XPost: uk.d-i-y   
   From: rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com   
      
   Fredxx  wrote   
   > 72y33 wrote   
   >> The Natural Philosopher  wrote   
   >>> 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.   
   >   
   > Is Australia equally corrupt and inhabited by religious freaks too   
   > seemingly all too happy to commit suicide in human guided weapons?   
      
   Nope, but doesn’t need to be to make it impossible for the yanks   
   to hold it if they were actually stupid enough to try invading.   
      
   > I'm surprised you're willing to draw the comparison?   
      
   There is no comparison.   
      
   > But then you in Australia and I don't.   
      
   >>>>>> 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)