mfd101

Yes but before there was always a strongly allergic reaction to ANY mention of nuclear power (based of course on the subliminal association of 'nuclear' with nuclear weapons & nuclear war).

Talk is cheap. Action is expensive.

Interesting then that, as I mentioned above, the Philippines Foreign Secretary said today that he is strongly in favour of the Oz move. He said that ASEAN countries have no military capability to protect peace & stability in the region. The Philippines is of course the country (along with Vietnam) which has to face Chinese aggression on a very large scale every day of the year in the South China Sea (a piece of geography that really could do with a name change!).

The initial public opinion surveys in Oz after the announcement startle even me: Positive reactions in the 80%s from Liberal & National voters, 60-70% from ALP voters and 50% from Greens voters. Similar results on eventual move to nuclear power across the continent.

No such thing. Canada is part of the Five Eyes intelligence-gathering and -exchanging agreement.

Piffle. Nuclear propulsion and nuclear weapons are 2 entirely different matters. Australia's strategic problem is that it is so remote from the Asian mainland and its maritime area of interest is so vast, the only practical solution in preparing for maritime warfare (ie trying to deter it) is nuclear propulsion for its subs. Diesel-fueled with electric batteries is just hopeless in the circumstances. What has made the difference now is that the US & UK technology means that the nuclear fuel for the subs is packaged and will last for some 30+ years without maintenance or refueli

And the relevance of all that to the state of play in 2021 and 2030 and 2040 is ... ?

Continue creeping quietly through the jungle, in all directions.

Philippines Foreign Sec expressed this morning his strong support for the Oz move, noting that the ASEAN nations are militarily incapable of maintaining peace & stability in the region. Personally I'm in favour of the Russians joining the deal too. Then it could be called RAUKUS, which would be self-explanatory for the masses.

Yes, I meant the other more recent Trans-Pacific Partnership.

No point in just complaining. DO something: Go to the transport people. (Of course some brown envelopes may have been involved too, in which case you'll make no progress.)

Main item on the agenda for 2022: China's application to join. To be vetoed by Oz. Embarrassment all round for Thailand.

So after only 16 replies it's obvious that the 'survey' is badly designed. Doesn't allow for those who are already double-vaxed, whether in Thailand or elsewhere ... Start again with a better-designed set of questions & you'll get more useful answers.

The problem arises when people think that all issues they're interested in are MORAL issues (not just practical issues or intellectual ones). And if every issue worth talking about is a moral one, then anyone who disagrees with me must be an immoral person and there's no way he or she is going to convince me of anything. I used to think this was a Lefty problem: All conservatives are immoral and therefore I speak in tones of moral outrage. Whereas (I thought) people right of centre were practical people who sounded condescending because they thought Lefties were just inexperienced

That's pretty much my thinking too.