The French aren't very happy with us

[Climax598]

Moving all Taiwanese to here nowhere is going to happen because it well be 50% Taiwanese added to our population. More like getting their highly educated and rich business people, and special visa for WL/ML .

[asiafever]

Australia gaining nuclear powered submarines is only a small but sexy part of the story. Remembering that nuclear powered subs are not nuclear weaponised subs, it makes us one of only 7 countries with nuclear subs and the ones we are getting are top shelf. 8 subs would give us roughly half the fleet China currently has (US has roughly 70, dwarfing the rest of the world's fleet combined).
The real story that has been overlooked is that the treaty is about sharing military technologies, and we are about to gain air and sea launched cruise missiles. Some with long range capabilities, meaning from our far north Straits of Malacca and the South China sea will be reachable.
Now much has been made of China having the biggest navy by number of craft, roughly 700 ships. Most of these have a range of about 1000-1500km from base so no long range capability. If you look at the gross tonnage of their fleet it is 4-5 times smaller than America's and only about the size of a combined Japan and India. China is 100% dependant on imported raw materials and foreign markets, and the shipping routes are the only way to access these in the volumes required. For us to have access to weapons we can lob in to the most important route, the maritime Silk Road if you like, with India guarding the Indian ocean, the US dominating the Pacific and a ring of small countries that punch well above their weight in Korea, Japan and Taiwan (All of who have invested heavily in defence systems to protect against Chinese Air Force and missile threats), China is now surrounded, and we are now one of only 3 countries that can cripple these Chinese supply lines from beyond the range of the majority of their forces, and thus cripple their economic and political system if push comes to shove.

[GoldfishMan]

Now we know we depending on other people to manufacture thinks for us. I too was not happy when likes car was not manufacture here anymore. With this covid and China boycott we know now how fuck we are. The only way is nuclear energy. I know it takes time and have the political wells to do it.

Yes, agreed bro.
Let's think of it this way. Imagine if the entire planet was one big country without borders separating "this is yours, that is ours". Under that scenario, if you really wanted to do what's best for the "country", to ensure that each area was functioning at its best yet does not pollute the rest of the world, where are all the best places where you would put nuclear power stations?
The criteria would be places that are not prone to natural disasters (earthquakes, typhoons, etc), and that are sparsely populated. Australia would be top of that list for sure! Yet here we are, a victim of our own NIMBY-ism taken to the extreme.

[studsg]

While I agree nuclear power stations should definitely be one of the our sources of power replacing coal and gas power plants. However, that's not the main source for why our energy costs are high.

Many countries that do not have nuclear power plants also have cost competitive manufacturing. Singapore has a thriving semi-conductor sector, they even process all the fuel we produce but deem too expensive to process onshore. Thailand makes all our Japan car imports, Malaysia produces computers, sound systems, Etc. I would say the key factor is high labour costs that has crippled our ability for any form of manufacturing.

[Riff888]

I have a few French mates living in Sydney. I wonder how they feel about all this.

When I was travelling around Europe, I was told to avoid France because I didn't speak French.

But all the French people I've met here are really cool and most of the women are beautiful and super friendly.

Sent from my GM1910 using Tapatalk

[studsg]

While it's sexy to have the latest weapons. We also have to think how we gonna pay for them ?

We've committed Billions for those long range missiles based on when iron ore prices were 60% higher and still climbing... And iron ore is pretty much the largest contributor to our economy.

Do we reckon these 8 latest sexy subs will cost less than the French ones ? I doubt so, unless our buddies from US and UK are gonna give them to us free.

[Climax598]

Australia gaining nuclear powered submarines is only a small but sexy part of the story. Remembering that nuclear powered subs are not nuclear weaponised subs, it makes us one of only 7 countries with nuclear subs and the ones we are getting are top shelf. 8 subs would give us roughly half the fleet China currently has (US has roughly 70, dwarfing the rest of the world's fleet combined).
The real story that has been overlooked is that the treaty is about sharing military technologies, and we are about to gain air and sea launched cruise missiles. Some with long range capabilities, meaning from our far north Straits of Malacca and the South China sea will be reachable.
Now much has been made of China having the biggest navy by number of craft, roughly 700 ships. Most of these have a range of about 1000-1500km from base so no long range capability. If you look at the gross tonnage of their fleet it is 4-5 times smaller than America's and only about the size of a combined Japan and India. China is 100% dependant on imported raw materials and foreign markets, and the shipping routes are the only way to access these in the volumes required. For us to have access to weapons we can lob in to the most important route, the maritime Silk Road if you like, with India guarding the Indian ocean, the US dominating the Pacific and a ring of small countries that punch well above their weight in Korea, Japan and Taiwan (All of who have invested heavily in defence systems to protect against Chinese Air Force and missile threats), China is now surrounded, and we are now one of only 3 countries that can cripple these Chinese supply lines from beyond the range of the majority of their forces, and thus cripple their economic and political system if push comes to shove.

That why China is mad and piss off with Australia. There sea trade routes is being checkmate like in chess. There wolf warrior didn't calculate that Australia can go nuclear. Just watch if Japan going to build their own nuclear submarine if they do then China is really box in.

[Climax598]

While it's sexy to have the latest weapons. We also have to think how we gonna pay for them ?

We've committed Billions for those long range missiles based on when iron ore prices were 60% higher and still climbing... And iron ore is pretty much the largest contributor to our economy.

Do we reckon these 8 latest sexy subs will cost less than the French ones ? I doubt so, unless our buddies from US and UK are gonna give them to us free.

As long we don't modified it just build it as it is. It we'll be cheaper than the French subs.

[Climax598]

I have a few French mates living in Sydney. I wonder how they feel about all this.

When I was travelling around Europe, I was told to avoid France because I didn't speak French.

But all the French people I've met here are really cool and most of the women are beautiful and super friendly.

Sent from my GM1910 using Tapatalk

I more like how our Chinese Ml/Wl feels about this.

[GoldfishMan]

While I agree nuclear power stations should definitely be one of the our sources of power replacing coal and gas power plants. However, that's not the main source for why our energy costs are high.

Many countries that do not have nuclear power plants also have cost competitive manufacturing. Singapore has a thriving semi-conductor sector, they even process all the fuel we produce but deem too expensive to process onshore. Thailand makes all our Japan car imports, Malaysia produces computers, sound systems, Etc. I would say the key factor is high labour costs that has crippled our ability for any form of manufacturing.

I wouldn't agree with comparing us to a country like SG. All the parameters are different. For example, population density in SG is much greater than in Australia. One street lamp in SG illuminates an area for a far greater number of people than a street lamp in Australia. That pushes up the overall price of energy in Australia even if both these countries do not use nuclear power.

There's also the geographical location factor. SG is in a strategic location having many neighbouring poorer countries. They can leverage on that by signing extremely competitive supply agreements with their neighbours for just about everything... Water (check how stupid the Malaysian gov was to sign a FIXED PRICE contract to supply water to SG; they're actually paying money to supply SG with water now, due to inflation!) , energy, etc. Can't do any of that in a huge isolated country like Australia.

[studsg]

Australia gaining nuclear powered submarines is only a small but sexy part of the story. Remembering that nuclear powered subs are not nuclear weaponised subs, it makes us one of only 7 countries with nuclear subs and the ones we are getting are top shelf. 8 subs would give us roughly half the fleet China currently has (US has roughly 70, dwarfing the rest of the world's fleet combined).
The real story that has been overlooked is that the treaty is about sharing military technologies, and we are about to gain air and sea launched cruise missiles. Some with long range capabilities, meaning from our far north Straits of Malacca and the South China sea will be reachable.
Now much has been made of China having the biggest navy by number of craft, roughly 700 ships. Most of these have a range of about 1000-1500km from base so no long range capability. If you look at the gross tonnage of their fleet it is 4-5 times smaller than America's and only about the size of a combined Japan and India. China is 100% dependant on imported raw materials and foreign markets, and the shipping routes are the only way to access these in the volumes required. For us to have access to weapons we can lob in to the most important route, the maritime Silk Road if you like, with India guarding the Indian ocean, the US dominating the Pacific and a ring of small countries that punch well above their weight in Korea, Japan and Taiwan (All of who have invested heavily in defence systems to protect against Chinese Air Force and missile threats), China is now surrounded, and we are now one of only 3 countries that can cripple these Chinese supply lines from beyond the range of the majority of their forces, and thus cripple their economic and political system if push comes to shove.

Hmm... this one is interesting. Here we have the QUAD, etc on all Media channels saying we are sending our Navies to South China Sea to ensure that it remains "Free and Open"... but we know as does China. It's about blocking the supply of shipments to and from China. Hence, China is upping their ante to secure the South China Sea to ensure their shipping supply lines remain open. And we say we are not creating an arms race. The Irony of it.

[studsg]

I wouldn't agree with comparing us to a country like SG. All the parameters are different. For example, population density in SG is much greater than in Australia. One street lamp in SG illuminates an area for a far greater number of people than a street lamp in Australia. That pushes up the overall price of energy in Australia even if both these countries do not use nuclear power.

There's also the geographical location factor. SG is in a strategic location having many neighbouring poorer countries. They can leverage on that by signing extremely competitive supply agreements with their neighbours for just about everything... Water (check how stupid the Malaysian gov was to sign a FIXED PRICE contract to supply water to SG; they're actually paying money to supply SG with water now, due to inflation!) , energy, etc. Can't do any of that in a huge isolated country like Australia.

Fair enough to leave out SG. But say even if we do deploy Nuclear Power Stations here. Will that "Really" send our labour costs down to be able to build a Manufacturing Industry to compete against say Korea ? Japan ? Taiwan ? Spain ? and the list goes on....

[GoldfishMan]

Fair enough to leave out SG. But say even if we do deploy Nuclear Power Stations here. Will that "Really" send our labour costs down to be able to build a Manufacturing Industry to compete against say Korea ? Japan ? Taiwan ? Spain ? and the list goes on....

At least we won't be gimped at the starting line like we are now...

[GoldfishMan]

Besides, everything adds up. Energy cost affects every aspect of life. This is a simplistic view, but on an individual level, lower power bills = lower cost of living = lower wages required. Or, lower power bills = lower cost to run the country = (hopefully) lower taxes = again lower wages required. Hell even the cost of petrol will be affected because instead of using the fuel to generate electricity, there's more to go into cars. And now with EVs, the effect would be even more profound.

It's defo more complicated than the above, but the point is, energy cost is a major input to all these calculations.

[Climax598]

Fair enough to leave out SG. But say even if we do deploy Nuclear Power Stations here. Will that "Really" send our labour costs down to be able to build a Manufacturing Industry to compete against say Korea ? Japan ? Taiwan ? Spain ? and the list goes on....

If Scandinavian countries can do it I don't see why we can't. We just to have some back bone and the well to achieve.

[GoldfishMan]

On a side note, I hope I didn't jinx us. No sooner have I posted about us being a safe place for nuke power, we get earthquakes on the Eastern states! 😂😂

[Climax598]

Besides, everything adds up. Energy cost affects every aspect of life. This is a simplistic view, but on an individual level, lower power bills = lower cost of living = lower wages required. Or, lower power bills = lower cost to run the country = (hopefully) lower taxes = again lower wages required. Hell even the cost of petrol will be affected because instead of using the fuel to generate electricity, there's more to go into cars. And now with EVs, the effect would be even more profound.

It's defo more complicated than the above, but the point is, energy cost is a major input to all these calculations.

In France 70% of their energy are from nuclear so they don't depends on oil that much with EV coming using oil will be so less. That's why Europe,UK can move to EV by 2030. I wouldn't say we have to have 70% nuclear power but at least some nuclear power, some solar,some hydro,some wind

[studsg]

If Scandinavian countries can do it I don't see why we can't. We just to have some back bone and the well to achieve.

First we need to be weaned off the mining industry pulling our politicians strings to keep pushing all federal sponsorship towards them, i.e. Federal sponsored coal and gas power plants, Federal sponsored diesel discounts and the list goes on... So not sure about the backbone part, but they definitely have strings up their arses

[studsg]

On a side note, I hope I didn't jinx us. No sooner have I posted about us being a safe place for nuke power, we get earthquakes on the Eastern states! ����

Definitely you mate

Our 1st site for Nuclear Plant should be on Ayers Rock... solid foundation there in the middle of nowhere... and we can divert our submarine contract to a Nuclear power plant contract with the French too

But heck, we have so much desert in the middle of Aus, we can easily build 10 Nuclear power plants each producing GigaWatts of power to power all of Aus. Worst case if they blow up... we'll become the 5 Islands of Aus + Tassie

[dotcumdotinyou]

Nuclear Power station would need to be within reasonable range of a constant water supply, so that would rule out maralinga (it was was contaminated by the brits in the 50s, and "supposedly" cleaned up in the 90s).
WA near the ord river would be a good site.