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

[neverfail]

https://www.theage.com.au/politics/fede ... 5csba.html

Former prime minister Paul Keating has launched an extraordinary attack on the Albanese government over its adoption of the AUKUS pact, accusing it of making the worst foreign policy decision by a Labor government since the attempted introduction of conscription in World War I.

This article may not make a lot of sense to overseas readers not in touch with the course of Australian political history but take my word; is has triggered off a firestorm within our current governing party (which paul keating once led as prime Minister).

https://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/politi ... 5cs3t.html

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

Good point. Not one of the subs we have ordered will be in the water ready for deployment until the 2040's decade. Meantime is this country supposed tosubsist with its present fleet of now obsolete 6 conventionally powered subs?

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-03-16/ ... /102098216

The only "threat" we should worry about is the utterly far-fetched prospect of Chinese troops landing on Australian soil. "That is, they bring an armada of troop ships with a massive army to occupy us," he said, pointing out "this is not possible for the Chinese to do".

I watched Keating make this point on television. Thinking back I cannot recall an instance when the PRC has betrayed any anbition to conquer and rule this country. So what ia our political establishment going on about?
..........................................................................................................................................

Special note for Cassowary:

Cass, do not assume or read into this post that I would wish to see rule by the CCP inflicted on the people of Taiwan - who have in public opinion polls and by other means that they do not want this. I am rather taking a more fatalist view of things. I consider that relations between the USA and the PRC have already deteriorated so far that a contest of arms between the two is inevitable. From now on relations can only go further in one direction.

These overpriced submarines that our government has committed Australia to buy are useless for the defence of Australia's landmass and offshhore territorila seas. They are long range attack vessels designed for use far from their home base, such as in Chinese territorial waters. They are the sort of weapon that could drag my country into a war with the PRC that might be in America's best interests but is not in ours.

The most obvious trigger for such a war is the fate of Taiwan. The USA has carried on a contradictory policy over this island since 1979 when the Carter administration first entered into diplomatic relations with China. While "officially" recognising Taiwan as "part of China" the US still treats with Taiwan as though it were a soverign nation state in need of US protection. It amazes me that the PRC government has not by now challenged the US over this two faced "have it both ways" policy posture.

The day of reconnong cannot be postponed foirever.

Such a conflict would obviously be a maritime one fought offshore. The PRC would have the tactical advatage of fighting close to its home base while US supply lines would be very long (and expensive to maintain). The PRC would be far more likely to win. To win PRC ground troops would not need even to storm the island: merely isolate it from the outside world until shortages of essential imports force it to concede defeat. I believe that the PRc has the means to do this.

[Milo]

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?

[cassowary]

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?

Keating is right. The purpose of the submarines is to fight China in the event of war over Taiwan. Why should Australia defend Taiwan ?

For that matter, why should the US defend Taiwan? Let Asia deal with a belligerent China. Similarly, why should the US help Ukraine? Let Europe deal with a belligerent Russia. The US, sheltered by two oceans, is in no danger if they fall.

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.

[neverfail]

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?

I do not see how owning a miniscule fleet of nuclear submarines would change that.

Since much of our produce that is shipped through the South China Sea is desined for China, already paid for by Chinese customers, then the PRc would only be harming itself if it tried. Of recent memory was an episode of that when the PRC government place some boycott bans and iniquious tariffs on a selection of our exported products to their country in reprisal for a rash move by our government of the time to push for a World Health Organisation investigation into the source of Covid in China - which the PRC government of course did not want. It hurt Australia not at all but it harmed the PRC. Now they ae slo2wly making amends.

[neverfail]

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?

Keating is right. The purpose of the submarines is to fight China in the event of war over Taiwan. Why should Australia defend Taiwan ?

We have no military defence treaty with Taiwan so there is nothing to legally compel Australia to do so.

Even if an Australian government were to choose to do so in order to stay on the good side of the incumbent US administration of the day (Australian governments have been indulging US governments like that ever since the Vietnam War debacle) with the sort of equipment our armed forces currently have our help would not make an iota of difference to the outcome.

This would be a war that when it needs to the US could and should fight without our help. It is only the US, not any otther country, that is tied in knots by that contracictory Congressional bill that compels the US to defend Taiwan even as it recognises the island state as being part of China.

[Milo]

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?

I do not see how owning a miniscule fleet of nuclear submarines would change that.

Since much of our produce that is shipped through the South China Sea is desined for China, already paid for by Chinese customers, then the PRc would only be harming itself if it tried. Of recent memory was an episode of that when the PRC government place some boycott bans and iniquious tariffs on a selection of our exported products to their country in reprisal for a rash move by our government of the time to push for a World Health Organisation investigation into the source of Covid in China - which the PRC government of course did not want. It hurt Australia not at all but it harmed the PRC. Now they ae slo2wly making amends.

That says to me that China can’t be counted on to be a rational actor and Australia should have good arms.

[cassowary]

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?

Keating is right. The purpose of the submarines is to fight China in the event of war over Taiwan. Why should Australia defend Taiwan ?

We have no military defence treaty with Taiwan so there is nothing to legally compel Australia to do so.

Even if an Australian government were to choose to do so in order to stay on the good side of the incumbent US administration of the day (Australian governments have been indulging US governments like that ever since the Vietnam War debacle) with the sort of equipment our armed forces currently have our help would not make an iota of difference to the outcome.

This would be a war that when it needs to the US could and should fight without our help. It is only the US, not any otther country, that is tied in knots by that contracictory Congressional bill that compels the US to defend Taiwan even as it recognises the island state as being part of China.

How about the rest of what I wrote?

[neverfail]

That says to me that China can’t be counted on to be a rational actor and Australia should have good arms.

I agree; but they do not have to be THESE arms.

The former diplomat David Livingstone contends that by the time these submarines are put into service they will be obsolete.

https://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/politi ... 5cs3t.html

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

Meantime the hundreeds of billions of dollars of revenue being squandered on this white elephant of a flotilla represents a drain on this nation's resources. Money that could otherwise have been spent on defence purchases more directly relevant to this country's real defence needs.

As for the nuclear-powered submarines to be built in South Australia, the ambitious schedule is to deliver the first by the early 2040s. By the 2050s, however, it would be surprising if there would be any place for manned submarines at all. The oceans are becoming transparent through the development of new sensors. Cheap, ubiquitous smart sea-mines, sensors and UUVs will render them obsolete.

I need not even mention the likely cost blowouts and delays that I anticipate will further jonah the project making it highly unlikely it will be completed even according to that osensibly generous cost-time schedule.

Our defence planners and government politicans should have learned from the (1980's into the 1990's) project to construct the current fleet of Collins Class diesel-electric submarines our navy uses to learn just how fraught submarine construction can be. But this new proposal to construct the nuclear subs at the very same Adelaide shipyard will be just like that on steroids. It seems that they never learn.

[Sertorio]

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?

Keating is right. The purpose of the submarines is to fight China in the event of war over Taiwan. Why should Australia defend Taiwan ?

For that matter, why should the US defend Taiwan? Let Asia deal with a belligerent China. Similarly, why should the US help Ukraine? Let Europe deal with a belligerent Russia. The US, sheltered by two oceans, is in no danger if they fall.

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.

You are starting to make sense. Interfering in other people's business will always lead to war without any justification. Bad as China may be to some of you, it will never attack any other country. There may be border skirmishes such as those which happened with India or Vietnam, but that's all.

[Sertorio]

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...