Printable View
In fact, if the US really wanted to help Aus. They should setup the latest semi-conductor manufacturing plants here. That would really piss China off. Since China would have to invest 5 years to build up their semi-conductor manufacturing to reach the same level as US.
Imagine Aus supplying much needed micro-processors to the world.
Taiwan semi-conductor company in China can move to Australia that wil Piss them off even more.Quote:
Originally Posted by studsg
Quote:
Originally Posted by studsg
What are you say scomo is not good leadership. He is great knowing how to piss China off and get nuclear submarine.Quote:
Originally Posted by studsg
Quote:
Originally Posted by studsg
China only has to take over Taiwan to control the world’s larger semi conductor company TSMC. Just saying it.
More like pissing the French and the rest of EU offQuote:
Originally Posted by Climax598
Plus shut down our manufacturing like our car industry. And tell everyone to focus on digging... Iron ore... Look at where the price of iron ore is now
Taking over Taiwan will costs more and just end up like XinJiang where all the Anglo Saxon countries will simply refuse to buy any Taiwan products at that point. So would not be the best way to get hold of semi conductor technology.Quote:
Originally Posted by AHLUNGOR
Slightly different but still a good plan. Is we can move everything from Taiwan over here. If some smart leader can pull it off.Quote:
Originally Posted by Climax598
Set a 10 year plan and move all the Taiwan business and ppl that want to move to Aus and migrate everything here. Let China take over an empty island at the end of 10 years. That way everyone wins. Without using a single bullet.
The big win would be Aus will have a huge manufacturing industry of high tech factories producing, phones, semi conductor, LCD panels, etc.
Most importantly. We get a huge supply of Taiwanese ML and WL... Now tell me which party is promoting this plan and I'll vote for them
Manufacturing, in Australia? Dream on... The energy cost alone will make it not economically viable, don't even have to consider the wage cost. For that, we have the anti-nuke-power hippies to thank. I think the phrase "holier than thou" was invented for these numb-skulls.... They said "No, we won't have any part in developing fissile matter for nuclear bombs. Everyone else in the world can do it and enjoy cheap electricity, just not us. That's how we reduce nuclear bombs proliferation.". Here's a link:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclea...r.?wprov=sfla1
To me, this really is the root of all evil. This crucial factor of extremely high energy cost (in both monetary and environmental aspects) has created the following situation:
- no manufacturing industry in Australia
- the country has to rely heavily on other industries to survive
- one of them is mining. That makes us the economic slave to China
- other one is construction and real estate. That screws our younger generations.
- it also makes the cost of living in Australia disparately higher than everywhere else. This in turn makes it harder to control something like a pandemic through PHOs... There's just no leeway in people's lives and finances to do that.
If anyone has blood on their hands, it's this bunch of bozos who made it not possible for Australia to have nuclear power.
Amen! You are spot on.........Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.Quote:
Originally Posted by GoldfishMan
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 .
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.
Yes, agreed bro.Quote:
Originally Posted by Climax598
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.
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 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
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by asiafever
As long we don't modified it just build it as it is. It we'll be cheaper than the French subs.Quote:
Originally Posted by studsg
I more like how our Chinese Ml/Wl feels about this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Riff888
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by studsg
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by asiafever
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....Quote:
Originally Posted by GoldfishMan
At least we won't be gimped at the starting line like we are now...Quote:
Originally Posted by studsg
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by studsg