you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] 3 points 10 months ago (3 children)

One of the first ones comes from local mother Latoya Voogt.

She prefaces her question by referencing a recent Four Corners investigation that discussed the heightened risk of an attack on Australian bases with US nuclear submarines in port.

"If a hypersonic missile is launched at nuclear submarines, what is the process for informing and evacuating the residents?" Latoya asks.

A mid-shot of Rockingham resident Latoya Voogt posing for a photo indoors in a black top. Rockingham resident Latoya Voogt is worried about the area becoming a target for attack. (ABC News: Rhiannon Shine)

"We are unwillingly living on the frontline." Vice Admiral Jonathan Mead responds by saying the nuclear-powered submarines are all about making Australia safer.

"The reason Australia is embarking on a capability that has such incredible flexibility and stealth is actually to defend Australia, protect our people, and to ensure our prosperity is maintained," he says.

"We live in a region that is deteriorating by the year. We're seeing a number of countries blatantly disregarding the rules-based order.

"These submarines are designed to prevent an adversary from attacking Australia."

Unsatisfied with the response, Latoya repeats her question about what the plan is for informing residents of an emergency.

She's eventually told that people would get alerts and information through the police, in the same way they do when there is a bushfire emergency.

Military goes to community for respectful community consultation and engagement, military fucks up simple task by being dismissive shithead to community member, asking an easily answerable programmatic question.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [โ€“] 3 points 10 months ago (2 children)

    โ€œIf a hypersonic missile is launched at nuclear submarines, what is the process for informing and evacuating the residents?โ€ Latoya asks.

    They wouldn't bother wasting money on a hypersonic missile at a submarine in port

    Submarines are slow as is and if it's in a port it's essentially a stationary target, a couple cheap submarine drones would take it out like drones vs a turtle tank:

    https://www.youtube.com/shorts/6OG1myGedwc

    or Ukrainian sea drones targeting Russian oil tankers

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9POEWcwNoOw

    With that said

    We are unwillingly living on the frontline

    I don't know why but this comes across as such a bitch complaint to me, like living next to a live music venue and complaining about the noise

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • True, the realities of an attack would be very different from the way she presents. But the role of the military representative here is to see through the incorrect, or overly dramatic examples of the public and address the core underlying fears. From this reporting, i don't think they executed on that at all well.


    Your Live music example is interesting comparison, but its not exactly comparing apples with apples. Thats because live music is far less destructive than a militarised attack however more unlikely a militarised attack over live music is.

    It puts in mind of the comparisons between solar/wind/batteries, and nuclear. Yes they can all be far more 'green' than coal, oil, and gas, but, again however unlikely an event occurs is, the destructive capability of a nuclear accident is far greater than that of solar/wind/batteries.

  • source
  • parent
  • [โ€“] [S] 2 points 10 months ago

    I don't know why but this comes across as such a bitch complaint to me, like living next to a live music venue and complaining about the noise

    That's an apt comparison. The naval base has been there since the 70s. And before that, HMAS Leeuwin was 20km north at Fremantle from 1940.

  • source
  • parent