AUKUS deal 'bad for Australia' - former Prime Minister.

Discussion of current events
User avatar
neverfail
Posts: 11999
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2016 3:47 am
Location: Australia

Re: AUKUS deal 'bad for Australia' - former Prime Minister.

Post by neverfail » Thu Mar 16, 2023 4:10 am

cassowary wrote:
Wed Mar 15, 2023 7:43 pm
Milo wrote:
Wed Mar 15, 2023 4:43 pm
What if China does not invade your country, what if they just charge you more than the US deal would cost you to ship through the South China Sea?
For that matter, why should the US defend Taiwan?
I sometimes wonder that myself. More to the point I wonder whether the US will have the means to do so when the day comes.
If China or Indonesia ever invade Australia, why should the U.S. defend Australia? Especially if Australia did not lift a finger to contribute to regional defence.
Despite having had a defence pact with the US since 1951 and despite having provided military support in every war in the Indo-Pacific region that country has entered into ever since - something we were not obliged to do according to the letter of the defence pact - we still have no gilt edged guarantee that the US will come to our assistance if we need it. It will depend on two factors: whether it suits the US government of the time to do so (i.e. the political willpower) and who can foresee the shifts and changes in the political situation between then and now; and whether the US by then still has the logistical means to do so - baring in mind that we are geographically distant from the US.

The point is that it has never been put to the test. If it ever is we may be in for a rude shock.

User avatar
neverfail
Posts: 11999
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2016 3:47 am
Location: Australia

Re: AUKUS deal 'bad for Australia' - former Prime Minister.

Post by neverfail » Thu Mar 16, 2023 4:16 am

Sertorio wrote:
Thu Mar 16, 2023 1:59 am
Talking about dignity...
https://johnmenadue.com/scorpion-thresher/

Speaking in San Diego at the unveiling of the new submarine proposals, Albanese said Australia, the UK and the US “are bound, above all, in our belief in a world where every nation is respected – and inherent dignitary of any of every individual upheld”. This is vomit making rubbish and he must know it. These three aggressors did not uphold Iraq’s sovereignty when they invaded the country in 2003 on the basis of concocted intelligence, soon exposed as phoney. The trio did not uphold the inherent dignity of every individual the invaders killed. Nor the dignity of the 500,000 children who starved death due to US-led sanctions before the invasion.

Australia and the US did not uphold the dignity of those they killed in the illegal invasion of Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos. The US dropped a planeload of bombs on tiny Laos every eight minutes, 24 hours a day, for nine years. There was no hint in Vietnam of upholding human dignity when napalming children, the deliberate crop destruction to induce starvation, the carpet bombing, the use of dioxide, a persistent poison, that still causes mothers to give birth to agonisingly deformed children. Albanese was a strong opponent of Australia’s part of the Vietnam war. He must remember some of the reasons for his stand, which make a mockery of what he had to say at the unveiling of the nuclear submarines for Australia.
True. But upsetting to some of you...
Spare us your hypocrisy Sertorio. You are still cheering on Putin's war of aggression against Ukraine.

User avatar
Sertorio
Posts: 12983
Joined: Fri Dec 16, 2016 3:12 am

Re: AUKUS deal 'bad for Australia' - former Prime Minister.

Post by Sertorio » Thu Mar 16, 2023 4:18 am

neverfail wrote:
Thu Mar 16, 2023 4:16 am
Sertorio wrote:
Thu Mar 16, 2023 1:59 am
Talking about dignity...
https://johnmenadue.com/scorpion-thresher/

Speaking in San Diego at the unveiling of the new submarine proposals, Albanese said Australia, the UK and the US “are bound, above all, in our belief in a world where every nation is respected – and inherent dignitary of any of every individual upheld”. This is vomit making rubbish and he must know it. These three aggressors did not uphold Iraq’s sovereignty when they invaded the country in 2003 on the basis of concocted intelligence, soon exposed as phoney. The trio did not uphold the inherent dignity of every individual the invaders killed. Nor the dignity of the 500,000 children who starved death due to US-led sanctions before the invasion.

Australia and the US did not uphold the dignity of those they killed in the illegal invasion of Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos. The US dropped a planeload of bombs on tiny Laos every eight minutes, 24 hours a day, for nine years. There was no hint in Vietnam of upholding human dignity when napalming children, the deliberate crop destruction to induce starvation, the carpet bombing, the use of dioxide, a persistent poison, that still causes mothers to give birth to agonisingly deformed children. Albanese was a strong opponent of Australia’s part of the Vietnam war. He must remember some of the reasons for his stand, which make a mockery of what he had to say at the unveiling of the nuclear submarines for Australia.
True. But upsetting to some of you...
Spare us your hypocrisy Sertorio. You are still cheering on Putin's war of aggression against Ukraine.
No. I'm cheering Russia's and China's willingness to put an end to the evil American Empire. Ukrainians are victims, but mostly of America's power wishes and policies.

User avatar
cassowary
Posts: 9486
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 11:30 pm

Re: AUKUS deal 'bad for Australia' - former Prime Minister.

Post by cassowary » Thu Mar 16, 2023 4:47 am

neverfail wrote:
Thu Mar 16, 2023 4:10 am
cassowary wrote:
Wed Mar 15, 2023 7:43 pm
Milo wrote:
Wed Mar 15, 2023 4:43 pm
What if China does not invade your country, what if they just charge you more than the US deal would cost you to ship through the South China Sea?
For that matter, why should the US defend Taiwan?
I sometimes wonder that myself. More to the point I wonder whether the US will have the means to do so when the day comes.
If China or Indonesia ever invade Australia, why should the U.S. defend Australia? Especially if Australia did not lift a finger to contribute to regional defence.
Despite having had a defence pact with the US since 1951 and despite having provided military support in every war in the Indo-Pacific region that country has entered into ever since - something we were not obliged to do according to the letter of the defence pact - we still have no gilt edged guarantee that the US will come to our assistance if we need it. It will depend on two factors: whether it suits the US government of the time to do so (i.e. the political willpower) and who can foresee the shifts and changes in the political situation between then and now; and whether the US by then still has the logistical means to do so - baring in mind that we are geographically distant from the US.

The point is that it has never been put to the test. If it ever is we may be in for a rude shock.
Reference to the red sentence above. The main reason, besides the treaty, why the US will help Australia, is because you helped them in the past.
The Imp :D

User avatar
neverfail
Posts: 11999
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2016 3:47 am
Location: Australia

Re: AUKUS deal 'bad for Australia' - former Prime Minister.

Post by neverfail » Thu Mar 16, 2023 5:29 am

cassowary wrote:
Thu Mar 16, 2023 4:47 am
neverfail wrote:
Thu Mar 16, 2023 4:10 am
cassowary wrote:
Wed Mar 15, 2023 7:43 pm
Milo wrote:
Wed Mar 15, 2023 4:43 pm
What if China does not invade your country, what if they just charge you more than the US deal would cost you to ship through the South China Sea?
For that matter, why should the US defend Taiwan?
I sometimes wonder that myself. More to the point I wonder whether the US will have the means to do so when the day comes.
If China or Indonesia ever invade Australia, why should the U.S. defend Australia? Especially if Australia did not lift a finger to contribute to regional defence.
Despite having had a defence pact with the US since 1951 and despite having provided military support in every war in the Indo-Pacific region that country has entered into ever since - something we were not obliged to do according to the letter of the defence pact - we still have no gilt edged guarantee that the US will come to our assistance if we need it. It will depend on two factors: whether it suits the US government of the time to do so (i.e. the political willpower) and who can foresee the shifts and changes in the political situation between then and now; and whether the US by then still has the logistical means to do so - baring in mind that we are geographically distant from the US.

The point is that it has never been put to the test. If it ever is we may be in for a rude shock.
Reference to the red sentence above. The main reason, besides the treaty, why the US will help Australia, is because you helped them in the past.
Thanks Cass but I still beg tto differ.

I am guided by our historic experience in this.

In both World Wars Australia sent Great Britain (in numbers of volunteer soldiers; there was not a single conscript among them) far more military support than we have the US in all of its wars since 1945 on this side of the world. Even before WW1 Australian contingents of volunteer soldiers had been sent to The Boer War in South Africa and to the 1885 Sudan campaign against the Mahdi. We paid for our contribution in WW1 particularly in the form of high casualty figures.

The loss of over 60,000 young men from a country then of barely 4 million was a big sacrifice.

So considering that they were fighting for the preservation of the British Empire (which in those days was tantamount to preserving "civilisation as we know it") far from their home country against an alliance of foreign powers that were not threatening to invade Australia; I Believe it would have been natural for the mother country and seat of Empire to return the favour when we were under threat from a hostile foreign power.

The one and only time that Britain's loyalty to us was put to the test was after the surrender of Singapore when the Japanese appeared suddenly on our front doorstep and British forces to defend us were nowhere to be seen. (well, I seem to recall that we have been over that on discussion threads in the now distant past).

The point is that the country that we had trusted in unequivocally had let us down.

Our attachment to the United States and all things American since has really been like a shift of our old weight of hopes and expectations to a new provider of defence security. I believe that out here we have never really dispensed with the mystique of Empire: and you can take my word that in its heyday the British Empire truly wove a spell.

I was born in time to witness/experience that spell while in retreat - with the step by step dismantling of the Empire.

With that precedewnt in mind; for what reason should I believe that the United States may similarly let us down in like manner?

User avatar
neverfail
Posts: 11999
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2016 3:47 am
Location: Australia

Re: AUKUS deal 'bad for Australia' - former Prime Minister.

Post by neverfail » Thu Mar 16, 2023 2:54 pm

Sertorio wrote:
Thu Mar 16, 2023 4:18 am
neverfail wrote:
Thu Mar 16, 2023 4:16 am


Spare us your hypocrisy Sertorio. You are still cheering on Putin's war of aggression against Ukraine.
No. I'm cheering Russia's and China's willingness to put an end to the evil American Empire. Ukrainians are victims, but mostly of America's power wishes and policies.
Regardless of how cleverly you try to word your convoluted excuse Sertorio, the fact remains that you are still cheering on the aggressor state.

User avatar
neverfail
Posts: 11999
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2016 3:47 am
Location: Australia

Re: AUKUS deal 'bad for Australia' - former Prime Minister.

Post by neverfail » Thu Mar 16, 2023 3:57 pm

Now, to return to the topic (after dealing with an unwonted digression..... :D ):

Cass, as I have pointed out earlier, I have become fatalistic in my attitude towards US - PRC relations; seeing a further plunge in emnity between the two as inevitable. Having stated that I still pray that these might still change direction sparing us all a war - but presently remain pessimistic.

The top echelon within the Chinese Communist Party are nothing if not a cautous bunch. They are not partial to making rash policy moves. They will not make a "grab" for Taiwan until convinced that the international environment along with conditions at home are optimum for the success of such a venture before they move.

Along with being prudent they are also very patient: patience I perceive as being a long lived Chinese virtue.

The most opportune time would be while a crisis situation in The West diverts attention away from the region and absorbs western energies. The best time coinciding with when the PRC has built up an overwealming propenderance of firepower would likely be at end of 2020's into the early 2030's.

Without wishing any ill on the inhabitants of Taiwan I am actually hoping (with regard to the best interests of my own country) that such a PRC move in conventional arms is successful and The West accordingly has to then suffer and cope with the rebuff (along with the inevitable finger-pointing recriminations).

Why so? Because I now have little confidence in our national security establishment nor in the collective wisdom of our political parties.

As I explained in my earlier post; Australia once treated its own defence security as one and indivisible from that of the wider British Empire. Finding in the early months of 1942 that we had backed a loser we slipped seamlesly into the habit of treating with the USA the same way: vesting the same hopes and expectaions in our new ally qacross the Pacific. I want to see my countrymen cured of that long lived habit of expecting distant Anglosphere ersewile protectors to be guarantuers of our soverignty.

To get across the message that ultimately we are on our own.

The undignified manner in which American policy deserted South Vietnam in the early 1970's and Afghanistan in the early 2020's should have acquainted our policy establishment with the fact that when the going gets tough our American allies are inclined to cut and run. I believe that a humuliating American defeat over the preservation of Taiwan's quasi-soverignty would be enough to convince even our block headed defence and foreign policy planners that it is unwise to tie our security to the power of the United States

Which brings me back to those controversial nuclear powered subs. Since the first of those won't be operational until the early 2040's (perhaps even longer if the delays in construction I anticipate come to pass): with the conventional arms our navy is equipped with Australia will be in no position to support the USA in a conventional maritime war with the PRC over Taiwan; as long as the conflict takes place before the first of those subs are launched.

That explains my preferred choice of the latter 2020's into the early 2030's for the anticipated contest of arms to take place.

User avatar
SteveFoerster
Posts: 6192
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 7:17 pm
Location: DCA? DOM? LOS? Who knows?
Contact:

Re: AUKUS deal 'bad for Australia' - former Prime Minister.

Post by SteveFoerster » Thu Mar 16, 2023 7:39 pm

neverfail wrote:
Thu Mar 16, 2023 3:57 pm
Along with being prudent they are also very patient: patience I perceive as being a long lived Chinese virtue.
I don't understand why people say that. If they were such great long term thinkers, they'd have kept their word when it came to Hong Kong's autonomy so that the Taiwanese might look at it and say, 'well, we can live with that,' and unification happen without any shots being fired at all.
neverfail wrote:
Thu Mar 16, 2023 3:57 pm
Without wishing any ill on the inhabitants of Taiwan I am actually hoping (with regard to the best interests of my own country) that such a PRC move in conventional arms is successful and The West accordingly has to then suffer and cope with the rebuff (along with the inevitable finger-pointing recriminations).
So, you don't wish the Taiwanese any ill, but you hope that they end up being successfully invaded, languishing under authoritarian tyranny? I hope you never not wish me any ill!
Writer, technologist, educator, gadfly.
President of New World University: https://newworld.ac

User avatar
cassowary
Posts: 9486
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 11:30 pm

Re: AUKUS deal 'bad for Australia' - former Prime Minister.

Post by cassowary » Thu Mar 16, 2023 9:10 pm

neverfail wrote:
Thu Mar 16, 2023 3:57 pm
Now, to return to the topic (after dealing with an unwonted digression..... :D ):

Cass, as I have pointed out earlier, I have become fatalistic in my attitude towards US - PRC relations; seeing a further plunge in emnity between the two as inevitable. Having stated that I still pray that these might still change direction sparing us all a war - but presently remain pessimistic.
Its not just the US. I think that emnity with the democratic world is inevitable. As China grows more powerful and assertive, they will make more demands which will grate on your democratic sensivities. It will take a coalition of democracies to counter the China threat because of their vast population and thus high GDP potential. The higher the GDP, the more weapons they can produce.

The top echelon within the Chinese Communist Party are nothing if not a cautous bunch. They are not partial to making rash policy moves. They will not make a "grab" for Taiwan until convinced that the international environment along with conditions at home are optimum for the success of such a venture before they move.
Along with being prudent they are also very patient: patience I perceive as being a long lived Chinese virtue.
Patience is indeed a virtue. They will wait till China is too poweful for the US to handle. Then they will invade Taiwan. Then they will use their power to bully the countries in the Asia Pacific, including Australia. They thought they had reached that day when they stopped buying Australian coal a few years ago, only to learn that that day has not yet arrive.

Patience is not enough. They need wisdom too. Or patience can be detrimental. For example, they implemented the one child policy. When that was implemented, the people were unhappy but patiently bore the unhappiness. This policy was carried out too long and China is now facing a demographic disaster.


The most opportune time would be while a crisis situation in The West diverts attention away from the region and absorbs western energies. The best time coinciding with when the PRC has built up an overwealming propenderance of firepower would likely be at end of 2020's into the early 2030's.

Without wishing any ill on the inhabitants of Taiwan I am actually hoping (with regard to the best interests of my own country) that such a PRC move in conventional arms is successful and The West accordingly has to then suffer and cope with the rebuff (along with the inevitable finger-pointing recriminations).
In an earlier essay, I tried to draw your attention to the similarity of Taiwan to that of Ukraine. You were very outraged at the Russian invasion of Ukraine but seems indifferent to a likely invasion of Taiwan by Communist China. Both Russia and Communist China are authoritarian power seeking to extinguish a democracy in a state whose people resembles their own. Thus they both give an unwanted example to both Putin and Xi.
Why so? Because I now have little confidence in our national security establishment nor in the collective wisdom of our political parties.

As I explained in my earlier post; Australia once treated its own defence security as one and indivisible from that of the wider British Empire. Finding in the early months of 1942 that we had backed a loser we slipped seamlesly into the habit of treating with the USA the same way: vesting the same hopes and expectaions in our new ally qacross the Pacific. I want to see my countrymen cured of that long lived habit of expecting distant Anglosphere ersewile protectors to be guarantuers of our soverignty.
That's because without the British Empire, Australia could not survive against an imperialistc Japan. Without the US, Australia cannot survive against an assertive China. So you needed the British like you need the Americans now more than they need you. Without Australia, America can still survive.
To get across the message that ultimately we are on our own.
You cannot survive on your own.
The undignified manner in which American policy deserted South Vietnam in the early 1970's and Afghanistan in the early 2020's should have acquainted our policy establishment with the fact that when the going gets tough our American allies are inclined to cut and run. I believe that a humuliating American defeat over the preservation of Taiwan's quasi-soverignty would be enough to convince even our block headed defence and foreign policy planners that it is unwise to tie our security to the power of the United States
You got no one else to protect you but the US. That's the point you miss.
Which brings me back to those controversial nuclear powered subs. Since the first of those won't be operational until the early 2040's (perhaps even longer if the delays in construction I anticipate come to pass): with the conventional arms our navy is equipped with Australia will be in no position to support the USA in a conventional maritime war with the PRC over Taiwan; as long as the conflict takes place before the first of those subs are launched.

That explains my preferred choice of the latter 2020's into the early 2030's for the anticipated contest of arms to take place.
That's why I suggested you ask the Americans or the British to sell you a second hand nuclear sub in the meantime at a cheap price. Maybe the Los Angeles class nuclear sub that still has 10 years of shelf life. But unfortunately, the Americans need those subs and so are not willing to sell. Maybe you try the British or the French.
The Imp :D

User avatar
Sertorio
Posts: 12983
Joined: Fri Dec 16, 2016 3:12 am

Re: AUKUS deal 'bad for Australia' - former Prime Minister.

Post by Sertorio » Fri Mar 17, 2023 1:52 am

neverfail wrote:
Thu Mar 16, 2023 3:57 pm
Now, to return to the topic (after dealing with an unwonted digression..... :D ):

Cass, as I have pointed out earlier, I have become fatalistic in my attitude towards US - PRC relations; seeing a further plunge in emnity between the two as inevitable. Having stated that I still pray that these might still change direction sparing us all a war - but presently remain pessimistic.

The top echelon within the Chinese Communist Party are nothing if not a cautous bunch. They are not partial to making rash policy moves. They will not make a "grab" for Taiwan until convinced that the international environment along with conditions at home are optimum for the success of such a venture before they move.

Along with being prudent they are also very patient: patience I perceive as being a long lived Chinese virtue.

The most opportune time would be while a crisis situation in The West diverts attention away from the region and absorbs western energies. The best time coinciding with when the PRC has built up an overwealming propenderance of firepower would likely be at end of 2020's into the early 2030's.

Without wishing any ill on the inhabitants of Taiwan I am actually hoping (with regard to the best interests of my own country) that such a PRC move in conventional arms is successful and The West accordingly has to then suffer and cope with the rebuff (along with the inevitable finger-pointing recriminations).

Why so? Because I now have little confidence in our national security establishment nor in the collective wisdom of our political parties.

As I explained in my earlier post; Australia once treated its own defence security as one and indivisible from that of the wider British Empire. Finding in the early months of 1942 that we had backed a loser we slipped seamlesly into the habit of treating with the USA the same way: vesting the same hopes and expectaions in our new ally qacross the Pacific. I want to see my countrymen cured of that long lived habit of expecting distant Anglosphere ersewile protectors to be guarantuers of our soverignty.

To get across the message that ultimately we are on our own.

The undignified manner in which American policy deserted South Vietnam in the early 1970's and Afghanistan in the early 2020's should have acquainted our policy establishment with the fact that when the going gets tough our American allies are inclined to cut and run. I believe that a humuliating American defeat over the preservation of Taiwan's quasi-soverignty would be enough to convince even our block headed defence and foreign policy planners that it is unwise to tie our security to the power of the United States

Which brings me back to those controversial nuclear powered subs. Since the first of those won't be operational until the early 2040's (perhaps even longer if the delays in construction I anticipate come to pass): with the conventional arms our navy is equipped with Australia will be in no position to support the USA in a conventional maritime war with the PRC over Taiwan; as long as the conflict takes place before the first of those subs are launched.

That explains my preferred choice of the latter 2020's into the early 2030's for the anticipated contest of arms to take place.
What Australia - like most countries - needs is peace and the opportunity to do profitable trade with all its neighbours. Allying itself with the US will not provide that, as the US is an imperial power only interested in its power to submit all other countries. The need to show China that the US is the greatest power cannot bring peace to Asia and the western Pacific, so Australia should distance itself as much as possible from the US and establish a normal friendly relationship with China and all Asian countries. Having common roots with the US - the famous Anglo tribe - is completely irrelevant. There are plenty of Australians who have no connections with any of the anglophone countries, and they are very probably the most loyal Australians. They are a very important part of your future, and they are bound to shape it, not the remnants of the Anglo tribe. Poking China with the nuclear sub deal - which is only an excuse to have an American sub base in Australia - is a very dumb move, and Australians should reject it.

Post Reply