XPost: uk.d-i-y   
   From: tnp@invalid.invalid   
      
   On 17/09/2021 11:58, 72y33 wrote:   
   >   
   >   
   > "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...   
   wow. You START with an ad hominem!   
   >   
   > - Australia is not very heavily populated.   
   >> And is not very defensible.   
   >   
   > That is mindless bullshit.   
      
   And carry on with insults without addressing the basic point, that the   
   north of Australia is huge and empty, and there is nothing there to stop   
   chinese landing craft waltzing in, apart from submarines..   
   >   
   > And is full of pacifists who would probably   
   >> welcome them with open arms   
   >   
   > More mindless bullshit.   
   More insults and ad hominems. And complete lack of rational arguments   
   >   
   >>> Even the USA doesn’t have what it takes to do that.   
   >>   
   >> Course it does.   
   >   
   > Fraid not. No possibility of holding it.   
   No possibility of retaking it. How many men did it take to   
      
   (a) take   
   (b) retake the falklands?   
      
   >   
   > They couldn’t even manage that with Afghanistan.   
   >   
   They didn't even try   
      
   And the Afghans are far more likely to resist invasion than limp wristed   
   latte drinking urban hipster Australians   
      
      
   --   
   Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have   
   guns, why should we let them have ideas?   
      
   Josef Stalin   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)