Australia - you're standing in it
AlfredWallace wrote:andy-mac wrote:$800 million. See ya off to the US Empire who are enabling and encouraging a genocide for some subs we may never get to one day fight a war with our biggest trading partner.
Clever country ey.
First payment of many.
Geez nothing better to do with that $$ here in Oz.https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/feb/08/trump-very-aware-supportiv...
Andy-Mac..
Hi mate. Hope you’re doing well.Complete absurdity.
Why do we need so many submarines? Why do we need any, more to the point ?
For decades now, we’ve cowered under the US umbrella of fear. Pathetic.
I see Peter Garrett described this arrangement as one of our biggest sovereign mistakes we’ve ever made, slipping beneath the sheets and laying in bed with the USA.
One of most disliked nations on the planet, not a wise move. AW
Yea I read the Pete Garrat article.
He isn't the only one concerned with what we have got ourselves into as a nation.
Hope you're having a good weekend AW....
You are nice fellas, but you are strategically blind.
The Aukus equation is simple.
With America? Donate $300+billion for national security.
Not with America? Don't donate and dare go it alone as a small island nation exposed to Asia.
It's a shit deal but one we probably have to cop to keep living this free and easy lifestyle.
The right deal? Definitely not in my opinion, (i think we could get better security for that price elsewhere) but it would be a radical shift in Australia's cosmopolitan lifestyle that would expose Australians to not make the deal happen.
What an absurd waste of money though. Luckily to pay for it we can dig baby dig!!
The subs are just a token of the 'friendship'.
velocityjohnno wrote:You are nice fellas, but you are strategically blind.
Yeah Peter Garret made some great music but when it comes to national security & defence and preparing for the future be it defence or deterrence, im going to trust the experts behind the scenes that study and look at these things and all possibilities the future may hold, not a singer or politician or journalist or even X military personal no matter rank, or anyone else all their views are pretty irrelevant, especially in this crazy ever changing world.
velocityjohnno wrote:You are nice fellas, but you are strategically blind.
It’s all just the usual perpetual motion of propaganda in ya face , selling ‘ fear’ as a terror commodity.
Who on earth is going to attempt to take Australia.
We’ve been listening to this rubbish since I was a kid. Fear, is a great tool to keep societies on edge and to bow down to governments.
John Howard and Co. were masters of this game , we all fell for it, wasted enormous amounts of money and wasted lives.
Later history provided evidence that it was all fake news driven by fear, again.
It’s the global manufacturers of defence vessels, armaments etc. Raytheon, Lockheed Martin that keep this bullshit going, slowly seducing global governments who fork out billions to just destroy humans.
Just look at the shit show in the Middle East.
So, can someone please provide me with evidence based facts that highlights an imminent grab of Australia and which country or countries will perform it, I’m calling bullshit on all of it.
It’s just another form of economics disguised as war. Can’t you all see that.
The raw minerals, gas petroleum, arms of warfare that’s what it’s all about.
Look at WW2 for example, Rockefeller, Standard Oil and all these other global companies, despite being at war with the Germans, were still selling through Spain as an entry point to the enemy. Nothings changed, businesses do well out of wars.
If you do reading well, for example , the Vietnam War wasn’t about the NVA, Viet Cong, it was the battle to take control and get access to enormous amounts of raw materials, gas, oil and mineral sands in that country so China whose border to the north didn’t get access before the yanks. USA uses an exorbitant amount of energy as you all know. This AUKUS deal is like committing harikiri. AW
Agreed @AW. Have always thought the same.
Ok crew, what is the context of the submarine purchase?
And if I could put context in italics, I would.
Give me some context - what is happening in the Indo Pacific and wider world in relation to trade, in relation to military procurement, in relation to alliances?
Has the context changed in the last decade?
And for AW - do you have to invade a country to defeat it? Philip II couldn't, Napoleon couldn't, Hitler couldn't - but near as dammit came close to defeating the UK with his U-boat campaign, by denying the maritime commerce the UK depended on. Nearly.
UK, Japan and Australia are unique as island powers... traditionally the former two have been great naval powers and able to defend their sealanes.
So if it was up to you AW would Australia have a defence force and alliance with USA?
Or would you just roll the dice and hope nobody invades?
The reality is countries do invade other countries and try to take them over, just look at Ukraine and Russia, if Ukraine took the view that they dont like violence or war so wont fight back they would have been taken over by Russia within a week, the only reason they havent been is because they have fought back like a muddafucker.
And while it's a conflict i dont know much about, id expect if Russia knew they were in for such a fight they might not have even invaded.
Yeah sure these days there is always other deterrents in trade and sanctions etc but end of the day you still need a strong military or be part of a strong military alliance that will protect you or act as a deterrence.
As far as i know there is no imminent threat to Australia, but thats because we have a defence force and a strong alliance with the USA, but that defence force also needs to be kept updated, if we or the USA only had equipment from world war 1 the deterrence factor would be close to nothing
BTW. It is true that the waters are often muddied by lots of other things though and money money money, but all the above is also still true.
I think Ukraine and Russia is a bad example @indo.
There's history there.
Dont forget your Dutchies brushed us!!
Pretty crazy four seperate Dutch explores came here before the English and all went, yeah nah then went to Indo.
indo-dreaming wrote:Pretty crazy four seperate Dutch explores came here before the English and all went, yeah nah then went to Indo.
If only they surfed @indo!! Would have been a goofyfooters dream trip!!
velocityjohnno wrote:And for AW - do you have to invade a country to defeat it? Philip II couldn't, Napoleon couldn't, Hitler couldn't - but near as dammit came close to defeating the UK with his U-boat campaign, by denying the maritime commerce the UK depended on. Nearly.
UK, Japan and Australia are unique as island powers... traditionally the former two have been great naval powers and able to defend their sealanes.
This ^
We are, for the first time since WW2, faced with a potential adversary that has the capability to impose its will on Australia. To coerce or compel to achieve its objectives.
It doesn’t need to ‘invade’ to do so.
etarip wrote:velocityjohnno wrote:And for AW - do you have to invade a country to defeat it? Philip II couldn't, Napoleon couldn't, Hitler couldn't - but near as dammit came close to defeating the UK with his U-boat campaign, by denying the maritime commerce the UK depended on. Nearly.
UK, Japan and Australia are unique as island powers... traditionally the former two have been great naval powers and able to defend their sealanes.
This ^
We are, for the first time since WW2, faced with a potential adversary that has the capability to impose its will on Australia. To coerce or compel to achieve its objectives.
It doesn’t need to ‘invade’ to do so.
You talking about China or the US?
No where did I say we should not o a defence plan or have alliances.
I am specifically talking about the nuclear subs which from my understanding are designed to work under US command in the South China Sea.
Not just me but many people who are so called military experts agree. That money could be better spent on other military assets that are more suited for the defence of Australia not projecting US power.
Nevermind the loss of our sovereignty.
As to the China threat; do not see any signs they wish to invade anyone, especially Australia, project influence in their region yes. Is that not what major powers do? Should we not as a nation try to accommodate a peaceful growth rather than US policy of only allowing US hegemony, which is not sustainable and with their aggression lead to war?
Who have China invaded, or had military action against excluding Tibet, korea and vietnam in last 50 years.
Notably less than the USA and all in their region.
Sure the world in our region is changing and military defence plans must be made, buta few nuclear subs that may arrive in a few decades if at all being supplied by a country who is presently being run by a loose unit and will probably at least quadruple in price is not the best course of action.
Also there was absolutely no debate with the Australian people but just a brain fart by scomo, who is now on payroll.
If China want to hurt us, they can just stop buying our stuff, and then we are economically fooked anyway.
yep. the aukus deal is retarded. Like buying an expensive padlock for a door to protect from ghosts. re the US, never kowtow to a bully. they'll use you to show off to everyone else, then throw you under the bus at the fist opportunity. We should always acquiesce to our traditional allies when it makes sense, of course. But re the sea, we should just get a flotilla of punchy little high-tech rigs protecting out fishing territories. Spend the rest on a department for cold and soft strategies to keep track of china/russia machinations.
All i can say is thank god we have experts that study and look at what we need military wise and then advise politicians to give the tick of approval.
And thank god it's not decided by musician's, journalist, people on social media or forums or even opinionated X military or whoever else.
It's one area where im just like yeah okay Labor, Liberal doesn't matter, i trust thay you both will listen to the advice being given.
Yep, same. Absolutely. And the experts are sure divided on this expensive little gamble on how to best protect Australia into the future..
Yes thank God we listen to experts....
^^ https://m.
basesix wrote:Yep, same. Absolutely. And the experts are sure divided on this expensive little gamble on how to best protect Australia into the future..
Im sure there is whole departments that look at these things working together with USA and our allies and so much info that we aren't privy too or things that cant be said in public.
They are the only experts or views that matter, but it's just like anything there is always people that might appear to be experts that come out with opposing ideas and views, just look at Covid and vaccines etc people who held high positions in the area of developed vaccines or MRNA vax having opposing often quite crazy view points, same deal with Climate change, you have the odd climate scientist or retired climate scientist that comes out with opposing views, its just the nature of the beast.
Military spending is kind of like dealing with climate change, it's better to do too much and be over cautious and waste money doing so, than not do enough.
I was a bit sceptical about the nuke vs DE subs, and have reflected on that in these forums before.
But, after talking to a few submariners (current and ex) about it, I can say I’m pretty firmly of the view that the increase in surveillance capabilities and the capabilities of the PLA-N (primarily, not exclusively) mean that in our context the only way to be able to project and sustain these platforms in the areas we need them (they’re not the South China Sea @a-m) is nuclear.
I’m still not sure about AUKUS itself. That’s an economic question, ultimately. There is a significant distortion of the future planning due to the cost of the subs.
But, if you don’t go with subs, or you change how you plan to employ the subs because you go with DE, for example, then you need to invest in something else to provide an offset. And none of those offsets are cheap, many are still technically unproven or unreliable, and most simply do not provide the levels of asymmetry that experts assess we would have with submarines. Asymmetry refers to pitching different capabilities against areas of weakness or avoiding strengths.
By offsets I mean things like strategic bombers, or theatre ballistic missiles, or hypersonics. But, all of those things a. put us into a symmetrical fight, and b. would rely on significant investment in the background capabilities to make them work effectively.
Yes, there should be more public debate about this.
appreciate your take @etarip. adealide not real chuffed about being a slightly appealing terrorist target now, where once it was nothing to anyone.
seems a dinosaur deterrent against actors that simply have stop buying our wine/woodchips/crayfish to rattle our economy, or just start buying aussie cattle stations, turn whole dairy regions into powdered milk exporters, and buy swathes of high-end commercial and speculative real estate to get the things they'd want anyway. the pretend idea we would ever shoot a torpedo at a country with a large military force seems very old-fashioned..
https://www.facebook.com/ukcomedyfans/videos/yes-prime-minister-nuclear-
By any objective assessment you could reasonably argue that Uncle Sam’s military actions since WW2 have failed - Vietnam, Iraq x2, Afghanistan, Africa, Central America etc all the while their attention wasn’t where it ought to have been in a soft diplomacy way thereby allowing China’s expansion into the the Pacific and the South China Sea … trust isn’t good enough, been proven time and time again to be lacking. Hopefully we’re not walking blindly into the next alliance folly!
B6, Yeah. National resilience has to be comprehensive and across all levels of society. There’s been a lot going on across the board with foreign investment reviews and processes, diversifying markets, cracking down on foreign influence and activities. Much of it is being done quietly. Not secretly; but people generally don’t care about it. But the other side of that coin is the general apathy that people have toward real malign activity when they have the opportunity to make money.
Subs aren’t about firing torpedoes at China. They’re about being able to deter adversaries from projecting their own forces into areas that we cannot afford to have them. It’s about protecting (if necessary) subsurface infrastructure that our economy is reliant on.
The reality is that we were asleep through the 2000s / 2010s to what was happening in our region. Our defence force was massively distracted by wars of choice in the Middle East and successive governments were making some very poor long term decisions about what kind of defence posture we need, what we can afford and what was actually important.
Australian apathy. It’s a thing.
@GS. I totally agree that the ball was dropped on our relationships in the Pacific. Again, that’s an own goal by successive governments. It’s still apparent to our regional friends that our approach is transactional and being driven by a fear of being displaced by China.
As for the SCS. The PRC expansion into the SCS - predominantly at the expense of our SE Asian ‘friends’ in the short term, but to our collective strategic detriment in the long term, was well understood as it what happening. No one wanted to stand up and tell China to stop. Why? Because it was expected to risk what was seen as an advantageous economic / trade situation.
But, on your point about ‘military actions’ being failures - I’d actually suggest that in most cases what are seen as military failures are actually failures of strategy where military action is seen as an end state rather than a tool that’s selectively applied in concert with other arms of statecraft to achieve a clearly understood goal. Honestly, most ‘military action’ fails.
".. I am specifically talking about the nuclear subs which from my understanding are designed to work under US command in the South China Sea.
Not just me but many people who are so called military experts agree. That money could be better spent on other military assets that are more suited for the defence of Australia not projecting US power...."
I probably read the same things as you that said we could have 100 smaller diesel / electric 'defensive' subs for the same price of five nukes...
sounds good
but read etarips and vj's posts about islands and invasion and the like...
the real 'defensive' battle for australia is 1000's of km's away in foreign seas - shipping lanes
old school diesel submersible tug boats will barely make it there without support vessels
never mind sitting in these waters as a deterrent for months at a time...
there's only one kind of boat with capabilities to do that
deterrent is the ultimate anti war strategy in a modern world
I've been ant-nuke all my life... still am, mainly...
but sorry, the world and tech. has moved on since the oils were top of the charts in 90's
I get all those points, but really think that the military industrial complex is pushing this.
Really if China want to stuff us up, they can just stop trading with us. We would be done. Why would they need to instigate military action.
I am of the belief they are just pushing against American hegemony in their sphere of influence, as the US would.
I don't believe they have imperialist goals other than continuing to grow economically.
Could be wrong, but throwing everything in with the USA which is now sponsoring a genocide is not the way forward, especially with the pussy grabber in chief calling the shots. I'm guessing the USA has changed forever.
Final point, reckon in 5 years the whole thing would have been dissolved/ cancelled/ delayed and Australia will be the sucker who lost its coin paying for ship yards in USA.
Fark deal of century for seppos.
Hope I'm wrong....
"I get all those points, but really think that the military industrial complex is pushing this."
well yeh, of course it is
but simply, choose your military industrial complex...
"Really if China want to stuff us up, they can just stop trading with us. We would be done."
yes and no... it's more access to the stuff we need than them inflicting trade pain...
"Why would they need to instigate military action."
they don't, hopefully... but just like the US (and us) they will if they perceive push is coming to shove...
(perceive is the key word)
china is smart, they're smart enough to do economic colonisation... houses, farms, businesses... universities...
Im aware even humble little k.i. has seen some pretty suss. 'investments' ...as the experts say... 'everything china does is strategic'
we're just lucky covid woke our unscrupulous politicians up from their aldi bags of cash made bed of slumber...
"I am of the belief they are just pushing against American hegemony in their sphere of influence, as the US would."
totally they are, cannot really blame them...
but as per point one... choose your overlords...
"I don't believe they have imperialist goals other than continuing to grow economically."
belt and road much?
not just apathy reigns supreme in australia...
but naivete as well
various interests like it like that
good, bad, and otherwise...
30 - 40 years of globalisation conditioned it
required it...
Haven't had time to catch up with thread (Pipe) but I'll drop this here
All the answers are contained within
Yes military action should be seen as a failure of diplomacy in the vast majority of occasions!
And what does it look like if Australia does not have sufficient kit when a north Asian industrial power with a massive navy comes knocking? This:
These men were incredibly brave against overwhelming odds. No coincidence a couple of our current submarines are named after crew members.
sypkan wrote:not just apathy reigns supreme in australia...
but naivete as well
various interests like it like that
good, bad, and otherwise...
30 - 40 years of globalisation conditioned it
required it...
Hey I used naive in my reply to you , on another thread 40 minutes before, your post here,
Oh well, free country ,
At the moment.
I think Indonesia is a pretty good canary
they are basically 'owned' by the chinese
in every sense of the word...
but even the frustratingly polite and submissive indo's air their concerns about chinese expansion
sypkan wrote:I think Indonesia is a pretty good canary
they are basically 'owned' by the chinese
in every sense of the word...
but even the frustratingly polite and submissive indo's air their concerns about chinese expansion
And guess what, Trump is playing right into the Chinese hands , by alienating a number of
American allies ,
giving them the opportunity to negotiate new diplomatic relations with the Chinese.
And everyone else who doesn’t trust the US anymore, after 3 weeks!
velocityjohnno wrote:Haven't had time to catch up with thread (Pipe) but I'll drop this here
All the answers are contained within
Hey VJ,
Can you put it in a nutshell? Don't have a spare 6 hours..... :)
Like @skypan mentioned choose your overlords. USA not looking too good atm. Not really wanting to be under China, but reckon multi polar world could work if given a proper chance.
End of the day though, if China and US go to war, reckon we are all cooked as would go nuclear as no one can really win....
Let's work on diplomacy and economic mutual benefits ey...
Newsflash @jef, that's his intention. His only aim (at the behest of the WEF) is to wield executive power in the US (by throwing cats into the aviary, it's working a treat) in consultation and arrangement with Russia, and China. And then just do big deals. (i.e. the Big Four banks don't hate each other, they hate the little banks and credit unions that draw attention to the collusion, gouging, fees and fine print).
Make America Part of a Global Cartel Again.
(@jef, the above is an example of what people who think they know what's rrrereeaaallly going on might say..
it is a fun game, you can play along at home. all you need is an internet machine and a feeling of general dissatisfaction... you must have a few braincells and a basic ability to recognise patterns.
the reality of course it much sadder and scarier: life is cheap, greed is all, those in charge are out for themselves, and couldn't organise a root in a brothel).
Hi Andy-mac, I'll try, 2min 2c take
We're in trouble. We have an industrial giant risen in north Asia, and like Imperial Japan, they are spending big developing a huge navy, with the ability to overwhelm air, sea and land defences of smaller powers using carrier battle groups, and land troops with amphibious heavy lift. On top of that the subs/missile batteries/land based aircraft etc. Most times a huge military is built up, it is built to be used.
We've spent a lost decade on defence acquisition, and there were many stuff ups and political delay and so items didn't get ordered to replenish some of our forces on time. We launched 3 air warfare destroyers, China launched 79 of the Type 52 frigates and about 24 Type 54 destroyers. All up, this adds up to a bigger buildup than the Kaiser's Imperial Germany.
Australia has oscillated between a 'forward deployed' and 'defence of the air-sea gap' defence policy. We build things up to be prepared for the last conflict? We do have a first class amphibious capability now, better than the UK when it re-took the Falklands.
The US will be hard pressed to overcome the new huge Chinese military build up in the Pacific.
The world of globalism, free trade (well, the FTAs were kind of one-way but we sold so much coal and iron ore we got rich so didn't care) is receding and trade blocs are developing, like the Cold War.
Australia is an island nation and relies upon free and flowing maritime trade routes to make it's way in the world. A navy that can project power can protect trade flowing along these pathways, perhaps protect a defined space at a defined time (ie convoy) is more apt.
China has shown their diplomatic hand during covid, and it is considerably more authoritarian and 'my way or the highway' than our policymakers thought. As a result, from about 2021 onward, the sense of alarm has become heightened. In this time, China has expanded its influence in the South China Sea and has butted heads with neighbouring states, and built and fortified armed installations on islands where coral reefs formerly were. Grey zone expansion.
The huge change in the threat level and detection capability means that conventional diesel electric subs, which need to surface to recharge their batteries, are suddenly far more exposed. Submarines provide an asymmetric capability - the ability of a weaker power to hold off a superior power.
We are realising that an A2/AD defence will be required in the air/sea gap.
US mil has set goal of being prepared for conflict by 2027.
Next case in point: what happens when you go pacifist, don't build up a military, and a big power comes along? We have the Dutch East Indies in WW2.
In the 1920s pacifist governments in the Netherlands did exactly what you guys would suggest, they didn't do too much military spending. In ship terms, one light cruiser was built, De Ruyter.
By early 1942, they had been rolled by Nazi Germany, and the hammer fell on the Dutch East Indies. They combined naval forces with Australia, Britain, and the US, and this is that story:
&list=PLkwc6O1DGECndVDbh_QIDv8Uo0q-EbXa1 velocityjohnno wrote:Hi Andy-mac, I'll try, 2min 2c take
We're in trouble. We have an industrial giant risen in north Asia, and like Imperial Japan, they are spending big developing a huge navy, with the ability to overwhelm air, sea and land defences of smaller powers using carrier battle groups, and land troops with amphibious heavy lift. On top of that the subs/missile batteries/land based aircraft etc. Most times a huge military is built up, it is built to be used.
We've spent a lost decade on defence acquisition, and there were many stuff ups and political delay and so items didn't get ordered to replenish some of our forces on time. We launched 3 air warfare destroyers, China launched 79 of the Type 52 frigates and about 24 Type 54 destroyers. All up, this adds up to a bigger buildup than the Kaiser's Imperial Germany.
Australia has oscillated between a 'forward deployed' and 'defence of the air-sea gap' defence policy. We build things up to be prepared for the last conflict? We do have a first class amphibious capability now, better than the UK when it re-took the Falklands.
The US will be hard pressed to overcome the new huge Chinese military build up in the Pacific.
The world of globalism, free trade (well, the FTAs were kind of one-way but we sold so much coal and iron ore we got rich so didn't care) is receding and trade blocs are developing, like the Cold War.
Australia is an island nation and relies upon free and flowing maritime trade routes to make it's way in the world. A navy that can project power can protect trade flowing along these pathways, perhaps protect a defined space at a defined time (ie convoy) is more apt.
China has shown their diplomatic hand during covid, and it is considerably more authoritarian and 'my way or the highway' than our policymakers thought. As a result, from about 2021 onward, the sense of alarm has become heightened. In this time, China has expanded its influence in the South China Sea and has butted heads with neighbouring states, and built and fortified armed installations on islands where coral reefs formerly were. Grey zone expansion.
The huge change in the threat level and detection capability means that conventional diesel electric subs, which need to surface to recharge their batteries, are suddenly far more exposed. Submarines provide an asymmetric capability - the ability of a weaker power to hold off a superior power.
We are realising that an A2/AD defence will be required in the air/sea gap.
US mil has set goal of being prepared for conflict by 2027.
OK thanks VJ.
Appreciate that.
Off to hug my daughter.
not stuck in the past at all @vj? I appreciate your understanding of history, and I very much take @etarip's point about long term presence along trade routes and shipping lanes, but some of your stuff is a little like good ol' american 'prepping for war' fear.. which is fine.. just that, where some are impressed by the daily US show of shekels and baubles Don and the Doge-bag are tossing to the blissed, I worry more about my taxes going into military hardware (don't mind if it's for wages) because people are afraid, because that fear then becomes a currency, to use your $40 smashed avo GDP creation, a scare campaign demonising other humans can raise millions.
""China has expanded its influence in the South China Sea and has butted heads with neighbouring states, and built and fortified armed installations on islands where coral reefs formerly were. Grey zone expansion""
Can you blame them? Sure you are aware of the encircling of US military bases around them with the US funnelling billions in weapons to Taiwan.
Plus the threatening language coming out of US Hawks saying they will not accept a threat to US hegemony anywhere.
China is a major economic power, should we not accept that?
The same US that says they are going to invade Panama and Greenland after destroying countries in the ME, central and south America.
Just cannot stand the hypocrisy of West. Now so plain to see that the so called rules based order and international law only applies when it suits western US/ Israeli interests .
Australia has done incredibly well due to trade with China, do not understand why we should see them as such a threat.
They are not the ones invading other countries and financing a genocide.
We should be making strategic partnerships and as you pointed out updating military capacity and deterrence, but solely relying on US I think is a mistake, especially with where they seem to be headed.
Australia could get sucked into being the proxy for the war they want with China.
https://m.
&pp=ygUXamVmZnJleSBzYWNocyBjaGluYSB3YXI%3DEdit: accept no mention of Tibet
I see history as cyclical B6. The same themes and aspirations and fears and hopes play out again and again. It's the human psychology that doesn't change. The technology does. (It's why you can see head and shoulder patterns on charts from 1929 and very similar manifestations of these in later years right up to now on completely different underlyings).
This is why vignettes from the past do have relevance today. Will things be exactly the same? No. Will similarities exist? Yes.
So this is where I'm coming from. If you want a really good story of the peace and trade that occurs when China is in charge, have a look at the history of the Ryukyu islands 1429 onward. It sounds pretty good the way they do it, all administration is trained in Beijing, peace and trade so long as it's their way. In this instance, the Japanese Satsuma clan said fuck that, and invaded which is a bit more Bismarkian. Would Lao Tzu approve? Would Sun Tzu approve?
There are also other types of warfare, including in the information space:
History doesn’t repeat. But it rhymes.
Who said that? Twain maybe.
Being stuck in the past is the flip side of those that don’t know history are doomed to repeat it.
There is nothing ‘defensive’ about the PRCs military build up - and the projections of where it is going are alarming.
For all of the talk of US hegemony, etc, the fact is that the US Navy is smaller than at any time since WW2 in terms of total number of ships. China is outbuilding the US in almost every class of combatant. Interesting decisions for a country that ranks 10th in terms of length of coastline (behind New Zealand btw).
China will stay on the peaceful path as long as it is getting what it wants by that means. They’re not afraid to up the ante when they’re not though - as the Philippines, Indonesia, Malaysia and Vietnam have all learned in their own EEZs.
I would trust china as far I could throw china. I've had dealings with many chinese international students, and without exception, when being candid, they say they would rather live under any regime in the world other than CCP's National People's Congress, they all have scary stories and cautionary assertions. .
basesix wrote:I would trust china as far I could throw china. I've had dealings with many chinese international students, and without exception, when being candid, they say they would rather live under any regime in the world other than CCP's National People's Congress, they all have scary stories and cautionary assertions. .
Just wish to clarify, I'm not a supporter of China, Western to my core, just believe more jaw jaw than war war...
Anyway better get off phone and take dog to beach.
Have a good weekend, and really appreciate all the insights.
@etarip and VJ, your knowledge in this area exceeds mine so cheers.
@ base
Then there are those who openly push for authoritarian dictatorship, and those who oppose this and fight to keep a democracy.
So it’s not all a generalised mess
Just hope Dutton doesn’t start getting some wonderful ideas, of delusions of grandeur.
@a-mac, all good. Enjoy the walk. Good contributions by all.
For the record; I’m with you. There’s prudent investments in defence and deterrence, and then there’s baseless fear-mongering (often with an ulterior motive too). I’ve seen first hand the human cost of conflict, both directly and indirectly. Less than a month ago I went to a mate’s funeral: couldn’t deal with his demons any longer. He was a veteran, among other many other things. Gone too soon.
The "I can't believe it's not politics" thread.