Coalition government should admit its mistake on the submarine project

Defence Minister Linda Reynolds concludes we remain “on track” with our submarines (“Underwater: subs plan to soak up extra $10bn”, 4/5). That’s the track to hit $90bn, plus $145bn to sustain them beyond their first deliveries, hopefully in 2034.

Fanfare: then they will to be greeted by Beijing’s new nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines. Defence should consider walking away from this deal.

Our anachronistic subs will need to be manned by artificial intelligence, not death-defying men, as they wait their fate in any conflict.

I await any government voice to explain this imbroglio. Silence reigns. Admit the mistake, or take advantage of a COVID-19 debt defence.

Betty Cockman, Dongara, WA

I always thought the greatest waste of taxpayers’ money in my lifetime was Labor’s NBN. But this has easily been surpassed by the Coalition’s decision to order 12 French nuclear subs to be converted to diesel electric engines at a cost of $90bn, the first of which won’t enter service for at least 10 years.

Meanwhile, China is deploying two more nuclear subs bringing its total to six. Imagine how many nuclear subs China will have in 10 years.

David G. Nankiville, Brighton East, Vic

Your article on the submarine project says “an urgent boost (is needed) in the nation’s firepower to counter an increasingly assertive China”.

This being so, we need nuclear powered submarines, not diesel powered. The main reason against nuclear — apart from pure politics — is that we do not have a nuclear industry in Australia to support a nuclear navy.

But, as Adam Creighton reported in The Weekend Australian (28/3), a US company is ready to work with Australia to build small modular reactors (SMRs) to join gas and renewables in providing energy for Australia by the mid-2020s.

This would be about the time that first nuclear powered submarines could be entering service here.

Don Higson, Paddington, NSW

The cost of dying

The ensuing letters on Greg Sheridan’s article (‘Abandon the old? Not on my watch”, 2/5) indicate that many elderly people accept with humility our mortality. In the uncomfortable discussion, costs are too often dismissed to altruistic beliefs.

Considering most of our health dollars are spent on the dying, the costs, not only monetary, must be assessed objectively.

Ken Hillman’s book, A Good Life to the End, explains from his personal experience and informed by his professional work as an ICU specialist, that modern medicine has hijacked the natural process of dying.

Yes, there is a finite health dollar but the trade-off is far more complex. The over-subscription and resulting resilience of antibiotics is one example of prolonging life of the dying at a cost on the living. Hospital emergency beds and ICU are no place for those dying of old age.

Sarah Childs, Lithgow, NSW

Decline of rugby

The excellent article by Wayne Smith on the decline of rugby in Australia summarised what years of talkfests have not (“The ugly truth about rugby’s insidious decline”, 2/5). The laws of the game have been killing rugby for years, and the statistics comparing the 1980s to the present day are impossible to ignore.

Supporters expect 80 minutes of non-stop action, but they get 36 minutes with the ball in play. The rulebook lists 199 infringements — is it any wonder the game is so stop-start?

Rugby should be a game for all shapes and sizes. The days of speedy backs are long gone, particularly with the influx of Pacific Islanders and Maori. Administrators should re-evaluate the rules to make the game much more non-stop.

Bruce Kennedy, Cammeray, NSW