Jump to content

Australia to Get Nuclear Submarines


Adam_S
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 1.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

4 hours ago, lucklucky said:

It is more than that,

France is irked by  Germany  choosing US patrol aircraft instead of the deal they had with France

Switzerland choosing US F-35 over Rafale

Poland choosing M1 and Patriot missiles over their SAM's

They are also irked/jealous of Italy selling FREMM's specially 2 to Egypt and supposedly all over world while they cancelled FREMM production and went with FDI which is lighter and was supposed to be cheaper but it is not. They have some deal of self criticism on this but some of the media do not.

So they were already seeing their world getting very small.

 

But the manner this giant contract "of the century" of 12 submarines was cancelled is at another level, it is not just choosing A over B  in a "competition". it changing the rules of the game.  Another complete different ballpark. This is how alliances are broken.

It is stupidity of highest level from Biden  Administration and Australia - i am still not sure the British footprint on this.

Yes, it was stupid, especially in how they down it. I think this caused more damage to trust than even the Kabul retreat.

 

But what it really may be is the US DoD and Deep State not caring about trust. They just playing monopoly. Messages about trust and democracy are just rhetoric words to get people to go along with their monopoly play.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Nobu said:

They want to play Red Storm Rising, but have to pay others to buy the game for them.

The question that comes to mind is why the heck are Australia and Australians unable to build their own submarines in 2021?

 

Because submarine construction requires an experience workforce and management team as well as specialized infrastructure.  As they stopped building subs about thirty years ago, Australia no longer had that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Yes, but you are talking about competitive industries, you are talking about protectionism. And that's hardly convincing with a quarter of European steel coming from the Pacific.

You won't do anything about that, because you cant. Any attempt to undercut it is just going to cost exports in other things like cars. Can you see Germany putting up with that? It just isn't going to happen.

 

 

In other news, France suddenly offers nuclear and Carrier technology to South Korea. 

 

Why not protectionism? It is not as if China´s market is wide open. And yes I am in favour of protectionism if it protects core industries that are necessary for society to function. In the end the EU is heading that way any way due to their climate change ideas. But the last thing that makes sense is going for a military solution as the EU. I would not mind an agreement with the French to have an EU force on La Reunion and help to protect French possessions in the area. What we must not do is getting sucked into the adventures of the UK/US. (again)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

But that isnt the problem. The problem is the EU says its going to deal with Chinese aggression, just like it is going to deal with Russian aggression, and then IT DOESNT DO ANYTHING. 

China has been on the warpath for years. The EU is still importing 7 percent of its steel production. It is STILL China's greatest foreign trading partner. The EU simply will not do anything about China, because it knows what the economic cost of trying to block cheap Chinese goods. This is remarkably similar to the EU talking butch on Russia about Ukraine, and then sitting on its hands whilst Russia builds Nordstream 2.

We can argue about what is the right thing to do all day, but its Irrelevant, because the EU is not a political organization, its primarily a trading organization.  its still at heart the EEC, and it doesnt want to be held responsible for the damage to its member countries. I know it, you know it too.

Protectionism either is or is not a good thing, dependent on context. But I do know if the EU say they were going to block that cheap Chinese Steel, the German Car industry would be the first to complain about it.

 

Edited by Stuart Galbraith
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

 

But that isnt the problem. The problem is the EU says its going to deal with Chinese aggression, just like it is going to deal with Russian aggression, and then IT DOESNT DO ANYTHING. 

China has been on the warpath for years. The EU is still importing 7 percent of its steel production. It is STILL China's greatest foreign trading partner. The EU simply will not do anything about China, because it knows what the economic cost of trying to block cheap Chinese goods. This is remarkably similar to the EU talking butch on Russia about Ukraine, and then sitting on its hands whilst Russia builds Nordstream 2.

We can argue about what is the right thing to do all day, but its Irrelevant, because the EU is not a political organization, its primarily a trading organization.  its still at heart the EEC, and it doesnt want to be held responsible for the damage to its member countries. I know it, you know it too.

Protectionism either is or is not a good thing, dependent on context. But I do know if the EU say they were going to block that cheap Chinese Steel, the German Car industry would be the first to complain about it.

 

Countering China's warpath and aggression leaves what for the regional countries? I can't help but now get the feeling that behind that argument is an interst looking to use it for the sake of expanding UK influence in the area and deepening US monopoly in the area. In what way does that argument mean for Vietnam, the Philippines, Indonesia, Japan, ROK, Taiwan, Malaysia, and Thailand? If the PRC is seeking to reduce the geopolitical freedom of its neighbors so as to dominate the region, then what difference does it make if its not the PRC but the US/UK doing the same activitiee to reduce that geopolitical freedom in the region?  What your argument really means is for the 5 eyes to maintain its lead against the PRC or any other raisning power is it not? 

All this talk about countering China yet not a lick of interest in what's going on in those countries. They are just objects (non-western at that) that need to be saved. 

It was the west that granted their endorsdment to China's raise by playing along with China's narrative and turning a blind on obviously non-western anti-democratic traits, letting China onto the WTO and at the same time passing all the bad one-sided history press on a democratic Japan which had just got knocked down upon entering the lost decade period.

After more time thinking about it, I don't think Japan is a country of "the West". It has some common ground but in the end, it has some cultural differences and "the West" hardly ever include Japan in that special club of identity anyway. Although to see how in "the West" there's still deep rifes between France/Germany and US/UK. Also, being or not being one of "the West" automatically imply a totempole of status of relation with other western countries since there are certainly times when the relation between the US and Japan is going much better than, say, the US and Germany.

 

Edited by JasonJ
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Triggering some premature Chinese overextension or outright aggression might actually set them back a few generations.

I still would not want to see them replace their inefficient communist leadership with a more efficient, but just as nationalistic, liberal democratic one.

 

2 hours ago, R011 said:

Because submarine construction requires an experience workforce and management team as well as specialized infrastructure.  As they stopped building subs about thirty years ago, Australia no longer had that.

30 years ago, I think the Koreans (of all people) were building fans and toasters. For the past 10, they have been steadily working on their own attack sub program. What the Australians have been doing for the past 10 years I have no idea, but it reminds me of someone cram schooling it to compensate for giving up on the studying thing to begin with.

This might be a wake-up call for Australia to get it together, before it gets passed by.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, JasonJ said:

After more time thinking about it, I don't think Japan is a country of "the West".

No, it is not.

Substitute "the West" for "not-Communist", then things could make more sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its a zero sum game, you either enhance US monopoly in the region, or at length you enhance PRC monopoly in the region. There are no regional alternatives seriously on offer. Does anyone think the PRC dominating the region is to anyones advantage? They were already threatening Australia with all kinds of dark things even before they did this.

What are people offering as a serious alternative here? That the French were going to carry the burden of Pacific security? They do have 7000 troops in the region, but I dont see it swinging the balance. Even their submarines which they were offering Australia were not calculated to match what the PRC are putting in the water.

If Japan is not of the West, then you may as well throw it to the PRC to dominate. Again, is that really to our advantage, if they press them into use in the next trade war? Because the PRC under Xi seem more than capable of doing that kind of thing.

 

In the end, it was Australia asking to help, just as the Japanese are asking for help, the Indonesians, even the Vietnamese are looking for closer ties with the US. Even isolationist India can see the advantages of closer ties to the US. Surely they know what is to their advantage more than the PRC do?

Just a thought.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, sunday said:

No, it is not.

Substitute "the West" for "not-Communist", then things could make more sense.

The West is an artificial construct created to believe that we are all one happy people under a benevolent US umbrella. This has never been so, and the different nations of "The West" have worked diligentlya nd happily to undermine each other when possible (remember the Germans building chemical weapon plants in Irak and Syria, the French selling weapons to everyone, the US squashing competitos over "national security", etc.).

Re Oz, this, in 2 words, sums up the security debate:

And re. Chynah, this is why peer to peer vs the US is a no go:

China's Top Providers of Imported Crude Oil
  • Saudi Arabia: US$28.1 billion (15.9% of China's crude oil imports)
  • Russia: $27.3 billion (15.5%)
  • Iraq: $19.2 billion (10.9%)
  • Angola: $13.91 billion (7.9%)
  • Brazil: $13.9 billion (7.9%)
  • Oman: $12.8 billion (7.3%)
  • United Arab Emirates: $9.7 billion (5.5%)

So unless, they want to make fo with 15.5% of their oil needs, they need to thread carefully, since the US can shut down its economy with a distant blockade that would only require the deployment of LCS. Until the PLA Navy can achieve global reach, this is unlikely to change, and they are working hard on it, but still have a very long way to go.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Its a zero sum game, you either enhance US monopoly in the region, or at length you enhance PRC monopoly in the region. There are no regional alternatives seriously on offer. Does anyone think the PRC dominating the region is to anyones advantage? They were already threatening Australia with all kinds of dark things even before they did this.

What are people offering as a serious alternative here? That the French were going to carry the burden of Pacific security? They do have 7000 troops in the region, but I dont see it swinging the balance. Even their submarines which they were offering Australia were not calculated to match what the PRC are putting in the water.

If Japan is not of the West, then you may as well throw it to the PRC to dominate. Again, is that really to our advantage, if they press them into use in the next trade war? Because the PRC under Xi seem more than capable of doing that kind of thing.

 

In the end, it was Australia asking to help, just as the Japanese are asking for help, the Indonesians, even the Vietnamese are looking for closer ties with the US. Even isolationist India can see the advantages of closer ties to the US. Surely they know what is to their advantage more than the PRC do?

Just a thought.

 

Asking for help does not mean asking for having ability to self-develop defense capability being suppressed. The US has a lot of mass even if it just kept its procurement domestically. There's a role for the US to play by contributing mass and some assets unique to the US such as super carrier and strategic bombers. But if the US and tag along UK seek to extract defense producing energy from tbe regional countries, then those regional countries become weaker in their own region. A little imagination can see alternatives to zero sum PRC or USA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Its a zero sum game, you either enhance US monopoly in the region, or at length you enhance PRC monopoly in the region.

No, it is not, and they threatened Oz precisely because they couldn't do a thing about it quietly, showing the limits of their power.

Threats are bad, they make people worried and worried people tend to buy weapons, which increases the target level of Chinese military power and make it more expensive. You use them when you have no choice amd quite diplomacy can be ignored. The regional powers are happy being loosely coordinated by the US, but that doesn't mean they don't have their own interests.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, sunday said:

No, it is not.

Substitute "the West" for "not-Communist", then things could make more sense.

Unfortunetly a role for Vietnam makes things complex about being anti-communism. But shouldn't have had to come to the point where Vietnam has potentially an important role in this. But yes, Japan is anti-communist, had always been, and would be good if that was more of an aligning force.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Ssnake said:

As with any other specialized industrial know-how - use it, or you lose it.

I don't have a problem with Australia and Australians wanting sleek and deadly Virginias. I'd like to see Japan with some. I have questions about how they are going about getting "it" back. The approach they are taking, jumping from one deal to the next, sounds like something the Indians would do. Punching below their weight would be an understatement here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, JasonJ said:

Unfortunetly a role for Vietnam makes things complex about being anti-communism. But shouldn't have had to come to the point where Vietnam has potentially an important role in this. But yes, Japan is anti-communist, had always been, and would be good if that was more of an aligning force.

anti-"Chinese Communism", then 😁

Edited by sunday
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's still a lot of outstanding with Japon from last century. Pearl Harbour might have been squared by the decades of Japonais aggression and outright atrocities have not be accounted for. That should happen first.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

In the end, it was Australia asking to help, just as the Japanese are asking for help, the Indonesians, even the Vietnamese are looking for closer ties with the US. Even isolationist India can see the advantages of closer ties to the US. Surely they know what is to their advantage more than the PRC do?

Just a thought.

There is a parallel possibility. That all the sound and fury of the past and current generation aside, ever since Nixon's visit to China, Beijing and Washington have been de facto partners, careful not to cross each other's lines of understanding.

Historians may look back on it one day as Kabuki at a very high level. They will have to admit it had box office staying power, at least. It's been running on the equivalent of Broadway for half a century now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, JasonJ said:

Asking for help does not mean asking for having ability to self-develop defense capability being suppressed. The US has a lot of mass even if it just kept its procurement domestically. There's a role for the US to play by contributing mass and some assets unique to the US such as super carrier and strategic bombers. But if the US and tag along UK seek to extract defense producing energy from tbe regional countries, then those regional countries become weaker in their own region. A little imagination can see alternatives to zero sum PRC or USA.

And you are right. And we all know about how the FSX program got shafted by the US back in the 1980's. OTOH, as you well know the Japanese Government is looking very closely at the British Tempest program and is actively looking at jumping aboard. So clearly there are alternatives on offer, and the US is not always the Jealous master that the French are pretending they are. Its hardly as if the French ever passed up an opportunity to sell weapons to people whom were not the friends of Britain and America. Did we ever complain?

The point to be made here is that it was not the US elbowing in. It was the Australians trying to find a way out of the hole they dug themselves into with France.

 

Edited by Stuart Galbraith
Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, RETAC21 said:

No, it is not, and they threatened Oz precisely because they couldn't do a thing about it quietly, showing the limits of their power.

Threats are bad, they make people worried and worried people tend to buy weapons, which increases the target level of Chinese military power and make it more expensive. You use them when you have no choice amd quite diplomacy can be ignored. The regional powers are happy being loosely coordinated by the US, but that doesn't mean they don't have their own interests.

And if you are Australia, why are you going to wait 30 years till the Chinese have the ability to back up their threats? And you arent. Its probably going to take that long to build up this capability, so why not start now. There is no sense in trusting the PRC as being a peaceful, workable partner, when they are doing their very best to disabuse anyone in the region of that idea.

I find it hard to believe that its US coordination that is driving India and Vietnam towards the US, when quite clearly its fear of what China might do next. There is absolutely no way Vietnam was going to be successfully manipulated by the US, if it wasnt the PRC doing all the pushing for them.

https://thediplomat.com/2021/01/what-does-vietnam-want-from-the-us-in-the-south-china-sea/

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Nobu said:

Zero-sum = two sides of the same $36 trillion annual GDP coin.

It may not end up being the longest running show in history, but it might end up being the most profitable.

I saw a video on I think it was Pakistani TV about a year ago, its up on youtube if you want to search for it. It was an open letter from senior Chinese Generals (retired, natch) complaining about Xi's confrontational style was allying people against them, and under no circumstances should they invade Taiwan. So what does Xi do? Double down on a failing strategy, and threaten to invade Taiwan.

Yes, there is a lot of money to be made for the US and UK out of this, we were in there like a ferret up a drainpipe. But it shows an undue belief in Anglo American covert power to think we could turn the entire region against the PRC. Its the PRC's own actions causing it. Even the PRC military can see it happening.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...