USA Is the USA the worst nation to exist since classical times?

[Geelong_Sicko]

Again, you need to direct your replies to those advocating alliances other than sam and chuck.

I'm not for one moment suggesting we ally with China or Russia. I think we can have friendly relations with other nations through the art of diplomacy though AND be a big enough dog with a big enough fight within us to stand on our own.

For that though we'd need the things with an intercontinental reach that can burn armies, fry cities and end nations to enforce a national doctrine of 'armed neutrality'. We'd never need to use them but the mere fact of their existence would be such a powerful deterrent.

Australia. A slave no more.

 

[barreness]

I'm not for one moment suggesting we ally with China or Russia. I think we can have friendly relations with other nations through the art of diplomacy though AND be a big enough dog with a big enough fight within us to stand on our own.

For that though we'd need the things with an intercontinental reach that can burn armies, fry cities and end nations to enforce a national doctrine of 'armed neutrality'. We'd never need to use them but the mere fact of their existence would be such a powerful deterrent.

Australia. A slave no more.

While an interesting strategy of yours I'm not so convinced.

The cost of making a credible nuclear deterrent is huge. Rockets, enrichment, actually building the boom thing, then you need a lot of them in many locations so a first strike couldn't be successful.

Plus you've got to test all the building blocks and this makes other countries testy. Iran and North Korea aren't exactly popular atm. Pulling out of the NPT and internal state/fed bans would be a bureaucratic mess. You'd probably need to do it mostly in secret ala Israel

Some models have Australia/New Zealand being mostly left alone in the event of a total nuclear war, I'm of the opinion that this doomsday eventually happens just because if weapons exist they'll be used at some point(already have) and escalation ladders. Don't need to make yourself a target when we really aren't atm

Vietnam defeated the French, Americans, and China within a few decades. Sure some bought/donated Soviet weaponry but it was a winning strategy that got them there. Iran and the Taliban are also worth looking at for more modern examples(yeh Iran wants nukes but the US is still not willing to go them atm). Geography played a big part in those defensives but Aus is an Island and we have the Great Dividing Range

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

While an interesting strategy of yours I'm not so convinced.

The cost of making a credible nuclear deterrent is huge. Rockets, enrichment, actually building the boom thing, then you need a lot of them in many locations so a first strike couldn't be successful.

Plus you've got to test all the building blocks and this makes other countries testy....

Yeah the cost would be prohibitive. We would need a civilian nuclear energy program already in place to provide the enriched materials needed. It might be workable. I'd say in the long run true independence would be worth the price though.

On our neighbours being rattled - I approach the idea of nuclear weapons as one of deterrent only. Not advantage. Not as a tool of leverage or political pressure. I'd believe in working with other nations to bolster the idea of a regional, interlocking MAD (mutually assured destruction) policy whereas everyone has these weapons to ensure no nation strays from its borders. Non-proliferation treaties should be dissolved altogether. The nuclear gun we'd each hold to each others' head would hold us all in eternal check.

I realise that this would require an idealistic shakeup of the current world order. No foreign basing under any circumstance save for disaster relief purposes, for instance. No nation should host, by free will or foul, the military of another nation. Military alliances are to be scrapped altogether, replaced by worldwide MAD.

 

[Carringbush2010]

I'm not for one moment suggesting we ally with China or Russia. I think we can have friendly relations with other nations through the art of diplomacy though AND be a big enough dog with a big enough fight within us to stand on our own.

For that though we'd need the things with an intercontinental reach that can burn armies, fry cities and end nations to enforce a national doctrine of 'armed neutrality'. We'd never need to use them but the mere fact of their existence would be such a powerful deterrent.

Australia. A slave no more.

I don't disagree with this post apart from 'Australia. A slave no more.'

IF we had the ability to not be a slave we wouldn't be.

Whether or not AUKUS is the right path, it shows us that we as a nation are attempting to create deterrent.

We just don't have the capability to create enough deterrent and hence we rely on chuck and sam.

I don't like it you don't like, but for everyone else in this thread let's not pretend we can go it alone.

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

I don't like it you don't like, but for everyone else in this thread let's not pretend we can go it alone.

I genuinely disagree with this. But you were right earlier in that this IS hypothetical idealism on my part. It's how I'd like things to be. I think it's achievable with strong political will and concerted effort, but it's an easier life relying on Chuck and Sam instead.

Apathy is Australia's lot. And fear of the unknown. It's too hard to be a Republic. It's too hard giving Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people a Voice. I don't feel secure trying that. It's too hard to say 'no' to Chuck and Sam.

It's safe having things stay the same forever.

Australia is lost in insecurity at a national level, like a child who almost looks the adult part but is far from it inside. We need to grow up.

 

[Cyber_punk]

Work til you drop, peasants.

This kind of talk should be an instant disqualifier for anyone who supports guys like this.

But those particular chickens will continue to simp for KFC. It boggles the mind.

 

[brutus76]

United Self-serving A*******

 

[Carringbush2010]

It's how I'd like things to be

So would every other Australian

I think it's achievable with strong political will and concerted effort, but it's an easier life relying on Chuck and Sam instead.

Of course it's achievable, but it's not up to you and me to apply that will and effort, we can only lobby.

In any case the reality is, even if every pollie shared our wish, it's highly improbable. Possible yes but improbable.

We're medium fry used as an attack / influence dog

Apathy is Australia's human kind's lot

EFA

It's too hard to say 'no' to Chuck and Sam.

For obvious reasons

It's safe having things stay the same forever. Until we're able to go it alone, we aren't.

EFA

Australia is lost in insecurity at a national level, like a child who almost looks the adult part but is far from it inside. We need to grow up.

Again, if we 'snub' sam and chuck do you think that would have any influence in their part should we call on them for defensive help? Particularly in the upcoming years?

'Yeah no wuckers oz, yeah tell us to stick it, we'll still look after ya when you need us!'

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

Again, if we 'snub' sam and chuck do you think that would have any influence in their part should we call on them for defensive help? Particularly in the upcoming years?

'Yeah no wuckers oz, yeah tell us to stick it, we'll still look after ya when you need us!'

We don't need to snub anyone so much as quietly withdraw. There should be no ill will on our part, no denunciations and we wouldn't be 'hating' on Uncle Sam here. Ours would be an open diplomacy, but if theirs would be a shadowed malice we should show that to the world.

 

[Carringbush2010]

We don't need to snub anyone so much as quietly withdraw. There should be no ill will on our part, no denunciations and we wouldn't be 'hating' on Uncle Sam here. Ours would be an open diplomacy, but if theirs would be a shadowed malice we should show that to the world.

Snub or quietly withdraw, same same.

Whichever way you slice and dice it, sam and chuck want us to be their lap / attack dog. Period.

So what are the consequences if we don't comply? That's the $64k question, but let's not pretend there wouldn't be consequences.

This isn't something you can 'quietly withdraw with diplomacy' and hope that their support wouldn't lessen if needed. It would.

As you conceded earlier, this is idealistic thinking, and as I said earlier the incumbent situation is not ideal, I don't like it and you don't like it.

In relation to this thread, there's obviously an inference that the USA is the anti christ from the op and certainly others.

Ok fair enough, however the op and others who have this warranted disdain for uncle sam aren't mentioning the obviously much worse alternatives.

There's even primary school level utopian mindset that we could go it alone without sam and chuck, as soon as we go that path Xi would be on our doorstep.

If we could go it alone, there's no doubt we would be, so the thought is totally moot to begin with.

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

Snub or quietly withdraw, same same.

Whichever way you slice and dice it, sam and chuck want us to be their lap / attack dog. Period.

So what are the consequences if we don't comply? That's the $64k question, but let's not pretend there wouldn't be consequences.

This isn't something you can 'quietly withdraw with diplomacy' and hope that their support wouldn't lessen if needed. It would.

As you conceded earlier, this is idealistic thinking, and as I said earlier the incumbent situation is not ideal, I don't like it and you don't like it.

In relation to this thread, there's obviously an inference that the USA is the anti christ from the op and certainly others.

Ok fair enough, however the op and others who have this warranted disdain for uncle sam aren't mentioning the obviously much worse alternatives.

There's even primary school level utopian mindset that we could go it alone without sam and chuck, as soon as we go that path Xi would be on our doorstep.

If we could go it alone, there's no doubt we would be, so the thought is totally moot to begin with.

We can weather any storm if we grit our teeth and get the work done that we need to. You're unconvinced? Fair enough, some are born optimists, others mired in pessimism. I don't quite think that yours is the realistic view, though there are shades of it throughout your argument.

Xi wants to take the last redoubt of the Chinese Civil War (1927 - ). He and many mainland Chinese see Taiwan as a rebellious province and the last area not to cave to Mao's communist army. Whether China wants to expand beyond that is still unknown.

We have never even tried to go it alone before. There has not been the political will. I think if the will was there you'd see some action.

 

[Carringbush2010]

We can weather any storm if we grit our teeth and get the work done that we need to. You're unconvinced?

Dude, you're being highly optimistic of our position, ambition and ability are two different things

Fair enough, some are born optimists, others mired in pessimism.

This is about realism, nothing to do with optimism or pessimism.

I don't quite think that yours is the realistic view, though there are shades of it throughout your argument.

Yet your idea of us going alone or aligning with another world power, which there is not much or zero choice is?

We have never even tried to go it alone before.

For good reason

There has not been the political will.

Political will alone will not cut it. Quite simply we don't have ability to go it alone. Period.

Again, you're not looking at the big picture here and you're being idealistic.

 

[Spearman]

We can weather any storm if we grit our teeth and get the work done that we need to. You're unconvinced? Fair enough, some are born optimists, others mired in pessimism. I don't quite think that yours is the realistic view, though there are shades of it throughout your argument.

Xi wants to take the last redoubt of the Chinese Civil War (1927 - ). He and many mainland Chinese see Taiwan as a rebellious province and the last area not to cave to Mao's communist army. Whether China wants to expand beyond that is still unknown.

We have never even tried to go it alone before. There has not been the political will. I think if the will was there you'd see some action.

Your insights into the mind of the inscrutable Chinese mind of a dictator are incisive.

Xi's from a different generation. If he's got a semi for Formosa, then its because he's being pushed by more nationalistic factions in the party. He does have a full on wood for his own power, though. If status quo keep him on the thrown, that's his policy. If he needs a distraction from domestic issues, then he might throw the dice on an overt move.
I doubt he's got history on his mind.

If it warms up more in the SCS, and you guys want to protect shipping lanes, freedom of the seas, support an ASEAN ally, or whatever, You're going to need more that grit in your teeth.

Or if they flip Indonesia or PNG. Isolationism only goes so far.

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

Yet your idea of us going alone or aligning with another world power, which there is not much or zero choice is?

I just don't agree with your pessimistic appraisal of our chances. I've never thought we should throw our lot in with another power. I've always been about non-alignment. It is possible, to be non-aligned. It is realistic. It is achievable and well within this lifetime.

We can agree to disagree for sure, but let me reiterate - all that is lacking in my opinion is the vision and the political will to guide things.

 

[Seeds]

I just don't agree with your pessimistic appraisal of our chances. I've never thought we should throw our lot in with another power. I've always been about non-alignment. It is possible, to be non-aligned. It is realistic. It is achievable and well within this lifetime.

We can agree to disagree for sure, but let me reiterate - all that is lacking in my opinion is the vision and the political will to guide things.

We arent aligned.

We support other countries actions by choice because of similar ideology and interests.

 

[Carringbush2010]

I just don't agree with your pessimistic appraisal of our chances. I've never thought we should throw our lot in with another power. I've always been about non-alignment. It is possible, to be non-aligned. It is realistic. It is achievable and well within this lifetime.

We can agree to disagree for sure, but let me reiterate - all that is lacking in my opinion is the vision and the political will to guide things.

Ok we're going around in circles here.

Political will or lack thereof is moot if we don't have the >ability< to cut ties with sam and chuck with zero consequences.

IF we had the ability to cut ties with sam and chuck with no consequences (potential or actual) and be totally independent of them then we would.

But we aren't, why? Here's a hint, we don't the > ability< to be completely independent without potential and actual consequence

It's not pessimism, it's reality

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

Ok we're going around in circles here.

Political will or lack thereof is moot if we don't have the >ability< to cut ties with sam and chuck with zero consequences.

IF we had the ability to cut ties with sam and chuck with no consequences (potential or actual) and be totally independent of them then we would.

But we aren't, why? Here's a hint, we don't the > ability< to be completely independent without potential and actual consequence

It's not pessimism, it's reality

So you're worried about consequence, yeah? I guess that's the point of difference between us in that you're staying cautious and staying on familiar ground while I think taking a chance will pay future dividends as far as our independence is concerned.

This isn't to say being cautious is 100% wrong or being a risk-taker is 100% right. We're each calling it according to our beliefs and values. Hence the circlework.

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

We arent aligned.

We support other countries actions by choice because of similar ideology and interests.

We most certainly are aligned with the United States. Nothing in the following denies alignment;

U.S. Security Cooperation With Australia - United States Department of State

Australians and Americans have fought side by side in every major U.S. military conflict of the past century, including World Wars I & II, Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, and in present-day operations against violent extremist organizations like Al Qaida, the Islamic State, and their global...

www.state.gov

 

[Seeds]

We most certainly are aligned with the United States. Nothing in the following denies alignment;

U.S. Security Cooperation With Australia - United States Department of State

Australians and Americans have fought side by side in every major U.S. military conflict of the past century, including World Wars I & II, Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, and in present-day operations against violent extremist organizations like Al Qaida, the Islamic State, and their global...

www.state.gov

But that's by choice because of shared values. You get this is a good thing right? People with shared values working together to protect and enhance those values.

 

[Gethelred]

Yeah the cost would be prohibitive. We would need a civilian nuclear energy program already in place to provide the enriched materials needed. It might be workable. I'd say in the long run true independence would be worth the price though.

On our neighbours being rattled - I approach the idea of nuclear weapons as one of deterrent only. Not advantage. Not as a tool of leverage or political pressure. I'd believe in working with other nations to bolster the idea of a regional, interlocking MAD (mutually assured destruction) policy whereas everyone has these weapons to ensure no nation strays from its borders. Non-proliferation treaties should be dissolved altogether. The nuclear gun we'd each hold to each others' head would hold us all in eternal check.

I realise that this would require an idealistic shakeup of the current world order. No foreign basing under any circumstance save for disaster relief purposes, for instance. No nation should host, by free will or foul, the military of another nation. Military alliances are to be scrapped altogether, replaced by worldwide MAD.

The problem with a civilian nuclear energy program in an Australian context is twofold (outside of the exorbitant cost):

• there is not a single Australian, urban or rural, that wants to have one within 50km of where they live. And - arguably - that's generous.
• a nuclear energy plant would need workers, so you cannot just put it 200km in the middle of nowhere, either.

It's mildly ironic that we probably have the space to set up a buffer area on top of other defenses to protect from potential issues. Just, if we did, finding anyone who wanted to be FIFY or move close enough to work there would be a hassle for the entire duration of construction and maintenance.

It'd need to be an undertaking from the feds in partnership with one of the states - or plonk it as close as you can to the eastern states in the NT - and spend the money in funding construction, infrastructure, development. Build it large enough that it's energy for the entire east coast in perpetuity, an immediate replacement for coal once functional. Keep it in government hands to ensure security and in pursuit of having our own deterrent.

That'd be how I'd do it if I wanted to get nukes; start it off as a long term solution to the cost of living and power issues subsuming the east coast, build and develop it through public money - after all, we apparently have a surplus now - and develop our own core of scientists to run and maintain our own program. Treat it as a long term thing: the Coalition would love it because it lets them eventually get their hands on some nukes, Labor would love it for more or less the same reason and because they can market it as beneficial on any number of levels.

Alas, probably the wrong thread for it.

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

The problem with a civilian nuclear energy program in an Australian context is twofold (outside of the exorbitant cost):

• there is not a single Australian, urban or rural, that wants to have one within 50km of where they live. And - arguably - that's generous.
• a nuclear energy plant would need workers, so you cannot just put it 200km in the middle of nowhere, either.

It's mildly ironic that we probably have the space to set up a buffer area on top of other defenses to protect from potential issues. Just, if we did, finding anyone who wanted to be FIFY or move close enough to work there would be a hassle for the entire duration of construction and maintenance.

It'd need to be an undertaking from the feds in partnership with one of the states - or plonk it as close as you can to the eastern states in the NT - and spend the money in funding construction, infrastructure, development. Build it large enough that it's energy for the entire east coast in perpetuity, an immediate replacement for coal once functional. Keep it in government hands to ensure security and in pursuit of having our own deterrent.

That'd be how I'd do it if I wanted to get nukes; start it off as a long term solution to the cost of living and power issues subsuming the east coast, build and develop it through public money - after all, we apparently have a surplus now - and develop our own core of scientists to run and maintain our own program. Treat it as a long term thing: the Coalition would love it because it lets them eventually get their hands on some nukes, Labor would love it for more or less the same reason and because they can market it as beneficial on any number of levels.

Alas, probably the wrong thread for it.

Google Maps

Find local businesses, view maps and get driving directions in Google Maps.

www.google.com

Just looking at Lucas Heights NSW, the area where Australia's only publicly known nuclear reactor is located - and incidentally not much more than a stone's throw from Engadine and the fast food restaurant where there may or may not have been a very public code brown core meltdown in the trousers of a future Prime Minister - it's in the hills and isolated enough.

National grid reactors would need to be larger of course but I could envision some on the outskirts of all Australian cities. There would need to be a buffer zone of purchased government land between the reactor site and the community of course but this can all be done in theory.

Costing is of course another matter.

 

[Carringbush2010]

So you're worried about consequence, yeah? I guess that's the point of difference between us in that you're staying cautious and staying on familiar ground while I think taking a chance will pay future dividends as far as our independence is concerned.

This isn't to say being cautious is 100% wrong or being a risk-taker is 100% right. We're each calling it according to our beliefs and values. Hence the circlework.

No, just pointing out.

• A/ There would be consequences
• B/ If were able to be fully independent we would, but we're not.

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

No, just pointing out.

• A/ There would be consequences
• B/ If were able to be fully independent we would, but we're not.

A Consequences be damned
B We're a spineless nation and always have been foreign policy wise. Our one 'venture' outside of the British/U.S dependency was East Timor. And with that action we sullied the actions of our peacekeepers by trying to grift a new nation of their resources.

 

[Carringbush2010]

A Consequences be damned

Damn them all you want, there'll still be consequences.

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

Damn them all you want, there'll still be consequences.

I know that. I'm not afraid. Are you?