AUKUS Treaty NEWS ONLY

[Jemiba]

To forestall the next reports, and as this here should be enough political amusement for
a while anyway ... please back to the original topic !

 

[Josh_TN]

deleted. I think we a separate topic to fight in, or else a massive cull. Otherwise we’re going to keep arguing and I’m a perpetrator.

 

[uk 75]

deleted. I think we a separate topic to fight in, or else a massive cull. Otherwise we’re going to keep arguing and I’m a perpetrator.

agreed. Both sides have expressed our views clearly. So no need to carry on.

 

[aonestudio]

US military plans upgrades to Australian bases, greater aircraft and troop presence, as it confronts rising China

Plans for greater US military involvement in Australia to counter China have been highlighted in a long-awaited Pentagon "global posture review".

www.abc.net.au

Key points:​

• The US plans to reduce troops and equipment in other parts of the world to bring more to Australia and the Indo-Pacific.
• US military will also upgrade Australian bases to counter China.
• Australia signed the AUKUS military pact to improve intelligence and technology sharing between the nations.

 

[Rickshaw]

Ah, to be treated as a "suitable piece of real estate", again, by the US...

 

[Josh_TN]

Indeed, the US is building strategic depth in the Pacific so it can contain China after the first island chain is overwhelmed.

 

[Bhurki]

Indeed, the US is building strategic depth in the Pacific so it can contain China after the first island chain is overwhelmed.

The cost for any kind of containment after 1st island chain falls will be much more prohibitive than now, with the said chain acting essentially as a buffer zone for PLA activities as opposed to now where buffer zone is just 12nm from coast.

 

[GTX]

Ah, to treated as a "suitable piece of real estate", again, by the US...

Give it a break! Polling since the AUKUS announcement has shown consistently that in fact most Australians are comfortable with AUKUS across the main political spectrum. Stop acting as though this is something being forced upon anyone.

 

[Josh_TN]

Indeed, the US is building strategic depth in the Pacific so it can contain China after the first island chain is overwhelmed.

The cost for any kind of containment after 1st island chain falls will be much more prohibitive than now, with the said chain acting essentially as a buffer zone for PLA activities as opposed to now where buffer zone is just 12nm from coast.

The choke points of the first chain will still be a major engagement zone, but basing assets there is increasingly impractical.

 

[Rickshaw]

Ah, to treated as a "suitable piece of real estate", again, by the US...

Give it a break! Polling since the AUKUS announcement has shown consistently that in fact most Australians are comfortable with AUKUS across the main political spectrum. Stop acting as though this is something being forced upon anyone.

Most Australians are sheep. Far too many believe the bullshit they are served up day after day...

 

[jeffb]

Ah, to treated as a "suitable piece of real estate", again, by the US...

Give it a break! Polling since the AUKUS announcement has shown consistently that in fact most Australians are comfortable with AUKUS across the main political spectrum. Stop acting as though this is something being forced upon anyone.

Don't make me laugh! That polling reflects the fact that Australians have been told the RAN's getting nuclear submarines (some time in the next few decades), not that Australia will become a major hub for US strategic bomber forces (next week).

 

[In_A_Dream]

Australia will be a paramount ally going into the future. Since the end of the dark times of the Cold War, many countries have significantly revised their risk appetite to serve geo-political interests, and once again we will see a major shift in that respect due to the US-UK-AUS alliance. Japan will also be a major component of that alliance with South Korea remaining a wild card given their emotional relationship with North Korea.

 

[Josh_TN]

Ah, to treated as a "suitable piece of real estate", again, by the US...

Give it a break! Polling since the AUKUS announcement has shown consistently that in fact most Australians are comfortable with AUKUS across the main political spectrum. Stop acting as though this is something being forced upon anyone.

Don't make me laugh! That polling reflects the fact that Australians have been told the RAN's getting nuclear submarines (some time in the next few decades), not that Australia will become a major hub for US strategic bomber forces (next week).

Why would Australians care? What exactly is the down side to rotational US basing in Aus?

 

[Fluff]

Ah, to treated as a "suitable piece of real estate", again, by the US...

Give it a break! Polling since the AUKUS announcement has shown consistently that in fact most Australians are comfortable with AUKUS across the main political spectrum. Stop acting as though this is something being forced upon anyone.

Most Australians are sheep. Far too many believe the bullshit they are served up day after day...

Sheep - 68.1 million
People - 25.6 million

 

[Pioneer]

Ah, to treated as a "suitable piece of real estate", again, by the US...

Give it a break! Polling since the AUKUS announcement has shown consistently that in fact most Australians are comfortable with AUKUS across the main political spectrum. Stop acting as though this is something being forced upon anyone.

Most Australians are sheep. Far too many believe the bullshit they are served up day after day...

Sheep - 68.1 million
People - 25.6 million

Ha ha, I work with a vast majority of them sheep these days as a Wool Classer

Regards
Pioneer

 

[GTX]

 

[uk 75]

A lot will depend on China's course.
If Xi continues his Mussolini style regime then Australia is likely to feel closer to the US and UK.
But China is always good for a surprise. Xi might be gone in a few years time and China returned to a more Collegiate Communist party leadership. Then the downsides of relations with the US may seem more relevant.

 

[Bhurki]

A lot will depend on China's course.
If Xi continues his Mussolini style regime then Australia is likely to feel closer to the US and UK.
But China is always good for a surprise. Xi might be gone in a few years time and China returned to a more Collegiate Communist party leadership. Then the downsides of relations with the US may seem more relevant.

No matter who the leader is, this kind of power jostling is here to stay. It would be a stretch to think that China wouldn't want its sphere to expand in the region in order to secure its own internal order by stitching other countries into its own wellbeing matrix.

 

[Fluff]

A lot will depend on China's course.
If Xi continues his Mussolini style regime then Australia is likely to feel closer to the US and UK.
But China is always good for a surprise. Xi might be gone in a few years time and China returned to a more Collegiate Communist party leadership. Then the downsides of relations with the US may seem more relevant.

Given that China already makes economic threats, and stops buying Aussie Coal(which is akin the the EU banning all UK exports), I think the Australians are well placed to make up their own mind, about who they would rather work with. I'm sure they considered the likely Chinese response when they decided to join this alliance.

 

[TsrJoe]

Is China 'really' a threat ... 7,470 km Distance from China to Australia

As a purely sit on the fence observer, I'm pretty sure looking at the map from a Chinese perspective they will see a ring of US. bases sited with the sole aim to contain and militarily deter any possible progressive development of their state

 

[aonestudio]

United States pushes back on New Zealand and allies' hopes of joining AUKUS

One of America's most senior military commanders dismisses suggestions the AUKUS security partnership could soon be expanded to include other allies such as New Zealand or Japan.

www.abc.net.au

 

[Fluff]

Is China 'really' a threat ... 7,470 km Distance from China to Australia View attachment 669179

Politics/defence are about risk, and balance, if Australia does nothing, in the face of trade sanctions by China, and all the countries on your map sit back and say, well war, its not going to happen, by not pushing back, you risk 1939 again, but in Asia Pacific, not Europe.

Australia is a relatively small country in population, give China 10 years, and it would have a navy big enough to blockage Australia, excluding help from UK/USA. So as usual everyone gets something out of the alliance, US and UK get a secure base, Australia gets nuke boats eventually, and some big kids to back them up in the playground.

 

[Josh_TN]

A lot will depend on China's course.
If Xi continues his Mussolini style regime then Australia is likely to feel closer to the US and UK.
But China is always good for a surprise. Xi might be gone in a few years time and China returned to a more Collegiate Communist party leadership. Then the downsides of relations with the US may seem more relevant.

No matter who the leader is, this kind of power jostling is here to stay. It would be a stretch to think that China wouldn't want its sphere to expand in the region in order to secure its own internal order by stitching other countries into its own wellbeing matrix.

A post Xi China might at least attempt a foreign policy more of a carrot rather than stick with the region. Right now the 'wolf warrior' diplomacy basically seems like a total lack of any diplomacy and is almost as troubling for the PRC's neighbors as its military build up. But global competition certainly will remain regardless of who is in charge.

 

[Josh_TN]

Is China 'really' a threat ... 7,470 km Distance from China to Australia View attachment 669179

Was Japan?

 

[TsrJoe]

Is China 'really' a threat ... 7,470 km Distance from China to Australia View attachment 669179

Was Japan?

Proposed Japanese invasion of Australia during World War II - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[In_A_Dream]

A lot will depend on China's course.
If Xi continues his Mussolini style regime then Australia is likely to feel closer to the US and UK.
But China is always good for a surprise. Xi might be gone in a few years time and China returned to a more Collegiate Communist party leadership. Then the downsides of relations with the US may seem more relevant.

Call me crazy, but given human history and our inability to exercise restraint when rapidly gaining power, I don't think Xi's replacement will be a mild one. More than likely fanatical to satiate the lust for power their aristocracy is experiencing right now. I think Xi has been doing a good job at putting the brakes on the desires of those within his party, although the anti-corruption campaign only buys him more enemies.

 

[Josh_TN]

I don't get the impression Xi is making any effort to reign in nationalism. Quite the opposite. He perhaps is not giving in to more extremist elements of the Party, but to the extent that he is it seems to be only because some of their goals aren't militarily feasible or would result in severe economic blow back. That isn't to say his eventual replacement wouldn't be even more aggressive, but I think it's a stretch to label him as a moderate and a mischaracterization to imply his 'anti-corruption' campaign had much to do with rooting out corruption.

 

[Fluff]

A lot will depend on China's course.
If Xi continues his Mussolini style regime then Australia is likely to feel closer to the US and UK.
But China is always good for a surprise. Xi might be gone in a few years time and China returned to a more Collegiate Communist party leadership. Then the downsides of relations with the US may seem more relevant.

Call me crazy, but given human history and our inability to exercise restraint when rapidly gaining power, I don't think Xi's replacement will be a mild one. More than likely fanatical to satiate the lust for power their aristocracy is experiencing right now. I think Xi has been doing a good job at putting the brakes on the desires of those within his party, although the anti-corruption campaign only buys him more enemies.

I declare my lack of actual experience as a member of a 'communist' politburo, but I've always assumed the problems come from trying to work out which info is real and what is fake to keep me happy. Can we invade Tiawan, has presumably been answered with well we will need 4 CV, 100 destroyers, and 5000 landing craft, plus 2000 modern aircraft. Pretty soon they will have that, so the leaders will then expect the military to get on with it....

 

[GTX]

Getting off topic folks!

 

[jeffb]

Ah, to treated as a "suitable piece of real estate", again, by the US...

Give it a break! Polling since the AUKUS announcement has shown consistently that in fact most Australians are comfortable with AUKUS across the main political spectrum. Stop acting as though this is something being forced upon anyone.

Don't make me laugh! That polling reflects the fact that Australians have been told the RAN's getting nuclear submarines (some time in the next few decades), not that Australia will become a major hub for US strategic bomber forces (next week).

Why would Australians care? What exactly is the down side to rotational US basing in Aus?

Have Australian's been informed that the US may launch attacks against Chinese mainland or military targets from Australian territory, drawing them into a conflict they have no wish to be involved in?

 

[jeffb]

A lot will depend on China's course.
If Xi continues his Mussolini style regime then Australia is likely to feel closer to the US and UK.
But China is always good for a surprise. Xi might be gone in a few years time and China returned to a more Collegiate Communist party leadership. Then the downsides of relations with the US may seem more relevant.

Given that China already makes economic threats, and stops buying Aussie Coal(which is akin the the EU banning all UK exports), I think the Australians are well placed to make up their own mind, about who they would rather work with. I'm sure they considered the likely Chinese response when they decided to join this alliance.

China putting up trade barriers didn't happen in a vacuum. The (heavily GOP influenced) conservative Australian government started belligerently mouthing off back in April 2020 about 'forcing' inspection teams with the same powers as the WMD weapon inspectors sent to Iraq, into Wuhan to investigate the source of the corona virus (echoing Trump's calls for the same). And this came after a bunch of ineffectual Australian sabre rattling about China's land grab in the South China Sea which just loudly and pointlessly repeated exactly what the US State Department had said on the matter. A journalist in Australia quipped that the new Australian diplomatic strategy appeared to be: "to talk loudly and carry a tiny stick".

Following these diplomatic blunderings, China stopped taking the Australian government's calls. Literally. They won't talk to them. Then there were a series of trade "fuck you's" to round it off, including refusing to offload Australian coal and putting a 200% tariff on Australian wine (pretty much killing a big Australian export market).

And that all happened well before the AUKUS treaty showed up.

 

[Bhurki]

Have Australian's been informed that the US may launch attacks against Chinese mainland or military targets from Australian territory, drawing them into a conflict they have no wish to be involved in?

Yes, and in quite uncertain terms both by current and retired Chinese spokesmen.

 

[In_A_Dream]

China putting up trade barriers didn't happen in a vacuum. The (heavily GOP influenced) conservative Australian government started belligerently mouthing off back in April 2020 about 'forcing' inspection teams with the same powers as the WMD weapon inspectors sent to Iraq, into Wuhan to investigate the source of the corona virus (echoing Trump's calls for the same). And this came after a bunch of ineffectual Australian sabre rattling about China's land grab in the South China Sea which just loudly and pointlessly repeated exactly what the US State Department had said on the matter. A journalist in Australia quipped that the new Australian diplomatic strategy appeared to be: "to talk loudly and carry a tiny stick".

Following these diplomatic blunderings, China stopped taking the Australian government's calls. Literally. They won't talk to them. Then there were a series of trade "fuck you's" to round it off, including refusing to offload Australian coal and putting a 200% tariff on Australian wine (pretty much killing a big Australian export market).

And that all happened well before the AUKUS treaty showed up.

Something had to get the ball rolling.

Inflation, trade barriers, all eventualities as the West seeks to decouple and contain China's rise. It's going to be a very nasty divorce.

 

[Rickshaw]

Is China 'really' a threat ... 7,470 km Distance from China to Australia View attachment 669179

Politics/defence are about risk, and balance, if Australia does nothing, in the face of trade sanctions by China, and all the countries on your map sit back and say, well war, its not going to happen, by not pushing back, you risk 1939 again, but in Asia Pacific, not Europe.

Australia is a relatively small country in population, give China 10 years, and it would have a navy big enough to blockage Australia, excluding help from UK/USA. So as usual everyone gets something out of the alliance, US and UK get a secure base, Australia gets nuke boats eventually, and some big kids to back them up in the playground.

The PLAN would be incapable of blockading Australia. Australia can be approached from the far south across the Antarctic Sea. Without intervening bases, the PLAN would be incapable of this. At the present moment it completely lacks experience and equipment to under operations this distance from the Chinese mainland.

 

[Rickshaw]

Is China 'really' a threat ... 7,470 km Distance from China to Australia View attachment 669179

Was Japan?

Not really. Something the Japanese recognised at the time. In 1942 they held a joint planning conference between the IJN and IJA and the IJA cast doubt on the IJN believing it suffered from "victory disease" and that it lacked the means to support an attack on Australia. They were forced to settle for plans to "isolate" Australia with no real hope of success.

 

[Rickshaw]

Ah, to treated as a "suitable piece of real estate", again, by the US...

Give it a break! Polling since the AUKUS announcement has shown consistently that in fact most Australians are comfortable with AUKUS across the main political spectrum. Stop acting as though this is something being forced upon anyone.

Don't make me laugh! That polling reflects the fact that Australians have been told the RAN's getting nuclear submarines (some time in the next few decades), not that Australia will become a major hub for US strategic bomber forces (next week).

Why would Australians care? What exactly is the down side to rotational US basing in Aus?

Have Australian's been informed that the US may launch attacks against Chinese mainland or military targets from Australian territory, drawing them into a conflict they have no wish to be involved in?

Not adequately. Most Australians are ignorant as to the real subtelties of their nation's lack of their own foreign policy. For too long they have been willing to subsume their foreign policy in the US's.

 

[Pioneer]

Is China 'really' a threat ... 7,470 km Distance from China to Australia View attachment 669179

Was Japan?

I think the Chinese are astute enough to have studied and learnt from the Imperial Japan's overstretch in its attempt to capture and hold New Guinea.
I personally thinking Australia is having a bit of a wet dream in terms of playing with the 'big boys' in both geopolitics and military posture. It's a little Billy Hughes of Scotty from Marketing all over again in my opinion - being a mouthpiece for Britain and of course this time around the United States.
In truth I think China can and will find
natural resource supplies from other parts of the world - where as I question where Australia will find alternative buyers for its resources on the scale that China did. Sure, the U.S. and Britain will do it's posturing to shore up Australia for a time, but both countries lockstep ideology of profits and free markets will make such compensation untenable after a while - it's capitalism at its best.

Regards
Pioneer

 

[jeffb]

Australia is a relatively small country in population, give China 10 years, and it would have a navy big enough to blockage Australia

But why would it want to? They can get anything they need through trade and investment, why do it the hard way?

I think the Chinese are astute enough to have studied and learnt for Imperial Japan's overstretch in its attempt to capture and hold New Guinea.
In truth I don't think China can and will.find alternative resources supplies from other parts of the world - where as I question where Australia will find alternative buyers for its resources on the scale that China did.

Actually, China is currently pouring billions in investment into Africa and central Asia through the belt and road initiative. Part of the reason for doing so is access to resources. Much of this development work will be along the old silk road route, the aim eventually is to build a resource and development corridor right through the 'stans all the way to Europe. Australia may end up having more competition than it likes.

 

[zen]

The turn away from China has been a long time coming, and warnings of what this monstrous regime was were known for decades before that.
I have been recently reminded of how willing some were for Accommodation with the USSR and how they ignored the blatant evidence of what thst regime was.

 

[Josh_TN]

Is China 'really' a threat ... 7,470 km Distance from China to Australia View attachment 669179

Politics/defence are about risk, and balance, if Australia does nothing, in the face of trade sanctions by China, and all the countries on your map sit back and say, well war, its not going to happen, by not pushing back, you risk 1939 again, but in Asia Pacific, not Europe.

Australia is a relatively small country in population, give China 10 years, and it would have a navy big enough to blockage Australia, excluding help from UK/USA. So as usual everyone gets something out of the alliance, US and UK get a secure base, Australia gets nuke boats eventually, and some big kids to back them up in the playground.

The PLAN would be incapable of blockading Australia. Australia can be approached from the far south across the Antarctic Sea. Without intervening bases, the PLAN would be incapable of this. At the present moment it completely lacks experience and equipment to under operations this distance from the Chinese mainland.

Emphasis mine. Two decades ago the PLAN would have been a live fire exercise for the USN and an invasion of Taiwan would have been a massive swimming competition.