>>45016
I just don't like the idea of it, accidents happen and I don't like the idea of being near something so contaminating.

>our interest is in the balance of larger powers so neither can keep us under their thumb (too much)

Many in this country advocate for that too, and indeed even I do even though I was just arguing for why these events happened. That is why they did it and it does make sense but there are other ways too. Paul Keating, our former PM was known for advocating for an independent foreighn policy and came out with this in response.

>“The announced agreement between the United States, Britain and Australia for Australia to move to a fleet of US-supplied nuclear submarines, will amount to a lock-in of Australian military equipment and thereby forces, with those of the United States with only one underlying objective: the ability to act collectively in any military engagement by the United States against China,” Mr Keating said.

>“This arrangement would witness a further dramatic loss of Australian
sovereignty, as matériel dependency on the United States robbed Australia of any freedom or choice in any engagement Australia may deem appropriate.

>“And all this at a time when United States reliability and resolution around its strategic commitments and military engagements are under question.”

I think what we should have done is worked more with our neighbours to create an Australian led block, a block that can pose a united front that is strong enough to give China pause but that also is not outright backing the US(and of course it could be used to further our own agenda).

>>45018