-
@nta said in Aussie Politics:
@gibbonrib said in Aussie Politics:
Doesn't matter if you're a dove or a hawk, that is a catastrophic failure of government.
Unless your government is all about supporting the Military Industrial Complex, in which case:
Good point. Maybe I've catastrophically misunderstood the purpose of government.
-
@chimoaus said in Aussie Politics:
we can waste 2 billion on these failed subs and billions more on boats that don't work properly etc and write it off as "being prepared"
In the Falklands War, one nearly obsolete Royal Navy nuclear submarine (the sexy ones were watching the Soviets) pretty much neutralised the entire Argentinian Navy. And they didn't use expensive homing torpedoes either, just a cheaper design dating from WWII
-
@act-crusader said in Aussie Politics:
@chimoaus said in Aussie Politics:
@kirwan said in Aussie Politics:
@chimoaus said in Aussie Politics:
@kirwan said in Aussie Politics:
@chimoaus said in Aussie Politics:
@majorrage Maybe I'm ignorant but I find it farcical to think in 2021 that a developed nation would "invade" another developed nation, it's not 1939.
The world economy is so intertwined that we are all reliant on one another, it makes no sense, I really cannot see why China would invade any nation for their resources when they can just buy them. Yes, there are long standing tensions between certain nations but that is very much localised land disputes, and they are not going to blitzkrieg the world.
Wouldn't it be great if the world could somehow come together and agree to drastically reduce military spending, very much like the Paris climate agreement.
I noticed that Costa Rica has not had an army since 1949. "Costa Rica's track record of 72 years without a standing army demonstrates in a convincing way that it is possible, as well as positive, to organize a state on the principles of mutual trust, peace and non-violence." https://www.canberratimes.com.au/story/7038431/costa-rica-abolished-its-military-other-countries-can-too/
Crimea says hi. 2.5 million people invaded by Russia.
This post reminds me of Helen Clark talking about the end of war, a few short years before 9/11.
Yep the 100's of billions the US spends on military definitely helped prevent 9/11 and I would hardly call that an invasion.
I did mention that land/religious disputes between neighbours was a reality but what is the likelihood any nation would invade Australia? Very few nations have a naval force and China is the only obvious concern, the question is would China ever invade Australia in the WW2 sense, I highly doubt it, what would be the benefit for them?
Am I the only one who thinks the billions we spend is a gross waste of expenditure when the risk of lifes lost from pandemics, climate change and wellbeing are significantly higher.
It just seems like a giant pissing contest and instead of urine we are pissing taxpayers money.
Indonesia must look south at all that empty Aussie land being under population strain and be tempted.
I'm not sure if you have noticed, but there are a shit load of conflicts going on around the world. Not having a capable miltary is negligence IMO.
I am not saying not to spend anything I am questioning if spending 90 billion on submarines and billions on fighter planes is going to make any significant difference to the thoughts of these dictators and enemies. I want our politicians to be responsible and realistic about it, it seems we can waste 2 billion on these failed subs and billions more on boats that don't work properly etc and write it off as "being prepared". I fully support the expenditure on Hercules and Helicopters etc that are actually used in humanitarian operations etc. But nuclear subs, their usefulness is a stretch.
The nuclear powered subs are far more advanced and their speed is exceptional.
Which brings me to another point, and you mentioned climate change, why there is not nuclear power generation in Australia always staggers me. I understand the (strange) politics of it but it could provide a clean base load energy source.
Up until earlier this year Australia had one of the most productive high grade uranium mines in the world, but there are many other uranium deposits and its predominantly being exported. Nuclear power technology has come a long way and yet there are many in my view that look very backwards at the issue.
For people that don't live here, they can't grasp how much the aphorism "the lucky country" holds true. At every step we implement stupid policies only to be saved by the need of other countries to use our natural resources. We should be an energy superpower.
-
Yeah. I'm not seriously advocating subsidies.
Hell, subsidies and other protectionisms (by our allies and formerly biggest trading partners) is ironically a major reason why we (NZ) are now so beholden to China and our FTA.
But that is a very expensive price to pay so that your PM can feel free to say some stern words about China occasionally for domestic politics reasons.
-
-
@act-crusader said in Aussie Politics:
@chimoaus said in Aussie Politics:
@kirwan said in Aussie Politics:
@chimoaus said in Aussie Politics:
@kirwan said in Aussie Politics:
@chimoaus said in Aussie Politics:
@majorrage Maybe I'm ignorant but I find it farcical to think in 2021 that a developed nation would "invade" another developed nation, it's not 1939.
The world economy is so intertwined that we are all reliant on one another, it makes no sense, I really cannot see why China would invade any nation for their resources when they can just buy them. Yes, there are long standing tensions between certain nations but that is very much localised land disputes, and they are not going to blitzkrieg the world.
Wouldn't it be great if the world could somehow come together and agree to drastically reduce military spending, very much like the Paris climate agreement.
I noticed that Costa Rica has not had an army since 1949. "Costa Rica's track record of 72 years without a standing army demonstrates in a convincing way that it is possible, as well as positive, to organize a state on the principles of mutual trust, peace and non-violence." https://www.canberratimes.com.au/story/7038431/costa-rica-abolished-its-military-other-countries-can-too/
Crimea says hi. 2.5 million people invaded by Russia.
This post reminds me of Helen Clark talking about the end of war, a few short years before 9/11.
Yep the 100's of billions the US spends on military definitely helped prevent 9/11 and I would hardly call that an invasion.
I did mention that land/religious disputes between neighbours was a reality but what is the likelihood any nation would invade Australia? Very few nations have a naval force and China is the only obvious concern, the question is would China ever invade Australia in the WW2 sense, I highly doubt it, what would be the benefit for them?
Am I the only one who thinks the billions we spend is a gross waste of expenditure when the risk of lifes lost from pandemics, climate change and wellbeing are significantly higher.
It just seems like a giant pissing contest and instead of urine we are pissing taxpayers money.
Indonesia must look south at all that empty Aussie land being under population strain and be tempted.
I'm not sure if you have noticed, but there are a shit load of conflicts going on around the world. Not having a capable miltary is negligence IMO.
I am not saying not to spend anything I am questioning if spending 90 billion on submarines and billions on fighter planes is going to make any significant difference to the thoughts of these dictators and enemies. I want our politicians to be responsible and realistic about it, it seems we can waste 2 billion on these failed subs and billions more on boats that don't work properly etc and write it off as "being prepared". I fully support the expenditure on Hercules and Helicopters etc that are actually used in humanitarian operations etc. But nuclear subs, their usefulness is a stretch.
The nuclear powered subs are far more advanced and their speed is exceptional.
Which brings me to another point, and you mentioned climate change, why there is not nuclear power generation in Australia always staggers me. I understand the (strange) politics of it but it could provide a clean base load energy source.
Up until earlier this year Australia had one of the most productive high grade uranium mines in the world, but there are many other uranium deposits and its predominantly being exported. Nuclear power technology has come a long way and yet there are many in my view that look very backwards at the issue.
and there is no shortage of space to stick them as far away from population as is practical
-
@kiwiwomble said in Aussie Politics:
@act-crusader said in Aussie Politics:
@chimoaus said in Aussie Politics:
@kirwan said in Aussie Politics:
@chimoaus said in Aussie Politics:
@kirwan said in Aussie Politics:
@chimoaus said in Aussie Politics:
@majorrage Maybe I'm ignorant but I find it farcical to think in 2021 that a developed nation would "invade" another developed nation, it's not 1939.
The world economy is so intertwined that we are all reliant on one another, it makes no sense, I really cannot see why China would invade any nation for their resources when they can just buy them. Yes, there are long standing tensions between certain nations but that is very much localised land disputes, and they are not going to blitzkrieg the world.
Wouldn't it be great if the world could somehow come together and agree to drastically reduce military spending, very much like the Paris climate agreement.
I noticed that Costa Rica has not had an army since 1949. "Costa Rica's track record of 72 years without a standing army demonstrates in a convincing way that it is possible, as well as positive, to organize a state on the principles of mutual trust, peace and non-violence." https://www.canberratimes.com.au/story/7038431/costa-rica-abolished-its-military-other-countries-can-too/
Crimea says hi. 2.5 million people invaded by Russia.
This post reminds me of Helen Clark talking about the end of war, a few short years before 9/11.
Yep the 100's of billions the US spends on military definitely helped prevent 9/11 and I would hardly call that an invasion.
I did mention that land/religious disputes between neighbours was a reality but what is the likelihood any nation would invade Australia? Very few nations have a naval force and China is the only obvious concern, the question is would China ever invade Australia in the WW2 sense, I highly doubt it, what would be the benefit for them?
Am I the only one who thinks the billions we spend is a gross waste of expenditure when the risk of lifes lost from pandemics, climate change and wellbeing are significantly higher.
It just seems like a giant pissing contest and instead of urine we are pissing taxpayers money.
Indonesia must look south at all that empty Aussie land being under population strain and be tempted.
I'm not sure if you have noticed, but there are a shit load of conflicts going on around the world. Not having a capable miltary is negligence IMO.
I am not saying not to spend anything I am questioning if spending 90 billion on submarines and billions on fighter planes is going to make any significant difference to the thoughts of these dictators and enemies. I want our politicians to be responsible and realistic about it, it seems we can waste 2 billion on these failed subs and billions more on boats that don't work properly etc and write it off as "being prepared". I fully support the expenditure on Hercules and Helicopters etc that are actually used in humanitarian operations etc. But nuclear subs, their usefulness is a stretch.
The nuclear powered subs are far more advanced and their speed is exceptional.
Which brings me to another point, and you mentioned climate change, why there is not nuclear power generation in Australia always staggers me. I understand the (strange) politics of it but it could provide a clean base load energy source.
Up until earlier this year Australia had one of the most productive high grade uranium mines in the world, but there are many other uranium deposits and its predominantly being exported. Nuclear power technology has come a long way and yet there are many in my view that look very backwards at the issue.
and there is no shortage of space to stick them as far away from population as is practical
actually, and I may have read this wrong, but a paper said the waste could be going to SA and there are all sorts of confused reactions but apparently the subs won't be built until 2040 or so...
https://www.portlincolntimes.com.au/story/7433771/submarine-boost-for-south-australia/
-
@nostrildamus said in Aussie Politics:
the subs won't be built until 2040 or so...
Yeah. China are shitting themselves...
-
2040!! Though to be fair I guess they take years to build, let alone the upgrades the ports facilities will need beforehand. Trying to remember the tech tree from Civ 5 for nuclear subs!
-
@paekakboyz its even worse than that isn't, i thought i read they have to be serviced in US or Us ports so the ship building industry here is also feeling a bit sold out
-
@kiwiwomble said in Aussie Politics:
@paekakboyz its even worse than that isn't, i thought i read they have to be serviced in US or Us ports so the ship building industry here is also feeling a bit sold out
Fuck 'em. As Defence Minister David Johnston famously said; you couldn't trust them to build a canoe.
-
@kiwiwomble it is the way. Pfft to the short-term profit of the build stage, the real money is in support and servicing!
-
@paekakboyz as i say, i think they have to be serviced by the US too
-
I 'm acquainted with someone once in the game of establishing military deals between Australia and America. He was based over in the States some years, and he basically said (and he's not the sort of person to carry a grudge) he would trust US intelligence as far as he could throw them, they'd lie to your face effortlessly.
Anyway, that was then.
I suspect the French deal was also over run and getting expensive, Christopher Pyne was gone so they don't need to buy Adelaide votes for him anymore.
The whole deal still seems a bit, um, shambolic and improvised though. -
Interesting take on the French response.
The real reason France was excluded from Aukus The fallout from Australia’s cancellation of its submarine contract with France and the new trilateral Indo-Pacific security pact between Australia, the US and the UK continues. France has recalled its ambassadors from Canberra and Washington (though significantly not from London) for ‘immediate consultations’; the well-worn diplomatic gesture of discontent. This is the first occasion ever in over two centuries of Franco-American friendship. Last night in another outburst of petulance, the French embassy in Washington cancelled the gala to celebrate Franco-American friendship. The festivities were to mark the 240th anniversary of the crucial Battle of the Capes when the French navy defeated its British counterpart in defence of American independence. Compared to the present it is a poignant historical example of how, to paraphrase Lord Palmerston, diplomatic and military alliances are never permanent, only interests. France, after all abandoned its western allies in 1966 when it withdrew at short notice from Nato’s integrated military command. Today at the core of all this turmoil is the rising power of China. It is a historical truism that rising powers force diplomatic and military realignments. History is replete with examples of states that underestimated the capacity of the international system to coalesce or realign rapidly in the face of rising and threatening powers. Prussian victory over the French in 1871 created a powerful Germany, whose rise and rise inevitably caused the international system to adjust by diplomatic and military realignments. Sometimes this occurred slowly (the 1892 Franco-Russian alliance and the 1904 Entente Cordiale) sometimes brutally (the 1939 Nazi Soviet pact and the June 1941 Anglo-Soviet agreement). Then expediency trumped ideology. Now it trumps friendship. This time France is the loser. The historically attuned Macron of all people should now put this snap diplomatic embarrassment behind him and work constructively with Aukus. But the new architecture of the Indo-Pacific will not be easy to negotiate. What the three Anglosphere states in the Aukus pact have put together is a loose, flexible and nimble arrangement for managing Indo-Pacific security directly. This is something that is second nature to states of a culture that General de Gaulle always referred to as ‘Anglo-Saxon’. It is just the kind of arrangement that is anathema to the formal, rational and legalistic method of the French and their cultural offshoot the EU, whose modus operandi was best demonstrated by the glacial formalism applied to the Brexit negotiations. This clash of cultures – or cultures at cross purposes – was demonstrated prior to the First World War, when following the 1904 informal Entente Cordiale France was desperate for a formal binding written commitment from London to side with her in the event of a German attack. Britain would only agree to wait and see. This was a problem France also experienced in the interwar years. Then to cap it all, Aukus is a club within another very exclusive culturally defined Anglosphere club that has existed since the Second World War and that has never had France as a member, the ‘Five Eyes’ (with New Zealand and Canada). Aukus members probably wanted France in the pact. Diplomatically and militarily she has much to offer in terms of naval projection, nuclear submarines and weapons, intelligence and physical presence by dint of her overseas territories in the south Pacific. But wishing to react rapidly, they were probably anxious about her cultural proclivity to define every term, role and eventuality. The crucial problem for France is that by her own admission the Australian deal wasn’t merely about submarines. It was the keystone in a regional security edifice carefully pieced together that will now have to be remodelled completely, were that possible. This is the source of their disappointment and public outrage. The second problem for Paris is that Aukus is not just a coalition of three. It will be the nexus of a much broader web drawing in other informal regional groupings with varied objectives from security to trade, such as the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue, or Quad, of US, Japan, India and Australia, or the 12 nation Trans Pacific Partnership trade agreement which includes the US (albeit withdrawn under Trump), Australia, Japan, Vietnam, Malaysia, Singapore, New Zealand and a pending UK membership. France could now find herself outside these concentric circles. Her only full access would be by belated invitation to the sanctum sanctorum of Aukus. But as a late joiner she might be required to be amenable on other matters, for instance smoothing the way for an adjustment of the Northern Ireland Protocol (see my recent Coffee House piece). Heaven forfend that French membership – other than generating the unfortunate acronym of Faukus – be viewed as the EU’s Trojan Horse similar to General de Gaulle viewing Britain as America’s Trojan Horse on London’s application to join the Common Market. What Macron does next is therefore key. With the presidential election campaign unofficially underway and France about to take up the presidency of the EU council for six months, he is certain to make grandiloquent statements about France and Europe’s only salvation lying in European ‘strategic autonomy’ from the US and Nato. But Macron knows in his heart of hearts, like his French predecessors, that this has been on the cards since the French inspired – and French scuppered – European Defence Community of 1954 and that it will go nowhere during his mandate. What's more, an EU defence and security role in the Indo-Pacific will go no further than gesture politics, as only France has the capability to deploy in the area. Macron will have to swallow his pride and go with Aukus. The fact that the French Ambassador in London was not recalled suggests that he knows how to go about that. WRITTEN BY John Keiger John Keiger is a former professor of French history at the University of Cambridge
Aussie Politics