U.S., Australia and UK unveil new security partnership as China expands its military and influence

  
Via:  XXJefferson51  •  one month ago  •  127 comments

By:   Amanda Macias

U.S., Australia and UK unveil new security partnership as China expands its military and influence
A new security partnership between the U.S., Australia and the U.K. seeks to strengthen stability in the Indo-Pacific region as China expands its military might and influence. The U.S. and U.K. will also assist Canberra in acquiring nuclear-powered submarines, which will allow Australia’s navy to help counter Chinese nuclear-powered vessels in the region. A senior Biden administration official downplayed the notion that the new security partnership sought to send a message specifically to China.

Leave a comment to auto-join group We the People

We the People

When Biden gets something right, which is almost never, I can acknowledge it.  This strengthening of AUKUS  within the five eyes nations is good.  That these nations, the EU, and the nations of SE Asia, India, South Korea, and Japan are all working together as capitalist free market democracies in preserving the existing laws and rules and order is a great thing for the world.  Even though Biden forgot the name of the PM of Australia during this meeting to set this up, it’s still a good thing.  It shows that this is a capitalism free market and democracy matter for the whole free world, and not just about America or Trump.  


S E E D E D   C O N T E N T



U.S., Australia and UK unveil new security partnership as China expands its military and influence


KEY POINTS

  • A new security partnership between the U.S., Australia and the U.K. seeks to strengthen stability in the Indo-Pacific region as China expands its military might and influence.
  • The U.S. and U.K. will also assist Canberra in acquiring nuclear-powered submarines, which will allow Australia’s navy to help counter Chinese nuclear-powered vessels in the region.
  • A senior Biden administration official downplayed the notion that the new security partnership sought to send a message specifically to China.

Amanda Macias 106938744-1631122632014-gettyimages-1339098712-kd2_1521_20210908123035572.jpeg?v=1631122720&w=929&h=523

U.S. President Joe Biden speaks on workers rights and labor unions in the East Room at the White House on September 08, 2021 in Washington, DC.

Kevin Dietsch   Getty Images

WASHINGTON   President Joe Bidenannounced the formation of a new security partnership between the United States, Australia and the United Kingdom that seeks to strengthen stability in the Indo-Pacific region as China expands its military might and influence.

Prime Ministers Scott Morrison of Australia and Boris Johnson of the United Kingdom joined Biden virtually for the announcement of the partnership.

“Today we’re taking another historic step to deepen and formalize cooperation among all three of our nations because we all recognize the imperative of ensuring peace and stability in the Indo-Pacific over the long term,” Biden said from the East Room of the White House. “This is about investing in our greatest source of strength, our alliances,” Biden said.

“This initiative is about making sure that each of us has the most modern capabilities we need to maneuver and defend against rapidly evolving threats,” the president said.

106942507-1631740542659-gettyimages-1235279622-AFP_9MX3JP.jpeg?v=1631740613&w=929&h=523

US President Joe Biden participates is a virtual press conference on national security with British Prime Minister Boris Johnson and Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison in the East Room of the White House in Washington, DC, on September 15, 2021.

Brendan Smialowski   AFP  Getty Images

The formation of the trio comes as the U.S. and U.K. end their 20-year military involvement in Afghanistan, a decision Biden has said will allow the U.S. to focus on emerging threats from Russia and China.

The U.S. and U.K. will also assist Canberra in acquiring nuclear-powered submarines, which will allow Australia’s navy to help counter Chinese nuclear-powered vessels in the region.

“This will give Australia the capability for their submarines to basically deploy for longer periods, they’re quieter, they’re much more capable, they will allow us to sustain and to improve deterrence across the Indo-Pacific,” a senior administration official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said ahead of the president’s remarks.

“What we’re seeing in the Indo-Pacific region is a set of circumstances where capabilities are more advanced,” the official added. “This allows Australia to play at a much higher level, and to augment American capabilities.”

The U.S., Australia and the U.K. also plan to deepen technology sharing across emerging security arenas like cyber, artificial intelligence and quantum technologies. The three countries alongside Canada and New Zealand already share extensive intelligence through the Five Eyes alliance.

Biden’s approach to China


106935290-1630395216610-gettyimages-180776873-76385678.jpeg?v=1630395480&w=929&h=523

Chinese President Xi Jinping with a naval honor guard.

Feng Li  Getty Images News  Getty Images

The administration official downplayed the notion that the new security partnership sought to send a message specifically to China.

“I do want to just underscore very clearly this partnership is not aimed or about any one country, it’s about advancing our strategic interests, upholding the international rules-based order and promoting peace and stability in the Indo-Pacific,” the official said.

Yet the announcement of the security partnership focused on the South Pacific-Indian Ocean region comes as Biden attempts to reframe the United States approach to the Chinese government in the wake of the Trump administration’s trade war and as the world continues to grapple with the Covid pandemic, which originated in Wuhan, China.

Biden, who spoke to Chinese President Xi Jinping last week, has previously said that his approach to China would be different from his predecessor’s in that he would work more closely with allies in order to mount pushback against Beijing.

The Pentagon is also moving to contend with the rapid expansion of China’s military.

Earlier this year, Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin directed the Pentagon to place China and its military buildup at the center of American defense policy.

“This directive from the Secretary is ultimately about getting the Department’s house in order and ensuring that the department lives up to the stated prioritization of China as the No. 1 pacing challenge,” a senior Defense official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said in June.


Tags

jrGroupDiscuss - desc
[]
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
1  seeder  XXJefferson51    one month ago

“Today we’re taking another historic step to deepen and formalize cooperation among all three of our nations because we all recognize the imperative of ensuring peace and stability in the Indo-Pacific over the long term,” Biden said from the East Room of the White House. “This is about investing in our greatest source of strength, our alliances,” Biden said.

“This initiative is about making sure that each of us has the most modern capabilities we need to maneuver and defend against rapidly evolving threats,” the president said.

106942507-1631740542659-gettyimages-1235279622-AFP_9MX3JP.jpeg?v=1631740613&w=929&h=523

US President Joe Biden participates is a virtual press conference on national security with British Prime Minister Boris Johnson and Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison in the East Room of the White House in Washington, DC, on September 15, 2021.

The formation of the trio comes as the U.S. and U.K. end their 20-year military involvement in Afghanistan , a decision Biden has said will allow the U.S. to focus on emerging threats from Russia and China.

The U.S. and U.K. will also assist Canberra in acquiring nuclear-powered submarines, which will allow Australia’s navy to help counter Chinese nuclear-powered vessels in the region.

“This will give Australia the capability for their submarines to basically deploy for longer periods, they’re quieter, they’re much more capable, they will allow us to sustain and to improve deterrence across the Indo-Pacific,” a senior administration official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said ahead of the president’s remarks.

“What we’re seeing in the Indo-Pacific region is a set of circumstances where capabilities are more advanced,” the official added. “This allows Australia to play at a much higher level, and to augment American capabilities.”

The U.S., Australia and the U.K. also plan to deepen technology sharing across emerging security arenas like cyber, artificial intelligence and quantum technologies. The three countries alongside Canada and New Zealand already share extensive intelligence through the Five Eyes alliance.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
2  seeder  XXJefferson51    one month ago

NxA76ZiP_x96.jpg
news.com.au
@newscomauHQ
·
Aug 31, 2020
Beijing has taken a furious jab at Australians, calling us “poor white trash” and warned of “consequences” if we don’t play nice with China.
d--Rrd9-?format=jpg&name=small
‘Poor white trash’: China’s outburst
news.com.au
594
1.2K
1.4K
kEZaBHHt_x96.jpg
Communism = maximisation of power
@852_liberty
Replying to
I still feel angry with China for called Australia "gum stuck to China's shoe" #MakeChinaPay


milley-traitor-390x220.jpg
Ben Garrison September 15, 2021
0

American Traitor – Ben Garrison Cartoon

Deep State Sleepers being exposed General Milley has been outed by journalists Bob Woodward and Robert Costa as the leader of the…

Read More »
 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
2.1  cjcold  replied to  XXJefferson51 @2    one month ago

Being awake is a good start.

You should try it.

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
PhD Guide
2.2  Thrawn 31  replied to  XXJefferson51 @2    one month ago

You do not get to criticize the general, not when your service has been nothing. 

 
 
 
Hallux
Sophomore Principal
3  Hallux    one month ago

So after several years of Australia being bashed by Trump they're America's friend again. I guess 'China' has to be dropped from 'China Joe".

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
3.1  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  Hallux @3    one month ago

Maybe on trade but Trump and Australia got along fine otherwise.  They called out China on covid and are a valuable member of the five eyes nations.  The USA and Australia have always had great relations. 

 
 
 
shona1
Sophomore Participates
3.1.1  shona1  replied to  XXJefferson51 @3.1    one month ago

Morning xx...hmm five eyes...we refer to it as four eyes and a blink...NZ is dragging the chain as they don't want to upset China.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
3.1.2  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  shona1 @3.1.1    one month ago

They have a tiny military so whatever they can do is fine. As long as they do enough to avoid being used as a propaganda point against the rest of us by China and it’s apologists.  

 
 
 
shona1
Sophomore Participates
3.1.3  shona1  replied to  XXJefferson51 @3.1.2    one month ago

Bit to late as it has already started.. China warned off NZ  and they pulled their heads in.. NZ is not what it use to be..

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
3.1.4  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  shona1 @3.1.3    one month ago

They pulled something similar during the earlier Cold War when they refused to allow allied ships that were nuclear powered ad or carried nuclear weapons to visit or stay at their ports.  

 
 
 
shona1
Sophomore Participates
3.1.5  shona1  replied to  XXJefferson51 @3.1.4    one month ago

And it still stands today.. within 10 minute's of the announcement they said they would refuse entry etc..but we already knew that...

As I said if they are not careful they will get left behind and turn into a back water....

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
3.1.6  Kavika   replied to  XXJefferson51 @3.1.2    one month ago

I don't suppose that you would make that comment to the 3,500 Kiwis that fought in Afghanistan in support of the US. 

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Senior Principal
4  Nerm_L    one month ago

Neoliberals at work.  Just another multilateral coalition that the United States must carry on its shoulders.  Australia doesn't even have what is needed to be an effective partner; we have to supply everything.

Why do we need to search for another Afghanistan?  We can't even clean up the mess of one neoliberal misadventure before starting another.  Biden doesn't need any more opportunities to botch things up.

Stupid is as stupid does.  And neoliberals are pretty stupid.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
4.1  Tessylo  replied to  Nerm_L @4    one month ago

jrSmiley_90_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
4.2  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  Nerm_L @4    one month ago

I wouldn’t sell them short.  They are a key ally and they are doing their fair part.  Better than most of NATO.  They also buy our equipment.  I think this to be a great deal.  

 
 
 
shona1
Sophomore Participates
4.3  shona1  replied to  Nerm_L @4    one month ago

So nerm the good old US of A has to supply everything...please enlighten me...

Just like you had to supply everything in Afghanistan Vietnam and all the other conflicts where we have stood shoulder to shoulder with you mob...

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
4.3.1  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  shona1 @4.3    one month ago

He’s a more pure isolationist than I am.  I think we should be less involved in much of the world but not in your area of it.  I see our bases in South Korea, Japan and our own Guam as well as Diego Garcia to be the most essential to us and to the over all free world. 

 
 
 
shona1
Sophomore Participates
4.3.2  shona1  replied to  XXJefferson51 @4.3.1    one month ago

There are three US bases here.. have been for years...

They are located in Port Hedland, Pine Gap and Darwin... Darwin being the newer base...and that is now going to be expanded and may include bombers as it is in our National interest..

Regardless China is having a wobbly over it... funny they can build up their military and expand but no one else in this region can or should...

China is very quiet when it comes to their wonderful neighbour North Korea...Testing missiles again..now that is not conjusive to peace and prosperity in the region...

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Senior Principal
4.3.3  Nerm_L  replied to  shona1 @4.3    one month ago
So nerm the good old US of A has to supply everything...please enlighten me... Just like you had to supply everything in Afghanistan Vietnam and all the other conflicts where we have stood shoulder to shoulder with you mob...

Australia doesn't have the manpower or capital to build, maintain, and deploy a deep water navy.  Australia is like Canada, a lot of talent and resources but not a large population.  And that small population limits the capital resources available to engage in global geopolitics.  Australia would need to become another North Korea to be a significant player in global geopolitics.  

Most of the conflicts the United States has become entangled with over the last 70 years have not been for the benefit of the United States.  The United States embarked upon the folly of establishing and sustaining an international order based upon neoliberal pluralism, multiculturalism, and multilateralism.  What was Australia's interest in participating in Vietnam or Afghanistan?  Demonstrating support for the international world order?  Contributing to misadventures of little value so that the United States would continue to extend its defensive umbrella over Australia?  Defense against what threat?

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
4.3.4  Kavika   replied to  shona1 @4.3.2    one month ago

Ah, good old Pine Gap, in the middle of nowhere, well there is Alice Springs and the camel races to keep the troops entertained.

 
 
 
shona1
Sophomore Participates
4.3.5  shona1  replied to  Kavika @4.3.4    one month ago

And the assorted bities, snappies and stingies...They should have a ball there...

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
4.4  Kavika   replied to  Nerm_L @4    one month ago
Australia doesn't even have what is needed to be an effective partner; we have to supply everything.

Australia is quite adept at producing weapons both small arms, tanks, planes, and even ships. Of course they buy some weapon systems from the US, Netherlands, Germany etc. They are also an exporter of weapon systems.

Here is a photo of those SAS (Special Air Service)  boys, you know special forces types and imagine that they even make their own uniforms (parachutes as well).

images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRjZ8hracLD74JvVT3WrMmHG1fLaX-UEOTZgg&usqp=CAU

 
 
 
shona1
Sophomore Participates
4.4.1  shona1  replied to  Kavika @4.4    one month ago

Morning Kavika...but but that's not the Australian flag..it's the USA flag is disguise because you mob supply everything...🇦🇺🇺🇲

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
4.4.2  Kavika   replied to  shona1 @4.4.1    one month ago
it's the USA flag is disguise because you mob supply everything...

I knew that I couldn't fool you....jrSmiley_2_smiley_image.png

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
PhD Quiet
4.4.3  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Kavika @4.4    one month ago

In my 20 year Naval career I had the distinct pleasure of working side by side with both Aussie and Kiwi military people. They are both some of the most awesome and dedicated people I have ever had the pleasure of working with. When I was at McMurdo Station in Antarctica in the late 80's, we had the Royal New Zealand Army Support Group personnel down there with us to help with unloading cargo ships and support for the U.S. facility and the New Zealand Antarctic base at Scott Base a few miles from McMurdo. 

 
 
 
pat wilson
Professor Guide
4.5  pat wilson  replied to  Nerm_L @4    one month ago
neoliberal misadventure

Not sure which misadventures you're referring to but Vietnam was begun by Eisenhower and the war in Afghanistan was begun by George W. Bush. Hardly "neoliberals".

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
PhD Quiet
4.5.1  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  pat wilson @4.5    one month ago

Perhaps even sooner if you consider the help given to Ho Chi Minh by the SOE (Special Operations Executive, precursor to the CIA) during WW II against the Japanese.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
4.5.2  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  pat wilson @4.5    one month ago

So glad you said that first Pat. Nerm doesn't seem to understand that we are selling them subs with England, not supporting a war, too.

 
 
 
pat wilson
Professor Guide
4.5.3  pat wilson  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @4.5.1    one month ago

Interesting, I didn't know that.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
4.5.4  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @4.5.2    one month ago

Neoliberals, neocons not much difference really when it comes to international matters and globalism.  Many neocons are former liberals themselves.  Now that the GOP base  is trending more nationalist and closer to but not total isolationist and favoring fair trade more than free trade, they are returning to their liberal roots.  

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
4.5.5  Kavika   replied to  Ed-NavDoc @4.5.1    one month ago

That is correct and there is a lot more to the story. Sadly we (US) didn't listen and the rest is history.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Senior Principal
4.5.6  Nerm_L  replied to  pat wilson @4.5    one month ago
Not sure which misadventures you're referring to but Vietnam was begun by Eisenhower and the war in Afghanistan was begun by George W. Bush. Hardly "neoliberals".

Eastern Europe, Southeast Asia, the Middle East, North Africa, East Africa, Central America, and South America.

The Vietnam War was begun by the French to protect colonial interests; not by the United States.  The Vietnam War was fought in Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia.  We were told fighting the Vietnam War was necessary to thwart Chinese aggression.  Which never materialized.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
PhD Quiet
4.5.7  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Nerm_L @4.5.6    4 weeks ago

Not so much the Chinese as the Domino Principle as a whole.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Senior Principal
4.5.8  Nerm_L  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @4.5.7    4 weeks ago
Not so much the Chinese as the Domino Principle as a whole.

Since World War II the United States has been fighting around the world.  There have only been brief periods when the United States has not been fighting somewhere.  But we never fought the Soviets, we haven't fought the Russians, and haven't fought the Chinese.

Back channel communications between US, Russian, and Chinese generals are responsible for the wars fought and unfought.  Maybe that's why Afghanistan was FUBAR.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Principal
4.5.9  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Nerm_L @4.5.8    4 weeks ago

Is what Milley did what you call "back channel communications".  

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Senior Principal
4.5.10  Nerm_L  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @4.5.9    4 weeks ago
Is what Milley did what you call "back channel communications".  

So, you think its okay that the military establishes international agreements and sets foreign policy without consulting Joe Biden, Xi Jinping, or Justin Trudeau?

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Principal
4.5.11  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Nerm_L @4.5.10    4 weeks ago

LOL. I guess if a person is unable to answer a simple question, they answer it with another question.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Senior Principal
4.5.12  Nerm_L  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @4.5.11    4 weeks ago
LOL. I guess if a person is unable to answer a simple question, they answer it with another question.

Did that go over your head?  Here's some detail that you will likely ignore.

Of course Mark Milley engaged in back channel communications.  Milley is not Secretary of Defense.  The Secretary of Defense is responsible for official communications between countries.  Milley is a subordinate.

Mark Milley promised someone in the Chinese military that he, Milley, would mutiny if given a direct order from a superior.  What Milley communicated to someone in the Chinese military is that he was prepared to use the US military to overthrow civilian government.  Milley laid out plans to do in the US what has happened in Myanmar.  What Milley communicated to someone in the Chinese military is far beyond his authority.

How would Xi Jinping deal with a top general in his military that made similar promises and plans to a general in the United States?

 
 
 
Split Personality
PhD Principal
4.5.13  Split Personality  replied to  Nerm_L @4.5.12    4 weeks ago

Such nonsense.

Milley's job includes getting to meet and know his equals in other governments.

It is not the DefSec or SoS's job to make those communications.

He was within his job description and authority to calm his counter part down by any means possible.

Trump lied all the time.

Tucker Carlson lies all the time and insists that the talking heads on competing networks are lying.

Why shouldn't Milley assure Li by any means to prevent Li from possibly over reacting and attacking us or an ally in the South China Sea.

How would Xi Jinping deal with a top general in his military that made similar promises and plans to a general in the United States?

What plans?  Please be specific...

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
4.5.14  Sean Treacy  replied to  Split Personality @4.5.13    4 weeks ago
ey's job includes getting to meet and know his equals in other governments

What part of his job entails him promising to warn a foreign power if an attack is imminent? 

 
 
 
Split Personality
PhD Principal
4.5.15  Split Personality  replied to  Sean Treacy @4.5.14    4 weeks ago

Do you know the DefCon sequence? We are rarely at 3 or above.  Today there was some mischief in Africa 

which caused us to go to 4.

The Chinese are very hard to read, they are always at 2 on the verge of going to 1.

With the Russians it's all a practical business, rarely a problem; the French are actually worse.

With the Chinese it's like the difference between our Right and Left extremists.

Milley's job is to communicate with allies and adversaries alike

to prevent an accidental or deliberate start of WWIII.

To that end, all of these communications are highly coordinated with staff, interpreters, transcribers and

recording technicians. One of these phone calls was 90 minutes long, not because Milley

was being some sort of traitor but because the Chinese are as excitable as the pro life extremists who 

fire bomb planned parenthood clinics and very hard to convince that their paranoia is unwarranted.

I feel confident that Milley said whatever it took to get Li to calm down. Period.

Seeing frigates backs being broken by Mark 48 torpedoes may be fun or a deterrent

but far more preferable to the smell of burning sailors & soldiers from any country.

Trust me.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Principal
4.5.16  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Nerm_L @4.5.12    4 weeks ago
"Did that go over your head?  Here's some detail that you will likely ignore."

Damn, I sure wish I wasn't so careful about getting CoC points.  I'll just have to keep the deserved response to myself and everyone else's imagination. 

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Senior Principal
4.5.17  Nerm_L  replied to  Split Personality @4.5.13    4 weeks ago
Such nonsense.

Milley's job includes getting to meet and know his equals in other governments.

It is not the DefSec or SoS's job to make those communications.

He was within his job description and authority to calm his counter part down by any means possible.

Yes, our top brass have been well trained and indoctrinated by our adversaries.

Trump lied all the time. Tucker Carlson lies all the time and insists that the talking heads on competing networks are lying.

So do the governments of China, Russia, Iran, Turkey, Syria, Afghanistan, North Korea, etc.  The list of liars is quite long.  

Why shouldn't Milley assure Li by any means to prevent Li from possibly over reacting and attacking us or an ally in the South China Sea.

And apparently Milley pees into his boot every time.  That's how indoctrination works.  Provocation elicits a predictable response.  That sort of signaling is very useful for planning by our adversaries.  Face it, the primary concern of top brass is to protect their political asses. 

And all of this shows how the military brass lies and misdirects.  AUKUS is more about Brexit than China.  French umbrage is receiving far more attention than our military incompetence in withdrawing from Afghanistan.  But that is useful for top brass to achieve their primary mission.  And they'll pee into their boot the next time the Chinese call.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Senior Principal
4.5.18  Nerm_L  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @4.5.16    4 weeks ago
Damn, I sure wish I wasn't so careful about getting CoC points.  I'll just have to keep the deserved response to myself and everyone else's imagination. 

What was foretold has come to pass.  A very good illustration of how international cooperation between military organizations works.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Principal
4.5.20  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Nerm_L @4.5.18    4 weeks ago

(SELF- DELETED)

 
 
 
Greg Jones
PhD Expert
5  Greg Jones    one month ago

No, it was the right move, and it totally pissed off China....and France. I'm sure this arrangement was in the making long before Biden came upon the scene.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/the-us-made-a-new-pact-to-counter-china-it-angered-beijing-%e2%80%94-and-france/ar-AAOw8cy?ocid=AARDHP&li=BBnb7Kz

Australia has been one of our staunchest allies going way back

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Senior Principal
5.1  Nerm_L  replied to  Greg Jones @5    one month ago
No, it was the right move, and it totally pissed off China....and France. I'm sure this arrangement was in the making long before Biden came upon the scene.

So, the prudent strategic approach is to announce to the world, and especially China, that sophisticated weapons and intelligence gathering capabilities are going to be deployed?  Nothing like signaling intentions to enhance security.

By turning this into a political show, the United States will need to deploy a lot more assets to the region because China will be prepared.  Stupid is as stupid does.

You know, an arms race might not work against China the way it worked against the Soviet Union.  China is far, far more advanced than was the Soviet Union; that's why we're dependent upon China for technology.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
5.1.1  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  Nerm_L @5.1    one month ago

It’s a deterrent to China to know that there is a resolve to resist their expansion and aggression.  No one is going into specific details as to the effort but letting potential aggressors know we are prepared is part of the peace through strength Reagan ideal so they won’t miscalculate and wrongly assume weakness on the part of the allied democracies.  

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
PhD Quiet
5.1.2  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Nerm_L @5.1    one month ago

"So the prudent strategic approach is to announce to the world, and especially China, that sophisticated weapons and intelligence gathering capabilities are going to be deployed? Nothing like signaling intentions to enhance security."

That covers a lot of territory that our adversaries do not know what we do or do not have. China will doing a lot of guess work there. That spread among five nation's will probably give Xi and the CCP fits hopefully. I hope so anyway.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
5.1.3  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @5.1.2    one month ago

That’s the point.  Not to give China any details but to let them know that if China is aggressive toward any of their neighbors or in that region or limits freedom of navigation upon the open seas that all five English speaking democracies will be united in common cause with the said neighbors and the established laws and order relating to them and navigating/fishing/mining, drilling, etc.  it’s all about peace through strength and trust but verify in dealing with predator nations.  

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
PhD Quiet
5.1.4  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  XXJefferson51 @5.1.3    one month ago

Yep.

 
 
 
shona1
Sophomore Participates
5.1.5  shona1  replied to  Nerm_L @5.1    one month ago

You make it sound like China does not know what is going on...cause they do they are not in the dark..

They just had two warships off our coast watching the manoeuvres between allies a few weeks ago...and guess what they even know about Pine Gap..like everyone else...

China knows just as much about the States as you know about China..be it military, technology or anything else..and don't forget China's wonderful ally North Korea...

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Senior Principal
5.1.6  Nerm_L  replied to  XXJefferson51 @5.1.1    one month ago
It’s a deterrent to China to know that there is a resolve to resist their expansion and aggression.  No one is going into specific details as to the effort but letting potential aggressors know we are prepared is part of the peace through strength Reagan ideal so they won’t miscalculate and wrongly assume weakness on the part of the allied democracies.  

What are Australian SSNs going to deter?  Are the UK, Australia, and United States intending to bottle up China's deep water navy?  Does China even have a deep water navy?  Are the UK, Australia, and United States intending to threaten commercial shipping?

Let's zoom out to a wider view and engage in a little strategic speculation.  China has dominated in commerce and has ambitions to be a player in global finance.  China hasn't projected military power as means of extending influence.  China hasn't engaged in proxy wars to establish puppet governments within its sphere of influence.  China's main interest in a conventional military force is to defend shipping lanes to protect its commercial dominance.  China extends its influence by establishing a dependence upon China's industrial base in the supply chain.

A post-Brexit UK would have an interest in reestablishing a presence in the Indian Ocean and reviving ties to the old Commonwealth.  Like Canada, Australia has resources but not a large population.  Australia is a highly developed country (or continent) with first class universities, research capabilities, and technical knowhow.  The other player in the Indian Ocean is India which has ties (mixed) with the UK.  India is not a backward country.  India has potential to develop the same way China has with sufficient capital investment.

IMO the announced security arrangement between the UK, Australia, and United States has more to do with Brexit than with deterring China from doing anything.  The UK is taking steps to reinforce ties with the former Commonwealth and to separate that block from the EU.  That's why the security agreement affects France more than it does China; it's a shot across the bow of the EU.  If India can be brought back into that block then the block has the potential to compete with China on China's terms.  Strategically this seems to be shaping up as a competition between the EU/China trading block and a revival of the old British Commonwealth.  The United States is standing in the middle and playing both ends to that middle.

That would be a very neoliberal strategy that hampers the United States reviving its own industrial base and controlling its own dependence upon foreign supply chains.  Biden is selling out the United States but its not clear who will be the highest bidder.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Senior Principal
5.1.7  Nerm_L  replied to  shona1 @5.1.5    one month ago
You make it sound like China does not know what is going on...cause they do they are not in the dark..

They just had two warships off our coast watching the manoeuvres between allies a few weeks ago...and guess what they even know about Pine Gap..like everyone else...

China knows just as much about the States as you know about China..be it military, technology or anything else..and don't forget China's wonderful ally North Korea...

I'm pointing out that these multilateral agreements are trotted before the press to serve a purpose other than defense.

Now that France is withdrawing ambassadors, we know what the purpose really was.  And that purpose really wasn't about China.

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
PhD Guide
5.1.8  Thrawn 31  replied to  Nerm_L @5.1.7    one month ago

Lol Nerm, I don't get you. You are a warhawk one second, then an advocate of isolationism. You love capitalism and then start espousing communism. You are funny. 

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
5.1.9  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Nerm_L @5.1.7    one month ago
Now that France is withdrawing ambassadors, we know what the purpose really was.  And that purpose really wasn't about China.

Please tell us the real purpose.

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
5.1.10  Kavika   replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @5.1.9    one month ago
Please tell us the real purpose.

The US isn't buying enough wine and cheese, pissing off the French. What's next an imbargo on Bagets?

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Senior Principal
5.1.11  Nerm_L  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @5.1.9    one month ago
Please tell us the real purpose.

The United Kingdom has a domestic imperative to make Brexit work.  And the UK won't win a competition with the EU.  Strategically the UK needs to establish its own trading block.  The old British Commonwealth is a good model to work from.

The major political coup achieved by the United Kingdom is that the United States has made commitments to support a post-Brexit UK.  The concern has been that the United States would abandon the UK and bolster ties with the EU.  The AUKUS agreement is an affirmation that the United States will not abandon the UK.  The support of the United States has elevated the post-Brexit stature of the United Kingdom in global geopolitics.  This wasn't a small ask by the Brits; the post-Brexit future of the UK depends upon these types of agreements.

The purpose of the AUKUS agreement is to show that the United Kingdom is a significant player in global geopolitics.  And as a significant player, the UK has a better chance of revitalizing the old British Commonwealth into a modern trading block that can directly compete with China.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
5.1.12  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  Nerm_L @5.1.11    one month ago

Those are all good things.  

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
PhD Quiet
5.1.13  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Kavika @5.1.10    4 weeks ago

And here I thought it was not enough escargot!

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
5.2  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  Greg Jones @5    one month ago

They can deal with France.  Australia getting nuclear powered submarines is important.  They can perform better than the French made diesel subs.  Australia can buy something else from France.  You are right about Australia.  All five of of the English speaking five eyes nations are united on this.  This is not just a USA vs China issue.  

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
5.2.1  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  XXJefferson51 @5.2    one month ago

The day has come! We are in total agreement. 

 
 
 
Gsquared
Junior Principal
5.2.2  Gsquared  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @5.2.1    one month ago

Hard to believe isn't it?  Will wonders never cease?

Deterring Chinese militaristic expansionism is a key strategic goal.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
5.2.3  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  Gsquared @5.2.2    one month ago

Well we had to agree on something some day!  

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
5.2.4  Kavika   replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @5.2.1    one month ago

France has nuclear subs so they have the technology. Seems that France said they could/would build them for Australia and Australia considered it. 

France also has numerous nuclear reactor plants that power the majority of their electricity. So the technology is there and has been for decades.

And around we go.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
PhD Quiet
5.2.5  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  XXJefferson51 @5.2.3    4 weeks ago

Darn that law of averages!

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
5.2.6  Vic Eldred  replied to  XXJefferson51 @5.2    4 weeks ago

I only wish somebody could have held up an idiot card for Biden. The Australian Prime Minister has a name - it's SCOTT MORRISON!


 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Principal
7  Buzz of the Orient    one month ago
"...as China expands its military might and influence."

Which is a privilege that only the USA is permitteed to do and disribute.

"...the world continues to grapple with the  Covid pandemic  , which originated in Wuhan, China."

"...which IS BELIEVED TO HAVE orginated in Wuhan, China."  There - fixed that for you.

Besides other international treaties, the USA is now going to contravene the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.  Maybe it's okay for China to now provide nuclear missile armed submarines to a few of its allies, you know, for balance.  New Zealand, with its nuclear-free zone is now pushed more towards China, but hey, as is said, who gives a fuck about that "little nothing" nation. 

Sharing the secret advanced technology with other nations just makes it more likely, does it not, that China will be able to STEAL it.  Oh my!!!!

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
7.1  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @7    one month ago
Besides other international treaties, the USA is now going to contravene the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. 

Buzz, Australia is not getting nuclear weapons from us, but nuclear-powered subs from us. That does not break any treaties. Australia was supposed to be getting new diesel subs from France, and that is what is getting France pissed at us. But I have to agree, that I think it is more important for a strong ally like Australia to have the capability to patrol its waters better than it is to keep France happy... or China for that matter.  

 
 
 
shona1
Sophomore Participates
7.1.1  shona1  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @7.1    one month ago

Anoon  Perrie...what the French have produced so far is crap . They are noisey, behind in production run into numerous problems and have an excuse for everything...

We will be building the subs here over in Adelaide...the first one or two subs will be either coming from the US or UK.. after that it is us.

No love lost with the French as far as I am concerned..I still remember Mururoa atoll..they did not give a stuff about anyone down this way...just so long as it was not in their backyard..

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
7.1.2  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  shona1 @7.1.1    one month ago

The French think that their you know what doesn't stink.

I was at Norte Dame on Armistice Day, and you would have thought they fought off the German's single-handed and gave a timeline of events that was beyond bizarre and claimed that they won the war with "a little help" from England and the US. All this with WWII vets from Britain, wearing their poppies, looking on. What a slap in the face to them. 

What nation in their right mind would want a sub from 60 years ago, when they can have modern ones protecting their waters?

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Principal
7.1.3  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @7.1    4 weeks ago

Nuclear technology.  Explain how you feel to New Zealand, and from what I've read recently, the Secretary-General of the United Nations, who sees another Cold War brewing.  So now what is China and North Korea going to do to catch up to equalize the "balance of power"?

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
PhD Quiet
7.1.4  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @7.1.2    4 weeks ago

Some people should really read up on WW II history on all the arrogant and conceited crap DeGaulle pulled with the Allies during the war. Churchill and Roosevelt couldn't stand him and Eisenhower is the one who got stuck with him. When Paris was liberated by the US and Commonwealth forces, DeGaulle took all the credit and marched through the city like a conquering hero while the US and Commonwealth forces chased the fleeing German forces back toward the German border.

 
 
 
MonsterMash
Sophomore Participates
7.1.5  MonsterMash  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @7.1.2    4 weeks ago
Q: What nation in their right mind would want a sub from 60 years ago, when they can have modern ones protecting their waters?
A: France

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Principal
7.1.6  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @7.1    4 weeks ago

I believe that the nuclear subs of most countries, including those of China and France, use low enriched nuclear fuel whereas the American ones use highly enriched nuclear fuel.  Do you know whether the subs will have to return to US bases to be refueled when required, or will highly enriched nuclear fuel be sent to Australia for that purpose?  If the latter, it would be using a loophole in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty to provide Australia with the product required to build an atomic bomb, and THAT would be contrary to the Treaty.  In any event, the concept of the triumvirate and the providing nuclear subs to Australia itself would "up" the balance of power, raise tensions in the region, and is SO CONTRARY to Biden's words about not wanting to cause a "Cold War" it's almost ludicrous.  So while your POTUS seeks to "stabilize" the Indo-Pacific, he will succeed in DESTABILIZING it.  And is all this in order to counter the Republican's being able to gain points by calling Biden "weak on China"?

 
 
 
shona1
Sophomore Participates
7.2  shona1  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @7    one month ago

Anoon.. New Zealand is not a little nothing nation...but if they don't change and evolve they will get left behind.. 

China has changed and evolved just look at the last decades and look at her now..

At times New Zealand is stuck in a time warp and when you go there it is like turning the clock back 20 years...

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Principal
7.2.1  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  shona1 @7.2    one month ago

I'd like to turn the clock back 70 years.

 
 
 
shona1
Sophomore Participates
7.2.2  shona1  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @7.2.1    one month ago

Yes same here at times..but not quite that far...50 would do me...if only...

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Principal
7.3  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @7    one month ago

According to the headline there seems to be an American panic that China is expanding its military.  I think the rest of the world should panic because of how much more America spends on its miliary than any other country in the world.  America spends almost three times on its military than China does, notwithstanding China/s population is around 4.5 times greater than America's.  And, since when does the policeman of the world feel that it can prevent any country from being influential, or is that privilege reserved only to the USA?

https:// worldpopulationreview.com / country -rankings/...

16 rows  · The   country ’s $778 billio n   military expenditure   is among the expensive government …

  • COUNTRY SPENDING (US$ BN.) % OF GDP 2021 POPULATION
    United States 649 3.2 332,915,073
    China 250 1.9 1,444,216,107
 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Principal
8  Buzz of the Orient    one month ago

How come Canada wasn't included? - It's one of the "5 Eyes".  It could contribute its WW2 Frigate to the cause.  LOL

 
 
 
shona1
Sophomore Participates
8.1  shona1  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @8    one month ago

Anoon Buzz..I actually wondered that...what does Canada have in the way of Subs??

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Principal
8.1.1  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  shona1 @8.1    one month ago

I don't know, but I know there are web sites that list such things.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
PhD Quiet
8.1.2  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  shona1 @8.1    4 weeks ago

Canada currently has four "Victoria" class conventionally powered submarines in service.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
8.2  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @8    one month ago

Canada already does send ships to participate with allied ships in freedom of the seas matters.  The Canadians do well enough to help patrol the navigation and commercial interests of the west in the Arctic region from China and Russia. 

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Senior Principal
8.3  Nerm_L  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @8    one month ago
How come Canada wasn't included? - It's one of the "5 Eyes".  It could contribute its WW2 Frigate to the cause.  LOL

The Royal Canadian Navy operates Victoria class submarines acquired from the United Kingdom.  

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Principal
8.3.1  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Nerm_L @8.3    one month ago

I recall touring a sub that was docked for tourists to enter at the San Francisco wharfs.  Anyone suffering from claustrophobia should never enter one.  I think the main advantage of a submarine is that its occupants could probably survive longer than anyone else on the planet if there is a nuclear war - which I determined from watching the movie "On the Beach". 

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
PhD Quiet
8.3.2  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @8.3.1    4 weeks ago

During my Navy career, I once had a supervisor who was a former submariner try to get me to volunteer for submarine duty. He was not happy when I told him I was not interested. I told him I just could not abide by and be comfortable serving on a vessel that actually sinks on purpose. Did not help when he told me that sinking was not the problem, the big issue was surfacing successfully...

 
 
 
Split Personality
PhD Principal
8.3.3  Split Personality  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @8.3.1    4 weeks ago

The USS Pampanito. My kids loved that old boat, my son in particular.

Been on big clean well lit modern boomers

& can't imagine what it was like in WWII with 126 single cell "batteries" that weighed 1600 lbs a piece under foot

representing extreme problems from both hydrogen gas or chlorine gas if damaged or mixed with salt water.

Mix that with the odor of diesel and 80 mates...yikes.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Principal
8.3.4  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @8.3.2    4 weeks ago

LOL.  I thank you for my first laugh out loud of the day.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Principal
9  Buzz of the Orient    one month ago

Well, if the "Three Eyes" want to exclude Canada, maybe Canada should make a deal with China instead.  

  1. Canada left out [of] deal made between the United States, the ...

    ...

    Sep 16, 2021  · The United States, United Kingdom and Australia forge a new  defense  pact intended to contain China’s military might in the Indo-Pacific. The pact, dubbed AUKUS after the initials of the three countries, does not include Canada, suggesting that Ottawa could miss out on intelligence sharing between some of its closest allies.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
9.1  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @9    one month ago

The deal is the UK and US helping Australia where they are.  Canada has sent a ship to assist allied vessels in keeping international waters in the sea of China forever international.  Their main role though is where they are and that is assisting in being a check on Chinese and Russian mischief and expansion in the Arctic region.  They already have UK built submarines.  No one here in the US is belittling Canada’s contribution to the five eye nations. 

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
9.1.1  Kavika   replied to  XXJefferson51 @9.1    one month ago

The question remains why isn't Canada part of this deal.

 
 
 
shona1
Sophomore Participates
9.1.2  shona1  replied to  Kavika @9.1.1    one month ago

Good question..I am assuming as Canada cannot supply the Subs etc..Where as you mob and the Brits can...Hence AUKUS...

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
9.1.3  Kavika   replied to  shona1 @9.1.2    one month ago

Without the US Australia couldn't supply the subs either. If China is the point of AUKUS then it should take into consideration the Aritic where Russia is very strong and China is making inroads and it's the Canadians that seem to be the front line in the theater.

 
 
 
shona1
Sophomore Participates
9.1.4  shona1  replied to  XXJefferson51 @9.1    one month ago

A/noon xx...Errr we just don't slosh around here...The Navy is basically everywhere..We are out in the Pacific, up in Asia including China..they threatened to sink us but hey what ever...And we are patrolling in the Gulf of Oman along side you, the Brits and other countries..

 
 
 
shona1
Sophomore Participates
9.1.5  shona1  replied to  Kavika @9.1.3    one month ago

That could eventually mean CUKUS...may come into play....

Won't write if it was with the French...

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
9.1.6  Kavika   replied to  shona1 @9.1.5    one month ago
Won't write if it was with the French.

That is understandable, LOL. The other is a bit dicey as well...

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Principal
9.1.7  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  shona1 @9.1.5    one month ago

Or all together now - AUCKUS,  Personally I think CUCKOO is more appropriate.  In fact, even better, CUCKOLDS.  I suppose if all the countries America considers its enemies got together, it could be CHIRUNK.

 
 
 
shona1
Sophomore Participates
9.1.8  shona1  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @9.1.7    one month ago

LOL... that nearly spells..CHIPMUNK...

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Principal
9.1.9  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  shona1 @9.1.8    one month ago

LOL... Just add Pakistan and Myanmar to the list and you've got it. 

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Principal
9.2  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @9    one month ago

Maybe the US was afraid of sharing the nuclear technology with Canada thinking it would allow China to access it.  Anyway, as I see it, the whole thing is a nothing move that will only increase tensions in the area but is a way for Biden to maintain a "tough on China" image for the purpose of the midterm elections.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Senior Principal
9.3  Nerm_L  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @9    one month ago
Well, if the "Three Eyes" want to exclude Canada, maybe Canada should make a deal with China instead. 

Does Canada want nuclear powered submarines?  

Maybe Canada doesn't want to become entangled in Indo-Pacific geopolitics.  Or isn't Canada allowed a say in their own affairs?

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Principal
9.3.1  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Nerm_L @9.3    one month ago

There is a line in a poem written by a Canadian poet which I leaned in high school, and I've been trying for years to find the poem it came from but I might not have it quite right.  However I thought it is something like: "And we can leave our defence to the Yankees."

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Senior Principal
9.3.2  Nerm_L  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @9.3.1    one month ago
There is a line in a poem written by a Canadian poet which I leaned in high school, and I've been trying for years to find the poem it came from but I might not have it quite right.  However I thought it is something like: "And we can leave our defence to the Yankees."

As has been discussed elsewhere, the defense is mutual.  In spite of its geographical size, Canada is a small country.  Canada is doing its share.  Just as Australia does its share.

But Canada shouldn't be sucked into neoliberal misadventures just to support fuzzy ideology of international cooperation.  The institutional authoritarian approach rarely benefits small countries.  The price of cooperation is exorbitantly high.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Principal
9.3.3  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Nerm_L @9.3.2    one month ago

You should send your advice to the Canadian government.  There sure isn't anything I can do about neoliberal misadventures.  I don't even know what neoliberal misadventures are.  Obviously you're not in favour of the United Nations.  Guess you prefer Trumpism. 

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
9.3.4  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @9.3.3    one month ago

America First! 

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Principal
9.3.5  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  XXJefferson51 @9.3.4    one month ago

As Major Strasse said to Captain Renault in Casablanca, when Captain Renault told him they expected to arrest the culprit that evening, and as I say to you XXJ, knowing exactly what your personal feelings are:  "I expected no less."

 
 
 
squiggy
Freshman Quiet
10  squiggy    one month ago

France? They thought it was funny sixty years ago to dump government funding into Airbus to take a swipe at those ratty Boeings. Today? Aussies don’t want a labor-intensive, third-world egg beater. C’est une tranche de vie.

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
10.1  Kavika   replied to  squiggy @10    one month ago

To date, the Aussies have invested $2.4 billion in the French subs. Money down the drain so to speak.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
10.1.1  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Kavika @10.1    one month ago

And it turns out that the French want to raise their prices on those antiquated subs, so the question of who was not delivering what does come into question.

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
10.1.2  Kavika   replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @10.1.1    one month ago

I'm not debating whether the Aussies should not go through with the French deal, only that they entered into the deal with open eyes and it's going to cost them $2.4 billion to switch to the US deal.

 
 
 
shona1
Sophomore Participates
10.1.3  shona1  replied to  Kavika @10.1.2    one month ago

A/noon...Would rather lose 2.4 billion than 90 as per the original contract..why they signed up for that 5 years ago..who knows...But so far the product is nothing like the French presented and are heaps of junk..

As for the French throwing a dummy spit let them get on with it..

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
10.1.4  Kavika   replied to  shona1 @10.1.3    one month ago
why they signed up for that 5 years ago..who knows..

And there lies the rub. Australia entered into the deal because no one else would suppy them subs? It would be interesting to find out the why.

 
 
 
shona1
Sophomore Participates
10.1.5  shona1  replied to  Kavika @10.1.4    one month ago

There was a choice of Germany, Japan or France...

In my opinion none a great choice...

The best out of a bad lot, but probably would have gone with Germany...

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
10.1.6  Kavika   replied to  shona1 @10.1.5    one month ago

The nuclear subs are a very small number of countries and I would suspect that the US did not want to expand that group 5 years ago.

 
 
 
shona1
Sophomore Participates
10.1.7  shona1  replied to  Kavika @10.1.6    one month ago

Yes think you are correct..No idea why Russia didn't apply..jrSmiley_86_smiley_image.gif

.A lot can change in 5 years and you have to change with it..

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
10.1.8  Kavika   replied to  shona1 @10.1.7    one month ago

The poor handling of the announcement with France being totally blindsided is deeply embarresing to them, as can be seen by recalling their ambassadors from the US and Australia. Almost unheard of between allies.

France has military bases in the Indo-Pacific area in New Caledonia and French Polynesia and a fairly strong naval presence in the area. I'm not aware of any European country that has that much of a presence in the area. 

It going to be interesting how this falls out.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Principal
10.1.9  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Kavika @10.1.8    one month ago

The present American administration has recently had to weather a lot of criticism for its handling of the withdrawal from Afghanistan, now it's apt to get even more criticism heaped on it because of how it went about this latest effort (to encourage a "Cold War").

 
 
 
shona1
Sophomore Participates
10.1.10  shona1  replied to  Kavika @10.1.8    one month ago

The French are not very well liked in the Pacific and bordering on hatred in New Caledonia...they are wanting to break away from France and become independent..

The French have a token gesture presence there and more so when election time rolls around..as one said "to keep the Natives in order"...only time France remembers them is at election time and they want their votes...

Us and NZ are usually sloshing around the area but basically we leave them to it...but if a cyclone etc comes through it us two that are normally going to their aid as we are closer etc...

 
 
 
shona1
Sophomore Participates
10.1.11  shona1  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @10.1.9    one month ago

Hmmmm not really...when you have a choice of an inferior or superior product I know which one I would be taking..

The French have had five years to get it right and still can't and were asking for millions more..and talking about years more delays...

They had their chance and stuffed it...so we are happy to pay the penalty...time they delivered the subs they would be that out dated which they are now and crap...

Russia and China should have put in a bid...we wouldn't have told anyone...honest..

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
10.1.12  Kavika   replied to  shona1 @10.1.10    one month ago
The French are not very well liked in the Pacific and bordering on hatred in New Caledonia...they are wanting to break away from France and

That's the normal feeling about colonizers.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Principal
10.1.13  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  shona1 @10.1.11    one month ago

Well, at least they know how to cook and to make Champagne.

 
 
 
shona1
Sophomore Participates
10.1.14  shona1  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @10.1.13    one month ago

Hate champagne and prefer Chinese..

But yes they can do both world class...

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Principal
10.1.15  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  shona1 @10.1.11    one month ago

You mean Australia would have used subs built and provided by China?  LOL  That'll be the day.  

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Principal
10.1.16  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  shona1 @10.1.14    one month ago

These days I wouldn't mind some French food for a change.

 
 
 
shona1
Sophomore Participates
10.1.17  shona1  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @10.1.15    one month ago

Cause we would...after we pulled them apart and see what technology you are using and got the USA and Brits over to have a look...and then scrap them..

We would do the same with the Russians too...honest!!! Sorry my sense of humour...

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Principal
10.1.18  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  shona1 @10.1.17    one month ago
"...what technology you are using..."

Shona1, I don't build submarines, and I'm not China.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
10.1.19  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  shona1 @10.1.5    one month ago

The Israeli navy makes great use of the German subs.  The Japanese subs are pretty good.  Nothing compares to the capabilities of one with nuclear power though.  

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
11  Kavika     one month ago

France was nuclear powered submarines, so why didn't the Aussies buy that technology or France sell it to them?

Well it seems that they did offer and Australia considered it. 

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online



29 visitors