The Inevitable War - Keating goes bang

[Saint]

It's not our fight. If America want to be heros and defend them, it will be s**t for us.

Wouldn't it be great to live in your world where nobody ever does anything wrong and if everyone in the Pacific just disarmed, China would probably not even bother conquering the Taiwanese people, or any of their other neighbours, they'd probably just send flowers?

And we just trust that the next despotic ruler is equally benevolent.

But if we're wrong, it's just 10s of millions of Asian people who would suffer, so who cares?

 

[Festerz]

Speaking of Australia blindly following US into war...

 

[Sqotty from office works]

If the Chinese want to defeat us, all they have to do is cancel all Australian exports.

Jobs done.

 

[Aristotle Pickett]

Wouldn't it be great to live in your world where nobody ever does anything wrong and if everyone in the Pacific just disarmed, China would probably not even bother conquering the Taiwanese people, or any of their other neighbours, they'd probably just send flowers?

And we just trust that the next despotic ruler is equally benevolent.

But if we're wrong, it's just 10s of millions of Asian people who would suffer, so who cares?

But you're ok with North Korea? That's why you sound a bit hypocritical.

 

[Saint]

But you're ok with North Korea? That's why you sound a bit hypocritical.

Who said I was ok with North Korea?!?! I'm absolutely not OK with what the Kim family has done to the people of North Korea. And everyone knows that if South Korea disarmed, the North would invade near-instantly.

There are strict economic and military embargoes on North Korea. Not a lot more can be done which wouldn't lead to the suffering of more North Koreans, to be honest. The Kims would probably blow up the joint before giving up their power. We isolate them completely and hope the people or next leader comes to appreciate human life above their own position.

 

[Saint]

If the Chinese want to defeat us, all they have to do is cancel all Australian exports.

Jobs done.

This is greatly over-stated. If we stopped shipping them Iron Ore, our steel producers would have orders up to their eyeballs and greatly increased prices. Coal exports would decrease, which would probably be a net benefit to the Australian people (and globe, except the Chinese without electricity).

There would be short-term inflation, not as bad as Ukraine war, but probably about an additional 0.5% for a year as supply chains diverted from China. Instead of cheap Huawei and newest I-phones, we'd be back to Samsungs, Nokias and I-Phones produced in Vietnam and India. If they specifically stopped buying grain from Australia, they'd just end up buying noodles from Vietnam made with Australian grain sold at the same price.

The $2 shops would become the $2.50 shops full of cheap plastic crud.

Food exports would be the big sufferers, but they copped it during COVID and all survived.

 

[Sqotty from office works]

This is greatly over-stated. If we stopped shipping them Iron Ore, our steel producers would have orders up to their eyeballs and greatly increased prices. Coal exports would decrease, which would probably be a net benefit to the Australian people (and globe, except the Chinese without electricity).

There would be short-term inflation, not as bad as Ukraine war, but probably about an additional 0.5% for a year as supply chains diverted from China. Instead of cheap Huawei and newest I-phones, we'd be back to Samsungs, Nokias and I-Phones produced in Vietnam and India. If they specifically stopped buying grain from Australia, they'd just end up buying noodles from Vietnam made with Australian grain sold at the same price.

The $2 shops would become the $2.50 shops full of cheap plastic crud.

Food exports would be the big sufferers, but they copped it during COVID and all survived.

A Hahahahaha
Stop googling.

 

[Aristotle Pickett]

Who said I was ok with North Korea?!?! I'm absolutely not OK with what the Kim family has done to the people of North Korea. And everyone knows that if South Korea disarmed, the North would invade near-instantly.

There are strict economic and military embargoes on North Korea. Not a lot more can be done which wouldn't lead to the suffering of more North Koreans, to be honest. The Kims would probably blow up the joint before giving up their power. We isolate them completely and hope the people or next leader comes to appreciate human life above their own position.

So why do want to start a war with China and not North Korea ?

 

[Saint]

So why do want to start a war with China and not North Korea ?

Who said I wanted to start a war with China? I'm saying we should defend ourselves and trade partners from potential attacks by all totalitarian states. Sth Korea has US bases there to help defend from North Korea, even though they haven't invaded anyone in 70 years.

Only bullies say that defending yourself is a threat. Even the most hawkish of morons in US MIC are not calling for a war with China.

Let's put the question back the other way. If you think South Korea should defend itself from North Korea, why don't you think Vietnam should defend itself from China?

 

[Aristotle Pickett]

Who said I wanted to start a war with China? I'm saying we should defend ourselves and trade partners from potential attacks by all totalitarian states. Sth Korea has US bases there to help defend from North Korea, even though they haven't invaded anyone in 70 years.

Only bullies say that defending yourself is a threat. Even the most hawkish of morons in US MIC are not calling for a war with China.

Let's put the question back the other way. If you think South Korea should defend itself from North Korea, why don't you think Vietnam should defend itself from China?

We don't need to defend ourselves from China because there is zero indication they want to attack us.
We should be making friends with them instead of joining a proxy arms race in the region.

 

[Saint]

We don't need to defend ourselves from China because there is zero indication they want to attack us.
We should be making friends with them instead of joining a proxy arms race in the region.

We can be friends with them without being defenceless or abandoning our other trade partners who are scared of them.

Even Trump could see that Germany was too reliant on Russia and too friendly and it came back to bite them.

 

[Aristotle Pickett]

We can be friends with them without being defenceless or abandoning our other trade partners who are scared of them.

Even Trump could see that Germany was too reliant on Russia and too friendly and it came back to bite them.

8 subs won't defend us, they are just for spying purposes for the USA.
They are literally useless for defence.

 

[Sqotty from office works]

So why do want to start a war with China and not North Korea ?

The food.

 

[Saint]

8 subs won't defend us, they are just for spying purposes for the USA.
They are literally useless for defence.

That last sentence is mental.

You can't understand how submarines might be used to defend an island continent?

So, just to re-state your position:

Totalitarian regimes are not ever to be feared if they have not invaded anywhere recently other than disputed islands. Even if they're building a huge military presence, they're all fine. Until a country invades another, there's no reason to build up any military presence or deterrent.

My contrary position to this is that you cannot trust totalitarian regimes with a history of expansionism and should have some defensive capability in case the despot goes rogue/expansionist, which can happen any time since there's no clear succession plan.

Submarines are completely incapable of defending an island continent, they're "literally useless".

My contrary position to this is that they're the best deterrent and weapons platform given the expanse of our coastline and the likelihood of using them far from our shores before they'd be needed within 1,000km of our coastline, particularly for protecting our trading partners and shipping routes to our trading partners (all of them, not just one).

In summary, I don't think I'm going to be signing up to Aristotle Pickett's school for Foreign Policy and Defence any time soon.

 

[Aristotle Pickett]

That last sentence is mental.

You can't understand how submarines might be used to defend an island continent?

So, just to re-state your position:

Totalitarian regimes are not ever to be feared if they have not invaded anywhere recently other than disputed islands. Even if they're building a huge military presence, they're all fine. Until a country invades another, there's no reason to build up any military presence or deterrent.

My contrary position to this is that you cannot trust totalitarian regimes with a history of expansionism and should have some defensive capability in case the despot goes rogue/expansionist, which can happen any time since there's no clear succession plan.

Submarines are completely incapable of defending an island continent, they're "literally useless".

My contrary position to this is that they're the best deterrent and weapons platform given the expanse of our coastline and the likelihood of using them far from our shores before they'd be needed within 1,000km of our coastline, particularly for protecting our trading partners and shipping routes to our trading partners (all of them, not just one).

In summary, I don't think I'm going to be signing up to Aristotle Pickett's school for Foreign Policy and Defence any time soon.

China will have ten times as many as us by then. Planes and ships would be more use to stop an invasion, but there is not going to be an invasion.
All this is doing is provoking a far supierior military power. It's dumb, dumb ,dumb.

Read what David Livingston has to say.

David Livingstone is a former Australian diplomat and an international security and strategy specialist. He served as deputy head of mission in Iraq between 2011 and 2012.

We’ve bet everything on subs that will be obsolete by the time they arrive

Submarines are useful in war because of their stealth. But soon, much cheaper technology will readily detect them. So why are we spending billions on them?

www.smh.com.au

 

[Sqotty from office works]

That last sentence is mental.

You can't understand how submarines might be used to defend an island continent?

So, just to re-state your position:

Totalitarian regimes are not ever to be feared if they have not invaded anywhere recently other than disputed islands. Even if they're building a huge military presence, they're all fine. Until a country invades another, there's no reason to build up any military presence or deterrent.

My contrary position to this is that you cannot trust totalitarian regimes with a history of expansionism and should have some defensive capability in case the despot goes rogue/expansionist, which can happen any time since there's no clear succession plan.

Submarines are completely incapable of defending an island continent, they're "literally useless".

My contrary position to this is that they're the best deterrent and weapons platform given the expanse of our coastline and the likelihood of using them far from our shores before they'd be needed within 1,000km of our coastline, particularly for protecting our trading partners and shipping routes to our trading partners (all of them, not just one).

In summary, I don't think I'm going to be signing up to Aristotle Pickett's school for Foreign Policy and Defence any time soon.

A Hahahahaha.
3 subs against China
A Hahahahaha.
You've no idea m8.
Maybe the new subs would help us against a noo zeelan type of enemy.
But against china's war machine we've got no hope.
Please learn to either read or get tuition.

 

[Demons09]

A Hahahahaha.
3 subs against China
A Hahahahaha.
You've no idea m8.
Maybe the new subs would help us against a noo zeelan type of enemy.
But against china's war machine we've got no hope.
Please learn to either read or get tuition.

What are you doing here? you should be an adviser to our military lol.

 

[Saint]

A Hahahahaha.
3 subs against China
A Hahahahaha.
You've no idea m8.
Maybe the new subs would help us against a noo zeelan type of enemy.
But against china's war machine we've got no hope.
Please learn to either read or get tuition.

I've made it pretty clear, and so has AUKUS, that this is intended to be a regional defence strategy. Australia alone couldn't defend itself against Indonesia if they really wanted to wander across the sea.

We have subs, missiles and jets to contribute to assist others in the region and provide joint deterrent.

What's the alternative? Just let the USA and China dominate the world and the rest of us might as well not bother with a military because we'd lose against our largest enemy? And if North Korea invade South Korea again, we just shrug our shoulders and say "well, we would have had a military, but China could have just beaten it, so we didn't bother".

 

[Carringbush2010]

Ideological blindness on display again.

 

[Kwality]

l

I've made it pretty clear, and so has AUKUS, that this is intended to be a regional defence strategy. Australia alone couldn't defend itself against Indonesia if they really wanted to wander across the sea.

We have subs, missiles and jets to contribute to assist others in the region and provide joint deterrent.

What's the alternative? Just let the USA and China dominate the world and the rest of us might as well not bother with a military because we'd lose against our largest enemy? And if North Korea invade South Korea again, we just shrug our shoulders and say "well, we would have had a military, but China could have just beaten it, so we didn't bother".

The world has tried hard to ignore the intentions of China to dominate every facet of life & it went along with the benefits of growth that a developing China delivered to it.
Covid bought a reset to reality, especially for Australia from tourism to trade embargoes.
Toss in Climate Change politics with a different set of rules for some, despite worldwide consequences.

Then Russia invades Ukraine. It didnt take long to see the EU/EC were not going to do anything & hid behind NATO.
So IF the Yanks dont act as the worlds policeman (despite plenty of disquiet across the US).

Yep, we dont them to be the worlds policeman, but we object to what is happening in Ukraine. Doing nothing hasnt worked,

How can we be so righteous & sit back take pot shots at the US?

 

[QuietB]

I've made it pretty clear, and so has AUKUS, that this is intended to be a regional defence strategy. Australia alone couldn't defend itself against Indonesia if they really wanted to wander across the sea.

We have subs, missiles and jets to contribute to assist others in the region and provide joint deterrent.

What's the alternative? Just let the USA and China dominate the world and the rest of us might as well not bother with a military because we'd lose against our largest enemy? And if North Korea invade South Korea again, we just shrug our shoulders and say "well, we would have had a military, but China could have just beaten it, so we didn't bother".

How the hell are Indonesia going to "wander across the sea"?

 

[Sqotty from office works]

How the hell are Indonesia going to "wander across the sea"?

Think you're missing the point.
Climate change will create a land bridge.
Google it, it will pop up somewhere.

 

[QuietB]

The world has tried hard to ignore the intentions of China to dominate every facet of life & it went along with the benefits of growth that a developing China delivered to it.
Covid bought a reset to reality, especially for Australia from tourism to trade embargoes.
Toss in Climate Change politics with a different set of rules for some, despite worldwide consequences.

Then Russia invades Ukraine. It didnt take long to see the EU/EC were not going to do anything & hid behind NATO.
So IF the Yanks dont act as the worlds policeman (despite plenty of disquiet across the US).

Yep, we dont them to be the worlds policeman, but we object to what is happening in Ukraine. Doing nothing hasnt worked,

How can we be so righteous & sit back take pot shots at the US?

The security agreement that binds Europe is NATO.

And NATO are not engaged in the war in Ukraine in any way as no NATO members have been attacked.

Any support to Ukraine is made voluntarily outside NATO and if the US continues to provide weapons that is their choice - no one is forcing them. Of course normal Americans are enjoying seeing Russia suffer. I am sure Trump will take the side of Russia though if he gets back in some how and then I look forward to you defending him.

 

[QuietB]

Think you're missing the point.
Climate change will create a land bridge.
Google it, it will pop up somewhere.

Rising sea levels will be cancelled out by trans toilets to create a land bridge - is that how it works?

 

[Saint]

How the hell are Indonesia going to "wander across the sea"?

Indonesia's navy is significantly larger than ours. It's just an example, that pitted against most countries, even close neighbours we'd lose. So the purpose of our armed forces is not to be able to independently defeat every nation, but to form parts of broader coalitions.

It's much more likely we'd be working with Indonesia in most instances (though they're less interventionist), and worth noting we were (almost) in a proxy war with them over Timor Leste.