@jesusmargar @VeryBadLlama

TBH ... I read the OP as a joke.

Also TBH, and I do *not* think that you intended it this way, I first read your reply as suggesting that we have child care to protect children ... from their parents. Which, as you might understand, I thought was a much worse take.

Perhaps, and I'm just suggesting an idea, there are many and varied reasons for having publicly funded childcare? We can consider the value from any one of: personal, developmental, economic and social-justice perspectives, and they can all be valid.

@luciedigitalni
I think that you are most probably correct that we are unlikely to be invaded soon.

But I wonder if anyone in Ukraine was saying that this time last year?

As to the need for them ... with the military, you never need them. Until you do. And if you don't have them then, things traditionally don't go well.

I feel like I'm sticking up for an idea that I'm not altogether comfortable with in the first place. 😐

In an ideal world nobody would need an army. How much we are in such a place is open to debate.

@luciedigitalni
WA. Definitely. Can't trust the sandgropers. (Don't tell my Dad I said that.)

More seriously, the system in question is highly mobile. So if you're looking at invasion forces having made it to shore, (which is a different discussion) you can take up positions 400km away and ...err ... light the fuse? Traditional artillery needs to be considerably closer. Australia is also looking to fit the system with at-sea-target capability to deal with ship-borne aggression. So based in a ring across the north and west ... it's not a bad option. The Ukranians have found it to be hugely useful.

My concern is not with the choice of system. I want to know what deal Australia has done to be offered a bargain price (yours, for only 1 billion dollars!) on a system that the USA has ususally kept very much to itself.

@luciedigitalni

Would it not be fair to say that, regardless of who it is, they will at some point have to get within this 400km range?