Nuclear submarines and regional security.

[harryopal1]

The Albanese government in Australia has raised regional security as being relevant to the decision to spend $368 billion dollars over the next 30 years on developing a fleet of nuclear submarines. These submarines will not carry nuclear missiles. While loathe to say this is all directly related to a more aggressive stance by China in imposing itself in the south Pacific this clearly is the case. Yet fundamentally I think it is more about ensuring we are under a US military, defence umbrella. An historical obsession with a perceived threat that if we shake the world map millions of Chinese will just fall straight down into Australia has been part of the national paranoia and we hope the US will save us. I am inclined to think this would only happen if it is seen to be in US interests. American has had a rather unnerving habit of abandoning its allies when conflicts have not gone as intended.

I am not sure that Indonesia, other South East Asian and Pacific countries will feel more secure when this fleet finally takes shape... in the next 30 years or so. Meanwhile the costs will have a staggering impact on Australia and personally I am inclined to feel a much greater investment in long range drones and other military acquisitions and general economic development would make more sense. Lee Kuan Yew, the late Singaporean PM, had famously warned that Australians may become the cheap white trash of South East Asia. The present economic difficulties with inflation, impossibly priced accommodation, huge increases in utility costs and overall living costs are already pushing several hundred thousand Australians from comfort and into poverty. The belt tightening to pay for nuclear submarines may well see Lee Kuan Yew's prediction come to be reality.

But back to the original question. Who believes that Australian nuclear submarines will improve regional security for Australia or other South East Asian and Pacific countries?

 

[Balifrog]

So Australia buys nuclear subs to protect themselves from China.
Remember me, who is Australia's biggest trading partner ....Yep, China.
Makes complete sense

Anyway they wont have them before 12 to 15 years for the first ones.
Plenty things can (and will) happen during that time.

Australia being completely manipulated and played by their US "mentors" IMO.

 

[fastpitch17]

I believe it will tighten security and so does china. They are the ones constantly complaining about it.

 

[jstar]

I don’t understand why Australia would (or could) not join NATO? Now that would give them (some formal) protection and would also strengthen the U.S. presence in the region (next to allies as Japan, South Korea and the Philippines of course).

 

[fastpitch17]

I don’t understand why Australia would (or could) not join NATO? Now that would give them (some formal) protection and would also strengthen the U.S. presence in the region (next to allies as Japan, South Korea and the Philippines of course).

I think there is active participation regarding some sort of Pacific Treaty Organization.

 

[jstar]

Yeah I’m a bit lost between all these ANZUS, FPDA, AUKUS, SEATO, whatever treaties.

 

[centurion]

"You can get more with a kind word and a gun than with just a kind word"
Al Capone

 

[Dave70]

Australian subs deal could have 'deadly' consequences: former PM

A former Australian prime minister on Wednesday rubbished the country's landmark nuclear-powered submarines deal, saying it unnecessarily targeted China and could have "deadly consequences".

www.france24.com

But former prime minister Paul Keating has derided it as a "great misadventure".

"History will be the judge of this project in the end, but I want my name clearly recorded among those who say it is a great mistake," he said in a statement.

The former Labor prime minister -- who led the country between 1991 and 1996 -- said Australia had blindly followed the United States and Britain, and that China posed no tangible military threat.

"What would be the point of China wanting to occupy Sydney and Melbourne? Militarily? And could they ever do it," he said.

"The question is so dumb, it's hardly worth an answer."

 

[Balifrog]

I don’t understand why Australia would (or could) not join NATO? Now that would give them (some formal) protection and would also strengthen the U.S. presence in the region (next to allies as Japan, South Korea and the Philippines of course).

WTF ...North Atlantic Treaty Organization
Since when is Aussieland in the North Atlantic ?
NATO was conceived as a defensive alliance against a possible USSR attack
It should have been disband in 91, at the end of the Soviet Union.
Instead it has been taken over by the US who use it as an aggressive force .
What the heck did NATO do in Afghanistan, Irak etc...

Not happy to have poked the Russian bear, now US want to form an alliance to poke China ?
Madness.
Do you really want your kids to die for Taiwan or Ukraine ?

 

[jukung11]

WW2 was a long time ago, but the parallels of the Chinese military build up and rapid regional projection of power resembles what the Japan did at the turn of the 20th century. Since the time when someone shook the world map and millions of Japanese fell down to Australia, the USA and Australia have had a close alliance of sharing the burden of military stability in the region. The Chinese are currently the second largest military spenders in the world. It is most actively projecting this military power through artificial island territories and claiming naval territory far outside world recognized borders. China has the largest navy in the world. It is expected to have 400 warships in the near future. These nuclear submarines are magnitudes more technologically advanced than anything the Chinese are currently fielding. This deal allows Australia to burden share the deterrence factor and gives it a seat at the head of the table when dictating policy in the Pacific.

It is the age-old economics debate of guns vs butter. If you don't spend anything on guns, the country that is comes to take your butter.

 

[Balifrog]

This deal allows Australia to burden share the deterrence factor and gives it a seat at the head of the table when dictating policy in the Pacific.

In 15 to 20 years and under complete control of their mentor, the US.
And tell me, who give the right to US or Australia to "dictate policy" in the Pacific ?
God gave you a sacred mission ?

 

[jstar]

WTF ...North Atlantic Treaty Organization
Since when is Aussieland in the North Atlantic ?

Are we talking nomenclature now? Since when is Turkey in the North Atlantic? They would accept any country if it would help them.

Do you really want your kids to die for Taiwan or Ukraine ?

Yes you made it already abundantly clear you think nobody should interfere and just let aggressive countries go ahead. They call that NEO CHAMBERLAINISM.

Now obviously you can isolate yourself and think about everybody else’s problems as their problems but then our kids‘ future wil be very iffy. If Ukraine works, Putin obviously won’t stop in his wet dream for a large Soviet Union. And if he thinks it’s a good idea to invade the Baltic states or the east of Poland, the rest of NATO will have to react anyway.

About China, I don’t think the threat is that big. They don’t want war they want to trade and make money. That is in their genes, not to conquer other countries. But, Taiwan will fall, it’s just a matter of time. The internal PRC deadline is 2049. So the ‘west’ better have a plan, perhaps a transition period as HK/Macao even if many don’t agree. Taiwan itself is -even when a ‘democracy’ now- still too much under the influence of the military powers in their society to look at this with a realistic view.

NB: If you look at the huge industries Taiwan has in electronics and chips, the dependencies of the west are rather big with cars, telcom, appliances, etc. using their products. But the west also has quite a big bargaining chip, see Foxconn for instance. Companies as Apple and Tesla could be ‘convinced’ to source elsewhere.

 

[harryopal1]

Yes, the focus on submarines seems a bit strange when the critical decision for us will be what do we do when China moves to take over Taiwan. While 2049 may be the deadline I suspect a move will be made much earlier.

 

[jstar]

I agree Harry. And then Ukraine is a kind of litmus test (tes lakmus) for the PRC to see how to get it done and what the reaction of the western countries will be. Another reason to be very prudent and make sure Xi understands it’s not a walk in the park and he’d better negotiate on Taiwan.

 

[Balifrog]

Are we talking nomenclature now? Since when is Turkey in the North Atlantic? They would accept any country if it would help them.


Yes you made it already abundantly clear you think nobody should interfere and just let aggressive countries go ahead. They call that NEO CHAMBERLAINISM.

Now obviously you can isolate yourself and think about everybody else’s problems as their problems but then our kids‘ future wil be very iffy. If Ukraine works, Putin obviously won’t stop in his wet dream for a large Soviet Union. And if he thinks it’s a good idea to invade the Baltic states or the east of Poland, the rest of NATO will have to react anyway.

About China, I don’t think the threat is that big. They don’t want war they want to trade and make money. That is in their genes, not to conquer other countries. But, Taiwan will fall, it’s just a matter of time. The internal PRC deadline is 2049. So the ‘west’ better have a plan, perhaps a transition period as HK/Macao even if many don’t agree. Taiwan itself is -even when a ‘democracy’ now- still too much under the influence of the military powers in their society to look at this with a realistic view.

NB: If you look at the huge industries Taiwan has in electronics and chips, the dependencies of the west are rather big with cars, telcom, appliances, etc. using their products. But the west also has quite a big bargaining chip, see Foxconn for instance. Companies as Apple and Tesla could be ‘convinced’ to source elsewhere.

Agressive countries ? ...

Foreign interventions by the United States - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

"The United States has been involved in numerous foreign interventions throughout its history. By the broadest definition of military intervention, the US has engaged in nearly 400 military interventions between 1776 and 2019, with half of these operations occurring since 1950 and over 25% occurring in the post-Cold War period.[1] The objectives for these interventions have revolved around economy, territory, social protection, regime change, protection of US citizens and diplomats, policy change, empire, and regime building.[1]"

In the above link, go directly to "Cold war"

Russian Army struggles to take over a small parrt of Ukraine, and you think they will roll towards Berlin ? Get real man !
Poland ? They have the biggest army in Europe.

Taiwan : remember the next presidential elections are in Feb 2024. If the Kuomintan (KMT) wins which is not excluded, the relations with China will improve a lot and likely a peacefull take over will follow.
In case China.decides to invade, it would be before 2027 (100th anniversary of the P.L.A.) Nice present from the Army to the Party.

Taiwan industry : TSMC is building 2 giga factories in the US (pushed by Trump)
Foxcom : In a few years 50% of Apple phones will be made in India (10% at the moment)

Just FYI :
Grandfather in the Engineering Corps
Father 5 years Foreign Legion (Indochina and Algeria)
Myself 7 years Navy
My eldest son 5 years Air Force.
So yes, I am from a patriotic family and defending the values of "La République" (or what is left of it...)

 

[MamangDudul]

Agressive countries ? ...

Foreign interventions by the United States - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

"The United States has been involved in numerous foreign interventions throughout its history. By the broadest definition of military intervention, the US has engaged in nearly 400 military interventions between 1776 and 2019, with half of these operations occurring since 1950 and over 25% occurring in the post-Cold War period.[1] The objectives for these interventions have revolved around economy, territory, social protection, regime change, protection of US citizens and diplomats, policy change, empire, and regime building.[1]"

In the above link, go directly to "Cold war"

Russian Army struggles to take over a small parrt of Ukraine, and you think they will roll towards Berlin ? Get real man !
Poland ? They have the biggest army in Europe.

Taiwan : remember the next presidential elections are in Feb 2024. If the Kuomintan (KMT) wins which is not excluded, the relations with China will improve a lot and likely a peacefull take over will follow.
In case China.decides to invade, it would be before 2027 (100th anniversary of the P.L.A.) Nice present from the Army to the Party.

Taiwan industry : TSMC is building 2 giga factories in the US (pushed by Trump)
Foxcom : In a few years 50% of Apple phones will be made in India (10% at the moment)

Just FYI :
Grandfather in the Engineering Corps
Father 5 years Foreign Legion (Indochina and Algeria)
Myself 7 years Navy
My eldest son 5 years Air Force.
So yes, I am from a patriotic family and defending the values of "La République" (or what is left of it...)

Sometimes I really wonder what everybody saw in the last 100 years. It certainly was very different from what I saw.
I can only assume that the USA is automatically included when we talk about aggressive countries.

Also when we talk about Taiwan, I think around 40% of their expprt , at least in certain areas, goes to China which also brings Taiwan a lot of money. So they not only depend on the west. Taiwan is just another suitable pawn against China as Ukraine is against Russia. At least it seems that way.

 

[R Cameron]

Taiwan is a drastically different case than Ukraine and will not be taken through force unless completely razed. Now that China has a declining population, which is predicted to continue for decades, their appetite for a bloody war sacrificing many of their young men will further decrease.

If the PRC can achieve a political takeover the way they did in HK remains to be seen, but in my estimation Taiwan has a stronger democracy and is much more conscious and defensive toward that threat.

 

[jstar]

Russian Army struggles to take over a small parrt of Ukraine, and you think they will roll towards Berlin ? Get real man !

You have to ask yourself why that is. It is definitely not (only) the strength of the Ukrainians and Russian incompetence but because of the support by the west with superior equipment, tools, weapons and intel. When I was in the army we had a look at a Russian T-72 (tank) they left behind and at that time it was already obvious they had a major technological backwardness.

But the Russians do have the numbers; their amount of tanks for instance, is six times that of Germany. Now, if you attack over land your strength has to be times 3 vs the defending army and 3-5 of those ‘inferior’ tanks can take out a Leopard. Compare it a bit to the desperate ‘banzai’ technique of the Japanese at the time. Huge losses but you accept and take those and just overrun the enemy.

If there is one takeaway from the Chechen wars, it is that the Russians learn from their mistakes and come back in a very strong way. And even if there would be a status quo for the time being, they will regroup and start all over again. So then they will throw in much more troops, make sure this time the logistics is in order, etc. etc. (Just read about some leaked confidential documents which state that Russia wants full control over Moldavia in 2030, not by invasion this time but by tactical ‘Russification’).

when we talk about Taiwan, I think around 40% of their expprt , at least in certain areas, goes to China

The Chinese economy depends quite a lot on export though. So many of that 38-40% of electronics end up in products for other countries again. We just have to hope China will give priority to good trade relations over pride. And that’s why they need to be convinced the outcome will be disadvantageous. You can’t get that effect by saying “we don’t want to be involved, screw them”.

 

[harryopal1]

For now the Aus government is talking of$368 billion dollars for the submarines. It sees usual that these big expenditure items have a cost blow out along the way. I shouldn't be surprised if a bit further along the track we will be talking of $700 billion.

 

[pantaiema]

The ancient argument, the so called. "Nuclear Deterrent". But I understand with AUKUS deal the is powered by Nuclear. It is not intended to be equipped with nuclear warhead Missiles.
How much money has been burnt for the war machines. Is it not better to be used to fight hunger in the least developed countries ??