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?
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/mar/15/paul-...
I am not an expert on any of the above.
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.
You are absolutely correct.
I wish more folks understood this.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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 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 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.
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...
The AUKUS submarines are conventionally-armed, nuclear-powered submarines.
ICBM's don't come into this.
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.
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.
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.
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 wellI’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
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.
If we’re heading to regional war, US nuclear subs will be here regardless
Even Darwin is a massive permanent US base
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.