On Scott's "nucular" / "our" nuclear submarines

In a discussion on Scott's "nucular" / "our" nuclear submarines this morning, I heard a comment that submarines are not a deterrent. I actually disagree with that: having weapons systems that provide effective defence well away from borders does provide some deterrence, but I also disagree that the submarines are about either deterrence or defence at a distance (defence in depth): they are about enabling a projection of power to chummy up to the USA by echoing and participating in their views of defence in the hope that the USA would provide sufficient clout to defend us against "any external threats" (currently China, but used to be Indonesia). 

However, the USA is NOT a stable, reliable ally - Afghanistan and Iraq have shown that, as did Vietnam and the US abandonment of the Philippines when Japan invaded it in 1941/42. South Korea (and the Korean War is actually the USA's longest war), is a better indication of the USA's potential to be reliable, and that relates to being useful to their views of what is in their national interest. And on THAT note, us allowing more US bombers and troops to be stationed here (also part of the deal), in addition to the US spy base at Pine Gap, is more more likely to ensure the US will defend us than nuclear submarines in the Pacific. 

Better use of diplomacy was raised. I agree with that, but we should NOT be such moral cowards who are afraid of antagonising China that we do not stand up to China on human rights issues. If we stop doing that we might as well apply to become Chinese denizens. 

Also, thinking - or arguing - that no defence forces are needed is naïve. That's just  not  going  to  happen with the world as it is now. In fact, all it does it put off potential supporters who decide you must be impractical, out-of-touch with reality, or just stupid. 

However, instead of defence at a distance, should focus smaller, local subs for defence of our coast - especially inside the Reef and other forces also adapted to our defence of territory needs. 

Once we have that, we can take a proper perspective on politically motivated force projection spending. After all, no-one is likely to invade China, but that's not because of their force projection at a distance, it's because they have a credible defence of territorial integrity force.