The Inevitable War - Keating goes bang

[jb40]

I've made it pretty clear, and so has AUKUS, that this is intended to be a regional defence strategy. Australia alone couldn't defend itself against Indonesia if they really wanted to wander across the sea.

We have subs, missiles and jets to contribute to assist others in the region and provide joint deterrent.

What's the alternative? Just let the USA and China dominate the world and the rest of us might as well not bother with a military because we'd lose against our largest enemy? And if North Korea invade South Korea again, we just shrug our shoulders and say "well, we would have had a military, but China could have just beaten it, so we didn't bother".

based on your argument Australia cant get a nuclear sub to protect its trade routes as it upsets china

 

[jb40]

Rising sea levels will be cancelled out by trans toilets to create a land bridge - is that how it works?

trans only gets legalised and climate change only happens in the west?

 

[QuietB]

trans only gets legalised and climate change only happens in the west?

Where is trans illegal

 

[Ohitsthatguy]

Everyone knows it's ****ed

But it was set up by the Coaliton so what are Labor supposed to do

 

[Present Not Past]

The idea that Australia can just ignore their commitments to the ANZUS Alliance is just a joke.

 

[jb40]

Where is trans illegal

in the west

 

[Festerz]

So a retired US admiral will lead the Australian Government review of the Australian Navy's surface fleet requirements. The surrender of the sovereignty of our defence force to the needs of the US global defence interests confirmed.

The irony of this being revealed on ANZAC Day will be bitterly missed by many.




Edit: Someone gets it:

 

[schneebly111]

Tweet form an ex RAN submariner going viral:

 

[1990crow]

I don't like where this is all heading. Having studied lead up to WW1 and WW2 more than I should have this build up by both sides looks inevitable.

 

[Festerz]

I don't like where this is all heading. Having studied lead up to WW1 and WW2 more than I should have this build up by both sides looks inevitable.

Prior to the Cuban Missile Crisis JFK had read Tuchman’s The Guns of August, which detailed the miscalculations and misunderstandings that had led to the first world war. Kennedy told his Cabinet:

“I am not going to follow a course which will allow anyone to write a comparable book about this time. The Missiles of October. If anybody is around to write after this, they are going to understand that we made every effort to find peace and every effort to give our adversary room to move.”

I fear that not enough of our modern global leaders take the time to read history and learn from its lessons.

There is an excellent book by Graham Allison titled 'Destined for War - Can America and China Escape Thucydides' Trap?' which outlines the patterns of geopolitical stress throughout history which results when a rising power challenges a ruling one and how a devastating war is often the conclusion. We are in such a period now and the parallels to past conflicts are obvious. War is not inevitable but is only avoidable if we have a commitment to peace and do not fall into the trap of supporting a failing power in its military attempts to retain global control over the now much stronger economic power.

 

[QuietB]

Prior to the Cuban Missile Crisis JFK had read Tuchman’s The Guns of August, which detailed the miscalculations and misunderstandings that had led to the first world war. Kennedy told his Cabinet:

“I am not going to follow a course which will allow anyone to write a comparable book about this time. The Missiles of October. If anybody is around to write after this, they are going to understand that we made every effort to find peace and every effort to give our adversary room to move.”

I fear that not enough of our modern global leaders take the time to read history and learn from its lessons.

There is an excellent book by Graham Allison titled 'Destined for War - Can America and China Escape Thucydides' Trap?' which outlines the patterns of geopolitical stress throughout history which results when a rising power challenges a ruling one and how a devastating war is often the conclusion. We are in such a period now and the parallels to past conflicts are obvious. War is not inevitable but is only avoidable if we have a commitment to peace and do not fall into the trap of supporting a failing power in its military attempts to retain global control over the now much stronger economic power.

There will not be a war. The USA will walk away. Trump almost already did. Every day that passes China gets stronger and the likelihood of USA success in any conflict diminishes.

Trump was massively isolationist and future USA presidents will be the same.

Australia has to get ready to deal with this reality.

 

[schneebly111]

There will not be a war. The USA will walk away. Trump almost already did. Every day that passes China gets stronger and the likelihood of USA success in any conflict diminishes.

Trump was massively isolationist and future USA presidents will be the same.

Australia has to get ready to deal with this reality.

The key question is will the US eventually walk away from their military bases in Japan, Korea, Guam and Carrier Battle Group deployments to the South China Sea?

Does China become the dominant power within the 1st/2nd Island Chain or will a war be fought to stop that happening?

 

[RandB]

Australia adopted a 'porcupine' defensive strategy decades ago and nothing really has changed except for modernisation and effective use of limited resources. It was inevitable that we would lose the advantage of our geographical distance one day.

We are part of integrated intelligence, military is a logical extension in the 21st century.

The other aspect is our ability to defend (deter) aggression gives us some semblance of autonomy. Whilst we are more integrated, it's an important message that we are no longer relying on the US to automatically protect us. This means we are no longer tethering ourselves to the US on that level.

Some will argue we are simply becoming an extension of the US containment strategy on China. IMO that is too narrow. Japan and SK are building their militaries up significantly due to threat, they aren't playing games here.

The fact that they are even talking in SK about nukes is a massive worry.

Re: Keating. One of the best PMs and parliamentarians we've ever had. On 21st century defence though he has sadly lost the plot.

If you want unbiased, unsensationalised, insightful and pragmatic commentary you listen to Kim Beazley.

 

[nut]

 

[Power Raid]

I've made it pretty clear, and so has AUKUS, that this is intended to be a regional defence strategy. Australia alone couldn't defend itself against Indonesia if they really wanted to wander across the sea.

We have subs, missiles and jets to contribute to assist others in the region and provide joint deterrent.

What's the alternative? Just let the USA and China dominate the world and the rest of us might as well not bother with a military because we'd lose against our largest enemy? And if North Korea invade South Korea again, we just shrug our shoulders and say "well, we would have had a military, but China could have just beaten it, so we didn't bother".

Australia has regional superiority over Indonesia and China up to just north of Indonesia

Beyond that we would need help but that’s more than enough

To maintain this superiority our strategy and equipment needs to change, thus drones, missiles and that platforms they are operated from

 

[Power Raid]

Indonesia's navy is significantly larger than ours. It's just an example, that pitted against most countries, even close neighbours we'd lose. So the purpose of our armed forces is not to be able to independently defeat every nation, but to form parts of broader coalitions.

It's much more likely we'd be working with Indonesia in most instances (though they're less interventionist), and worth noting we were (almost) in a proxy war with them over Timor Leste.

Indo’s navy and Air Force are weak not only due their systems but the inability to operate and maintain.

Much of this is a legacy of the coup where airforce supported communism, Sukarno and Russia vs the army capitalism, Suharto and the US

Their army though is excellent but we would contain them on islands, as invasions is not our intent if it came to that

 

[Power Raid]

Lots of new directives to industry, from government, as to what china can invest in

Rare earths, hpa, silicon etc are all on the black list

I give it 15 years and our countries economies will decouple. Africa and india will be the new markets.

 

[QuietB]

Lots of new directives to industry, from government, as to what china can invest in

Rare earths, hpa, silicon etc are all on the black list

I give it 15 years and our countries economies will decouple. Africa and india will be the new markets.

And this further highlights why there will not be a war.

China is entirely dependent on the west for energy security, food security and to have a market to sell their goods. If China loses the USA and Australia as trading partners China collapses.

China could not survive the current trade sanctions that are in place against Russia.

 

[Saint]

This is why India is the future, and why China is coming up to a precipice. You can speculate about power-struggles, military and politics all you like, but you can't argue with these demographics.

 

[Festerz]

This is why India is the future, and why China is coming up to a precipice. You can speculate about power-struggles, military and politics all you like, but you can't argue with these demographics.

Demographics tells only part of the story. China's success was built on a multitude of dramatic socio economic changes - most particularly a massive investment from Beijing in education and manufacturing.

India's pace in both of those fronts - especially education - is woeful in comparison.

China has thrived in part because it made enormous investments in human capital — transforming what in the early 1980s had been a broken education system — and that created a literate, numerate work force. In contrast, India isn’t even in the ballpark. Figures vary, but perhaps only 35 percent of Indian children make it to grades 11 and 12.

There is also the issue of female workforce participation. Only 23 percent of Indian women are in the labor force — compared with 61 percent in China and 56 percent in the United States — and in India female labor force participation has actually been dropping for most of the past two decades.

Things are definitely improving in India in terms of economic growth - the rapid development of the auto and electronics industries are prime examples of this - but at nowhere near the pace required to challenge China's place in the world anytime soon. And they are starting from a very long way back.


Off topic for this thread but a very good article on the challenges facing India here: Opinion | Can India Change the World?

 

[Power Raid]

And this further highlights why there will not be a war.

China is entirely dependent on the west for energy security, food security and to have a market to sell their goods. If China loses the USA and Australia as trading partners China collapses.

China could not survive the current trade sanctions that are in place against Russia.

I believe war is unavoidable and I'm confident China is not resource constrained

1) China will be Australian iron ore independent with a major milestone just 3 years away. Total independence is less than 10.

2) China has namibia and kazakh for uranium

3) Mongolia for coal

4) The dispute over the south china sea is its vast O&G reserves plus china will secure O&G from russia

5) China has copper from areas the west won't tread - iraq, pakistan and afghan plus zambia

I don't believe we will see a direct war with china over china but we will have proxy wars like vietnam and korea. Taiwan is an obvious hot spot but we shouldn't ignore the importance of africa and central asia. After all central asia and africa represent not only huge resources but more importantly customers for china's excess engineering capability (infrastructure).

Oh and which will be more important in the last half of this century, 300m US customers or 4.6B africans and 4.7B asians?

 

[Saint]

I believe war is unavoidable and I'm confident China is not resource constrained

1) China will be Australian iron ore independent with a major milestone just 3 years away. Total independence is less than 10.

2) China has namibia and kazakh for uranium

3) Mongolia for coal

4) The dispute over the south china sea is its vast O&G reserves plus china will secure O&G from russia

5) China has copper from areas the west won't tread - iraq, pakistan and afghan plus zambia

I don't believe we will see a direct war with china over china but we will have proxy wars like vietnam and korea. Taiwan is an obvious hot spot but we shouldn't ignore the importance of africa and central asia. After all central asia and africa represent not only huge resources but more importantly customers for china's excess engineering capability (infrastructure).

Oh and which will be more important in the last half of this century, 300m US customers or 4.6B africans and 4.7B asians?

If they're so powerful and independent, why do they need any wars?

Uranium is not in shortage anywhere in the world.

It's fine for China to be able to be independent from Australian Iron Ore, but in the long run, it will just make Australia's steel exports more competitive and drive up prices in China. 90% of their Iron ore comes from Brazil or Australia. It's not like it's becoming a hugely diversified market like Oil and Gas is.

 

[Power Raid]

If they're so powerful and independent, why do they need any wars?

Uranium is not in shortage anywhere in the world.

It's fine for China to be able to be independent from Australian Iron Ore, but in the long run, it will just make Australia's steel exports more competitive and drive up prices in China. 90% of their Iron ore comes from Brazil or Australia. It's not like it's becoming a hugely diversified market like Oil and Gas is.

Australia's steel exports would be bugger all

In terms of iron ore, not only will China's African supply increase but the end user market will shift from China to central Asia and more importantly Africa. Essentially pushing Australia out of the market due to the lower grade and the transport costs.

Then once marginal producers are cheap, china will pick them off by price dumping like glencore does to zinc producers.



China will need wars if it is to change the status quo on international power. Power changed from continental europe to the US slowly through industrial might and then rapidly through war. This enabled the US to cement its power through international trade and influence in global legal systems. China is seeking to achieve the same outcome and to achieve it, it requires war.

 

[QuietB]

Australia's steel exports would be bugger all

In terms of iron ore, not only will China's African supply increase but the end user market will shift from China to central Asia and more importantly Africa. Essentially pushing Australia out of the market due to the lower grade and the transport costs.

Then once marginal producers are cheap, china will pick them off by price dumping like glencore does to zinc producers.



China will need wars if it is to change the status quo on international power. Power changed from continental europe to the US slowly through industrial might and then rapidly through war. This enabled the US to cement its power through international trade and influence in global legal systems. China is seeking to achieve the same outcome and to achieve it, it requires war.

If China goes to war they will not be receiving iron ore from Brazil. There is zero chance. Firs the USA will buy Brazil off and if that doesn't work the ships will be target practice.

Also, maybe they can get oil and gas from Russia - but I'm not sure how. There are no pipelines, the arctic is not passable for half the year and any ships that don't hit an iceberg still need to get past Korea and Japan which is not happening.

And then there is the issue of what are they going to eat?

And then there the issue of who are they going to trade with?

There is not going to be a war.

 

[RandB]

Australia's steel exports would be bugger all

In terms of iron ore, not only will China's African supply increase but the end user market will shift from China to central Asia and more importantly Africa. Essentially pushing Australia out of the market due to the lower grade and the transport costs.

Then once marginal producers are cheap, china will pick them off by price dumping like glencore does to zinc producers.

You are seriously selling these African countries for mugs.

Notwithstanding the inherent sovereign risk, depending on region, it is inevitable that a lot of African trade will be nationalised one way or another. Tanzania, Mozambique, the large port nations on east coast are taking significant stakes in foreign mining companies already. You think China will just pick these companies off? I wouldn't be surprised if they become a base/precious metals version of OPEC in the next decade.

Also, what makes you think Aussie IO is all the b grade stuff? There are some very significant magnetite deposits already scoped in Australia with assumably many more to come.