• Deceptichum@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    34
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    edit-2
    7 months ago

    They have not given us nuclear subs, we paid for them and maybe in 2050 will get them assuming nothing happens to America before than.

    And we don’t fucking need them, why would we need to project our power out towards China to defend our local seas?

    That was almost $400 billion that could have been better put to use towards improving the lives of Australians at home.

    What America has given us is thousands of dead Australians across many stupid fucking seppo started wars.

    • Zagorath
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      7 months ago

      Seriously. I didn’t even think we needed the French deal, but breaking that to spend way more money on the Americans was such an embarrassing screw-up.

      • Deceptichum@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        7 months ago

        To be fair the French were trying to fuck us over as well by trying to change the deal to better suit them (more manufacturing done in France, when it was meant to help local industries here).

      • Deceptichum@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        7 months ago

        Just to clarify it’s only an Australian term, dunno why its added UK and Ireland there.

    • muntedcrocodile@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      20
      ·
      7 months ago

      You my friend are clearly a moron. We paid for the subs but in the proccess did not have to pay for the development progam the manufacture program the logistic systems etc etc. Its called scalles of efficency producing one nuclear sub costs almost as mich as producing 2 hence we give the USA the money to make a few for us at far below the cost for us to build 1. We are not the only people doing this and thus the price per unit drops for everyone its far far far more efficient. Assuming nothing happens to the US well thats the risk but australia cant support a nuclear sub program by owselves so we have to go to the market and the US is a better bet than buying from other producers hence we dropped france (sorry cheese eatibg surrender monkeys).

      We dont need em huh? Do u not read the news china is fuckibg with our allies using warships to bully fishermen out of their own soverign waters china is an international bully who does not respect borders of international law are u saying we should drop our allies and tell em sorry we are just gonna sit here and whatch u get bullied nothing we can do?

      Due to the global proliferation of long range missiles our water barrier that has usually kept us safe is now completly usless a submaribe lurking is a very good incentive that such an act will not go unpunished.

      $400 billion is the cost of security for both us and our allies security and economic stability.

      Dead soldiers huh isnt that their job if u dont like it dont sign up its called self determination and happens to be one of the fundamental beleifs that america belives in. The alternative is building our own nukes prohibitavly expensive or releying on existing nuclear powers again the maths on if they would actually help us says no compared to the us.

      The goal of thr australian military at the moment is to hold the the CCP long enough the the americabs to turn bejing into a fucking carpark.