Deputy do little: Richard Marles a ‘weak and unconvincing’ US sycophant

David Simpson writes: Richard Marles has got to go ASAP. And not in an RAAF jet (“Unguided missile Richard Marles again demonstrates his poor judgment”).

Steve Brennan writes: Australia’s relationship with the US is embarrassing, but it’s complicated by the events of World War II and our indebtedness to it for preventing the Japanese from invading Australia. America has infiltrated Australia ever since on almost every level, and AUKUS demonstrates its overwhelming influence to the point of madness. 

The deal stands out as a major Albanese government failure because it makes no sense and with so many unknowns the cost is sure to blow out. Plus it most certainly relinquishes our independence on matters of military conflict to the US. If America wants a war with whoever, Australia will just be another US force, to be commanded by the US military. This is the cold hard reality of the relationship — and the Labor leadership was too weak to properly analyse it.

Marles stands out as the ideal punter to lead this madness as he shows himself to be a sycophant to the US every step of the way. Not able to answer questions about what Australia is getting itself into, only responding with national security tropes or hiding behind classified information restrictions. He comes across as weak and unconvincing and could easily be placed in the same league as Barnaby Joyce as a deputy prime minister.

Geoff Marshall writes: There’s no way Marles is heading for the door. Under the Morrison and previous governments, a major purchase could, and often did, take 10 years. Marles pulled it back to three but it seems even that was too long. He went out and bought 200 Tomahawk cruise missiles a week or so ago.

John Gleeson writes: Among all the articles regarding AUKUS and Marles’ seeming lack of talent in his portfolio, I do not see an overall assessment of the current war in Ukraine. This conflict has revealed the strategic and tactical use of drones — a relatively cheap and deadly mix.

The massive losses of tanks and vehicles — and a warship — due to drones should give pause for thought. Are tanks now obsolete? What strategies must be pursued to counter drone warfare? Where is the conversation we should be having on this subject? Where is Marles on this? Do we need nuclear submarines when cheap drones could provide our marine defences?

Douglas Mackenzie writes: According to Bernard Keane’s article, Defence Minister Marles is determined to push ahead with an ill-considered plan to spend $368 billion (likely to rise to closer to half a trillion dollars) on six nuclear-powered submarines.

Unfortunately for Marles, and even more unfortunately for Australian taxpayers, such submarines may already be obsolete, and certainly will be by the time the first boat is delivered. One of the main reasons for this is their expulsion of hot water from the reactor cooling systems, which is easily detected by surface vessels, as well as by aircraft and satellites. Another reason is the advances made in the capability of uncrewed submersible drones. These cost about $12 million each: about 30,000 effectively expendable deadly drones for the cost of six useless nuclear-powered submarines.