AUKUS

[Mofra]

Is it rational to trigger an apparent adversary then ask if they can kindly wait 30 years before taking up th challenge?

An adversary who we’ve also progressively made our major trading partner?

China are building the equivalent of our entire Navy each year, year on year.

At a guess, they'd be more concerned at the ability of US nuclear subs to dock and repair in Australia than they would be about 3 subs based in a nation whose open doctrine for sea power is keeping merchant navy supply lanes open.

I suspect we might be interested in contributing to a trade blockade in the Indian ocean where China obtain 75% of their energy imports, hence the trip to India prior to the AUKUS announcement.

The idea that we're sailing up to Taiwan at the drop of a hat, or China would bother sending an amphibious force 7k+ kms away to Australia, is fantasy.

 

[Taylor]

Yes China does have one

Now how about the US

(What did you name your Turtle?)

I almost wrote that you'll jump straight to whataboutism but didn't think you'd totally surrender your pro China argument that quickly.

You folded faster than superman in a red shirt.

 

[Schneebly11]

I suspect we might be interested in contributing to a trade blockade in the Indian ocean where China obtain 75% of their energy imports, hence the trip to India prior to the AUKUS announcement.

Sorry, why are we going to contribute to a trade blockade in the Indian Ocean?

Why do we need to stop China from sourcing oil and gas from the Middle East?

What is the point of that?

 

[Gethelred]

Everything you say depends on rational behaviours.

You've made this pivot before and it's a fair point, but going out of one's way to assume irrationality is akin to running government policy on an opposite day setting.

Asking for rational behaviour from a dictator who has millions locked in concentration camps in case they might be terrorists as well as torturing his own citizens for dissent or being part of a banned religion may be a bit much if history is anything to go by.

Appeasement doesnt work.

Tell you what. I'll refrain from calling you a racist for perpetuating Yellow Peril rhetoric if you refrain from telling me I'm advocating appeasement when at no point have I mentioned slowing the ramp up of military production.

Sound good?

Again look at UKRAINE. …. Russia has been chipping away at Europe bit by bit for years as a result if appeasement.

Ukraine... which is a next. Door. Neighbour.

 

[sataris]

I almost wrote that you'll jump straight to whataboutism but didn't think you'd totally surrender your pro China argument that quickly.

You folded faster than superman in a red shirt.

I didn't read it as Pro-China as much as Anti-US.

But I have been drinking.

 

[Mofra]

Sorry, why are we going to contribute to a trade blockade in the Indian Ocean?

Why do we need to stop China from sourcing oil and gas from the Middle East?

What is the point of that?

In the event of live conflict, obviously.

 

[sataris]

In the event of live conflict, obviously.

Isn't there a land pipeline between Iran and China?

Whilst I think they are amazing pieces of tech, I don't think they're very effective against inland targets.

Unless you're loading them with Tomahawk missiles. (Which I don't even think Virginia class submarines can operate).

 

[Mofra]

Isn't there a land pipeline between Iran and China?

Whilst I think they are amazing pieces of tech, I don't think they're very effective against inland targets.

Unless you're loading them with Tomahawk missiles. (Which I don't even think Virginia class submarines can operate).

TBH I doubt the land pipeline would last very long in the event of hostilities.

I do think any rapid build up of Chinese fuel reserves would serve as a red flag for western intelligence agencies

 

[sataris]

TBH I doubt the land pipeline would last very long in the event of hostilities.

I do think any rapid build up of Chinese fuel reserves would serve as a red flag for western intelligence agencies

Well, They are building 5 destroyers at once in a single shipyard. I'm not a Chinese foreign policy expert, so I can't say if this actually means anything.

Five Type 052D Destroyers Under Construction in China - Naval News

 

[Mofra]

Well, They are building 5 destroyers at once in a single shipyard. I'm not a Chinese foreign policy expert, so I can't say if this actually means anything.

Five Type 052D Destroyers Under Construction in China - Naval News

They're building a truckload more than just destroyers. It's a massive build up, not just ships but missile capacity too. The US (arguably) wouldn't be able to stop a Chinese invasion of Taiwan, but they would cripple them economically.

It's why the race Rare Earth Minerals and recent Treasurer decisions are so vital. China currently control the bulk of world supply with Australia and Africa offering reasonable alternative supply prospects.

 

[Schneebly11]

TBH I doubt the land pipeline would last very long in the event of hostilities.

I do think any rapid build up of Chinese fuel reserves would serve as a red flag for western intelligence agencies

That's why China's BRI is building multiple pathways across from the ME and Europe to China. Are we going to attack all those nations too?

By attacking China's flow of resources aren't we just inviting them to launch missile attacks against mainland Australia?

All a conflict of this magnitude does is cause fuel to spike to $10 a litre, all our exports destroyed, share market obliterated, unemployment through the roof, a rapid decrease in social spending, mass societal dysfunction, increase in preventable death.

All to ensure the US remains the dominant East Asian military power. F**k that

 

[Mofra]

That's why China's BRI is building multiple pathways across from the ME and Europe to China. Are we going to attack all those nations too?

By attacking China's flow of resources aren't we just inviting them to launch missile attacks against mainland Australia?

All a conflict of this magnitude does is cause fuel to spike to $10 a litre, all our exports destroyed, share market obliterated, unemployment through the roof, a rapid decrease in social spending, mass societal dysfunction, increase in preventable death.

All to ensure the US remains the dominant East Asian military power. F**k that

You missed the discussion earlier about our refining capacity (or lack thereof) and the primary objective of keeping the sea lanes to Singapore open.

Irrespective of what subs we buy, or any subsequent policy stance, Jindalee and Pine Gap would be prime targets for China if they attacked Taiwan. We could declare neutrality and it would make zero difference if both facilities are operating.

 

[Schneebly11]

Jindalee and Pine Gap would be prime targets for China if they attacked Taiwan. We could declare neutrality and it would make zero difference if both facilities are operating.

If we hadn't aligned ourselves so closely to the US military then those facilities would be viewed solely for the purposes of defending Australia. The only reason China would attack Australia is because Australia is effectively a branch of the US military now.

 

[sataris]

If we hadn't aligned ourselves so closely to the US military then those facilities would be viewed solely for the purposes of defending Australia. The only reason China would attack Australia is because Australia is effectively a branch of the US military now.

This has been true since basically WW2

 

[Taylor]

I didn't read it as Pro-China as much as Anti-US.

But I have been drinking.

It was pro China right up until the point it became anti US, when the actions of China needed to be brushed aside so that there can be nothing escalating from their side.

He's right that the US has been escalating conflict, they've done it the world over.

 

[Mofra]

If we hadn't aligned ourselves so closely to the US military then those facilities would be viewed solely for the purposes of defending Australia. The only reason China would attack Australia is because Australia is effectively a branch of the US military now.

We lack the technical capacity to develop those systems by ourselves. Isolationism isn't necessarily a guarantee of safety either.

Pre-90s our major capital expenditure was as much British & French so the binary nature of the Cold War agreements is something that is well entrenched in decades of defense policy.

I'm grateful we've at least moved on from the adversarial relationship we held with Indonesia.

 

[Schneebly11]

Isolationism isn't necessarily a guarantee of safety either.

Pre-90s our major capital expenditure was as much British & French so the binary nature of the Cold War agreements is something that is well entrenched in decades of defense policy.

I'm grateful we've at least moved on from the adversarial relationship we held with Indonesia.

Not really addressing my point. The only way we get attacked by China is being part of the US war machine. In that oft quoted Global Times article that "threatened" an attack against Australia, the bit usually left out is the preceding sentence where the paper made it clear that an attack against Australia would only occur if Australia took part in a US military attack against China first.

How about the Australian Defence Force be used to defend Australia, not attempt to choke off Chinese trade in far off oceans to stifle their economic growth.

Maybe it is an inevitable truth that the world's next power will be from Asia, the biggest and most populated continent. Maybe we just have to accept that, work with our neighbours (ASEAN) recast ourselves as a Eurasian nation, not a bootlicking Anglosphere island dreaming of a distant past.

 

[Taylor]

Not really addressing my point. The only way we get attacked by China is being part of the US war machine. In that oft quoted Global Times article that "threatened" an attack against Australia, the bit usually left out is the preceding sentence where the paper made it clear that an attack against Australia would only occur if Australia took part in a US military attack against China first.

How about the Australian Defence Force be used to defend Australia, not attempt to choke off Chinese trade in far off oceans to stifle their economic growth.

Maybe it is an inevitable truth that the world's next power will be from Asia, the biggest and most populated continent. Maybe we just have to accept that.

There is a possible future in which China releases a lot of generational anger at Japan, kicked off by taking control of little parts of the island chain of Japan that are very close to Taiwan. That future could have the US and Australia both walk away from an obligation to defend Japan - with some rationalisations that they've had enough time now to build up their military after a period of allied enforced inability to build that force.

But I don't think the US war machine will blink at the chance to pour trillions more money into Boeing et al safely nestled on US mainland soil while the bombs fall on the other side of the ocean.

That's the driving factor. Wars don't start for the right reasons, they are full of lies and deception - they end for the right reasons.

 

[Mofra]

Not really addressing my point. The only way we get attacked by China is being part of the US war machine. In that oft quoted Global Times article that "threatened" an attack against Australia, the bit usually left out is the preceding sentence where the paper made it clear that an attack against Australia would only occur if Australia took part in a US military attack against China first.

How about the Australian Defence Force be used to defend Australia, not attempt to choke off Chinese trade in far off oceans to stifle their economic growth.

Maybe it is an inevitable truth that the world's next power will be from Asia, the biggest and most populated continent. Maybe we just have to accept that, work with our neighbours (ASEAN) recast ourselves as a Eurasian nation, not a bootlicking Anglosphere island dreaming of a distant past.

I disagree with the assertion that we have had the capacity for such strident isolationism. Sweden is the closest parallel given their domestic industry and attempts at neutrality, and they have been an independent nation for centuries longer than Australia has. That neutrality has recently been shattered by world events.

I disagreed with our involvement in Gulf War 2 and the Vietnam War was a mistake, but this is not simply a one-way relationship. The intertwining of Australia with the world's largest economy and it's associated intelligence gathering capacity still has a number of benefits.

I do think diplomacy is still our best defense and closer ties to India are a huge beneficial factor, but it would be negligent to be unprepared for worst case scenarios.

You're still ignoring the Singapore angle too.

 

[sataris]

I do think diplomacy is still our best defense and closer ties to India are a huge beneficial factor, but it would be negligent to be unprepared for worst case scenarios.

I mean in this world where we are heading, I find myself wondering if our lack of gun culture will come back to haunt us.

 

[Mofra]

I mean in this world where we are heading, I find myself wondering if our lack of gun culture will come back to haunt us.

I don't think 'boots on the ground' is a concern for Australia. 'Brisbane Line' and all that.

Killing our manufacturing and refining industries do make us economically vulnerable though.

 

[Saint]

I mean in this world where we are heading, I find myself wondering if our lack of gun culture will come back to haunt us.

We'll send the Emus across the Brisbane line in waves.

Honestly, we're not under threat of CHinese invasion, but many of our close trading partners are. Just because they're our major trading partner doesn't mean we can't live without them. If China were economically cut off for invading Taiwan, for example. All the manufacturing out of China would be relocated to other nations and the demand for our resources would continue. China is the icing on our cake, but we're fine without them.

WIth state of the art equipment, like nuclear subs, we can protect growing trade partners such as Indonesia and Malaysia and Vietnam as they come under increasing Chinese military threat.

 

[Festerz]

Paul Keating at the National Press Club earlier today talking about the sub deal. PK has lot a bit of his sharpness in his twilight years but none of his acidity. He swats away journos asking superficial rhetorical questions like he would deal with blowflies at a barbie.

Always entertaining but more importantly he makes some very important points about the operational characteristics of the US attack class boats which are worth proper discussion.



Also interesting to note that the Australian/US Government funded Australian Strategic Policy Institute have today posted coverage of the study I linked earlier on the increasing detection risk for large submarines:

 

[Gethelred]

See, I'm inclined to agree with the Roosevelt line kranky al's fond of: walk softly and carry a big stick. What I don't see is why we need to be a part of a military assault that targets China economically, a long way from where we can extend our own force, before we're holding a big stick.

Why not remain neutral until we're as ready as we're going to be, all the while trying to talk tensions down?

The other thread - the Inevitable War one - represents another perspective; if the war is inevitable, what would be the appropriate steps? I cannot see how adding more gunpowder to a keg is an appropriate step when it is in our best interest to delay a war until we are better equipped to fight it.

 

[Baltimore Jack]

It was pro China right up until the point it became anti US, when the actions of China needed to be brushed aside so that there can be nothing escalating from their side.

He's right that the US has been escalating conflict, they've done it the world over.

I bet you just call your Turtle, "Turtle"