Sorry, perhaps I was being obtuse, or the historical South Australian procurement was in response to existing Sydney or Newcastle capacities union antics.I am unsure why he is union bashing. The Unions were well onside from day one of the submarine and ship building programme. They have not had a day of strikes or stoppages during that time. Amazing what can be achieved through co-operation rather than conflict.
I was trying to gesture at the habit of Australian Governments in establishing Brand New Industries in opposition to existing problematic-union industries. Newcastle Steel came out of iirc a Lithgow strike and ongoing Newcastle Coal actions as an "American style" plant. Lysaghts Wollongong came out of definitely a Lysaghts strike as open to existing unions, but with a reconfigured terrain so they wouldn't be uppity like in Lithgow.
I guess I was suggesting that Nick Origlass staying in the docks through the 70s or 80s with equal success to being Balmain Mayor might encourage rather than an Adelaide greenfield with Perth and Sydney basing, an Adelaide greenfield with Northern basing.
Apart from Newcastle being safe labor, the death throws of the metals unions in Newcastle was a procurement risk compared to South Australian in real life.
I'm trying to see what level of weight would actually push full base construction in the North. Absence of population isn't a reason as we've seen with FIFO mining, or the creation of Port Kembla. I wasn't trying to argue it was sensible, but see how much weight would be needed on the scale. I don't understand the pull factors of military science, having done most of my work after undergraduate in working class organisation, so I tried to see with "push" factors along the lines of, "I wouldn't get my tinnie serviced in Sydney, bloody painters and dockers." etc.
sorry for distractions, or friday night post quality,