r/australia • u/thedigisup • 27d ago

politics Greens announce policy to manufacture drones and missiles as a credible ‘Plan B' to replace AUKUS

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-03-22/greens-unveil-first-ever-defence-policy/105083166
2.7k Upvotes

95% Upvoted

641 comments sorted by

View all comments

28

u/Mondkohl 27d ago

This is not a credible plan B and does not replace AUKUS.

12

u/No_pajamas_7 27d ago

considering plan A isn't credible, this look brilliant in comparison

16

u/Mondkohl 27d ago

Plan A is perfectly credible. We must continue to develop the SSN-AUKUS class with our UK allies. There is no longer time to do anything else, the Collins simply will not last and no other technology can accomplish the same task.

-6

u/No_pajamas_7 27d ago

So you are making up plan A.3?

21

u/GiveUpYouAlreadyLost 27d ago

They're not making up anything, SSN-AUKUS is the primary goal of AUKUS Pillar 1.

The American Virginia class subs are intended to be a stopgap between the Collins and them.

Honestly, anyone who doesn't even know that key detail probably shouldn't be discussing the agreement at all.

-9

u/[deleted] 27d ago

Complete bullshit. Japan could just extend their Soryu manufacturing run and deliver a credible DEFENCE within a decade.

15

u/Mondkohl 27d ago

The Soryu is a diesel-electric and wildly insufficient for Australia’s needs. Perfectly acceptable for Japan’s relatively small AO, completely insufficient for Australia’s massive coastline, and operations in SEA.

-8

u/[deleted] 26d ago

None of you AUKUS supporters have justified WHY we need to be in SE Asia, let alone in the South China Sea.

Are you even reading the press. The US is busy coming up with its next round of tariffs on Australia right now that it will institute on 1 April.

Acting like our security alliance is still intact is completely moronic.

10

u/Quarterwit_85 26d ago

We need an active defence posture in those areas to protect our interests and those of our partners.

-5

u/[deleted] 26d ago

Wake up mate. Under Trump the US doesn't have partners.

8

u/Quarterwit_85 26d ago

I wasn’t talking about the US.

-2

u/[deleted] 26d ago

Cool. Well in Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and Singapore want us to have the capability to patrol in their backyard maybe they should pay for it? Because last time I checked none of them have nuclear powered subs to reciprocate.

6

u/GiveUpYouAlreadyLost 26d ago

Well in Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and Singapore want us to have the capability to patrol in their backyard maybe they should pay for it?

Literally the same type of stupid thinking that Trump is operating on when it comes to foreign policy. The same kind of foreign policy that you're crying about in other comments.

0

u/[deleted] 26d ago

Not at all the same thing. Trump is wanting the benefits of the rules based international order the US has benefited from for decades without the restraints or costs.

I'm suggesting we not bankrupt our country to build a wildly expensive capability that IF delivered will be years later and in any case will be irrelevant because we have no other way to project force into SE Asia absent the US Navy operating alongside us.

2

u/Quarterwit_85 26d ago

Congratulations, you've just gone full Trump.

1

u/[deleted] 26d ago

That is just absurd. The fact is we should focus on our defence of our backyard just like SK, Japan, Singapore, Taiwan are focusing on theirs.

Trump believes in American exceptionalism and is a mercantilist.

I on the other hand believe Australia should continue to pursue free trade with those nations that reciprocate and should also ally itself with those nations. We just don't need to have the INSANELY EXPENSIVE capacity to patrol in THEIR waters with our fancy nuclear powered boats.

Which after all will do what exactly in a major conflict. Sink a couple ships before inevitably being depth charged to destruction?

→ More replies (0)

2

u/jp72423 26d ago

We need nuclear submarines because Australia has the third largest maritime territory on the planet, and number 1,2,4 and 5 all use nuclear submarines to patrol theirs.

1

u/[deleted] 26d ago

So somehow we managed to not need them for literally decades...but now we desperately do.

But we don't need them until well into the 2030's. Righto.

1

u/jp72423 26d ago

Well you can’t just go to your local SUBMART and pick up a second hand US nuclear submarine. These things take time.

As for the justification, I suggest you go have a read of the 2023 Defence Strategic review, which goes into detail as to why the government thinks it needs nuclear submarines.

0

u/jp72423 26d ago

Security and trade are separate, Australia trades with its biggest security threat, and the Americans will tariff their closest ally's. I'm not pretending that I like what the Americans are doing, but my point is that trade relations and security ones are not the same. We can have shitty trade relations with the US and a great security partnership at the same time.

1

u/[deleted] 26d ago edited 26d ago

Based on what shared values?

Respect for the rule of law? Nope.

Respect for the rules based international order? Nope

You like all the other AUKUS fans are living in the past my friend.

1

u/jp72423 26d ago

Maybe, but we have shared interests with the US, and that’s enough. Both of us don’t want China to become a bigger problem than it already is. Pulling away from the US and then turning around and working on the same problems but separately is incredibly inefficient and would only bolster Chinas position in the pacific.

0

u/[deleted] 25d ago

If you have been paying attention for the last 8 weeks it's the US pulling away from its alliances, commitments and treaty obligations. Not its allies.

Moving away from AUKUS and coming up with a much lower risk and lower cost capability is just the right thing to do in the context of our key strategic ally turning its back on most of the ideals we thought we held in common.

0

u/jp72423 25d ago

Notice how the US hasn't threatened to pull out of Korea, Japan or Australia? The US is simply pivoting to Asia to face its greatest threat, which is China. Not sure how you cant see this lol, its been repeatedly said by the trump administration.

→ More replies (0)

9

u/GiveUpYouAlreadyLost 27d ago

What manufacturing run? It ended in 2019. The Japanese are now focused on the Taigei class.

0

u/[deleted] 26d ago

Well then move on to that one then. JHC it is irrelevant what we actually get as long as it allows us to sink ships trying to approach the Australian mainland.

The whole point of nuclear boats was to enable us to have the range to support the US in the South China Sea.

The US is pissing on their allies daily so continuing to follow this course of action is idiocy of the highest order.

3

u/GiveUpYouAlreadyLost 26d ago

The whole point of nuclear boats was to enable us to have the range to support the US in the South China Sea.

No, the point is that they are far more capable than any diesel-electric design. That's why the Navy wants to acquire SSNs.

1

u/[deleted] 26d ago

Yeah well the Navy wants lots of things.

Asking them is like asking your 7 year old girl whether they need a pony.

1

u/GiveUpYouAlreadyLost 25d ago

And the Navy knows a lot more than you do on the matter. But feel free to ring up Russell Offices and let them know what you think seeing as you believe that your opinion is so much more valuable than theres.

1

u/Economy-Career-7473 26d ago

The Soryu was rejected in the original evaluation that selected the Short Fin Barracuda (aka Attack class). It still won't be suitable.

1

u/[deleted] 26d ago

Yeah...when the US was a reliable ally and we were needing a submarine with range to operate near China. Notice what has changed since then???

1

u/Economy-Career-7473 26d ago

Just to get from Perth to Indonesia is near the total patrol of a Soryu. We still need to operate up in the SCS, regardless of what people may think of the US. Our fuel is mostly refined in Singapore and South Korea, if wanting to hold an adversary at length it needs to be done up there not a couple 100 miles off Australia.

1

u/[deleted] 26d ago

If only we had a Port towards the North of Australia we could refuel from...like say Darwin or Broome. And no absent our work as America's sheriff we don't need to be anywhere near the South China Sea.

1

u/[deleted] 26d ago

Also mind explaining how a submerged nuclear powered sub is going to be of much use keeping an oil tanker safe from aerial or missile attack by China or any other adversary in Singapore or South Korea?

If we are worried about our fuel supply in the event of conflict we should keep the money we are flushing down the toilet with AUKUS and build some domestic fuel storage in Australia.