Hacker News Reader

Comment by tedk-42 | Hacker News Reader

As an Aussie observer, I'm seeing more US influence in our region.

With some 'diplomacy', Julian Assange was brought home after near 15 years fighting for BS extradition charges.

The news and politicians in Australia follow almost lock step with whatever our US overlords allow us to say.

It's been more of a thing lately with them trying to secure the pacific away from China's sphere of influence and the biggest 'dumb' thing from our government is that silly submarine deal (under something called AUKUS) which is about as good as our F-35 jets purchased (totally useless IMO).

There's probably some bootlickers in NZ trying to gain political favour / power by brown-nosing with the US of A.

View on HN

>As an Aussie observer, I'm seeing more US influence in our region.

Fox News is an Australian product built to flood the US with far-right, pro-business outrage. We'll get out of your lane once you get out of ours.

All kidding aside, describing these sorts of things in terms of national influence is extremely unproductive. New Zealand wouldn't be turning itself into a pro-commercial-pirate haven or anticopyright haven but for the influence of the US[1]. The question regarding extradition is not "should we consider what Kim Dotcom did to be a crime[0]" but "do we abduct him to another jurisdiction to face trial." It's bikeshedding over the color of the wood on the electric chair.

[0] In general, extradition treaties only apply for acts that are crimes in both jurisdictions.

[1] Even China's pro-copyright, they just don't want to pay America for any of it. If they were anti-copyright they'd be freely sharing all the "IP" they keep stealing.

> Fox News is an Australian product

lol, no it isn't. Don't try and pass the buck.

Murdoch is a US citizen and has been since the 80s. Fox news is purely and always has been an AMERICAN product, regardless of the birth citizenship of the CEO of News corp.

> As an Aussie observer, I'm seeing more US influence in our region.

Australia and New Zealand have extradition treaties with dozens of countries, it's not just a US thing.

> As an Aussie observer, I'm seeing more US influence in our region.

You got our attention by filling all our streaming channels with your shows.

As is common in the international film and television sector, a key driver of Australia’s ongoing production upswing came from an enhancement to its incentive schemes.

In July, the country’s national government increased the location offset program in its annual budget from 16.5 percent to 30 percent. Thanks to those changes, films spending at least A$20 million dollars (about $13 million U.S. dollars) in the country can claim back 30 percent of all expenditures on goods and services upon completion of the project.

Previously, it often was [already] possible for especially savvy producers to add to the guaranteed 16.5 percent offset and bring total support to 30 percent by cobbling together prior grant schemes — but the increases introduced last year provided global producers with a much-needed sense of ease and surety.

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-news/planet-o...

> As an Aussie observer, I'm seeing more US influence in our region.

Look at Sky News Australia, literally all they talk about is US politics.

My theory is that as US focus shifts to East Asia, Australia is being groomed as a proxy state. Not as a deliberate effort, just as a consequence of a lot of different things coalescing.

It's kind of interesting to see.

There would be less external influence in the latter case if the US wasn’t your main form of military and arms supplier.

Don't forget the Aussie influence on the US. Murdoch is Australian.

> As an Aussie observer, I'm seeing more US influence in our region.

No you’re not. You’re seeing more TikTok influence but not US influence.

> As an Aussie observer, I'm seeing more US influence in our region.

Not an expert, but my guess is that there is (probably valid) concern about China. "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" and all that.

China is a concern for Australia whether the US is in the picture or not. Australia's interests are highly aligned with those of the US. The increased engagement from the US is being welcomed by most Australians, but the issue is really around the implementation.

AUKUS is one of these huge deals with the results coming many years after huge investments creating great uncertainty. That makes it easy to attack politically.

EDIT: What's missed by the original commenter is that Australia was already investing in submarines from France. If delivered, there would be similar outcomes. The project had just as much uncertainty around it and was off-track when AUKUS was announced.

The political class, yes, welcome the engagement. But not most Australians!

A claim that is categorically untrue and easily disproven. It takes less than ten seconds to google up multiple surveys that show the opinions of the Australian public. The most recent broad survey was conducted less than a month ago, but before Biden dropped out when it appeared Trump was likely to win the upcoming presidential election (relevant fact because the question was asked and answered regarding whether another Trump presidency would diminish support for the US.) Several key take-aways from this survey show:

  - 80%+ said close ties with the US was important to AU security
  - 70%+ named China as a security threat to AU
  - 55%+ stated confidence in the US acting responsibly in the world

There are other similar points if interest in the survey but the facts are quite clear that Australians do welcome more engagement with the US and see it is a counter to Chinese threats in the region.

You're correct, of course.

But that's the majority of dumb Australians, much like the majority of dumb Americans. Our two sets of dumbs have a lot of similarity.

Australia's identity has been lost in the last thirty years up it's own anus of mineral riches and the feeling of lifestyle entitlement that came with it. The USs 51st state. Yeehaaw...

China is Australia's biggest trading partner. Only US tries to paint China as a threat to Australia so they can get more influence in there.

The US and Australia are part of the five eyes. They have a very strong connection and a similar culture. It is China who is trying to assert more influence around the world, including the US (e.g. Midjourney doesn't allow criticism of Xi Jinping).

In your opinion why is the submarine deal/F-35 program "totally useless" for Australia? Are you saying it's the wrong equipment? Too expensive? Not needed?

Not needed. It's tax payer money down the toilet.

But hey I'm a pacifist and will be told that I'm a weak man who will lead to the downfall of civilisation so oh well.

Well, ya know - it could be. Not needed until they are... risk management. Most should hope that their weapons are never "needed."

We already had an order in for convential working subs from the French .. now we're on the hook for more money and less of a guarantee they'll ever arrive.

They’re still redundant though

If we’re heading to regional war, US nuclear subs will be here regardless

Even Darwin is a massive permanent US base

I'm a pacifist at heart, but I'm not blind to the fact that a single digit percentage of humans (in every country) are just plain evil (in lots of ways). These people can do harm without any feelings of remorse. And a double digit percentage of humanity can easily be manipulated into being / doing evil.

Our current, imperfect, civilisation exists because we largely succeed in keeping the whims of these minorities under control. It's a depressing thought, but if I don't accept it, I'll be disappointed in humanity on a daily basis.

All of the above!

The submarines are almost certainly useless. We won't get them for decades. We're not even allowed to service the nuclear reactors when we do get them. And the technology is already an old one and will likely already be superceded by the new much quieter air-independent fuel cell and lithium battery technologies which other countries are adopting.

The whole point of the AUKUS submarine deal is to never get them. It’s a political manoeuvre, an emollient for national security hardliners.

Air-independent fuel cell and battery powered submarines are not at all a replacement for nuclear submarines, nor even really competing with them. No matter how good the tech becomes, diesel-electric subs running fuel cell AIPs will always have shorter range, less submerged time, and lower speeds than nuclear-powered submarines. Each time they surface, even to periscope level, the chances of detection go up massively.

That's why diesel-electric submarines are best suited for coastal defence, especially of small countries, whereas larger countries with huge areas of territory to protect benefit from having nuclear submarines.

Whether it's the right decision for Australia to get these subs under AUKUS is a fair debate, but it's not at all accurate to claim that they're using 'old' technology that is being superseded by AIP.

The F35s we have are pretty sweet but we are paying a shit tonne for like 5 submarines that we are going to receive in the 2040s. China already had 10x that many attack submarines. The subs deal stinks.

All those reasons and more. Strategically bad move, we did okay in the middle.

You don’t have to be a Sinophile to know Keating’s right about AUKUS

alt-headline: Paul Keating is right, AUKUS will turn Australia into US protectorate

    The ex-PM is the only person offering a convincing explanation of AUKUS. And it's a damning one.

webcache: https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:https%...

subscription: https://www.crikey.com.au/2024/08/13/paul-keating-aukus-aust...

On the economics | robustness of the deal:

    This deal is getting worse all the time.

    Courtesy of the latest details of the AUKUS agreement tabled yesterday in Parliament, we now know that the moment it becomes inconvenient for the Americans or the Brits, there’ll be no submarines for Australia:

    Cooperation under the agreement is to be carried out in such a manner as to not adversely affect the ability of the United States and the United Kingdom to meet their respective military requirements and to not degrade their respective naval nuclear propulsion programs.

    Those programs, as even ardent defenders of the program admit, are already pretty degraded. The Americans have shifted from building two Virginia-class boats a year to one this year, and delayed the construction of the next generation of nuclear submarines by five years to 2040. The new generation Dreadnought-class boats under construction in the UK have suffered serious delays and astonishing cost blowouts.

    Somehow, with around $10 billion of Australian cash, both programs will come good, to the point they can build boats for the US and UK, and for Australia, and help Australia build its own. It’s normal for defence policy to double as heavy manufacturing policy, and Australia has a rich history of wasting billions making things here that we could have bought far cheaper from other countries. Where AUKUS is unusual is that Australia will be using its defence policy as heavy manufacturing policy for the US and UK as well

One of our former prime ministers, Paul Keating, came out strongly against the submarine deal. IIRC two important dimensions are that Australia has shallow waters which are not a good fit for the chosen submarine technology and that tactically it makes limited sense for Australia to focus on weapons to be used on our largest trading partner.

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/mar/15/paul-...

I am not an expert on any of the above.

They might make sense if in the long term we build out a nuclear deterrent? We'd need a handful of deep water submarines with big missiles on them. Although I expect that it'll turn out they're designed wrong for that or something.

Other than that I can't see what situation they'd be useful in practice though. If we get into a war with Indonesia, China or the like that is the end. There will be no winners and we'll either lose or be ruined. One of the lessons in the modern era is if a country can't defend itself with diplomacy then it is in a lot of trouble.

I assume we're buying this gear as some sort of realpolitik tribute-style thing for the US military industrial complex. If the point isn't to give them money I doubt we're achieving our goals.

> if a country can't defend itself with diplomacy then it is in a lot of trouble.

You are absolutely correct.

I wish more folks understood this.

Diplomacy works _because_ you have the means to defend yourself. If they can fight and you can’t, why will they bother talking to you?

Run me through Australia's strategic outlook if the US decides to invade us. Or if they decide Australia needs to go and starts supporting one of our neighbors in fighting us.

Why are you talking about Australia fighting the US? Aren't the subs against China?

1) The subs are certainly not for fighting China. By the time they're delivered, assuming all else equal, China will be in a position to ignore them. People are talking about deliveries in the 2050s vs a country that can basically build an entire economy in a few decades; it'll never work out in our favour. And we can't afford to be in a war with an Asian power under any circumstances anyway, we'd probably be better off surrendering immediately rather than fighting back against China if the US's deterrence fails. Ironically we'd probably end up with better infrastructure.

Fighting China with those submarines is a similar idea to fighting the US with those same subs. The plan is not to do that. It won't work out well for us.

2) Keep going with your thought, you haven't gone far enough. If diplomacy works because you have the means to defend yourself, why aren't we fighting the US? We can't possibly defend ourselves from them, and realistically we'd probably struggle to annoy them if they attacked us via a proxy war. And yet there is no realistic scenario where they fight us. Why is that, hm?

Here’s my view of why countries don’t attack each other: The downside for the attacker has to be larger than the upside, that’s when diplomacy becomes interesting. The downside doesn’t just have to be the defense of the attacked country but also the relation with other countries. The US won’t invade Australia because they wouldn’t gain much, compared to the loss of trust by other countries. Defense from china is more important than from the US for Australia, because the “public stage” deterrent is smaller for china than the US. That’s why you need to increase the deterrent by increasing your defense capabilities. You can correct me if you disagree though.

I think diplomacy itself can help gear a country to defend itself by creating powerful allies who will come in a time of need.

At the same time, I do not think there is any justification for war or harming others non-defensively.

The amount of money and human power we piss away with wars and conflict is so sad. Humans are the most advanced and capable complex adaptive systems in the world. Why waste such a precious resource?

Stupidly flippant but likely somewhat accurate answer: x-thousand years of tribal evolution.

With all our intelligence we're still programmed to behave in particular ways, and it takes a lot of effort to even try to break out of it, and that's only possible if you're aware of it - which most people aren't.

Hmm, I think you are correct, and from my perspective, speaking to the idea of human heuristics and biases.

Ironically, I think societies and cultures need long periods of peace (not in an extreme sense, but rather enough peace to allow for safer conflict) to have the time and ability to introspect on their heuristics and biases, as well as integrate other people's perspectives.

Having something to lose, makes it a lot more likely to bring you to reason.

It takes seconds to destroy what it took decades to build.

If someone is pointing a mortar at your house, you want to get rid of the mortar, but you also want to keep your house, so it's likely that you will look for ways to remove the mortar, that don't include it being fired.

> if a country can't defend itself with diplomacy then it is in a lot of trouble

If you have a strong neighbor that wants to take something you have by force, how do you get them to instead practice diplomacy with you?

The only way I'm aware of is by projecting enough of your own strength that they think it might not be worth it to try and take by force.

Military might is an arm of diplomacy.

I'm no "submarine warfare expert" but I believe the purpose/value of nuclear submarines is not defense of close coastal waters, but rather as a deterrence that can come "from anywhere". I don't believe shallow waters would hamper the operation of a submarine launching ICBMs or similar. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.

I also know nothing of Australian politics but Paul Keating seems to have some curious views regarding China:

> Keating brushed aside human rights concerns about China by arguing there are “disputes about what the nature of the Chinese affront to the Uyghurs”

> Keating is a noted dove towards China. He has previously labelled Taiwan “not a vital Australian interest” but rather a “civil matter” for China.

> On Wednesday Keating said China “is not the Soviet Union” because it is involved in international institutions and would “fall over themselves to have a proper relationship” with Australia, except that Australia has “manufactured a problem” through its increasing alignment with US.

> Keating said the “great sin” China had committed in the eyes of the west was developing its economy to equal the size of the US

Yikes.

A decent portion of the Australian population think the realpolitik of our situation means we should adopt a neutral approach towards China, even if it means a weakening of our relationship with the US.

The need to act as world police (re uyghurs, taiwan) can be a game for the major powers.

> Keating said the “great sin” China had committed in the eyes of the west was developing its economy to equal the size of the US

This is somewhat supported by some of the wikileaks releases, but it's a little hard to disentangle if the economy is the sin or just an intensifier.

> At the lunch, Mrs Clinton confided in Mr Rudd about America's fears about China's rapid economic rise and Beijing's multibillion-dollar store of US debt, asking Mr Rudd: ''How do you deal toughly with your banker?''

https://www.smh.com.au/national/explosive-wiki-rudd-cable-20...

> I don't believe shallow waters would hamper the operation of a submarine launching ICBMs or similar. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.

The AUKUS submarines are conventionally-armed, nuclear-powered submarines.

ICBM's don't come into this.

Pretty sure conventionally-armed submarines launch ICBMS. Not nuclear tipped, but basically "big long range missiles". Regardless, I think my point stands: These subs are not for close water/shore patrol.

Sure, your point stands, you don't know much about Australian politics and these subs aren't especially suited for Australia.

They're a symptom of the former governments attraction to big (albeit stupid) grand actions and excessive sucking up to the US | UK at the expense of Australian taxpayers for no real specific local benefit.

Not OP but another Aussie

I’d sat it’s too good

Effectively trading the last of our sovereignty for overkill submarines

The threat of China exists yes but I think the French subs we had lined up would have been adequate

Especially as the US will likely send their nuclear subs our way when/if Sino-American tensions escalate again

I mean we’re effectively already an American outpost with many permanent US bases/facilities

The submarines are useless to our (Australia’s) national interest. If we ever get them (and even then there’s serious questions about whether Australia would actually have command authority over them), they aren’t really geared to be super useful for defending our shores (taking advantage of our distance from potential enemies) - we’d need more, smaller subs for that. But they do have the extreme range and endurance that would be useful for, say, projecting force into the South China Sea, following the US into a conflict - and that is something the vast majority of Australians are dead against, but what our politicians (at least on the opposition side) have basically already pledged to do…

I would think it isn't needed. Australia is a leading country for R&D and they have the money to fund their own designs.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com