XPost: uk.d-i-y   
   From: 72y33@gmail.com   
      
   "The Natural Philosopher"  wrote in message   
   news:si1rqg$123$2@dont-email.me...   
   > On 17/09/2021 11:30, 72y33 wrote:   
   >> The Natural Philosopher  wrote   
   >>> Pancho wrote   
   >>   
   >>>> I thought nuclear armed subs were essentially a first strike weapon.   
   >>>> They can hide just offshore of the target, reducing warning time to a   
   >>>> few minutes.   
   >>> That tooo.   
   >>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>> ICBMs are just as effective for retaliation, and much cheaper. They can   
   >>>> be mobile and so hard to destroy. The problem is they take much longer   
   >>>> from launch to arrival and give the target nation time to react to an   
   >>>> attack.   
   >>>   
   >>> The whole point of first strike was to take out fixed icbm sites to   
   >>> prevent retaliation   
   >>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>> But we aren't giving the Aussies nuclear bombs are we? We are just   
   >>>> giving them nuclear powered subs.   
   >>>>   
   >>> I believe so.   
   >>> They are most useful to destroy incoming naval craft  - the chinese dont   
   >>> want to bomb Taiwan, or Australia - they want to annex it.   
   >>   
   >> There is no possibility of China annexing Australia.   
      
   > Every possibility I would say   
      
   More fool you...   
      
   - Australia is not very heavily populated.   
   > And is not very defensible.   
      
   That is mindless bullshit.   
      
   And is full of pacifists who would probably   
   > welcome them with open arms   
      
   More mindless bullshit.   
      
   >> Even the USA doesn’t have what it takes to do that.   
   >   
   > Course it does.   
      
   Fraid not. No possibility of holding it.   
      
   They couldn’t even manage that with Afghanistan.   
      
   >>>> I was more intrigued by the idea of nuclear powered container ships.   
   >>>   
   >>> Indeed.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)