First 'we' purchase over $300 Billion of NUCLEAR Powered but *NOT*
NUCLEAR Armed Submarines .... and, today, 'we' learn that 'we've' also
purchased over $1 Billion of Tomahawk Missles ....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomahawk_%28missile%29

Quote
Warhead Nuclear: W80 warhead (yield 5 to 150 kilotonnes of TNT (21 to
628 TJ)) (retired)[8]
Conventional: 1,000 pounds (450 kg) high explosive or submunition
dispenser with BLU-97/B Combined Effects Bomb or PBXN
End Quote

Sure they can be 'Conventionally armed but ALSO Note the first option
..... 'Nuclear:'

Am I adding Two plus Two and getting Five ... or something??
--
Daniel

Daniel65 wrote:
> First 'we' purchase over $300 Billion of NUCLEAR Powered but *NOT*

Good timing of SBS to show tonight the story of the USS Thresher, the
nuclear-powered submarine that imploded on a sea trial.

On Fri, 17 Mar 2023 20:59:41 +1100, Daniel65 <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org>
wrote:

> First 'we' purchase over $300 Billion of NUCLEAR Powered but *NOT*
> NUCLEAR Armed Submarines .... and, today, 'we' learn that 'we've' also
> purchased over $1 Billion of Tomahawk Missles ....
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomahawk_%28missile%29
>
> Quote
> Warhead Nuclear: W80 warhead (yield 5 to 150 kilotonnes of TNT (21 to
> 628 TJ)) (retired)[8]
> Conventional: 1,000 pounds (450 kg) high explosive or submunition
> dispenser with BLU-97/B Combined Effects Bomb or PBXN
> End Quote
>
> Sure they can be 'Conventionally armed but ALSO Note the first option
> .... 'Nuclear:'
>
> Am I adding Two plus Two and getting Five ... or something??

Just being as stupid as you usually are.

On Fri, 17 Mar 2023 20:59:41 +1100, Daniel65
<daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:

>First 'we' purchase over $300 Billion of NUCLEAR Powered but *NOT*
>NUCLEAR Armed Submarines .... and, today, 'we' learn that 'we've' also
>purchased over $1 Billion of Tomahawk Missles ....
>
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomahawk_%28missile%29
>
>Quote
>Warhead Nuclear: W80 warhead (yield 5 to 150 kilotonnes of TNT (21 to
>628 TJ)) (retired)[8]
>Conventional: 1,000 pounds (450 kg) high explosive or submunition
>dispenser with BLU-97/B Combined Effects Bomb or PBXN
>End Quote
>
>Sure they can be 'Conventionally armed but ALSO Note the first option
>.... 'Nuclear:'
>
>Am I adding Two plus Two and getting Five ... or something??

Perhaps we're witnessing a new sunrise.
In the recent past anything with "nuclear" in the event would invite a
swarm of protests from the crazy, loony and hippy left.
Now with all other energy sources leaping in price the nuclear option
is less opposed.
Ironically, France gets its energy from nuclear reactors (about 70%)
and has done so for decades.
Some Oz politician will get this up and running in the near future,
perhaps funded by death duties.

On Sat, 18 Mar 2023 09:01:33 +1100, Peter Jason <pj@jostle.com> wrote:

>On Fri, 17 Mar 2023 20:59:41 +1100, Daniel65
><daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
>
>>First 'we' purchase over $300 Billion of NUCLEAR Powered but *NOT*
>>NUCLEAR Armed Submarines .... and, today, 'we' learn that 'we've' also
>>purchased over $1 Billion of Tomahawk Missles ....
>>
>>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomahawk_%28missile%29
>>
>>Quote
>>Warhead Nuclear: W80 warhead (yield 5 to 150 kilotonnes of TNT (21 to
>>628 TJ)) (retired)[8]
>>Conventional: 1,000 pounds (450 kg) high explosive or submunition
>>dispenser with BLU-97/B Combined Effects Bomb or PBXN
>>End Quote
>>
>>Sure they can be 'Conventionally armed but ALSO Note the first option
>>.... 'Nuclear:'
>>
>>Am I adding Two plus Two and getting Five ... or something??
>
>Perhaps we're witnessing a new sunrise.
>In the recent past anything with "nuclear" in the event would invite a
>swarm of protests from the crazy, loony and hippy left.
>Now with all other energy sources leaping in price the nuclear option
>is less opposed.
>Ironically, France gets its energy from nuclear reactors (about 70%)
>and has done so for decades.
>Some Oz politician will get this up and running in the near future,
>perhaps funded by death duties.
>
They could cut some nonsense funding.
In 2015–16, the Australian Government directly spent $14.7 billion on
Indigenous people?
Of which Lidia Thorpe, another of many claimed aboriginality, with
English mother, concealed father believed to be a communist Scot
nationality, is said to have 3 million not counting the $700K+ she
took from Aboriginal services never paid back?
And the concern is how to pay for the Coalition nuclear submarines?
<https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/BudgetReview201920/IndigenousAffairs?fbclid=IwAR3TGk8VUsi4m32zPFM08fgd-aaArMA_IMo0PhTLXPkIcHL9eTKAmzu3BWw>
https://tinyurl.com/2f2ue7xu
Indigenous affairs overview
Budget Review 2019–20 Index
James Haughton

--
Petzl
Sen. Elizabeth Warren apologizes for Native American registration
https://www.foxnews.com/us/native-american-group-given-rights-1970s-crying-indian-ad
"...every day, people make claims of Native heritage and Cherokee
ancestry across the country to take advantage of laws intended to
level the playing field A for Indian Country."
--
Petzl
Make Australia Great Again
MAGA

Mark Latham has seen the light
Voting Coalition, Labor or "Greens" because you hate One Nation is like eating shit because you hate spinach

ALWAYS Vote fiefdom oligarchies Coalition, Labor, "Greens"
*LAST*, Federal State and Council!
https://youtu.be/-B___WPT33w
Pauline Hanson's Please Explain Episode 24 Voter Fraud

On Sat, 18 Mar 2023 09:01:33 +1100, Peter Jason <pj@jostle.com> wrote:

> On Fri, 17 Mar 2023 20:59:41 +1100, Daniel65
> <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
>
>> First 'we' purchase over $300 Billion of NUCLEAR Powered but *NOT*
>> NUCLEAR Armed Submarines .... and, today, 'we' learn that 'we've' also
>> purchased over $1 Billion of Tomahawk Missles ....
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomahawk_%28missile%29
>>
>> Quote
>> Warhead Nuclear: W80 warhead (yield 5 to 150 kilotonnes of TNT (21 to
>> 628 TJ)) (retired)[8]
>> Conventional: 1,000 pounds (450 kg) high explosive or submunition
>> dispenser with BLU-97/B Combined Effects Bomb or PBXN
>> End Quote
>>
>> Sure they can be 'Conventionally armed but ALSO Note the first option
>> .... 'Nuclear:'
>>
>> Am I adding Two plus Two and getting Five ... or something??
>
> Perhaps we're witnessing a new sunrise.
> In the recent past anything with "nuclear" in the event would invite a
> swarm of protests from the crazy, loony and hippy left.
> Now with all other energy sources leaping in price the nuclear option
> is less opposed.
> Ironically, France gets its energy from nuclear reactors (about 70%)
> and has done so for decades.
> Some Oz politician will get this up and running in the near future,

> perhaps funded by death duties.

No chance of that.

On Sat, 18 Mar 2023 09:49:40 +1100, Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Sat, 18 Mar 2023 09:01:33 +1100, Peter Jason <pj@jostle.com> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 17 Mar 2023 20:59:41 +1100, Daniel65
>><daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
>>
>>>First 'we' purchase over $300 Billion of NUCLEAR Powered but *NOT*
>>>NUCLEAR Armed Submarines .... and, today, 'we' learn that 'we've' also
>>>purchased over $1 Billion of Tomahawk Missles ....
>>>
>>>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomahawk_%28missile%29
>>>
>>>Quote
>>>Warhead Nuclear: W80 warhead (yield 5 to 150 kilotonnes of TNT (21 to
>>>628 TJ)) (retired)[8]
>>>Conventional: 1,000 pounds (450 kg) high explosive or submunition
>>>dispenser with BLU-97/B Combined Effects Bomb or PBXN
>>>End Quote
>>>
>>>Sure they can be 'Conventionally armed but ALSO Note the first option
>>>.... 'Nuclear:'
>>>
>>>Am I adding Two plus Two and getting Five ... or something??
>>
>>Perhaps we're witnessing a new sunrise.
>>In the recent past anything with "nuclear" in the event would invite a
>>swarm of protests from the crazy, loony and hippy left.
>>Now with all other energy sources leaping in price the nuclear option
>>is less opposed.
>>Ironically, France gets its energy from nuclear reactors (about 70%)
>>and has done so for decades.
>>Some Oz politician will get this up and running in the near future,
>>perhaps funded by death duties.
>>
>They could cut some nonsense funding.
>In 2015–16, the Australian Government directly spent $14.7 billion on
>Indigenous people?
>Of which Lidia Thorpe, another of many claimed aboriginality, with
>English mother, concealed father believed to be a communist Scot
>nationality, is said to have 3 million not counting the $700K+ she
>took from Aboriginal services never paid back?
>And the concern is how to pay for the Coalition nuclear submarines?
><https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/BudgetReview201920/IndigenousAffairs?fbclid=IwAR3TGk8VUsi4m32zPFM08fgd-aaArMA_IMo0PhTLXPkIcHL9eTKAmzu3BWw>
>https://tinyurl.com/2f2ue7xu
>Indigenous affairs overview
>Budget Review 2019–20 Index
>James Haughton

It's never so bad that it can't get worse.

The next financial sinkhole is the NDIS, which like the universe
expands inexorably and which for all time will be an example of
botched and rushed mismanagement. It never occurred to the govt to
introduce this gradually, with clawback provisions, so as to get it
all right the first time.
As it is it's a disastrous rort, with a bureaucracy transcending
anything else.
Where will the interregnum find the funds to finance this disaster? Q:
Where is the next money mountain to be preyed upon?
A: Death duties on the property market; so obvious.

Old people are lucky, they'll be dead soon!

>
>--
>Petzl
>Sen. Elizabeth Warren apologizes for Native American registration
>https://www.foxnews.com/us/native-american-group-given-rights-1970s-crying-indian-ad
>"...every day, people make claims of Native heritage and Cherokee
>ancestry across the country to take advantage of laws intended to
>level the playing field A for Indian Country."

On Sat, 18 Mar 2023 11:02:18 +1100, "Rod Speed"
<rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Sat, 18 Mar 2023 09:01:33 +1100, Peter Jason <pj@jostle.com> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 17 Mar 2023 20:59:41 +1100, Daniel65
>> <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
>>
>>> First 'we' purchase over $300 Billion of NUCLEAR Powered but *NOT*
>>> NUCLEAR Armed Submarines .... and, today, 'we' learn that 'we've' also
>>> purchased over $1 Billion of Tomahawk Missles ....
>>>
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomahawk_%28missile%29
>>>
>>> Quote
>>> Warhead Nuclear: W80 warhead (yield 5 to 150 kilotonnes of TNT (21 to
>>> 628 TJ)) (retired)[8]
>>> Conventional: 1,000 pounds (450 kg) high explosive or submunition
>>> dispenser with BLU-97/B Combined Effects Bomb or PBXN
>>> End Quote
>>>
>>> Sure they can be 'Conventionally armed but ALSO Note the first option
>>> .... 'Nuclear:'
>>>
>>> Am I adding Two plus Two and getting Five ... or something??
>>
>> Perhaps we're witnessing a new sunrise.
>> In the recent past anything with "nuclear" in the event would invite a
>> swarm of protests from the crazy, loony and hippy left.
>> Now with all other energy sources leaping in price the nuclear option
>> is less opposed.
>> Ironically, France gets its energy from nuclear reactors (about 70%)
>> and has done so for decades.
>> Some Oz politician will get this up and running in the near future,
>
>> perhaps funded by death duties.
>
>No chance of that.

We'll see. It's a vast untapped resource.

On Sat, 18 Mar 2023 12:34:54 +1100, Peter Jason <pj@jostle.com> wrote:

> On Sat, 18 Mar 2023 09:49:40 +1100, Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 18 Mar 2023 09:01:33 +1100, Peter Jason <pj@jostle.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 17 Mar 2023 20:59:41 +1100, Daniel65
>>> <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> First 'we' purchase over $300 Billion of NUCLEAR Powered but *NOT*
>>>> NUCLEAR Armed Submarines .... and, today, 'we' learn that 'we've' also
>>>> purchased over $1 Billion of Tomahawk Missles ....
>>>>
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomahawk_%28missile%29
>>>>
>>>> Quote
>>>> Warhead Nuclear: W80 warhead (yield 5 to 150 kilotonnes of TNT (21 to
>>>> 628 TJ)) (retired)[8]
>>>> Conventional: 1,000 pounds (450 kg) high explosive or submunition
>>>> dispenser with BLU-97/B Combined Effects Bomb or PBXN
>>>> End Quote
>>>>
>>>> Sure they can be 'Conventionally armed but ALSO Note the first option
>>>> .... 'Nuclear:'
>>>>
>>>> Am I adding Two plus Two and getting Five ... or something??
>>>
>>> Perhaps we're witnessing a new sunrise.
>>> In the recent past anything with "nuclear" in the event would invite a
>>> swarm of protests from the crazy, loony and hippy left.
>>> Now with all other energy sources leaping in price the nuclear option
>>> is less opposed.
>>> Ironically, France gets its energy from nuclear reactors (about 70%)
>>> and has done so for decades.
>>> Some Oz politician will get this up and running in the near future,
>>> perhaps funded by death duties.
>>>
>> They could cut some nonsense funding.
>> In 2015–16, the Australian Government directly spent $14.7 billion on
>> Indigenous people?
>> Of which Lidia Thorpe, another of many claimed aboriginality, with
>> English mother, concealed father believed to be a communist Scot
>> nationality, is said to have 3 million not counting the $700K+ she
>> took from Aboriginal services never paid back?
>> And the concern is how to pay for the Coalition nuclear submarines?
>> <https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/BudgetReview201920/IndigenousAffairs?fbclid=IwAR3TGk8VUsi4m32zPFM08fgd-aaArMA_IMo0PhTLXPkIcHL9eTKAmzu3BWw>
>> https://tinyurl.com/2f2ue7xu
>> Indigenous affairs overview
>> Budget Review 2019–20 Index
>> James Haughton
>
> It's never so bad that it can't get worse.
>
> The next financial sinkhole is the NDIS, which like the universe
> expands inexorably and which for all time will be an example of
> botched and rushed mismanagement. It never occurred to the govt to
> introduce this gradually, with clawback provisions, so as to get it
> all right the first time.
> As it is it's a disastrous rort, with a bureaucracy transcending
> anything else.

> Where will the interregnum find the funds to finance this disaster? Q:
> Where is the next money mountain to be preyed upon?
> A: Death duties on the property market; so obvious.

Not going to happen, the voters will never wear it.

Our total tax level is one of the lowest in the modern first world.

> Old people are lucky, they'll be dead soon!

You are free to top yourself any time you like.

On Sat, 18 Mar 2023 12:36:01 +1100, Peter Jason <pj@jostle.com> wrote:

> On Sat, 18 Mar 2023 11:02:18 +1100, "Rod Speed"
> <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 18 Mar 2023 09:01:33 +1100, Peter Jason <pj@jostle.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 17 Mar 2023 20:59:41 +1100, Daniel65
>>> <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> First 'we' purchase over $300 Billion of NUCLEAR Powered but *NOT*
>>>> NUCLEAR Armed Submarines .... and, today, 'we' learn that 'we've' also
>>>> purchased over $1 Billion of Tomahawk Missles ....
>>>>
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomahawk_%28missile%29
>>>>
>>>> Quote
>>>> Warhead Nuclear: W80 warhead (yield 5 to 150 kilotonnes of TNT (21 to
>>>> 628 TJ)) (retired)[8]
>>>> Conventional: 1,000 pounds (450 kg) high explosive or submunition
>>>> dispenser with BLU-97/B Combined Effects Bomb or PBXN
>>>> End Quote
>>>>
>>>> Sure they can be 'Conventionally armed but ALSO Note the first option
>>>> .... 'Nuclear:'
>>>>
>>>> Am I adding Two plus Two and getting Five ... or something??
>>>
>>> Perhaps we're witnessing a new sunrise.
>>> In the recent past anything with "nuclear" in the event would invite a
>>> swarm of protests from the crazy, loony and hippy left.
>>> Now with all other energy sources leaping in price the nuclear option
>>> is less opposed.
>>> Ironically, France gets its energy from nuclear reactors (about 70%)
>>> and has done so for decades.
>>> Some Oz politician will get this up and running in the near future,
>>
>>> perhaps funded by death duties.
>>
>> No chance of that.
>
> We'll see.

We've seen.

> It's a vast untapped resource.

But doesnt raise a lot in the countrys stupid enough to have it

Ozix wrote on 17/3/23 11:29 pm:
> Daniel65 wrote:
>> First 'we' purchase over $300 Billion of NUCLEAR Powered but *NOT*
>
> Good timing of SBS to show tonight the story of the USS Thresher, the
> nuclear-powered submarine that imploded on a sea trial.

Totally co-incidental, I'm sure!! ;-P

And did I see a 'Doco' about divers finding/scanning a British sub that
bottomed out as well!!
--
Daniel

Rod Speed wrote on 18/3/23 2:32 am:
> On Fri, 17 Mar 2023 20:59:41 +1100, Daniel65
> <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
>
>> First 'we' purchase over $300 Billion of NUCLEAR Powered but *NOT*
>> NUCLEAR Armed Submarines .... and, today, 'we' learn that 'we've' also
>> purchased over $1 Billion of Tomahawk Missles ....
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomahawk_%28missile%29
>>
>> Quote
>> Warhead    Nuclear: W80 warhead (yield 5 to 150 kilotonnes of TNT (21
>> to 628 TJ)) (retired)[8]
>> Conventional: 1,000 pounds (450 kg) high explosive or submunition
>> dispenser with BLU-97/B Combined Effects Bomb or PBXN
>> End Quote
>>
>> Sure they can be 'Conventionally armed but ALSO Note the first option
>> .... 'Nuclear:'
>>
>> Am I adding Two plus Two and getting Five ... or something??
>
> Just being as stupid as you usually are.

Oh!! Please shoot me down, Roddles!!
--
Daniel

Peter Jason wrote on 18/3/23 9:01 am:
> On Fri, 17 Mar 2023 20:59:41 +1100, Daniel65
> <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
>
>> First 'we' purchase over $300 Billion of NUCLEAR Powered but *NOT*
>> NUCLEAR Armed Submarines .... and, today, 'we' learn that 'we've' also
>> purchased over $1 Billion of Tomahawk Missles ....
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomahawk_%28missile%29
>>
>> Quote
>> Warhead Nuclear: W80 warhead (yield 5 to 150 kilotonnes of TNT (21 to
>> 628 TJ)) (retired)[8]
>> Conventional: 1,000 pounds (450 kg) high explosive or submunition
>> dispenser with BLU-97/B Combined Effects Bomb or PBXN
>> End Quote
>>
>> Sure they can be 'Conventionally armed but ALSO Note the first option
>> .... 'Nuclear:'
>>
>> Am I adding Two plus Two and getting Five ... or something??
>
> Perhaps we're witnessing a new sunrise.
> In the recent past anything with "nuclear" in the event would invite a
> swarm of protests from the crazy, loony and hippy left.
> Now with all other energy sources leaping in price the nuclear option
> is less opposed.
> Ironically, France gets its energy from nuclear reactors (about 70%)
> and has done so for decades.
> Some Oz politician will get this up and running in the near future,
> perhaps funded by death duties.
>
What happens to the Nuclear Waste from the Medical stuffed produced at
the Lucas Heights Nuclear Reactor, I wonder??

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-pool_Australian_lightwater_reactor
--
Daniel

On Sat, 18 Mar 2023 19:54:08 +1100, Daniel65
<daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:

>Peter Jason wrote on 18/3/23 9:01 am:
>> On Fri, 17 Mar 2023 20:59:41 +1100, Daniel65
>> <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
>>
>>> First 'we' purchase over $300 Billion of NUCLEAR Powered but *NOT*
>>> NUCLEAR Armed Submarines .... and, today, 'we' learn that 'we've' also
>>> purchased over $1 Billion of Tomahawk Missles ....
>>>
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomahawk_%28missile%29
>>>
>>> Quote
>>> Warhead Nuclear: W80 warhead (yield 5 to 150 kilotonnes of TNT (21 to
>>> 628 TJ)) (retired)[8]
>>> Conventional: 1,000 pounds (450 kg) high explosive or submunition
>>> dispenser with BLU-97/B Combined Effects Bomb or PBXN
>>> End Quote
>>>
>>> Sure they can be 'Conventionally armed but ALSO Note the first option
>>> .... 'Nuclear:'
>>>
>>> Am I adding Two plus Two and getting Five ... or something??
>>
>> Perhaps we're witnessing a new sunrise.
>> In the recent past anything with "nuclear" in the event would invite a
>> swarm of protests from the crazy, loony and hippy left.
>> Now with all other energy sources leaping in price the nuclear option
>> is less opposed.
>> Ironically, France gets its energy from nuclear reactors (about 70%)
>> and has done so for decades.
>> Some Oz politician will get this up and running in the near future,
>> perhaps funded by death duties.
>>
>What happens to the Nuclear Waste from the Medical stuffed produced at
>the Lucas Heights Nuclear Reactor, I wonder??
>
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-pool_Australian_lightwater_reactor

If they're smart then it will be dumped in the ocean at the boundary
of a subducting tectonic plate. This would be a good solution for
all the other junk & waste Oz produces.

On Mon, 20 Mar 2023 06:58:39 +1100, Peter Jason <pj@jostle.com> wrote:

> On Sat, 18 Mar 2023 19:54:08 +1100, Daniel65
> <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
>
>> Peter Jason wrote on 18/3/23 9:01 am:
>>> On Fri, 17 Mar 2023 20:59:41 +1100, Daniel65
>>> <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> First 'we' purchase over $300 Billion of NUCLEAR Powered but *NOT*
>>>> NUCLEAR Armed Submarines .... and, today, 'we' learn that 'we've' also
>>>> purchased over $1 Billion of Tomahawk Missles ....
>>>>
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomahawk_%28missile%29
>>>>
>>>> Quote
>>>> Warhead Nuclear: W80 warhead (yield 5 to 150 kilotonnes of TNT (21 to
>>>> 628 TJ)) (retired)[8]
>>>> Conventional: 1,000 pounds (450 kg) high explosive or submunition
>>>> dispenser with BLU-97/B Combined Effects Bomb or PBXN
>>>> End Quote
>>>>
>>>> Sure they can be 'Conventionally armed but ALSO Note the first option
>>>> .... 'Nuclear:'
>>>>
>>>> Am I adding Two plus Two and getting Five ... or something??
>>>
>>> Perhaps we're witnessing a new sunrise.
>>> In the recent past anything with "nuclear" in the event would invite a
>>> swarm of protests from the crazy, loony and hippy left.
>>> Now with all other energy sources leaping in price the nuclear option
>>> is less opposed.
>>> Ironically, France gets its energy from nuclear reactors (about 70%)
>>> and has done so for decades.
>>> Some Oz politician will get this up and running in the near future,
>>> perhaps funded by death duties.
>>>
>> What happens to the Nuclear Waste from the Medical stuffed produced at
>> the Lucas Heights Nuclear Reactor, I wonder??
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-pool_Australian_lightwater_reactor
>
> If they're smart then it will be dumped in the ocean at the boundary
> of a subducting tectonic plate. This would be a good solution for
> all the other junk & waste Oz produces.

And for you.

On Mon, 20 Mar 2023 08:33:57 +1100, "Rod Speed"
<rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Mon, 20 Mar 2023 06:58:39 +1100, Peter Jason <pj@jostle.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 18 Mar 2023 19:54:08 +1100, Daniel65
>> <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Peter Jason wrote on 18/3/23 9:01 am:
>>>> On Fri, 17 Mar 2023 20:59:41 +1100, Daniel65
>>>> <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> First 'we' purchase over $300 Billion of NUCLEAR Powered but *NOT*
>>>>> NUCLEAR Armed Submarines .... and, today, 'we' learn that 'we've' also
>>>>> purchased over $1 Billion of Tomahawk Missles ....
>>>>>
>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomahawk_%28missile%29
>>>>>
>>>>> Quote
>>>>> Warhead Nuclear: W80 warhead (yield 5 to 150 kilotonnes of TNT (21 to
>>>>> 628 TJ)) (retired)[8]
>>>>> Conventional: 1,000 pounds (450 kg) high explosive or submunition
>>>>> dispenser with BLU-97/B Combined Effects Bomb or PBXN
>>>>> End Quote
>>>>>
>>>>> Sure they can be 'Conventionally armed but ALSO Note the first option
>>>>> .... 'Nuclear:'
>>>>>
>>>>> Am I adding Two plus Two and getting Five ... or something??
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps we're witnessing a new sunrise.
>>>> In the recent past anything with "nuclear" in the event would invite a
>>>> swarm of protests from the crazy, loony and hippy left.
>>>> Now with all other energy sources leaping in price the nuclear option
>>>> is less opposed.
>>>> Ironically, France gets its energy from nuclear reactors (about 70%)
>>>> and has done so for decades.
>>>> Some Oz politician will get this up and running in the near future,
>>>> perhaps funded by death duties.
>>>>
>>> What happens to the Nuclear Waste from the Medical stuffed produced at
>>> the Lucas Heights Nuclear Reactor, I wonder??
>>>
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-pool_Australian_lightwater_reactor
>>
>> If they're smart then it will be dumped in the ocean at the boundary
>> of a subducting tectonic plate. This would be a good solution for
>> all the other junk & waste Oz produces.
>
>And for you.

* sniff *
How rude!

But then, there are so many old fogies, wrinkled farts, rodney types,
hairy trolls, it might be a good idea for some.

On Mon, 20 Mar 2023 06:58:39 +1100, Peter Jason <pj@jostle.com> wrote:

>On Sat, 18 Mar 2023 19:54:08 +1100, Daniel65
><daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
>
>>Peter Jason wrote on 18/3/23 9:01 am:
>>> On Fri, 17 Mar 2023 20:59:41 +1100, Daniel65
>>> <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> First 'we' purchase over $300 Billion of NUCLEAR Powered but *NOT*
>>>> NUCLEAR Armed Submarines .... and, today, 'we' learn that 'we've' also
>>>> purchased over $1 Billion of Tomahawk Missles ....
>>>>
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomahawk_%28missile%29
>>>>
>>>> Quote
>>>> Warhead Nuclear: W80 warhead (yield 5 to 150 kilotonnes of TNT (21 to
>>>> 628 TJ)) (retired)[8]
>>>> Conventional: 1,000 pounds (450 kg) high explosive or submunition
>>>> dispenser with BLU-97/B Combined Effects Bomb or PBXN
>>>> End Quote
>>>>
>>>> Sure they can be 'Conventionally armed but ALSO Note the first option
>>>> .... 'Nuclear:'
>>>>
>>>> Am I adding Two plus Two and getting Five ... or something??
>>>
>>> Perhaps we're witnessing a new sunrise.
>>> In the recent past anything with "nuclear" in the event would invite a
>>> swarm of protests from the crazy, loony and hippy left.
>>> Now with all other energy sources leaping in price the nuclear option
>>> is less opposed.
>>> Ironically, France gets its energy from nuclear reactors (about 70%)
>>> and has done so for decades.
>>> Some Oz politician will get this up and running in the near future,
>>> perhaps funded by death duties.
>>>
>>What happens to the Nuclear Waste from the Medical stuffed produced at
>>the Lucas Heights Nuclear Reactor, I wonder??
>>
>>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-pool_Australian_lightwater_reactor
>
>If they're smart then it will be dumped in the ocean at the boundary
>of a subducting tectonic plate. This would be a good solution for
>all the other junk & waste Oz produces.
>
Well seems they allow the old practice of putting a hole in the drum
to leak into a nearby drain, the Sydney waterboard though while
getting readings of creek discharge into Botany bay detected it, then
the normal rhetoric "it's harmless", "people shouldn't worry". But
ANSTO the Lucas Heights reactors operator, hired a liquid transport to
South Australia, went Sydney-Melbourne, when reaching South Australia
tank was empty, only one of many, many violations by ANSTO the Lucas
Heights reactors operator! Makes me wonder who will be looking after
safety for our perhaps coming nuclear Submarines (Same idiots
probably)?
https://ibb.co/HdbvsNz
Albo's Subway Sandwich!
--
Petzl
The Greens have never done anything worthwhile to this country.
All they are known for is being an arm of the ALP and handing them and
vice versa, preferences at election time.

Labor the best party that Chinese money can buy!

On Mon, 20 Mar 2023 06:58:39 +1100, Peter Jason <pj@jostle.com> wrote:

>On Sat, 18 Mar 2023 19:54:08 +1100, Daniel65
><daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
>
>>Peter Jason wrote on 18/3/23 9:01 am:
>>> On Fri, 17 Mar 2023 20:59:41 +1100, Daniel65
>>> <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> First 'we' purchase over $300 Billion of NUCLEAR Powered but *NOT*
>>>> NUCLEAR Armed Submarines .... and, today, 'we' learn that 'we've' also
>>>> purchased over $1 Billion of Tomahawk Missles ....
>>>>
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomahawk_%28missile%29
>>>>
>>>> Quote
>>>> Warhead Nuclear: W80 warhead (yield 5 to 150 kilotonnes of TNT (21 to
>>>> 628 TJ)) (retired)[8]
>>>> Conventional: 1,000 pounds (450 kg) high explosive or submunition
>>>> dispenser with BLU-97/B Combined Effects Bomb or PBXN
>>>> End Quote
>>>>
>>>> Sure they can be 'Conventionally armed but ALSO Note the first option
>>>> .... 'Nuclear:'
>>>>
>>>> Am I adding Two plus Two and getting Five ... or something??
>>>
>>> Perhaps we're witnessing a new sunrise.
>>> In the recent past anything with "nuclear" in the event would invite a
>>> swarm of protests from the crazy, loony and hippy left.
>>> Now with all other energy sources leaping in price the nuclear option
>>> is less opposed.
>>> Ironically, France gets its energy from nuclear reactors (about 70%)
>>> and has done so for decades.
>>> Some Oz politician will get this up and running in the near future,
>>> perhaps funded by death duties.
>>>
>>What happens to the Nuclear Waste from the Medical stuffed produced at
>>the Lucas Heights Nuclear Reactor, I wonder??
>>
>>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-pool_Australian_lightwater_reactor
>
>If they're smart then it will be dumped in the ocean at the boundary
>of a subducting tectonic plate. This would be a good solution for
>all the other junk & waste Oz produces.
>
ICI dumped drums of dangerous waste "HCB" that way years ago!
Then they were made to use the French ship the Vulcan for
"Incineration at sea". They were filmed by Green Peace just dumping
the drums into the ocean!
--
Petzl
There are none so blind as those who will not see

On Mon, 20 Mar 2023 10:43:50 +1100, Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Mon, 20 Mar 2023 06:58:39 +1100, Peter Jason <pj@jostle.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 18 Mar 2023 19:54:08 +1100, Daniel65
>><daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
>>
>>>Peter Jason wrote on 18/3/23 9:01 am:
>>>> On Fri, 17 Mar 2023 20:59:41 +1100, Daniel65
>>>> <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> First 'we' purchase over $300 Billion of NUCLEAR Powered but *NOT*
>>>>> NUCLEAR Armed Submarines .... and, today, 'we' learn that 'we've' also
>>>>> purchased over $1 Billion of Tomahawk Missles ....
>>>>>
>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomahawk_%28missile%29
>>>>>
>>>>> Quote
>>>>> Warhead Nuclear: W80 warhead (yield 5 to 150 kilotonnes of TNT (21 to
>>>>> 628 TJ)) (retired)[8]
>>>>> Conventional: 1,000 pounds (450 kg) high explosive or submunition
>>>>> dispenser with BLU-97/B Combined Effects Bomb or PBXN
>>>>> End Quote
>>>>>
>>>>> Sure they can be 'Conventionally armed but ALSO Note the first option
>>>>> .... 'Nuclear:'
>>>>>
>>>>> Am I adding Two plus Two and getting Five ... or something??
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps we're witnessing a new sunrise.
>>>> In the recent past anything with "nuclear" in the event would invite a
>>>> swarm of protests from the crazy, loony and hippy left.
>>>> Now with all other energy sources leaping in price the nuclear option
>>>> is less opposed.
>>>> Ironically, France gets its energy from nuclear reactors (about 70%)
>>>> and has done so for decades.
>>>> Some Oz politician will get this up and running in the near future,
>>>> perhaps funded by death duties.
>>>>
>>>What happens to the Nuclear Waste from the Medical stuffed produced at
>>>the Lucas Heights Nuclear Reactor, I wonder??
>>>
>>>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-pool_Australian_lightwater_reactor
>>
>>If they're smart then it will be dumped in the ocean at the boundary
>>of a subducting tectonic plate. This would be a good solution for
>>all the other junk & waste Oz produces.
>>
>ICI dumped drums of dangerous waste "HCB" that way years ago!
>Then they were made to use the French ship the Vulcan for
>"Incineration at sea". They were filmed by Green Peace just dumping
>the drums into the ocean!

Not surprised. After WWII all the excess ammo and nerve gas in Britain
was loaded into old Liberty Ships, towed out to the middle of the
Atlantic and then scuttled. It's all still there under 4 miles of
salt water.

Long ago in nthn Victoria, on a lake used for the landing of flying
boats during WWII, thereafter converted to a tourist skiing spot, we
kids would dive off the jetty into about 2m of water and discover all
this pretty ammo buried under the mud, mainly Lee Enfield .303s, but
also wonderful shells about 7" long. Naturally we smuggled all this
home, wedged off the copper tops and emptied the propellant sticks
which would flash-burn with a colored flame. The parents went
ballistic, seized the hoard, threw the lot into the local river and
were quite unhinged for weeks. The stuff is probably still in the
lake.

On Friday, 17 March 2023 at 20:59:45 UTC+11, Daniel65 wrote:
> First 'we' purchase over $300 Billion of NUCLEAR Powered but *NOT*
> NUCLEAR Armed Submarines .... and, today, 'we' learn that 'we've' also
> purchased over $1 Billion of Tomahawk Missles ....
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomahawk_%28missile%29
>
> Quote
> Warhead Nuclear: W80 warhead (yield 5 to 150 kilotonnes of TNT (21 to
> 628 TJ)) (retired)[8]
> Conventional: 1,000 pounds (450 kg) high explosive or submunition
> dispenser with BLU-97/B Combined Effects Bomb or PBXN
> End Quote
>
> Sure they can be 'Conventionally armed but ALSO Note the first option
> .... 'Nuclear:'
>
> Am I adding Two plus Two and getting Five ... or something??
> --
> Daniel

Our govt is lying to us !!!!
Firstly, the subs will be under US control. As Turnbull said, unless we can operate everything on baord with Aust. personnel, we are not in control !!!!
Secondly, the subs will be nuclear armed. No one can believe that you spend hundreds of billions to acquire a sub that stays underwater for months, but not nuclear arm it ?? A few decades ago, NZ disallowed US nuclear ships and subs to dock in their country. The US then claimed that the ships/subs don't carry nuclear weapons; and people said, "you want us to believe that you don't carry nuclear weapons, and if trouble arises you will sail 10,000 kms back to the US to load your nuclear missiles ??"

On Mon, 20 Mar 2023 10:25:36 +1100, Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, 20 Mar 2023 06:58:39 +1100, Peter Jason <pj@jostle.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 18 Mar 2023 19:54:08 +1100, Daniel65
>> <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Peter Jason wrote on 18/3/23 9:01 am:
>>>> On Fri, 17 Mar 2023 20:59:41 +1100, Daniel65
>>>> <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> First 'we' purchase over $300 Billion of NUCLEAR Powered but *NOT*
>>>>> NUCLEAR Armed Submarines .... and, today, 'we' learn that 'we've'
>>>>> also
>>>>> purchased over $1 Billion of Tomahawk Missles ....
>>>>>
>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomahawk_%28missile%29
>>>>>
>>>>> Quote
>>>>> Warhead Nuclear: W80 warhead (yield 5 to 150 kilotonnes of TNT (21 to
>>>>> 628 TJ)) (retired)[8]
>>>>> Conventional: 1,000 pounds (450 kg) high explosive or submunition
>>>>> dispenser with BLU-97/B Combined Effects Bomb or PBXN
>>>>> End Quote
>>>>>
>>>>> Sure they can be 'Conventionally armed but ALSO Note the first option
>>>>> .... 'Nuclear:'
>>>>>
>>>>> Am I adding Two plus Two and getting Five ... or something??
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps we're witnessing a new sunrise.
>>>> In the recent past anything with "nuclear" in the event would invite a
>>>> swarm of protests from the crazy, loony and hippy left.
>>>> Now with all other energy sources leaping in price the nuclear option
>>>> is less opposed.
>>>> Ironically, France gets its energy from nuclear reactors (about 70%)
>>>> and has done so for decades.
>>>> Some Oz politician will get this up and running in the near future,
>>>> perhaps funded by death duties.
>>>>
>>> What happens to the Nuclear Waste from the Medical stuffed produced at
>>> the Lucas Heights Nuclear Reactor, I wonder??
>>>
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-pool_Australian_lightwater_reactor
>>
>> If they're smart then it will be dumped in the ocean at the boundary
>> of a subducting tectonic plate. This would be a good solution for
>> all the other junk & waste Oz produces.

> Well seems they allow the old practice of putting a hole in the drum
> to leak into a nearby drain,

Lie

> the Sydney waterboard though while
> getting readings of creek discharge into Botany bay detected it, then
> the normal rhetoric "it's harmless", "people shouldn't worry".

Lie, never happened.

> But
> ANSTO the Lucas Heights reactors operator, hired a liquid transport to
> South Australia, went Sydney-Melbourne, when reaching South Australia
> tank was empty,

Lie, never happened.

> only one of many, many violations by ANSTO the Lucas
> Heights reactors operator!

Lie

> Makes me wonder who will be looking after
> safety for our perhaps coming nuclear Submarines (Same idiots
> probably)?

Nope.

> https://ibb.co/HdbvsNz
> Albo's Subway Sandwich!

Pathetic.

On Mon, 20 Mar 2023 11:26:19 +1100, McCoy <mccoyrufus@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Friday, 17 March 2023 at 20:59:45 UTC+11, Daniel65 wrote:
>> First 'we' purchase over $300 Billion of NUCLEAR Powered but *NOT*
>> NUCLEAR Armed Submarines .... and, today, 'we' learn that 'we've' also
>> purchased over $1 Billion of Tomahawk Missles ....
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomahawk_%28missile%29
>>
>> Quote
>> Warhead Nuclear: W80 warhead (yield 5 to 150 kilotonnes of TNT (21 to
>> 628 TJ)) (retired)[8]
>> Conventional: 1,000 pounds (450 kg) high explosive or submunition
>> dispenser with BLU-97/B Combined Effects Bomb or PBXN
>> End Quote
>>
>> Sure they can be 'Conventionally armed but ALSO Note the first option
>> .... 'Nuclear:'
>>
>> Am I adding Two plus Two and getting Five ... or something??

> Our govt is lying to us !!!!

We'll see...

> Firstly, the subs will be under US control.

BULLSHIT.

> As Turnbull said, unless we can operate everything on baord with Aust.
> personnel,

We can.

> we are not in control !!!!

> Secondly, the subs will be nuclear armed.

BULLSHIT.

> No one can believe that you spend hundreds of billions to acquire a sub
> that stays underwater for months, but not nuclear arm it ??

BULLSHIT.

> A few decades ago, NZ disallowed US nuclear ships and subs to dock in
> their country. The US then claimed that the ships/subs don't carry
> nuclear weapons; and people said, "you want us to believe that you don't
> carry nuclear weapons, and if trouble arises you will sail 10,000 kms
> back to the US to load your nuclear missiles ??"

More fool them.