Australia to Get Nuclear Submarines

[Josh]

3 minutes ago, R011 said:

Power was transferred on time and without any significant disruption when the came came on 20 January.  The world knows who is currently President and that he will remain president , barring some extraordinary event, until 20 January 2024. 

A third of American voters believe the last election was fixed.  If there was any will on the part of Democrats to bolster confidence in the electoral system, they would be seeking ways to do so instead of doubling down on their efforts to loosen voting rules.

I score January 6th as a significant disruption and I don't see any reason to change how elections are handled just because of people's feelings. But let's start another thread to discuss this if you insist.

[Stuart Galbraith]

The distruption to America's leadership is mainly down to Biden saying 'America is back, we will listen to you and work with you', and then on 2 major occasions since saying that, actually done the exact opposite. It is also compouned by the previous President tearing up agreed forms of approach to Iran and climate change. Even if we do an agreement with America today, fairly clearly when another administration gets it, it may stand for nothing.

You dont have to agree with those agreements, or even dislike Trump. But America since the end of the cold war has done an increasingly piss poor job of listening to allies, and cant agree a foreign policy for more than 4 years at a time. There is clearly an issue with America's global leadership if even America cannot decide what its going to be doing 4 years hence. Or even next month come to that.

This is not an issue that is easily solved. In fact, Im not sure it is solveable anymore.

[DB]

Glenn has a habit of lauding each country that opposes western interests. See also, and in particular, Russia.

his method, such as it is, is to role play the perspective of someone who is from one of those countries, almost as if he were Walting it up as Putin or Xi, all the better to push little counters around the map with a croupier's rake.

This often seems to go far beyond a more typical devil's advocate position into being actual advocacy. I've never really understood why people want to play the bad guy, to me it suggests a lack of consideration of all the things that allow one to do as one does and how overthrowing the institutions that make them possible would interfere with those things.

Ah well, it's all counters on a dining room table anyway.

[R011]

52 minutes ago, Josh said:

I score January 6th as a significant disruption

Of course you do, even though it delayed the rubberstamp vote by only a few hours, involved a small number of people, was not repeated, and had no effect on the actual turnover on 20 January.

Quote

and I don't see any reason to change how elections are handled just because of people's feelings. But let's start another thread to discuss this if you insist.

Right because having a third of the population convinced the system is not free and fair is not at all a problem.

Quote

But let's start another thread to discuss this if you insist.

Why bother with a new thread?  It's not like this thread has been about Australian SSNs for some time and you already brought up the subject.

Edited October 30, 2021 by R011

[Stuart Galbraith]

29 minutes ago, DB said:

Glenn has a habit of lauding each country that opposes western interests. See also, and in particular, Russia.

his method, such as it is, is to role play the perspective of someone who is from one of those countries, almost as if he were Walting it up as Putin or Xi, all the better to push little counters around the map with a croupier's rake.

This often seems to go far beyond a more typical devil's advocate position into being actual advocacy. I've never really understood why people want to play the bad guy, to me it suggests a lack of consideration of all the things that allow one to do as one does and how overthrowing the institutions that make them possible would interfere with those things.

Ah well, it's all counters on a dining room table anyway.

We know, and its tolerated. What is not tolerated is his using that  smug attitude to call others out on trolling.

Incidentally, I did post up an article on HMS Astute visiting Australia, but I believe it got lost in the tumult.

Edited October 30, 2021 by Stuart Galbraith

[Josh]

Very well. I think the events of Jan 6th are far more important not for the riot that occurred but for the organized effort to prevent the rubber stamp process you are referring to. A concerted effort was made on the part of the Trump campaign to have states send different electors and when that didn't work, have Pence arbitrarily throw out the votes of specific states to prevent Biden from achieving 270 votes. In the end Pence didn't follow through and clearly the VP position will not be in GOP hands in 2024, but a serious effort was made to overturn the election. That it was not successful doesn't make it less significant.

I also don't think the storming of the Capitol in and of itself is a super minor event. A mob overrunning the legislature is, by itself, a tangible disruption. In the end the legislators were not directly confronted by rioters, but that due to luck as much as skill. Congress was physically threatened.

A third of the population thinks that the elections were rigged because Trump and his media backers lie and the GOP does nothing to prevent it, when its more junior members actively promote the lie. It would not matter what laws were passed; the problem is the lie, not the laws. We already have seen the goal posts moved from "we need election reform because elections aren't secure!" to "we need election reform because people *feel* its insecure, after we repeatedly told them it was insecure!". Changing the laws won't change the narrative. If there's anything that ultimately makes the US system falter before China's does, it will be Trump and his enablers.

Edited October 30, 2021 by Josh

[Ssnake]

Well, it's not like Hillary hasn't also touted that her victory was stolen; or tale LBJ, who probably participated not in a single election in his entire life without voting fraud. Sure, there's been the decades in between where the case of proven fraud is harder to make, but I think that the Lesser Clinton's campaign after her 2016 non-election also helped a lot to delegitimize democracy and rule of law in the US, just with the other half of the political spectrum. Also, the organized left created the narrative of Trump as a fascist dictator to provide moral cover for pretty much any action up to and including political murder. It's not so hard to believe that in counties ruled by Democrats for a long time and Democrat-leaning officials at all levels from town to county to state they might look the other way if some of them stuff the boxes or otherwise engage in manipulation.

It's not a Trump problem; Trump is but a symptom for a much wider and deeper crisis of the US.

[Stuart Galbraith]

America doesnt know what it is, what it stands for, where its going, or whom it wants to take going there or trust anyone whom wants to lead them.

Basically, its France in the 1930's.

 

 

Edited October 30, 2021 by Stuart Galbraith

[Josh]

On 10/30/2021 at 11:14 AM, Ssnake said:

Well, it's not like Hillary hasn't also touted that her victory was stolen; or tale LBJ, who probably participated not in a single election in his entire life without voting fraud. Sure, there's been the decades in between where the case of proven fraud is harder to make, but I think that the Lesser Clinton's campaign after her 2016 non-election also helped a lot to delegitimize democracy and rule of law in the US, just with the other half of the political spectrum. Also, the organized left created the narrative of Trump as a fascist dictator to provide moral cover for pretty much any action up to and including political murder. It's not so hard to believe that in counties ruled by Democrats for a long time and Democrat-leaning officials at all levels from town to county to state they might look the other way if some of them stuff the boxes or otherwise engage in manipulation.

It's not a Trump problem; Trump is but a symptom for a much wider and deeper crisis of the US.

There have been lots of cases on both sides of people saying an election was not fair. But end of the day, in all presidential elections, the election was conceded and the issue ended, even in 2000. What is unique about the current situation is the lack of concession and the sustained goal of undermining the election and the attempt to make entire states not count as part of the election, or else have the local party at the state level over ride the popular vote count. That is NOT something that previously has been contemplated by either party since the 1800's to my knowledge.

Edited October 31, 2021 by Josh

[Ssnake]

My impression of the 2017...2020 period was, well, different. Superficially there was a concession that Trump won, but that concession was subverted in words and deeds at pretty much every opportunity. If what's happening now is wrong, it was wrong back then as well.

[Josh]

2 hours ago, Ssnake said:

My impression of the 2017...2020 period was, well, different. Superficially there was a concession that Trump won, but that concession was subverted in words and deeds at pretty much every opportunity. If what's happening now is wrong, it was wrong back then as well.

Hillary conceded that night. And all her bitching aside, she never tried to contact individual states and have them change their electoral college representatives nor did she phone Biden and have him try to throw out specific state's electoral votes in the final count in January. That is a huge a difference. She also largely shut the fuck up about it while Trump and the GOP continue to act as though him winning is a fact. These are not remotely comparable things.

Oh also, she didn't call for BLM or anyone else to gather in DC and over run the Capitol. Then do almost nothing to call them off once they were through the barricades. Again, minor factual difference between her losing and Trump.

I will agree Hillary was a twat who deserved to lose.

Edited November 1, 2021 by Josh

[R011]

1 hour ago, Josh said:

Hillary conceded that night. And all her bitching aside, she never tried to contact individual states and have them change their electoral college representatives nor did she phone Biden and have him try to throw out specific state's electoral votes in the final count in January. That is a huge a difference. She also largely shut the fuck up about it while Trump and the GOP continue to act as though him winning is a fact. These are not remotely comparable things.

Oh also, she didn't call for BLM or anyone else to gather in DC and over run the Capitol. Then do almost nothing to call them off once they were through the barricades. Again, minor factual difference between her losing and Trump.

I will agree Hillary was a twat who deserved to lose.

Clinton didnt encourage protests and rioting - publicly.  Four years of riots ensued anyway with the Democrats encouragment.  And instead of just protest, they tried to frame Trump with the cooperation of the DoJ and FBI, agencies that are supposed to be nonpartisan but obviously are not anymore. A sore loser more damaging to democracy than partisan law enforcement agencies? 

[Josh]

58 minutes ago, R011 said:

Clinton didnt encourage protests and rioting - publicly.  Four years of riots ensued anyway with the Democrats encouragment.  And instead of just protest, they tried to frame Trump with the cooperation of the DoJ and FBI, agencies that are supposed to be nonpartisan but obviously are not anymore. A sore loser more damaging to democracy than partisan law enforcement agencies? 

I think Trump was investigated because his campaign did have a lot of proven Russian connections and shady dealings. Six people on his campaign were ultimately proven guilty of some crime. On top of that there were ten instances of obstruction of justice in Muellers report.

 

But much more importantly “sore loser” is the incorrect adjective to use when you are talking about altering or removing several states worth of votes from an election. I would use words like coup or treason to describe disenfranchising millions of people to change the results of an election. And Trump unambiguously asked the local officials of several states to do so on tape, and his campaign attempted to pressure Pence to circumvent the electoral college after it was clear Biden won. It is hard to prove criminality with evidence we have, but none the less calling Trump a ‘sore loser’ is like calling Jeffrey Dahmer a bad party host. And Trump has continued to make overturning his loss in 2020 the centerpiece of the GOP platform, since the GOP abdicated having any presidential platform at all in 2020 for the first time in its history.

 

but her emails.

[Ssnake]

All I'm saying is that the final outcome of collective actions and inactions from both parties undermined the population's trust in election results and with it, a reduction of willingness to accept unwelcome results.

 

GOP and Trump are doing it more openly and ham-fisted, the Dems organized a steady stream of urban riots, "#resist", flip-flopped on whether voting machines could be hacked ("No!", said Obama, and Clinton ridiculed anyone who still didn't believe - until she lost, at which point Ru$$ian HaXX0rs were on the table again; then it was back to "Of course not" the morning after Biden had won; notice a pattern?). As mentioned by other above, Obama weaponized federal agencies against political enemies (IRS vs Teaparty, to name an example).

The FBI lied to a FISA court to get the permission to investigate the Trump campaign on the basis of known made-up allegations compiled on behalf of the Clinton campaign; if you care about proper judicial procedure, then at least half of the cases of criminal conduct you mentioned should go right out of the window as they were all derived from the forbidden fruit of investigation methods that should and would never have happened if the FBI had acted objectively and non-partisan.

 

I'm not sure why these points are even contentious. At this point the US looks like a banana republic with nuclear weapons where nobody seems to be interested in deescalation, taking a step back, taking a moment of self-reflection. To me, that's downright scary.

[sunday]

1 hour ago, Ssnake said:

All I'm saying is that the final outcome of collective actions and inactions from both parties undermined the population's trust in election results and with it, a reduction of willingness to accept unwelcome results.

 

GOP and Trump are doing it more openly and ham-fisted, the Dems organized a steady stream of urban riots, "#resist", flip-flopped on whether voting machines could be hacked ("No!", said Obama, and Clinton ridiculed anyone who still didn't believe - until she lost, at which point Ru$$ian HaXX0rs were on the table again; then it was back to "Of course not" the morning after Biden had won; notice a pattern?). As mentioned by other above, Obama weaponized federal agencies against political enemies (IRS vs Teaparty, to name an example).

The FBI lied to a FISA court to get the permission to investigate the Trump campaign on the basis of known made-up allegations compiled on behalf of the Clinton campaign; if you care about proper judicial procedure, then at least half of the cases of criminal conduct you mentioned should go right out of the window as they were all derived from the forbidden fruit of investigation methods that should and would never have happened if the FBI had acted objectively and non-partisan.

 

I'm not sure why these points are even contentious. At this point the US looks like a banana republic with nuclear weapons where nobody seems to be interested in deescalation, taking a step back, taking a moment of self-reflection. To me, that's downright scary.

Pretty much. Also, there are a couple of threads already in the FFZ about US election shenanigans.

[seahawk]

It misses the point. In 2017 there was no manipulation of the result, in 2021 there was.

[Rick]

What does Australia export to China? What does Australia import from China?

[sunday]

27 minutes ago, Rick said:

What does Australia export to China? What does Australia import from China?

https://tradingeconomics.com/australia/exports/china

Australia exports iron ore, oil, gas, plus some services

[glenn239]

On 10/30/2021 at 10:08 AM, DB said:

Glenn has a habit of lauding each country that opposes western interests. See also, and in particular, Russia.

I think that it would be stupid for the West to go too far into Russia's near abroad.  Others disagree, mostly from a personally safe distance from any fighting.

Quote

 I've never really understood why...<snip>

Quagmires without victory do not elicit enthusiasm for me.

Edited November 1, 2021 by glenn239

[glenn239]

On 10/30/2021 at 9:40 AM, Josh said:

I apologize for my Canadian comment. I merely find it baffling how strong your pro China sentiment is. 

Josh, Canada has no air defenses up here to speak of.  We're a joke, we can't shoot down missiles and our Defense minister is focused on sex scandals and woke culture.  What are we going to defeat hypersonic attacks with over here?  Transgender legislation?   It's  not a question of being 'pro China', is a question of being realistic about how this is going to go down.  

New Chinese aircraft break cover fast and furiously (aninews.in)

4 military protypes rolled out in China since the discussion of their hypersonic missile test fizzled out.  These guys are serious players.

Quote

Your logical arguments all seem predicated on the idea that China's economic power continues to rise. That is the fundamental disconnect between our predictions (which both are likely also colored be very different attitudes towards China's rise)

The US is a guest to Asia.  It could in theory go home at any time.  We know this.  China is embedded in Asia.  It's not going anywhere.  The long term trends will favor China.  

Quote

You don't subscribe to that model, so I assume you anticipate Chinese economic growth proceeds at 6%+ as historical. 

My opinion on recessions is that these are necessary corrections that once they are over, strengthen an economy for future expansion.  China has had too much growth too rapidly, and needs a recession to correct alot of shit in its economy.   

Quote

, I would probably come more in line with your position, though I would still argue that defending Taiwan is a requirement for a number of reasons, even if ultimately it required tactical nuclear weapons to be based there.

Did the Soviets basing nuclear weapons in Cuba make Cuba more or less secure in 1962?

What Biden is doing in Asia I have no problem with.  Australian subs - fine.  British carriers - fine.  It's all good.  But, with Taiwan, there cannot be any formal guarantee, and the amount of support given has to remain at a level where the US retains flexibility to cut its losses and run, because current trends suggest that soon Taiwan will be a war the US could lose.

Do you think the US should fight wars it expects to lose?  Yes or no?  

[Nobu]

On 10/28/2021 at 3:45 AM, RETAC21 said:

In 2 words: iraq 1990

The same mistake over and over

Ah, the Glaspie Maneuver (although there is an argument out there that she fell on her sword to protect her Department and Administration, and she gains my respect if so).

 

On 10/28/2021 at 3:50 AM, Stuart Galbraith said:

I struggle to think of a crisis in the past 40 years we successfully predicted and conducted an effective policy to forestall it. 

I'm going to sound like a broken record on this (what else is new), but I think Nixon managed this intentionally and successfully on at least two fronts for almost exactly the 40-year historical interval you describe: Detente and his visit to China. 

 

On 10/28/2021 at 2:53 PM, Tim the Tank Nut said:

If cooler heads prevail then so be it.  If they do not prevail the economic dislocation is going to make the military casualties insignificant even if every service member on both sides is killed.

Yep. The Chinese "heads," cooler or otherwise, will realize soon after the "limited" war (comprising an OVERLORD-scale landing) begins that there is no "off switch" to it buried in vault underneath Taipei somewhere, even if Beijing's flag is flying over it. 

The same proviso would apply to a hypothetical invasion of Hainan island alone by anyone. Good luck to anyone trying to find the autowin off-switch to that "limited" war, either.

Consider how long 1962 Indo-Chinese War for far lower stakes has dragged on, and the lost opportunity costs to both sides as a result. The saying of never attribute to malice what is better attributable to Indo-Chinese stupidity comes to mind.

Edited November 1, 2021 by Nobu

[Nobu]

In the afterlife, there are Japanese generals probably still waiting for China to sue for peace after the fall of Nanking and Shanghai. No autowin switches were found underneath those cities either, unfortunately.

[Nobu]

On 10/30/2021 at 11:26 AM, Stuart Galbraith said:

America doesnt know what it is, what it stands for, where its going, or whom it wants to take going there or trust anyone whom wants to lead them.

Basically, its France in the 1930's.

That's harsh, but also lol.

[Josh]

10 hours ago, glenn239 said:

Josh, Canada has no air defenses up here to speak of.  We're a joke, we can't shoot down missiles and our Defense minister is focused on sex scandals and woke culture.  What are we going to defeat hypersonic attacks with over here?  Transgender legislation?   It's  not a question of being 'pro China', is a question of being realistic about how this is going to go down.  

New Chinese aircraft break cover fast and furiously (aninews.in)

4 military protypes rolled out in China since the discussion of their hypersonic missile test fizzled out.  These guys are serious players.

The US is a guest to Asia.  It could in theory go home at any time.  We know this.  China is embedded in Asia.  It's not going anywhere.  The long term trends will favor China.  

My opinion on recessions is that these are necessary corrections that once they are over, strengthen an economy for future expansion.  China has had too much growth too rapidly, and needs a recession to correct alot of shit in its economy.   

Did the Soviets basing nuclear weapons in Cuba make Cuba more or less secure in 1962?

What Biden is doing in Asia I have no problem with.  Australian subs - fine.  British carriers - fine.  It's all good.  But, with Taiwan, there cannot be any formal guarantee, and the amount of support given has to remain at a level where the US retains flexibility to cut its losses and run, because current trends suggest that soon Taiwan will be a war the US could lose.

Do you think the US should fight wars it expects to lose?  Yes or no?  

If it is your opinion that Canada shouldn't be involved in the Taiwan question, that's reasonable. But that doesn't seem at all relevant to US foreign policy.

I think not only will there be a correction, there will be a rebalancing that will result in permanent lower GDP growth rates. The effectiveness of this rebalancing effort, which is already underway now, will determine if there is a period of recession or not. But the fact that power generation right now seems to be a serious problem for China for purely economic reasons rather than natural disasters seems to indicate that the country is going to have some economic growing pains sooner rather than later.

In the longer term, I think the rapidly aging population will pose huge challenges. It is true that many other industrial nations have similar aging populations, but those countries also had much higher per capita incomes and were more fully developed when they hit their population slow downs. Xi will have his work cut out for him avoiding the 'middle income trap' in 2035 when the number of workers drops by nearly a hundred million and the number of people over 65 increases by well over a hundred million.

I don't expect the US to lose a war this decade (at least not one where the goal is to stop a Chinese invasion of Taiwan) and I don't expect China to be economically as competitive past that time frame. So I see no reason for the US not to support Taiwan overtly such as to make sure there is no miscommunication about the US resolve in the short to medium term. I think the highest risk of war comes from China misinterpreting the intentions of the US vis-a-vis defending Taiwan in the near to medium term. See the posts above that mention Iraq as an example of what happens when you aren't clear about where your red lines are.

With that, I'll leave the Taiwan discussion and the 2021 election discussion alone. If there are any more submarine related posts I'll be around.

[Angrybk]

I'm not usually a fan of applying Theory to foreign policy -- human beings aren't predictable by any tech we currently have, social science is an oxymoron, etc. -- but this is a pretty interesting read. The authors' point is that China tends to get aggro when they get scared, not when they think they're on top. https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/11/us-china-war/620571/

"Examples of this are plentiful. In 1950, for instance, the fledgling PRC was less than a year old and destitute, after decades of civil war and Japanese brutality. Yet it nonetheless mauled advancing U.S. forces in Korea out of concern that the Americans would conquer North Korea and eventually use it as a base to attack China. In the expanded Korean War that resulted, China suffered almost 1 million casualties, risked nuclear retaliation, and was slammed with punishing economic sanctions that stayed in place for a generation. But to this day, Beijing celebrates the intervention as a glorious victory that warded off an existential threat to its homeland."

Edited November 2, 2021 by Angrybk