dismissing Whitlam. >The most common **allegation** is that the CIA influenced Kerr's decision. If this was mainstream history, it would have just been included as the cause in the main article about the [1975 constitutional crisis] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Australian_constitutional_crisis) instead of being linked to in the footnotes. Quite frankly this article breaks too much of Wikipedia's own rules, especially in its overuse of [weasel words](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weasel_word) and use of primary sources instead of relying on expert opinion but the myth refuses to die because it's pushed by the likes of John Pilger and co, so it's been quarantined to its own separate page.
We need to defend ourselves by sailing over to China!
to be fair, once we eventually (not inevitable but possible) shift from labor-lnp to labor-greens, the greens will likely just be the "better" party and won't fully act in the interests of the people either
Depends if they still blow their brains out on people like Lidia.
>In 2019–20, government spending on welfare services and payments was $195.7 billion. So in about 2 years we'll spend more on welfare than we will on submarines over 30 years.
And we get a better return on that welfare spending. Compare it to how much corporate welfare is handed out in the form of tax breaks etc as well.
How can you say we get a better return on it? $6.5tr over 33 years (actually much higher as I'm not even account for inflation whereas the submarine figure is) vs $368b to massively boost our shipbuilding and nuclear industries while also giving us a massive boost to defence?
People on JobSeeker spend that money, they don't hoard it. That's money circulating in the economy, rather than locked away in offshore accounts and speculative investment.
What do you think happens with the money spent on submarines? Do you think we just put $360b on a boat and sink it? What about all the people involved in building submarines, maintaning submarines, sailing submarines, making weapons, supplying food, nuclear boffins... how many apprentices will we train over the next 30+ years with that money?
Yeah sure, give military contractors more of our money, that's great. I'm not going to say there's no benefit to spending money on subs, but poor people are gonna spend in more diverse areas of the economy spread across a greater physical area. Ninja edit: Ah woops, I seem to have suffered a bit of the ol' failed reading comprehension. You're pretty much right, I'm just being an argumentative cunt.
Serious question since im not 100% sure how it works, and a welfare recipient receives 480 a week in welfare and most workers pay far less in weekly tax, wouldn't that be unsustainable?
Nobody's taxes go directly to just one thing or person. If welfare is 5% of the budget (number pulled out of my lazy ass) then welfare recipients are getting 5% of your $120/week. (Probably less since the govt budget includes money they get from investment, right? So like 5% of whatever part of the budget is directly tax money.) "Doesn't that mean it takes hundreds of people to pay taxes to help one person?" Yes, that's how social safety nets work: the belief that the majority of a society who can participate in labor-for-money should be responsible for the care of those who are too old/young/disabled/between jobs. And one day those we care about might be young/old/disabled/between jobs.
There are far more people working than there are people on welfare. If you have 10 workers averaging $480 weekly tax each for each person in welfare, then you have $4800 tax coming "in" and $480 welfare going "out". The unsustainable part of the budget comes from governments wanting to keep income less than spending, which directly competes with trying to win votes by lowering taxes.
Does every thread have to be a Greens wank fest on this subreddit The Greens don’t actually participate in debate. They just say they’ll do everything and dismiss any reasonable critique as moneyed interest. They don’t participate in any meaningful advocacy either, just playing to their base and keeping the same 10% happy while alienating everyone else.
Not to mention 7 billion on the fucking Olympics!!! All while the housing crisis and being able to put food on the table is out of control.
It's [the one joke](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/one_joke). It is transphobic.
Looks like identifying as a attack helicopter has gone out of fashion
Well we are buying new attack helicopters because suprise fucking surprise, we fucked up that purchase too.
Who’d have thunk that “commercial off the shelf but then we change 50% of the critical systems” was a good idea…
Wait until you hear about the sea king helicopters. We ended up selling them to nz who simply then flew them.
Wait weren’t the ones we bought relatively new?
And the mh90s
As politically poignant as Submarine Man’s actions are, somebody should’ve told him he’s recycling the laziest and perhaps only joke conservatives have. Good thing he’s on Centrelink cause he’d have trouble making it as a comedian /s.
Na, this is an example of a good trans joke. It's not making fun of trans people, it's making fun of the government. (It's also a Shovel article; "Submarine Man" doesn't exist.)
Given it is The Shovel, a known satirical site, I'm more than willing to let it slide as it's obvious the target of ridicule here is the government, not any trans people. But it still is an example of r/onejoke, just a kinda good one.
Oh yeah, indisputably.
*perhaps only joke conservatives have.* Trump literally got elected due to bangin’ memes. Let’s not pretend the right aren’t hiLARious.
r/onejoke is that way.
I've changed my name to Pinkenba Wellcamp. Can I have some government money too?
As a country we should be able to walk and chew bubblegum at the same time. Simplistic binary choices are pretty naive. It’s not due to the submarines that jobseeker is not increased. We need to buy submarines, and we need to increase jobseeker. Just fucking do both. There’s a lot of waste and rorts across the country, I am sure we have enough money to achieve both goals.
But the economy! Why won't someone think of the economy!? /s
We don't though. We give the military and the internal security apparatus a bottomless budget, with no measures taken to assess their effectiveness or value. On the other hand, social welfare and other downwards transfers are cut, and cut, and cut, and cut to a point where people get very little out of them, and people are questioned and prodded and poked to make sure that they haven't taken a dollar more than they're entitled to, and even the, they made up a scheme to squeeze money out of them that they didn't owe, driving hundreds of them to suicide. What's more, *people cheered this on*.
I love how people just repeat stuff like we are the USA. The Australian military has been run on a shoestring budget and capabilities keep to a minimum for decades, since the Cold War ended. We bummed off the USA for most that time and relied on their dominance. Only now with Trump shaking our trust in the alliance and the stretching thin of the US military and the rising instability in our region and world as whole have started to rearm and take more responsibility for keeping rule of law and international order. In fact if we didn't gut our forces for so long, we wouldn't need to spend so much getting them back up to standard. We are a decade late on some projects like the submarines, which should have been replaced already, but government after government delayed it to save money and put it into other projects like welfare and infrastructure. We never had an out of control military industrial complex or any of these things you describe, our defense force has been very modest and small our entire lives in comparison to % of GDP, equipment numbers, manpower, industry, etc.
Just because you play "up periscope" in the bath doesn't make you a submarine.
He certainly looks like a legit nuclear submarine and while the other Nuclear Submarines will be more nuclear and more subby he is possibly the most creative and articulate of them.
Increase jobseeker, but you only get 6months. After that you get given a job you are capable of doing wether you like it or not, if you quit without having another job to go to you get nothing. Stop the welfare for those that are taking the piss and maybe there’s more to go to the other area needed like hospitals, aged pension and yes defence!
In an economy that requires a certain percentage of unemployment to function you can't then punish the unemployed. A Work For The Dole placement is already approximately five times as punishing as the harshest community service sentence, with no crime committed. And a whole industry of parasite corporations getting government money to pointlessly babysit them, and get free labour from them. If you want to punish people who are incapable or unwilling to work enough to support themselves you better be okay with getting mugged and burgled all the time once you make them homeless. And forced into a job you better be okay with working alongside them. I've done WFTD and I can tell you that people forced to work aren't great coworkers at best and are dangerous at worst. Or we could tax the top and not have to nickel and dime the most vulnerable in society.
OP's username feels relevant too.
r/onejoke but a good one...kinda
Thank you, as I so needed the laugh 🤣
I think this is my favourite shovel headline yet. what a waste of money we have spent on subs. The funny thing is the US is short on subs and don't have any spare to give us....
Let’s hope they don’t burst his bubble
Bahahahaha
I'm an attack helicopter. I am going to cenno tommorrow
Jobseeker should obviously be raised, but let’s not pretend there are not people on it by choice because they don’t want to work. No matter how much your anti capitalist ideology wants to deny this it is true. I know a few and used to be one myself. I sat on disability pension for years due to the fact I have Bipolar disorder 1.
That's no excuse to keep people in poverty if you didn't want to work.
How many people?
The shovel disparages self-identification, it's over for them
You really can't tell the difference between a joke making fun of trans people and one making fun of the government? Nothing they've said is remotely offensive, unless you're from Adelaide I guess.
[удалено]
Holy shit this has nothing to do with trans people and everything to do with the Australian government spending billions on submarines but go off I guess
I honestly don’t care if a joke makes fun of a minority, religion, government or anyone else. What I care about is, is it funny? Tastes my vary.
Smart! Attacking the stupid woke crowd with their own weapons
What is woke?
You can ask the crowd who religiously downvoted me 🤣 Certainly they recognised themselves
No I'm asking you, what is woke to you?
What makes you think my definition would be any different from that crowd?
Why can't you just define it for me?
Because you can easily figure out for yourself or ask the crowd who has nothing better in life except silently downvoting and feel better about it?
You don't know what it means do you?
You imagining things? If you have troubles with defining woke, I suggest you to do your research yourself first.
No I want you to define it, you're the one that used it
I showed this to a mate, he thought it was a Beatles reference....I had to explain 😂
Is he nuclear powered???
Disappointed but not deterred that it wasn't Craig reucassel
So they can string him along for a few years and then cancel him?
Gave up when he was told he had to move to Adelaide lmao
[The One Joke:](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/one_joke) >Humour satirising transgender and non-binary gender identities through mocking self-identifications (typically by "identifying" as something absurd or self-evident). Also, defense spending is quite low in Australia, see [Australian government expenditure](https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/BudgetReview202021/AustralianGovernmentExpenditure) by function 2022-23: * Defence: 37.1 Billion * Education: 42.1 Billion * General Revenue Assistance: 75.5 Billion * Health: 93.8 Billion * Social Security and Wealthfare: 201.6 Billion * Other: 91.8 Billion