The rain bomb may be still going off but Russian and Chinese ICBMs won’t be targeting Sydney:
Sydney Harbour has been ruled out as a site for the proposed new base for Australia’s nuclear-powered submarines, with officials insisting it was not viable because of “limitations on berth space and shore facilities”.
Questions have been raised about how the Morrison government settled on the three potential sites it announced this week – Port Kembla in Wollongong, Newcastle and Brisbane – given that these were not among the top five options listed in a previous Defence review.
A 2011 Defence report ranked potential options for a new east coast home port for submarines. The top three options were in Sydney Harbour, followed by two options in Jervis Bay, south of Sydney.
Coalition shortlist for nuclear submarines base were not in Defence’s top five in 2011 review
The same study said it “would be impractical” to develop a future submarine basing capability at Port Kembla, noting it had previously been found to be “a small and congested harbour with little space for substantial expansion”.
When asked by Guardian Australia to explain what had changed since that review, a Defence spokesperson said changes in commercial activity at Port Kembla had released a large pocket of land which was “now potentially suitable for creation of a new naval base”.
Jervis Bay had been “discounted as it is a gazetted marine park”, the spokesperson said.
Maybe it makes sense to put in Sydney. A 5m strong human shield would have some normative power.
The $10bn question now is who will be selected to be the new nuclear target?
One might have thought that the $10bn in nuclear pork would suggest a marginal LNP electorate but given the powerful nuclear NIMBYism of Australians, I suspect it will be a safe Labor seat.
Surely Jervis Bay is ideal given the naval infrastructure and the seat being held by Labor’s Andrew Leigh, who we have all wanted to nuke from time to time.
