AUKUS

[Aristotle Pickett]

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

Comparing China to Nazi Germany, what a load of rubbish.
Where do you get your ideas from? Do you have a publication name or are they all your ideas?

 

[Aristotle Pickett]

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

Yes ,right wing Albo has sore knees from licking American arse at the moment. What a dissapointment he is.

 

[Taylor]

It's a while away for us having nuclear submarines too.

It's amazing what money can do though.

The technology exists for nuclear submarines, you'd be able to have nuclear powered road trains though. The energy density required for freight excludes it from being electric.

 

[Schneebly11]

Except the Americans had no intention of keeping the land or ruling it. They just backed a terrible horse (against another bad horse).

Errrr no.

They had intentions of only leaving the land once their chosen leader in the South was safe.

And I specifically mean “chosen”. South Vietnamese PM Diem was overthrown and murdered by South Vietnamese Army troops in 1963 with CIA backing and funding. From then on until the victory of the North in 1975 South Vietnam was ruled by a military junta. 500 Australians didn’t die in Vietnam for “democracy”, they were defending a military led dictatorship.
Few Australians know this today, “lest we forget” my ass.

 

[Baltimore Jack]

Yes ,right wing Albo has sore knees from licking American arse at the moment. What a dissapointment he is.

Its neo-con thinking at its absolute worst.

 

[Saint]

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.

So your circular logic is that we should be invading North Korea?

Or we don't worry about invasions until they reach PNG/Indonesia? I suppose that worked during WW2, but only because the US stepped in.

None of Australia's business what happens in Taiwan eh? Did you miss the bit where they're our 5th biggest trade partner? How many of our trade partners do we let China invade until we start caring?

 

[Saint]

Errrr no.

They had intentions of only leaving the land once their chosen leader in the South was safe.

And I specifically mean “chosen”. South Vietnamese PM Diem was overthrown and murdered by South Vietnamese Army troops in 1963 with CIA backing and funding. From then on until the victory of the North in 1975 South Vietnam was ruled by a military junta. 500 Australians didn’t die in Vietnam for “democracy”, they were defending a military led dictatorship.
Few Australians know this today, “lest we forget” my ass.

I did mention they were both bad horses to back.

I must have missed the part where Ho was democratically elected. Oh, no that's right the North refused to hold elections in accordance with the Geneva accords they signed up to.

 

[Power Raid]

So you are saying if China does peruse reunification with Taiwan - which Australia formally recognises as One China - that Australia should go to war? And for what? To protect USA business interests? What else?

Australia recognises one China but don't confuse that with not supporting Taiwan if China takes Taiwan by force. If China were to invade Taiwan, the US has guaranteed Taiwan's security.

Australia and many other nations will be dragged in.


Other flash points that could drag in Australia include the Philippines, Japan, Korea, India and something as simple of enforcing rules related to maritime trade.


My suggestion is, make some friends with mainland chinese working in SOEs in Australia or abroad. Listen to what they have been instructed to do and plan for.

 

[Aristotle Pickett]

So your circular logic is that we should be invading North Korea?

Or we don't worry about invasions until they reach PNG/Indonesia? I suppose that worked during WW2, but only because the US stepped in.

None of Australia's business what happens in Taiwan eh? Did you miss the bit where they're our 5th biggest trade partner? How many of our trade partners do we let China invade until we start caring?

They haven't invaded Taiwan and they probably won't . You want to start 'caring' for Taiwon but you want to not care for all the other countries that have been annexed.
Starting WW3 over Taiwan is madness.
Re North Korea, we and America should be talking to China about getting rid of Kim.
Do you care for the millions of oppressed North Koreans who live in the most backwood arduous dictatorship on the planet?

 

[Baltimore Jack]

They haven't invaded Taiwan and they probably won't . You want to start 'caring' for Taiwon but you want to not care for all the other countries that have been annexed.
Starting WW3 over Taiwan is madness.
Re North Korea, we and America should be talking to China about getting rid of Kim.
Do you care for the millions of oppressed North Koreans who live in the most backwood arduous dictatorship on the planet?

How does a country invade its own country?

 

[Schneebly11]

I did mention they were both bad horses to back.

I must have missed the part where Ho was democratically elected. Oh, no that's right the North refused to hold elections in accordance with the Geneva accords they signed up to.

Did that justify war in Vietnam? Was North Vietnam threatening Australia? Why did 500 Australians die, and contribute to the deaths of many people, a lot innocent (Australian soldiers committed war crimes in Vietnam too) who were just trying to defend their homes?

HCM wanted the Americans help in creating an independent unified Vietnamese state, but they snubbed him and split the country in two. Another strategic foreign policy blunder.

To tie this back into today we’re being told it’s necessary for Australia to be involved military in a conflict with China.

How does this protect Australia?

How does this benefit the region?

And I guess the most important question, Why China? Why does China need to be stopped? Are they the threat to world peace we’ve been told they are?

We’ve just seen in the resumption of Iran-Saudi diplomacy that China is more interested in Middle East peace than America and can actually broker a solution. Don’t underestimate how significant that event was, a lot of nations (maybe not this one as we’ve been thoroughly brainwashed) may start to think “is China the evil bogeyman we’ve been told they are?”

 

[Saint]

They haven't invaded Taiwan and they probably won't . You want to start 'caring' for Taiwon but you want to not care for all the other countries that have been annexed.
Starting WW3 over Taiwan is madness.
Re North Korea, we and America should be talking to China about getting rid of Kim.
Do you care for the millions of oppressed North Koreans who live in the most backwood arduous dictatorship on the planet?

Yes, I do, but I recognise there's not a lot we can do about it. And obviously, the Chinese aren't about to push for an overthrow of Kim based on Human Rights abuses. I also care about the people of Tibet, women of Afghanistan and much of the Arab world, poor people in the US. But we're talking about Australian defence, and Submarines are our best deterrent against whoever might pop up in the next 30 years.

So we appease China over Taiwan. Who cares if it becomes the next Hong Kong where democracy is traded for totalitarianism? What about if they invade Vietnam again. At what point does the appeasement stop? Do we have to build a Pacific version of NATO to deter China, and then China and people like you will call it a justification for further invasions.

I hope we build the subs and never have to use them. I'd have gone for the cheaper French version, but the discussion would be about the same.

 

[Baltimore Jack]

Did that justify war in Vietnam? Was North Vietnam threatening Australia? Why did 500 Australians die, and contribute to the deaths of many people, a lot innocent (Australian soldiers committed war crimes in Vietnam too) who were just trying to defend their homes?

HCM wanted the Americans help in creating an independent unified Vietnamese state, but they snubbed him and split the country in two. Another strategic foreign policy blunder.

To tie this back into today we’re being told it’s necessary for Australia to be involved military in a conflict with China.

How does this protect Australia?

How does this benefit the region?

And I guess the most important question, Why China? Why does China need to be stopped? Are they the threat to world peace we’ve been told they are?

We’ve just seen in the resumption of Iran-Saudi diplomacy that China is more interested in Middle East peace than America and can actually broker a solution. Don’t underestimate how significant that event was, a lot of nations (maybe not this one as we’ve been thoroughly brainwashed) may start to think “is China the evil bogeyman we’ve been told they are?”

We have always been America's poodle, the subs decision fits that narrative perfectly

 

[Aristotle Pickett]

Yes, I do, but I recognise there's not a lot we can do about it. And obviously, the Chinese aren't about to push for an overthrow of Kim based on Human Rights abuses. I also care about the people of Tibet, women of Afghanistan and much of the Arab world, poor people in the US. But we're talking about Australian defence, and Submarines are our best deterrent against whoever might pop up in the next 30 years.

So we appease China over Taiwan. Who cares if it becomes the next Hong Kong where democracy is traded for totalitarianism? What about if they invade Vietnam again. At what point does the appeasement stop? Do we have to build a Pacific version of NATO to deter China, and then China and people like you will call it a justification for further invasions.

I hope we build the subs and never have to use them. I'd have gone for the cheaper French version, but the discussion would be about the same.

I'm not sure what good 8 subs will do. 100's of Planes and ships would be better defence and much cheaper.

 

[Kwality]

Errrr no.

They had intentions of only leaving the land once their chosen leader in the South was safe.

And I specifically mean “chosen”. South Vietnamese PM Diem was overthrown and murdered by South Vietnamese Army troops in 1963 with CIA backing and funding. From then on until the victory of the North in 1975 South Vietnam was ruled by a military junta. 500 Australians didn’t die in Vietnam for “democracy”, they were defending a military led dictatorship.
Few Australians know this today, “lest we forget” my ass.

Lest we forget for our guys that paid the ultimate sacrifice, you charlatan.

 

[QuietB]

Australia recognises one China but don't confuse that with not supporting Taiwan if China takes Taiwan by force. If China were to invade Taiwan, the US has guaranteed Taiwan's security.

Australia and many other nations will be dragged in.


Other flash points that could drag in Australia include the Philippines, Japan, Korea, India and something as simple of enforcing rules related to maritime trade.


My suggestion is, make some friends with mainland chinese working in SOEs in Australia or abroad. Listen to what they have been instructed to do and plan for.

But why?

USA interests in Taiwan is the USA's major tech manufacturing - to be used to manufacture shit they sell to Australians (amongst others) but never pay tax on.

That is not an Australian interest - that is a USA interest.

Why should Australia get dragged in. Again, have we found those weapons of mass destruction yet? The USA are hardly a trustworthy partner. And that is before they elect their next Trump like nut job.

We sell rocks and lobsters and do SFA else. Maybe Australia should stick to selling rocks and lobsters. And if we are worried about defence then maybe we actually build a defence - not help the USA forward project USA power.

 

[dockerfemme]

An interesting article by Rex Patrick on the topic. I just want a Ferrari, sorry, a nuclear submarine, no matter the cost - Michael West

I don’t have any real knowledge of defence strategies, war, weapons etc, but on the face of it, the article makes good sense to me. Doing something broader, quicker, but less ambitious, and including things like cyber security, manufacturing security etc sounds sensible, I think.

Anyway, too late now.

 

[Schneebly11]

Lest we forget for our guys that paid the ultimate sacrifice, you charlatan.

So now we're moving into "YOU DON'T SUPPORT OUR DIGGERS" nonsense?

If Australian soldiers died in the mud of a foreign country fighting to prop up a military dictatorship and the Australian public is generally unaware of this then "Lest We Forget" has utterly failed.

 

[QuietB]

So now we're moving into "YOU DON'T SUPPORT OUR DIGGERS" nonsense?

If Australian soldiers died in the mud of a foreign country fighting to prop up a military dictatorship and the Australian public is generally unaware of this then "Lest We Forget" has utterly failed.

I'm not sure if reverence to the "the diggers" sit above or below canon law - but they are up there.

I think the official conservative order is;

1. Coal
2. "Diggers"
3. Cook
4. Australia Day
5. Canon Law
6. Protecting pedophiles

 

[Festerz]

Lest we forget for our guys that paid the ultimate sacrifice, you charlatan.

How dare you!

I have a brother in law who was shot and severely wounded in Bien Hoa Province while serving as a conscripted soldier with the RAR. He still suffers ongoing major health issues and trauma to this day. And I am certainly not alone in having friends and family members who have died or suffered from overseas conflicts.

Don't you dare use the service and sacrifices of others as a pulpit for your idiotic politically motivated rants. It is the ultimate sign of disrespect and cowardice.

 

[Kwality]

An interesting article by Rex Patrick on the topic. I just want a Ferrari, sorry, a nuclear submarine, no matter the cost - Michael West

I don’t have any real knowledge of defence strategies, war, weapons etc, but on the face of it, the article makes good sense to me. Doing something broader, quicker, but less ambitious, and including things like cyber security, manufacturing security etc sounds sensible, I think.

Anyway, too late now.

Understanding Australia's part if/when China exercises its muscle is the guts of the article by former Senator Patrick (who served on Oberon class subs that pre date the current fleet of Collins class).

Its dry reading, Patricks analysis is an exercise of common sense:
'China depends on imports for 72% of its oil consumption, and the overwhelming majority of China’s oil imports must pass through maritime chokepoints over which the United States has significant influence. China’s dependency is complicated by the fact an overwhelming portion of its energy imports come from its west. 43% of its oil is sourced in the Persian Gulf, 25% from the Gulf of Aden and Africa and 9% from the Americas, with the overwhelming majority of that passing through the Malacca Straits. Security of supply would be a significant weak point in any conflict China finds itself involved in with the US.

In time of conflict the United States Navy, perhaps in conjunction with European or other regional coalition partners, could secure the Straits of Hormuz. India, part of the Quad, could assist with operations from the Persian Gulf through to the Andaman Seas.'

'Indonesia, Malaysia and, particularly, Singapore would exercise control over the Malacca Straits with Indonesia and Australia jointly responsible for shutting down Chinese oil carriage through Sunda and Lombok (and up through Makassar Straits). With these routes controlled, the only remaining option for China would be to re-direct shipping around Southern Australia.'

 

[Schneebly11]

An interesting article by Rex Patrick on the topic. I just want a Ferrari, sorry, a nuclear submarine, no matter the cost - Michael West

I don’t have any real knowledge of defence strategies, war, weapons etc, but on the face of it, the article makes good sense to me. Doing something broader, quicker, but less ambitious, and including things like cyber security, manufacturing security etc sounds sensible, I think.

Anyway, too late now.

The map of Eurasia in that article showing China's trade routes and a US led plan to choke them of resources in a potential conflict also shows China's answer to this which will render these $400 billion dollar submarines eventually obsolete.

Look at how China is now transferring it's supply routes by land instead of sea, constructing pipelines, highways and railways into the vast resource rich lands of Central Asia. By negotiating restoration of diplomacy between Saudi Arabia and Iran they can build transport infrastructure to move goods and resources overland from the Gulf to China. They can go into Afghanistan and rebuild the country's infrastructure there to help transport the resources from the Gulf, and obviously the Afghanis will support China over the nations who committed war crimes in their country. They can move goods from Africa to Gwadar port in Pakistan and then transport them direct into China via the Karakoram Highway (perhaps why some Indians want to invade Pakistani Kashmir and cut Pakistan off from China).

They use their BRI projects to switch their trade from being primarily sea based to land based (also more carbon friendly) and any US led attempt to use submarines to choke them off in the Strait of Malacca or South China Sea becomes obsolete. The only way the West can cut off China from resources and choke them in the event of a conflict is to cut off their trade routes overland. So that means US led and Australian supported invasions of Pakistan, Afghanistan, Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan, maybe even Iran to overthrow those governments and install US friendly ones to cut off Chinese trade infrastructure.

So how many future Australian kids have to die in the mountains of Central Asia so we can keep the USA the world's number one country?

 

[Schneebly11]

'Indonesia, Malaysia and, particularly, Singapore would exercise control over the Malacca Straits with Indonesia and Australia jointly responsible for shutting down Chinese oil carriage through Sunda and Lombok (and up through Makassar Straits). With these routes controlled, the only remaining option for China would be to re-direct shipping around Southern Australia.'

So Australians have to use $400 billion submarines to sink Chinese cargo ships and oil tankers in the Southern Ocean and kill thousands of Chinese sailors for what? To keep white people on top?

 

[CD Xbow]

Our country is going backwards and wasting our resources to shore up other countries interests.
8 subs for $45 billion each. What a ******* joke.
Albanese/Dutton, spot the difference.

Really that's just crap and you know it, I expect a bit better from you. Here are few of the components, I'm sure I've missed something.

8 Aukus Subs
3-5 'old' Virgins
Building the sub construction facility in SA
Investing in STEM training to produce technicians and engineers to support the program
Training and recruitment of crew
Upgrading HMAS Sterling significantly
Collins LOTE
Nuclear disposal facility - luckily SA is the only place in Oz that deserves it,
Set of steak knives

The fact that the PRC are going so hard at tryng to stop it through the IAEC, stirring up diplomatic issues with neighbours and raising the risks of nuclear weapons proliferation tells me it's a genuinely good idea that brings strategic concerns for the PLA.

Mind you, the PRC claims about nuclear proliferation are very hypocritical given they gave nuclear secrets to Pakistan to build their bomb, which then helped NK develop it's own nuclear weapons. The worst proliferator of actual nuclear weapons has been the PRC, remember that when you see PRC diplomats putting on concerned faces discussing the risk of nuclear proliferation from AUKUS.

 

[Kwality]

I'm not sure if reverence to the "the diggers" sit above or below canon law - but they are up there.

I think the official conservative order is;

1. Coal
2. "Diggers"
3. Cook
4. Australia Day
5. Canon Law
6. Protecting pedophiles

My father was lucky enough to survive WW2 as did the crew he flew with, some of whom 'baled out' for the exercise.
Only lost one of my mates in Vietnam, he didnt serve by choice. Another carries the physical scars.
All of whom carried the mental scars of war.

Clearly your understanding of the respect for the diggers is confused with politics.