AUKUS

[Aristotle Pickett]

Yes they're not going to invade Australia. But they are going to invade Taiwan. They openly say this. Its not worth WW3, but it is sacrificing a population similar to the size of Australia to an authoritarian state. And even a war just between China and Taiwan will be absolutely disastrous. Let alone what other ambitions they may have in the pacific. If you were Japan, for example, I think you would be fairly worried.. and they are.

Yeah yeah yeah, What about America?? What about UK? Yes both these countries have done horrible things in the past. But that doesn't take away from what China is doing to its own people now, the way it bullies other countries, and the rapid increase its undertaking in military power. It is going to become the dominant power in the pacific. And its a brutal, one party, authoritarian state. Is that good for the region? No. But theres nothing that can be done about that.

The best we can hope for is reform in China, and hence is outwards projection in the pacific changes. But you would be absolutely stupid to think their is no possibility of conflict. With or without the USA hanging around the pacific. The world doesn't revolve around the USA (as much as they think it does), but the history of much of the world is war, and its no different in the asia-pacific. Underlying disputes, territorial claims. With one power rising rapidly, the order is going to change, they'll have the power to do that, to right perceived wrongs. Any conflict in the pacific is going to effect Australia. * knows about the submarines, but its ignorant to think there is no chance of conflict, and that everything will continue on as is.

Taiwan has nothing to do with Australia and Australia recognizes it as part of China's territory anyway.
We don't go to war with any other invading country.
China aren't going to invade Taiwan anyway.
This talk of defending Taiwan is an excuse to become involved in an irrelevent war .
Australia doesn't go to war with invading Russia or Israel who are taking land.
It would be utter madness to bring back conscription and get involved in starting a war.
It's a mind numbingly stupid thing to do.

 

[RICHOLEGEND12]

Taiwan has nothing to do with Australia and Australia recognizes it as part of China's territory anyway.
We don't go to war with any other invading country.
China aren't going to invade Taiwan anyway.
This talk of defending Taiwan is an excuse to become involved in an irrelevent war .
Australia doesn't go to war with invading Russia or Israel who are taking land.
It would be utter madness to bring back conscription and get involved in starting a war.
It's a mind numbingly stupid thing to do.

And as I said in my post.. Is it worth WW3? No. We shouldn't get involved. My point was China has territorial ambitions, and even a China-Taiwan war is going to be bad for the region we're in. To sit back and just say 'Who's china invaded lately?' is ignorance.

 

[QuietB]

Jeez the Americans must laugh their arses off at Australia.

• They own half our mining and ship all the money off shore.
• They sell us iphones and social media and whatever else and never pay any tax here.
• And then when we finally do make a few dollars of our own they convince us to buy as much military hardware as possible for them.

We really are led by the most stupid people in Earth.

 

[Aristotle Pickett]

And as I said in my post.. Is it worth WW3? No. We shouldn't get involved. My point was China has territorial ambitions, and even a China-Taiwan war is going to be bad for the region we're in. To sit back and just say 'Who's china invaded lately?' is ignorance.

Who cares about Taiwan . Any economic power as big as China would be doing the same thing and worse.
Are you going to join the army and give your life to fight for Taiwan? Or Ukraine? It's not our business and the fake morality from people connected to arms manufacturing is pretty sickening to me.

 

[RICHOLEGEND12]

Who cares about Taiwan . Any economic power as big as China would be doing the same thing and worse.
Are you going to join the army and give your life to fight for Taiwan? Or Ukraine? It's not our business and the fake morality from people connected to arms manufacturing is pretty sickening to me.

Do you have ability to read? I've said twice now; Australia should not get involved in Taiwan.

 

[Aristotle Pickett]

Do you have ability to read? I've said twice now; Australia should not get involved in Taiwan.

So what do you Australia to do? Start a pacific arms race? Economic sanctions?

 

[RICHOLEGEND12]

So what do you Australia to do? Start a pacific arms race? Economic sanctions?

**** knows. My argument was, to think there in no chance of conflict is ignorant. The history of much of the world is conflict.

 

[Saint]

That's a big exaggerarion and totally irrelevent to us putting the country into debt for buying 8 useless submarines.
China isn't going to invade Australia, they have no history of invading western countries.
Why aren't you mentioning other countries with human rights abuses like North Korea,Yeman, Iran, Syria, Burma, Sudan and Russia(and Australia)? Should we be preparing for war with them as well?

A lot of people are conflating the China-fear-mongering with a discussion about whether we need submarines.

If not submarines, what kind of deterrent or armed forces should we have in place? Which part of the multiple published defence papers do you disagree with and why.

I don't think China will invade Taiwan in the near-term and I don't think they'll ever invade Australia. But if the whole SE Asian region just sat on their hands and let their military shrink while China increased theirs, it's only a matter of time until an expansionist leader took over the totalitarian Chinese state and started expanding.

Xi is a statesman much more like Putin than like any democratic leader. The problem with China is that it's led in a totalitarian fashion, and history tells us that it's only a matter of time until a totalitarian becomes expansionist.

Also, anyone who complains about US expansionism and says China is nothing like that and uses Vietnam as an example of US intervention needs to revisit their history books.

 

[Saint]

So what do you Australia to do? Start a pacific arms race? Economic sanctions?

Do you think China isn't already involved in a pacific arms race? We're in an arms race against a totalitarian state. What's the alternative to building our military? Not building it up and hoping upon the goodwill of the benevolent Chinese leaders and what they might do to our other trading partners in the region?

 

[QuietB]

A lot of people are conflating the China-fear-mongering with a discussion about whether we need submarines.

If not submarines, what kind of deterrent or armed forces should we have in place? Which part of the multiple published defence papers do you disagree with and why.

I don't think China will invade Taiwan in the near-term and I don't think they'll ever invade Australia. But if the whole SE Asian region just sat on their hands and let their military shrink while China increased theirs, it's only a matter of time until an expansionist leader took over the totalitarian Chinese state and started expanding.

Xi is a statesman much more like Putin than like any democratic leader. The problem with China is that it's led in a totalitarian fashion, and history tells us that it's only a matter of time until a totalitarian becomes expansionist.

Also, anyone who complains about US expansionism and says China is nothing like that and uses Vietnam as an example of US intervention needs to revisit their history books.

If Australia was serious about defence we would build defence capability.

You could develop and make a lot of drones for $340b. But I am sure a few second hand boats can do the same thing.

 

[Aristotle Pickett]

A lot of people are conflating the China-fear-mongering with a discussion about whether we need submarines.

If not submarines, what kind of deterrent or armed forces should we have in place? Which part of the multiple published defence papers do you disagree with and why.

I don't think China will invade Taiwan in the near-term and I don't think they'll ever invade Australia. But if the whole SE Asian region just sat on their hands and let their military shrink while China increased theirs, it's only a matter of time until an expansionist leader took over the totalitarian Chinese state and started expanding.

Xi is a statesman much more like Putin than like any democratic leader. The problem with China is that it's led in a totalitarian fashion, and history tells us that it's only a matter of time until a totalitarian becomes expansionist.

Also, anyone who complains about US expansionism and says China is nothing like that and uses Vietnam as an example of US intervention needs to revisit their history books.

There is no way we can compete with China's military. Four nuclear submarines is not a deterrant for anything in reality. It's a gigantic waste of money.
Like Keating says ships and planes are a reasonable investment for defence. We are spending way too much for what is reality a drop in the ocean and besides China have never threatened us. All they want is trade.

 

[Saint]

There is no way we can compete with China's military. Four nuclear submarines is not a deterrant for anything in reality. It's a gigantic waste of money.
Like Keating says ships and planes are a reasonable investment for defence. We are spending way too much for what is reality a drop in the ocean and besides China have never threatened us. All they want is trade.

China threaten our major trading partners, who add up to more than China in levels of trade. Of course we wouldn't win a confrontation by ourselves, but in concert with our other Asian trading partners, the submarines form part of a broader strategy.

For example, if China invaded Vietnam again (see 1979), sending ships and planes to defend Vietnam would see them very soon destroyed. But our subs operating in the Sth China sea could much better disrupt Chinese supply lines.

And ships and planes would have known whereabouts and be easily targeted and destroyed. Submarines form a decent deterrent because they're much harder to see/detect. This has been examined and explained for decades about why Australia maintains submarines instead of a larger airforce or surface navy.

Basically, we couldn't afford to defend our coastline or that of our neighbours, but subs would cause the most disruption.

 

[Saint]

If Australia was serious about defence we would build defence capability.

You could develop and make a lot of drones for $340b. But I am sure a few second hand boats can do the same thing.

$340b includes all the new subs as well.

I agree, missiles and drone manufacturing should be part of our defence strategy.

Luckily we have multiple drone manufacturers as well as advanced aerodynamics (see Fishermans Bend)

 

[Aristotle Pickett]

China threaten our major trading partners, who add up to more than China in levels of trade. Of course we wouldn't win a confrontation by ourselves, but in concert with our other Asian trading partners, the submarines form part of a broader strategy.

For example, if China invaded Vietnam again (see 1979), sending ships and planes to defend Vietnam would see them very soon destroyed. But our subs operating in the Sth China sea could much better disrupt Chinese supply lines.

And ships and planes would have known whereabouts and be easily targeted and destroyed. Submarines form a decent deterrent because they're much harder to see/detect. This has been examined and explained for decades about why Australia maintains submarines instead of a larger airforce or surface navy.

Basically, we couldn't afford to defend our coastline or that of our neighbours, but subs would cause the most disruption.

China was in Vietnam for 1 month, America were there for years dropping napalm on civilians.
Also there were mass atrocities like 'The Mỹ Lai massacre' was the mass murder of unarmed South Vietnamese civilians by United States troops in Sơn Tịnh district, South Vietnam, on 16 March 1968 during the Vietnam War.
The guy who killed most people and children got pardoned by Nixon and lives a happy life.
Not a good example to bring up.

 

[Power Raid]

A Guardian essential poll early last year found 61% of the Australian public thought Australia China relations were a “complex relationship to be managed” over 21% “a threat to be countered”.

Now because of the ridiculous propaganda lately that’ll no doubt have fallen but recently the vast majority of Australians were not interested in going to a war footing with China, so the Greens would represent the majority.

I would have thought we would have learned from history and that if we do not want war "we need to be prepared for war".

If you listened to Bill Shorten lately, his response on this very matter was mature, professional, respectful and honest. I have no doubt his views and thus labor's views reflect the majority.

What exactly is the Greens position? Is it a Neville Chamberlain or a Bill Shorten?

 

[Baltimore Jack]

Do you think China isn't already involved in a pacific arms race? We're in an arms race against a totalitarian state. What's the alternative to building our military? Not building it up and hoping upon the goodwill of the benevolent Chinese leaders and what they might do to our other trading partners in the region?

In that now-iconic interview, veteran journalist Lesley Stahl questioned Albright – then the US ambassador to the United Nations – on the catastrophic effect the rigorous US sanctions imposed after Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait had on the Iraqi population.

“We have heard that half a million [Iraqi] children have died. I mean, that is more children than died in Hiroshima,” asked Stahl, “And, you know, is the price worth it?”

“I think that is a very hard choice,” Albright answered, “but the price, we think, the price is worth it.”

With this response, Albright showed that she sees innocent Iraqi children as nothing more than disposable fodder in a conflict between the US administration and the Iraqi leadership.

 

[Power Raid]

If Australia was serious about defence we would build defence capability.

You could develop and make a lot of drones for $340b. But I am sure a few second hand boats can do the same thing.

I definitely hear you and believe submarines in there current form may be obsolete in the decades ahead unless they consider this in the design.

For example conventional subs aren't great warfare platforms but they are superb for reconnaissance. That recon is better done by satellite and other surveillance technologies.

Nuclear powered subs will face similar challenges but I feel they will become mother platforms for drones both air and water. These drones will be monitored by the mother platform and perhaps even controlled for a component of the drone's journey. Post that the drones will use AI to hit their targets or carry out their missions.

I guess I see the need for both, especially in an alliance where the defence of Australia requires the help of Japan and Korea. With the defence of these nations requiring the support of Australia. Meaning our defence means we will need to be able to project our force across vast distances.

 

[Baltimore Jack]

The USA quietly invaded Syria about a year ago.....just to steal their Oil

 

[Saint]

China was in Vietnam for 1 month, America were there for years dropping napalm on civilians.
Also there were mass atrocities like 'The Mỹ Lai massacre' was the mass murder of unarmed South Vietnamese civilians by United States troops in Sơn Tịnh district, South Vietnam, on 16 March 1968 during the Vietnam War.
The guy who killed most people and children got pardoned by Nixon and lives a happy life.
Not a good example to bring up.

Except the Americans had no intention of keeping the land or ruling it. They just backed a terrible horse (against another bad horse). Seems like you're doing the same. Since at the same time the US was doing that, China was undergoing the "cultural revolution" as well as arming Pol Pot.

The only reason China left Vietnam is because they had assumed they would reach Hanoi far more easily than what they realised they were going to encounter. They weren't invited in to help by a legitimate Government and they never had any intention of leaving. It was a purely expansionist move, and one to protect the Khmer Rouge.

There's a Pacific Arms race between China and America, and the region is overwhelmingly on the US side, which is of Democracy and the rule of law.

All the defenders of China are practically parroting the same lines Putin used. "Oh, I know they're threatening to invade Taiwan, but they'd never do it....." sounds awfully familiar to me.

How about "Oh, they wouldn't invade, their trade partners would disown them and it would be economic suicide, they're not that silly......"

Did you see the past leader of the CCP get escorted into captivity by Xi's men during the last conference? Xi has more power and is becoming increasingly isolated and nobody would be telling him the truth about the world.

 

[Saint]

In that now-iconic interview, veteran journalist Lesley Stahl questioned Albright – then the US ambassador to the United Nations – on the catastrophic effect the rigorous US sanctions imposed after Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait had on the Iraqi population.

“We have heard that half a million [Iraqi] children have died. I mean, that is more children than died in Hiroshima,” asked Stahl, “And, you know, is the price worth it?”

“I think that is a very hard choice,” Albright answered, “but the price, we think, the price is worth it.”

With this response, Albright showed that she sees innocent Iraqi children as nothing more than disposable fodder in a conflict between the US administration and the Iraqi leadership.

Except that those children died because Saddam Hussein spent what little money he had oppressing people and building his military instead of investing in a health-care system to protect them.

Of course Albright is not going to admit the sanctions were too harsh.

It was the Iraqi leadership who were most responsible for the death of its own citizens due to poor healthcare. US sanctions exacerbated what was already a leadership who wished that the majority of their population would die so that their own clique could rule unimpeded.

 

[Saint]

I definitely hear you and believe submarines in there current form may be obsolete in the decades ahead unless they consider this in the design.

For example conventional subs aren't great warfare platforms but they are superb for reconnaissance. That recon is better done by satellite and other surveillance technologies.

Nuclear powered subs will face similar challenges but I feel they will become mother platforms for drones both air and water. These drones will be monitored by the mother platform and perhaps even controlled for a component of the drone's journey. Post that the drones will use AI to hit their targets or carry out their missions.

I guess I see the need for both, especially in an alliance where the defence of Australia requires the help of Japan and Korea. With the defence of these nations requiring the support of Australia. Meaning our defence means we will need to be able to project our force across vast distances.

Yes, I think Submarines simply provide a less-detectable weapons platform with greater range and stealth. In their current form (missile platforms) they're useful and still will be, but as launching/landing place for drones (seaborne and airborne) they might become even more useful.

Instead of torpedos, it would be guided underwater drones which place explosive charges and return to the sub for another load. Much more efficient that torpedoes/missiles which are mostly delivery platform with a small warhead. Drones are essentially re-usable delivery platforms.

 

[Baltimore Jack]

US war monger apologists

"Oh, say can you see by the dawns early light......."

 

[Aristotle Pickett]

Except the Americans had no intention of keeping the land or ruling it. They just backed a terrible horse (against another bad horse). Seems like you're doing the same. Since at the same time the US was doing that, China was undergoing the "cultural revolution" as well as arming Pol Pot.

The only reason China left Vietnam is because they had assumed they would reach Hanoi far more easily than what they realised they were going to encounter. They weren't invited in to help by a legitimate Government and they never had any intention of leaving. It was a purely expansionist move, and one to protect the Khmer Rouge.

There's a Pacific Arms race between China and America, and the region is overwhelmingly on the US side, which is of Democracy and the rule of law.

All the defenders of China are practically parroting the same lines Putin used. "Oh, I know they're threatening to invade Taiwan, but they'd never do it....." sounds awfully familiar to me.

How about "Oh, they wouldn't invade, their trade partners would disown them and it would be economic suicide, they're not that silly......"

Did you see the past leader of the CCP get escorted into captivity by Xi's men during the last conference? Xi has more power and is becoming increasingly isolated and nobody would be telling him the truth about the world.

It's none of Australia's business what happens in Taiwan. If America and the UK want to pretend it's 1950, and they control the world, that's their loss.
We need to get along with our neighbours , not provoke them.
I never hear tears for the brainwashed Norh Korean people living in abject poverty neither.
If there is any case for preparing to invade a country because of their values, it's Nth Korea not China.

 

[Power Raid]

Do you think China isn't already involved in a pacific arms race? We're in an arms race against a totalitarian state. What's the alternative to building our military? Not building it up and hoping upon the goodwill of the benevolent Chinese leaders and what they might do to our other trading partners in the region?

In that now-iconic interview, veteran journalist Lesley Stahl questioned Albright – then the US ambassador to the United Nations – on the catastrophic effect the rigorous US sanctions imposed after Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait had on the Iraqi population.

“We have heard that half a million [Iraqi] children have died. I mean, that is more children than died in Hiroshima,” asked Stahl, “And, you know, is the price worth it?”

“I think that is a very hard choice,” Albright answered, “but the price, we think, the price is worth it.”

With this response, Albright showed that she sees innocent Iraqi children as nothing more than disposable fodder in a conflict between the US administration and the Iraqi leadership.

Saint, you're right we are in an arms race for against a nation that is driving the largest naval build u globally the world has ever seen. No doubt the stats on the air force, army, space and IT are the same.

We have a dictator who has not only cemented his position but also got rid of those around him that ask questions (deputy leader) and cemented stooges around him to protect him politically in preparation for war.

We have seen the same pattern recently with Putin and with our good friend Adolf.

We have seen China build autobahns to key choke points such as bhutan and India and build naval bases at key choke points.

This may not lead to war, as I hope not, but being ready and countering the war infrastructure is a must. As is continuing trade, diplomacy and standing up for what is right.

We should be (as we are) shifting our supply chains away from China and building a more wealth equal world by building up India, SE Asia and Africa. In my opinion the biggest threat to peace is poverty and corruption. Addressing this issue around the Indian ocean and elsewhere should be a priority. The Ukraine is high in the corruption rankings (for one reason or another) and this created division in which russia could manipulate.



Baltimore Jack you are right in your example of the US not being a beacon of light. Not only did a policy hurt civilians but there was an opportunity to put their hand up and say that got it wrong and could have done better. Australia has similar shames, as does the UK, Japan and every other nation including China. What we shouldn't do is excuse more wrong doings by saying "but they did it".

We should learn from mistakes and aim to avoid a repeat of these mistakes

 

[Baltimore Jack]

Do you think if we beg really really hard, the USA will let us become the 51st State

Think of the size of the Military bases we could have here, and don't get me started on all the Trump Hotels