Daily review 16/09/2021

28 comments on “Daily review 16/09/2021 ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Gristle 1

   16 September 2021 at 5:56 pm

   Nuclear powered submarines for Australia. Biden says they will be conventionally armed. But if you look at the economics the only effective payload for a missile on a nuclear powered sub is nuclear.

   Biden had to say conventionally armed missiles as the anti nuclear proliferation treaties say that the cannot transfer these technologies. But my guess is that the submarine missile systems will be capable of carrying a nuclear payload.
   • alwyn 1.1

     16 September 2021 at 6:17 pm

     Why should they be carrying nuclear weapons? I have seen them described as Attack submarines. They aren't supposed to be carrying ballistic missiles. They are for attacking other submarines and surface ships. You don't need nuclear weapons to do that.
     • Gezza 1.1.1

       16 September 2021 at 6:25 pm

       Might depend on how they're configured:

       The Block III submarines have two multipurpose Virginia Payload Tubes (VPT) replacing the dozen single purpose cruise missile launch tubes.

       The Block V submarines built from 2019 onward will have an additional Virginia Payload Module (VPM) mid-body section, increasing their overall length. The VPM will add four more VPTs of the same diameter and greater height, located on the centerline, carrying up to seven Tomahawk missiles apiece… – Wikipedia

       Although Scomo is saying they will "not be nuclear-armed in any way, shape or form", The Chinese may nevertheless assume the worst … ?
       • greywarshark 1.1.1.1

         16 September 2021 at 6:38 pm

         Why would this be happening?

         Hypersonic missile delivery platforms sitting off the coast of China represents a first strike capacity that would strategically upend China’s desires in the South China Sea.

         Australia is committing to this kind of alarming escalation against its largest trading partner because America has made it clear that they will turn on Australia if they don’t!

         The very excellent Caitlin Johnstone points this out devastatingly…

         If readers are curious why Australia would simultaneously subvert its own economic interests by turning against its primary trading partner and its own security interests by feeding into dangerous and unnecessary provocations, I will refer them once again to the jarringly honest explanation by American political analyst John Mearsheimer at a debate hosted by the Australian think tank Center for Independent Studies in 2019. Mearsheimer told his audience that the US is going to do everything it can to halt China’s rise and prevent it from becoming the regional hegemon in the East, and that Australia should align with the US in that battle or else it would face the wrath of Washington.

         https://thedailyblog.co.nz/2021/09/16/australias-shock-nuclear-sub-program-aukus-represent-alarming-escalation-of-tension-with-china/
         • Gezza 1.1.1.1.1

           16 September 2021 at 7:27 pm

           “Australia is committing to this kind of alarming escalation against its largest trading partner because America has made it clear that they will turn on Australia if they don’t!”
           …
           That’s my assumption too. Although ever since WW2 the Ozzers seem to have been playing the part of America’s lapdog client state, strategically speaking. They seem to be always leading the charge, along with the UK , to rush into taking part in the US’s ill-advised military adventures. (Although the UK had enuf sense to stay out of their Vietnam debacle, back in the days when they actually had an independent foreign policy .)

           I’m having to post with javascript disabled at the moment. Will close out & re-enable it to watch that YouTube video.
           • Brigid 1.1.1.1.1.1

             16 September 2021 at 8:48 pm

             " UK had enuf sense to stay out of their Vietnam debacle"

             Not entirely

             Look up BRIAM
             • Gezza …

               16 September 2021 at 9:25 pm

               “The British Advisory Mission to Vietnam (BRIAM) was established in September 1961. It was headed by Robert Thompson, who had gained experience in anti-guerrilla-warfare in Malaya.

               Contrary to the widely accepted view, Thompson did not conceive the Strategic Hamlet Programme that was announced in February 1962. While working for the adoption of methods used during the Malayan emergency, including strategic hamlets, Thompson was disappointed that its own strategy – the Delta Plan – got lost in the Strategic Hamlet Programme.

               Once Thompson had become resigned to the fact that he had to give advice within the framework of the Strategic Hamlet Programme, he began to believe in its ultimate success, and informed President John F. Kennedy in early 1963 that the defeat of the communist insurgents was imminent.”
               ..
               Interesting. I’ll have a dekko at this thesis…
               https://aquila.usm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1306&context=masters_theses

               Although the UK notably chose not to send truppen & other significant military assets to participate in the US’s accelerating commitment. I always assumed they simply decided after the French debacle at Dien Ben Phi that they wanted no part in fighting for a former French colony.
               • Gezza …

                 16 September 2021 at 11:40 pm

                 Bugger. *Phu.
                 Blinken small screens!
         • McFlock 1.1.1.1.2

           16 September 2021 at 8:23 pm

           lol Australia is not going to launch a preemptive attack against mainland China, nukes or not.

           It could well send subs into areas China has arbitrarily declared "mine" for intelligence, or monitor sealane use and interference.

           As for hegemonies, geopolitics are the rules of the playground or the gangster. Cliques form. Everyone wants to be the king, and the smaller players suck up to the bigger ones for their own protection. Meanwhile the clique leaders are running their own game, which might prefer long term peace rather than conflict – but they still have to look tought to their henchmen/ the other Heathers.

           China is expanding. Carriers are about power projection: not land invasions, but "fuck you up, anywhere, anytime". When China has 3 in the next few years it will be able to do constant deployments, rotating between refit, training, and active service.

           The interesting question is where they choose to emphasise that projection: Indian Ocean or Eastern Pacific, in addition to increasing their dominance and expansion into the South China Sea.
           • Gezza 1.1.1.1.2.1

             16 September 2021 at 9:01 pm

             The Chinese response is, predictably:
             …
             “Chinese foreign ministry spokesperson, Zhao Lijian, said the US and the UK’s decision to export highly sensitive nuclear-powered submarine technology to Australia was a case of “extremely irresponsible” double standards.”

             “The international community, including neighbouring countries, have risen to question [Australia’s] commitment to nuclear non-proliferation,” Zhao said, according to a translation aired by ABC News. “China will closely monitor the situation.”

             “Zhao said the three countries “should abandon the obsolete Cold War zero sum mentality and narrow-minded geopolitical concepts and respect regional people’s aspiration and do more that is conducive to regional peace and stability and development – otherwise they will only end up hurting their own interests”.
             …
             More…
             https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/sep/16/cold-war-mentality-china-criticises-aukus-us-uk-australia-submarine-pact
             …
             China wants to be properly recognised as the new big kid on the block in its own back yard. The old colonial powers, in their view, have had their day in the South China Sea & are not going to be tolerated pushing China around.

             If Ozzer subs eventually start popping up there they’re going to get “hazed”, like the US ships & planes are. The interesting thing will be seeing whether China starts sending warships into the Indian Ocean to give the Ozzers a taste of their own medicine.
   • Gristle 1.2

     16 September 2021 at 7:11 pm

     There is an entire supply chain that Australia needs to build. Nuclear enrichment facilities for reactor fuel. Reactor servicing facilities. Spent reactor fuel handling and processing facilities.
     • woodart 1.2.1

       16 September 2021 at 8:03 pm

       maybe not. part of the huuuge cost of these white elephants (thats an interesting mental image) could be ongoing trips back to the motherland for w.o.f. checks. either way, aus taxpayers have just signed up to a huge pentagon con. if you do a bit of googling it turns out that nuclear subs have only a couple of advantages, but many disadvantages over conventional diesel-electric subs. apart from being able to stay submerged for an entire 90 day tour , and a bit of extra speed , they are a far worse proposition . a gigantic con game for american military industry.
       • roblogic 1.2.1.1

         16 September 2021 at 8:31 pm

         For those with an interest in submarine warfare and British police procedurals, check out Vigil. (I'm watching via "other" means)

         BBC’s submarine mystery thriller Vigil to stream soon in New Zealand (flicks.co.nz)
       • Jean Nichten 1.2.1.2

         20 September 2021 at 3:18 pm

         Australia has been committed to the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons in the past. This is sudden, forcing them on us. Although the strategy may work as a deterrent..

         Yes I agree that these subs are problematic because I read that they must release radioactive (toxic) cooling water from the reactor onboard, which is very HOT- making them vulnerable to thermal imaging technology.
2. greywarshark 2

   16 September 2021 at 6:12 pm

   https://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO2109/S00070/mud-farming-clear-evidence-of-too-many-cows-greenpeace.htm

   Greenpeace Aotearoa is launching a new petition calling for an end to mud farming – intensive winter grazing. The petition comes as new images of cows belly-deep in mud this winter provide further evidence that the country is trying – and failing – to sustain too many cows.

   Aerial footage of Southland and Otago paddocks, released by river advocates Geoff Reid and Matt Coffey, shows intensively-grazed cows crammed in paddocks churned to mud, and significant amounts of sediment washing off paddocks into rivers.
   • Ad 2.1

     16 September 2021 at 6:45 pm

     We gave the winter feed regulations another pass this year. Not encouraging.
   • bwaghorn 2.2

     16 September 2021 at 7:06 pm

     Got stock on crop (1year beef stock)this year for the first time , it's been a harder than average winter so no feed on the hills yet, it's raining endlessly, doing everything I can but mud everywhere, .
3. Byd0nz 3

   16 September 2021 at 6:49 pm

   Left out in the cold

   It's good to be left out in the cold,

   When the neighbor gets in a nuclear bog,

   Allowed himself to be bullied,

   By Uncle Sam and an English bulldog.

   Well go suck eggs you Ausie wowser,

   No guts to stand and be counted,

   We love being Nuclear free,

   No need for us to be abused and mounted.

   A progressive and peaceful nation,

   Has no desire for war mongering ways,

   Better to ditch the binds of five eyes,

   And stand against their nuclear craze.
4. I Feel Love 4

   16 September 2021 at 6:52 pm

   NBC Nightly News, "1 in 500 Americans have died from COVID-19".
   • Gezza 4.1

     16 September 2021 at 7:32 pm

     Blardy hell! You sure that’s accurate? Doesn’t sound right to me.
     • Andre 4.1.1

       16 September 2021 at 7:38 pm

       Yep, it's accurate. Probably actually a slight underestimate.

       Along with 1 in 170 Peruvians, 1 in 320 Hungarians, 1 in 360 Brazilians …

       https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/#countries
       • Gezza 4.1.1.1

         16 September 2021 at 7:46 pm

         Blimmin oath! No wonder Biden’s going all out telling the stupid sods to GET BLOODY VACCINATED !
     • I Feel Love 4.1.2

       16 September 2021 at 8:51 pm

       That's what they reported, and I think I heard 1 in 8 have caught it? Though maybe I misheard that.
     • McFlock 4.1.3

       16 September 2021 at 9:15 pm

       600k dead / 300mil population *100 = 0.2%. 1 in 500 by another name.

       I've heard the "1 in 8" infection ratio, too, which is a hair under 40mil.

       600k/40mil gives a 1.5% infection fatality rate. The US 2019/20 flu season had ~40mil infections and 22,000 deaths, an IFR of 0.055%.

       Even if we add the US 2018/19 flu tally, that's another 35mil infections and 35k deaths, so over two years 80mil infections and still only <60k dead. Less than 10% of the covid tally over less than two years, but double the infections.

       I'm really, really glad the government didn't listen to the plan b crowd.
   • dv 4.2

     16 September 2021 at 9:28 pm

     685,023 deaths

     333,369,038 population

     https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/us-population/
   • mpledger 4.3

     17 September 2021 at 10:13 am

     The CDC reckons their have been between 1,337,322-1,697,331 excess deaths from 1/3/2020 to 4/9/2021 (i.e. number of deaths over and above what would be expected usually).

     That gives a rate of between 333369038 / 1337322 = 249.2811 and 333369038 / 1697331 = 196.4078

     i.e. between (roughly) 1 in 250 and 1 in 195 excess deaths
     • Andre 4.3.1

       17 September 2021 at 10:18 am

       Well, yeah, but a lot of those are deaths that happened from something else and the poor sods couldn't get care or got substandard care because the system was clogged up with covid patients.

       So semantically, they haven't "died from COVID-19".
       • mpledger 4.3.1.1

         17 September 2021 at 10:55 am

         Quite a lot of those excess deaths are covid-19 though. The USA was initially quite restrictive in their testing and testing wasn't free (IIRC $600 at first) so many people weren't officially covid-19 deaths. And, in the end, does it really matter if they died directly or indirectly from covid-19?

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS