bobbymike said:
Kadija_Man said:
bobbymike said:
http://www.nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/the-real-reason-australia-spending-billions-submarines-16098
*SIGH* its always all about China.
I'd recommend you read the 1986 Dibb Report for the real reason why Australia is putting money into submarines. The peripheral stuff has changed, the main reason has not. The adoption of submarines is all about deterrence of any potential invading nation's plans. Submarines force them to invest heavily in ASW warfare assets. No nation in our region presently has a large blue water ASW force.,,
Can things change in 30 years?
Of course they can. However, the reason why the COLLINS class was adopted and why the future submarines are being adopted haven't changed. Primarily they are a deterrent force, secondarily they are an expeditionary force. The primary reason given was because they were for use against China. That is part of their secondary raison de' entre'.
Secondly, I post stories that I believe will be of interest to members they do not necessary reflect my views. One of, I believe, the keys to a site like this is searching the web and starting informative threads for the benefit of all or most here.
That is the least I can do for the honor of being accepted as a member here.
Fair enough. My comment was directed against the reasons given by the article as to why Australia was purchasing 12 new submarines - for use against China. That is not the reason why Australia is purchasing 12 submarines. Despite what that article believes, the world does not revolve around America's contest over hegemonic control of the South China Sea with the PRC.
Here's a question for you and others, can the United States exist without perception of an external threat? To me, it doesn't appear that way.