Do You Support Australia's Submarine Policy?

I won't bother posting any links to media reports about the Australian governments recent announcement regarding its submarine policy and related purchase agreements, so as to not taint the discussion with one media slant vs another.

My view - I with Paul Keating on this and think that this is a really bad decision on any number of fronts.

  • The costs are huge. I know we are talking decades away, but that just means we are only really guessing what the actual costs will be. As well as somehow finding the money for this, it likely means that funding for other things is likely to be detrimentally impacted (e.g. social housing, health, education, environment, etc.)

  • Do we actually need submarines? Most dialogue is around the "threat" from China, but I can't really think of any reason why China would engage in a war with Australia, or with our closest neighbours. I've seen reports that suggest China probably won't even push to take over Taiwan, given the perceived global effects of doing that.

  • As we wait decades for the submarines to be built and delivered, we are apparently to host US nuclear submarines as a stop-gap measure. I'm pretty sure that is against our nuclear-free Pacific treaty obligations and, if you believe China would be aggressive in the future, make us a nuclear target.

  • We will apparently need to deal with nuclear waste in the future.

Poll Options

  • 412
    I'm all for it
  • 701
    I'm against it
  • 55
    I don't care

Comments

  • +68

    Man how good was Mr Keating at the NPC? Absolutely shredded a heap of journo's who needed their ego's checked.

    I'm completely with Mr Keating. Mr Albanese will need to do another NPC address to why he thinks Australia needs those subs.

    • +17

      Can't stand Keating, which makes it so hard to be in 100% agreement with him for a change.

      • +2

        ha ha!

        • +21

          Keating was "The Man", and still is. He eviscerated the current clowns.
          He was too kind to Wong. She's an obsequious, vacuous shop window manikin.
          We all knew Dutton got his nose caught in Trumps zipper, (he brought the US strain of Covic into our parliament. What a numpty) but the ALP has no excuse, other than either bribed,threatened or sold out. I suspect we have a trifecta. Consider our arses entirely owned by the weapons industry.
          At a time when people are homeless, RE prices are toxic, gas (if you can find any spare stuff locally) up another 30% (you know the sh!t we donate to corporate America) the idea of jobs in 40 years as the driver is insanity on steroids.

          That said, the sheeples will swallow it.
          God Bless America

          • +3

            @Protractor: 'Mannequin'

            • @Sxio: Oh yeah. Deepest apologies to the birds.
              And to anyone named Covic.( I meant covid)

      • +1

        I love Keating's theatrics and his confidence.
        His ideas are (often) garbage but his delivery is fantastic.

    • +29

      He makes absolute sense. a true Australian for Australia. It's better to spend it on larger number of smaller advanced conventional subs. This is another buying old retried Abram Tanks moment. Our military is clearly compromised.

      • +8

        Yeah, did you watch his address to the NPC? He touches on that a lot. Really sad turn for Australia, and I'm a Labor-stan

      • +11

        It's not sense. Why do we need a small number of manned subs in the 2030s and 2040s when we should be using lots of Unmanned Undersea Vehicles? We can't crew the Collins, what makes us think we can crew more, more complex subs?

        • +4

          Right. maybe you can design one for us to use? there is nothing on the market currently that offers autonomous capability to defend our vast shore line. If there is such a thing the Russian blacksea fleet would not exist nor would Ukraine need missiles to take down the Moskva.

          • +8

            @Creamsoda: If the government put money on the table, Australian industry could innovate. An unmanned underwater vehicle could be a great export industry for Australia.

          • +2

            @Creamsoda: There are many in prototype now - check out Boeing's Orca XLUUV. But we're not talking today. We're talking 2030s and 2040s. There is a lot of work being done on AI systems, propulsion systems (including air independent propulsion) as a precursor to a full scale operational unit. But the fact remains is that not having a crew compartment and life support means they can be smaller, have higher endurance and lower cost than a manned sub.

            • +9

              @Helmuth: well the technology is still in early stages and unproven but why not purchase proven tech now to defend our coasts and also work on autonomous tech at the same time? this $380B cost will surely cover both developments and more.

              Just goes to show we are paying protection money to the biggest mob boss in the world. The insane logic of supporting the Military Industrial Complex = Peace exposes our system is compromised with USA first AUS second/third mentality.

      • +7

        Yeah that was a really strong point. The sheer amount of conventional subs for the same dough would make anyone think twice about approaching here. What's the need to have these super deep subs that can just sit off someone else's country? That's great for the world powers, but not really a capability that we need?

        • +2

          We as common people are not qualified to understand what either option means. You dont undertand military strategy, just like we dont understand brain surgery techniques.

          Leave the decisions to the professionals.

          • +9

            @CowFrogHorse: I'll concede that even the best read non-military person will be unaware of details that MAY be critical to understanding choices.

            However, modern history (past 30-40yrs) shows our Govts (& Navy brass) have completely stuffed up MULTIPLE submarine selection processes.

            The Collins class debacle, subsequent moves to go with Japanese subs that was not proceeded with, then French subs that was gone ahead with, then cancelled on, damaging our national reputation as a reliable trading partner on major projects, a 555million Euro contract break fee……and now this $370B and we're meant to TRUST the higher ups know better this time? Not sure on what logical basis one could suggest that.

            • -1

              @Daniel Plainview: Im not going to deny governments stuff up, just like surgeons stuff up and people die.

              BUT

              If an ordinary person with no skills or qualificatins were to try surgery, the results would be even worse.

            • +3

              @Daniel Plainview: Yes, i thought their response of 'leave it to the professionals' was very interesting. Like, I wish we could trust our politicians to make good decisions. Scott Morrison had how many ministries? That he didn't tell anyone that he was heading up?

              It's not good. Barnaby joyce for a long time was the 2nd most powerful person in the country. That's not good either.

          • +3

            @CowFrogHorse: That's why I said it as a question. To learn more. But the same was asked of Paul Keating at the conference. He was asked that he hadn't had a high level security briefing in over 20 years, why does he think he can have an opinion on this now? His response was "because I read everyday and I have a brain".

            I'm usually one for the professionals too, but this is politics, the quality of the incumbents is very low at best and I think we should all be watching these hundred billion dollar decisions very closely.

            • +4

              @Sxio: Sxio:
              But the same was asked of Paul Keating at the conference. He was asked that he hadn't had a high level security briefing in over 20 years, why does he think he can have an opinion on this now?

              cow:
              Opinions are free, that doesnt make it an expert today or 20 years ago.

              Even back then he would have been receiving general summaries, he would not understand all the exacting details on every topic that came across his desk. Im sure he also sponsored many medicare budgets, that doesnt make him an expert in any doctoring or surgery.

              Politicians dont study the topic they are supporting to any large depth, its simply not possible, it would need a thousand lifetimes to study and truely undestand every topic in any government budget. They take advice from hopefully people who know better.

              • @CowFrogHorse: So just trust in the experts and not have an opinion? That's your opinion.

                Well. You're entitled to it. Don't know why you bother posting in a thread like this though. You should be fine with things as is.

                • +4

                  @Sxio: So please tell me which is the safe bet ?

                  if someone in your family is really unwell… do you visit a doctor or hospital or do you ask ozbargain ?

                  Should Qantas employee qualified mechanics and other experts when they fix and service their planes, or should they post a message on ozbargain hoping for advice ?

                  Problem with fools is they think they know everything when they actually know nothing, and they should shutup.

                  • +5

                    @CowFrogHorse: That's a good example because lots of ppl have trusted Drs and really regretted it. Also i have about 7 Drs in my family and trust me, they're all human they all make mistakes.

                    But i broadly agree with you that generally we should let experts make decisions, except that this is a political decision using hundreds of billions of dollars over many years. I think it should be talked about. And i think your attitude is very interesting that you'd rather everyone not talk about it and just let it happen.

          • -1

            @CowFrogHorse: I agree. I know I'm probably going to get negged for this

          • +2

            @CowFrogHorse: Have you seen our politicians and their advisers? They are not objective experts. They are ideology driven.

        • Sure, we could buy tons of conventional subs, we wouldn't be able to crew that many though.

          The entire point of a sub is stealth, when you're underwater you're on battery power. As such, to go from one side of the country to the other, you would need to "snort" (the technical term for coming up to the surface) multiple to let the batteries recharge. Combine that with the incredible AI and surveillance capabilities available today, it's not a very stealthy option.

      • -2

        A true Australian for Australians ?

        Is this the same PM that sold many solid gold Australian companies like CommBank and removed tariffs destroying many Australian industries ?

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Keating

        Keating oversaw the gradual elimination of tariffs on imports,[38] the privatisation of several state-owned companies such as Qantas,[39] CSL Limited,[40] and the Commonwealth Bank,[41] the deregulation of significant sections of the banking system (including allowing for numerous foreign-owned banks to begin operating in Australia for the first time) and the granting of autonomy on decision-making to the Reserve Bank of Australia.

      • +5

        Yeah better hope they send all their troops via Sydney Harbour…

        • +1

          Thats not how subs work, all the powers always have at least one or more subs out in the deep ocean, so no matter what they can launch their nukes.

          Today there are subs from all the world powers in the deep oceans, they are not sitting in port and having lunch.

          Please stop talking about matters you have no idea about.

          • @CowFrogHorse:

            all the powers always have at least one or more subs out in the deep ocean, so no matter what they can launch their nukes.
            […]
            Please stop talking about matters you have no idea about.

            Just wait guys. The irony here will hit him aaaaany minute now…

            • -2

              @moar bargains: @moar

              Says the person whose sentences make no actual factual point.

              Stick to childish petty insults, its clearly all you can do.

              • +5

                @CowFrogHorse: These subs will not ever carry nukes. That has been said lots of times. These subs only have nuclear power to make them run without needing diesel fuel.

                You are correct that the nuclear powers that have ballistic missile submarines (US, UK, France, Russia, China, India. I'm leaving out North Korea as they appear to only have one submarine capable of launching SLBMs) have at least one submarine on constant patrol, as part of their nuclear deterrence strategy. In the case of the USA, Russia and China, this is one arm of their nuclear triad. However, as repeatedly mentioned, Australia is not acquiring nuclear armed submarines (SSBNs), but nuclear powered submarines (SSNs). Neither the US Virginia class, not the future AUKUS class SSNs are/will be armed with nuclear weapons. Australia is also a signatory to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.

                Now I understand the point you were making to smartazz104 was that the deterrent capability of submarines in general is their locational ambiguity, which complicates the strategic calculus of an adversary, and forces them to likely expend additional resources in anti submarine warfare and/or defence of their assets. However, for you to talk about (implicitly our future) submarines sitting out there ready to "launch their nukes" and then berate smartazz104 for "talking about matters you have no idea about" is somewhat ironic.

      • +7

        Watch Mr Keating's address to the NPC or kindly don't comment on matters you have zero business commenting on. Also, turn off SkyNews

      • +6

        You seem eager to go to war with them. Most people dont.

    • Really you cant think of a single idea like China ?

      I suppose you think Ukraine should wave flowers at Russia, and hope they leave them alone.

      • +2

        Either watch Paul Keating's address to the NPC, in it's entirety and then comment your thoughts, or remain in wilful ignorance of stately matters.

        • +6

          Many things are said, but you havent actually made a point.

          Secondly Paul Keeting doesnt have a military background, politicians are basically clueness taking advice they dont actually have a deep understanding.

          • -3

            @CowFrogHorse: lol so I'll take that as you wanting to remain blissfully ignorant.

            Secondly Paul Keeting doesnt have a military background, politicians are basically clueness taking advice they dont actually have a deep understanding.

            You wouldn't have an effing clue about Mr Keating's credentials or understanding of the matter. I am embarrassed for you that you made this comment because it displays your rampant hypocrisy.

            Just what even are your credentials on the matter?

            • +1

              @ThithLord: Thith: You wouldn't have an effing clue about Mr Keating's credentials or understanding of the matter

              cow: i do have a clue, he only went to high school, his entire work history has been in parliament, he has never served in any of our armed forces.

              Go read wiki.

              Thith: I am embarrassed for you that you made this comment because it displays your rampant hypocrisy.

              cow: Wow how mature. You cant even talk like an adult all you can do is call people names.

              Thith: Just what even are your credentials on the matter?

              cow: Ive read his bio on wiki, feel free to provide links that show he has a military background.

              • -1

                @CowFrogHorse: lmao. Absolutely lmao.

                No, sorry, I won't engage further. You skipped over all his insane accomplishments to say that he didn't serve in the military, therefore he couldn't possibly know how to handle the geopolitical world stage.

                You are so far out of your grasp. Seriously. Watch the YT I posted or just log off OzB

                • +2

                  @ThithLord: thith: You skipped over all his insane accomplishments to say that he didn't serve in the military,

                  cow: So have you, please list his military accomplishments.

                  He is an experienced Politician, that doesnt make him an expert in military tactics or equipment, it also doesnt make him an expert brain surgeon.

                  ~

                  thith: therefore he couldn't possibly know how to handle the geopolitical world stage.

                  cow: Feel free to share examples of his political skill on the world stage when he was PM.

                  Being PM doesnt make him a statesman, he didnt negotiate a peace, or save Australia from invasion or stop a war etc.

                • +3

                  @ThithLord: ThitH: You are so far out of your grasp. Seriously. Watch the YT I posted or just log off OzB

                  cow: You demand that you are right, and all your replies SHOW ZERO examples for any of your points.

                  Learn to write like an adult, make a view or statement, then detail examples from history with links. THe only thing you can do is insult, and it shows your replies are MORE insult than any sharing or detailing historical facts, which have given ZERO.

            • +1

              @ThithLord: thith: Just what even are your credentials on the matter?

              cow: i can read.

              ~

              thith: I am embarrassed for you that you made this comment because it displays your rampant hypocrisy.

              cow: Hypocrisy ?

              DO you know what the word means ? Provide an example with a quote that shows i say one thing and do another in my personal life. REAL PROOF…

              ~

        • What did you think of his comments on the treatment of the Uyghurs? I found his whataboutism response while noting the treatment of Uyghurs is in dispute very off-putting

          May have been distracted by the vitriol he felt towards the journalist asking the question, but came across as being very careful not to criticise the CCP

          • +1

            @595:

            What did you think of his comments on the treatment of the Uyghurs? I found his whataboutism response while noting the treatment of Uyghurs is in dispute very off-putting

            I understand that on the surface it looks like whataboutism - but it mostly isn't. He wasn't necessarily highlighting the fact of how we treat our first nations people and have treated them in the past - he was saying the Chinese could absolutely, easily give us the same flack for how we treat them in our prison system and use that as a drum to beat. It would be blatant hypocrisy for them to point out how we treat our First Nations people, and how atrociously they have been disenfranchised by greater Australia since Australia was colonised. Why do we look the other way at how the disadvantaged are treated in this country? Is it because of the scale, there's a million Uyghurs so that makes what happens here in Australia OK?

            He ultimately was saying you can't navigate the world-stage, geopolitically speaking, on granular matters. You need to form opinion on as many different matters as possible.

    • -1

      Mr Keating is not in this era. We need subs to deter foreign attacks else Australia will continue to be seen as weak country on defense.

    • -1

      I disagree with Keating here. He lacked nuance and fell for the "war" or "piece" false binary. In an all out war, no sub will turn the tide. In a medium conventional conflict within our sphere of influence they rpvode a unique and key tactical ability and more importantly provide a deterrence. The worse thing would be wasting money on shitty diesel subs.

      Really I think we should have been involved in these projects decades ago and invested heavily in nuclear technologies research including power and propulsion systems.

  • +77

    Australia enjoys the protection of the US military which costs trillions of dollars a year. I think it's only fair we chip in. The US means we don't need a "real" military ourselves to enjoy the freedoms we take for granted.

    • +24

      There are probably a couple of viewpoints on this.
      - Do we actually need the protection of the USA?
      - The USA military is probably the biggest industry the USA has. It is in its own interest to keep building it bigger and bigger.
      - The freedoms we take for granted are borne more from our political system than any real military threat mitigation.
      As I said, I just don't see why China (as an example) would want to physically invade Australia.

      • +35

        Yes.

        Us spending 360 billion on submarines creates a drain on the US military industry, but it also helps fund it in the long term. This lowers the US nuclear submarine making capacity in the short term, but increases it in the long term.

        You're dreaming if you believe the US has nothing to do with the peace Australia has enjoyed the last 100 years.

        China would love to take over the role the US has, with military bases in Australia, giant satellite dishes, access to our militarily relevant minerals, etc. Russia would to for that matter. Even our minor neighbours would love to settle their butts in Australia if it weren't for the US already being here.

        • +2

          Australia hasn't had peace for the last 100 years; we were subject to bombings in WW2.
          Our freedoms that you spoke of are not equated to peacetime.

          • +23

            @GG57: That wasn't a big issue, we single handedly held off Japan and controlled the Pacific Ocean with our own military, keeping Japan at bay. Oh wait..

            • +10

              @AustriaBargain: Australian troops were in WW2 at the behest of the UK.
              USA had their own reasons to support Australia in this region.

          • +4

            @GG57: WOw so you want complete perfect peace ?

            I suppose you dont want hospitals aswell, bad stuff happens, kids break their arms, war happens.

            Australia has had a very good run.

          • +4

            @GG57: just to tack on here -
            Australian's have been dragged into all of the US' wars that, arguably, they start e.g Vietnam War, Korean War, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc
            essentially the we're the US' bottom of the world bitch… just saying

        • +2

          "Us spending 360 billion on submarines creates a drain on the US military industry, "

          How so, it's my understanding that the subs are second-hand jobbies.

          • +2

            @EightImmortals: There's been a lot of talk about a limit on the number of nuclear submarines the US can make. While I'm sure selling some to us is a good thing, it must also kind of suck for them that some of their limited possible nuclear subs are going to us instead of a more strategic partner or directly in the US fleet itself.

        • +2

          I think we can pretty safely rule out Russia as a threat to anyone at this point. They can't even maintain an invasion in Ukraine which is right next to Moscow, culturally similar, and much smaller. They lost their flagship destroyer to Ukraine - who don't even have a navy! The only thing keeping Russia afloat is the threat that some of their nuclear weapons might still work.

          China seems smart enough to only meddle in the politics of large nations rather than trying to use military invasions.

          • @macrocephalic: It's not really an accurate reflection of their capability. They aren't only facing the resources of one country

          • +2

            @macrocephalic: It is not wise to underestimate Russia. They still have a decent chance at winning the conflict in Ukraine. It will be via attrition for sure but the war is still very much in flux.

            China has also just had a centralisation of power that it hasn't seen since Mao. Dictatorships work well until they don't. Decisions that seem logical for us can be very different for someone who will likely be killed if they ever lose power.

        • +1

          Then you would have to give up the centrelink payments and the Medicare that you receive every week for the submarines.

      • +21

        Do we actually need the protection of the USA?

        Yes. There's zero chance we could defend ourselves and the only way we could even put up a reasonable fight would be to spend far more than this is costing on our own military. While I doubt China is going to attack anyone, not having the US's support means we get put into a potential Ukraine situation, where we get "support", but they're not coming in to fight with us.

        Which to me, seems fairly pointless when we can basically pay a subscription to the US military instead.

        I'm not really for this at all (it seems massively expensive and unnecessary), but I can kind of see the objective.

        • +8

          Myanmar, cambodia, vietnam, n.korea. All those neighbouring countries do not have US protections. Has China invaded them? No. So why would they risk sending boats to Australia which so much further away to invade us. You and every other person's argument about requiring the protection of USA is invalid and due to fear mongering.

          Every empire throughout history was done in a way that the area of invasion grew outwards from its home base. That would mean that japan or korea or taiwan would be first in China's firing line if a so called invasion were to happen.

          • +14

            @mrvaluepack: Have you seen the island building china is doing in waters that are closer to numerous other countries then China?
            They said they would not militarise those islands and now they are armed fortresses.

            • +11

              @DarwinBoy: Meanwhile the US has 900 bases around the world lol. Where's the outrage?

              • +10

                @TightAl: I agree; the USA military is a huge industry for the USA. And no-one seems to mind (including Australia) when they effectively take control of some of their country, in the name of 'defence support'.

                • +7

                  @GG57: Or dont forget their favorite phrase in the name of 'freedom'!

          • +4

            @mrvaluepack: Where's the fearmongering? I don't think China is going to do anything. Even a war in Taiwan is exceptionally unlikely. China is not stupid like Russia. However, the reality is that China is making a lot of strategic moves to control the region and having a strong alliance with the US and UK sets a boundary on how far China can push it and they know that.

            I also said I don't really agree with this. It's a crazy amount of money that could be spent on other things. I merely said that I can see what the idea behind this is, not that I think it's right.

          • +1

            @mrvaluepack: You arent looking back far enough. China is a country made up of dozens of different people nations. Tibet is not their only invasion. Taiwan itself was invaded hundreds of years ago, the local what we call Chinese Taiwanese are not the native peoples.

            They have invaded Korea, and Vietnam, the problem is you arent going back far enough.

            • +4

              @CowFrogHorse: How far do you want to go back lol? To when european colonies were invading and colonizing other lands? By your logic we should be most worried about the germans (nazi), french (napolean), japan (ww2), etc… instead

              • -3

                @mrvaluepack: Again you dont understand.

                What you or myself think doesnt matter - its what they think. This is CCP policy and mindset.

                https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Century_of_humiliation

                Implications

                The usage of the Century of Humiliation in the Chinese Communist Party's historiography and modern Chinese nationalism, with its focus on the "sovereignty and integrity of [Chinese] territory,"[15] has been invoked in incidents such as the US bombing of the Chinese Belgrade embassy, the Hainan Island incident, and protests for Tibetan independence along the 2008 Beijing Olympics torch relay.[16] Some analysts have pointed to its use in deflecting foreign criticism of human rights abuses in China and domestic attention from issues of corruption and bolstering its territorial claims and general economic and political rise.[13][17][18]

                • +4

                  @CowFrogHorse: What has that got to do with Australia's defense and probability that China will invade Australia?

                  Australia was never part of China - why should they invade or attack us to reclaim what was never theirs?

                  I dont see Australia involved in any of those humiliation events - what revenge/retaliation would China be seeking on Australia?

                  Your comments don't make sense. Watch the Keating interview.

                  • +2

                    @mrvaluepack: It has everything to do with Australia… because China sees Australia as the west which humiliated them.

                    Im sorry but you have no idea of the CCP mindset, im sure a few moments ago you had no idea of this view from the chinese and the west. You only understand things from your Australian perspective, you have no idea how THEY think. Its a very different culture and mindset stop being arrogant and making assumptions when you have no idea of their thoughts.

                    • +6

                      @CowFrogHorse: And you know best or better than me??? LOL

                      Stop being brain washed by mainstream media propaganda. Did you watch the Keating interview or were you too arrogant to do it?

                      I'm not saying that China won't invade any country in the future but I'm pretty sure Australia is not one of them. Logistically too difficult and not worth it. Like Keating said, how do I know? Because I have a brain and I read.

                      • @mrvaluepack: mrvalue: And you know best or better than me??? LOL

                        cow: Did i say i know best ?

                        Can you actually quote where i said that ?

                        ~

                        mrvalue: Stop being brain washed by mainstream media propaganda.

                        cow: So i should listen to someone who knows next to nothing ?

                        You are simpleton, in these situations its not important what YOU or ME think its WHAT THEY think.

                        ~

                        mrvalue: Did you watch the Keating interview or were you too arrogant to do it?

                        cow: What a pos you are calling me names because i dont agree with you. Grow up.

                        You now next to nothing about chinese politics and history and yet you think you can demand that i obey your made up bullshot.

                        ~

                        mrvalue: I'm not saying that China won't invade any country in the future but I'm pretty sure Australia is not one of them

                        cow: Because ?

                        ~

                        mrvalue: Logistically too difficult and not worth it. Like Keating said, how do I know? Because I have a brain and I read.

                        cow: What have you read ?

                        Links ?

                        If you are going to claim you have read, then have the brains to say what you have read and provide links if possible.

                        Yo didnt even know of a basic chinese communist party doctrine, so whatever you have read its not history …

                    • @CowFrogHorse: Can you elaborate on what the CCP's mindset is? What's your experience with the CCP? Have you ever lived in China? Kevin Rudd has spoken to Xi Jinping before in person, do you think you know more than Kevin Rudd?

                      Asking these questions purely out of curiosity.

      • +2

        Why would China want to physically invade Taiwan?
        But everyone acknowledges its a real possibility.

        • +17

          Because Xi Jinping has said it will happen by any means necessary?
          Numerous times.

        • +5

          There is an area about 2km2 that makes 95% of the worlds microchips. A shit load of IP has been poured into this over the decades and if it gets into China’s hand, it will be a bad day for civilisation.

          • +3

            @82norm: Yup - and tack onto that the export restrictions that the US announced against allowing countries/companies to share microchip technology & equipment with China (was announced several months ago) - which only makes Taiwan even more attractive to China.

            If we're being fair - Taiwan was always part of China - it was never given up etc - it's where the Chinese Nationalists holed up when they lost the civil war against the Communists.

            So it's not unreasonable for China to want it back - infact I'd say it's pretty fair. But all intl experts seems to state that the US has made that a hard line in the sand and will engage in a conventional war for it.

            Issue here is - China wants it a LOT more than the US wants to deny them - so if you think Russia is crazy with their willingness to lose lives to 'denazify'(ridiculous I know but go figure) Ukraine - you can only imagine the loss of life China will happily stomach to get Taiwan back.

            Honestly the Intl community would be much better off sitting down and working out a peaceful way for China to have Taiwan as part of it. There is no perfect solution here - but no point starting or getting involved in a war you're not prepared to see through fully. China would, I suspect the US would blink first.

          • @82norm: Mainly thanks to Donald Trump, TSMC and Samsung are building chip plants in the US.

            If Taiwan was ever invaded by the CCP and was in danger of falling, Taiwanese sappers would level those chip plants in short order.

            China would get their hands on rubble.

        • +1

          Because the Chinese consider Taiwan a renegate province. Both sides consider themselves the rightful government of the chinese nation.

          China is made up of many people/nations, if they let one go, the others will get ideas. This is why they do their evil to the western muslim nations in China.

      • +2

        China won't invade but they might decide to blockade international waters in the south China sea and our trade routes to the rest of the world. They are already causing problems in the Philippines

        • +9

          lol yes, China want to stop trade, their largest export! Yes! It's all making sense!

          • +2

            @ThithLord: Of course, why have any military at all when we can just rely on good intentions and nothing ever changing? We have trade with China, so they will always be happy to do what is in our interests.

            • +2

              @greatlamp: wtf is even your point? Just blabbering absolute insanity as if you're making a point?

              • +1

                @ThithLord: What is your point? You are the one being sarcastic and making irrelevant statements. Do I have to quote you the comment above? Why do you get to tell me I am blabbering when you do the same. Maybe you should present your point honestly in the first place.

                • +6

                  @greatlamp: Fair enough.

                  To suggest China will block trade routes (when they exported over 3 TRILLION dollars in 2022) is woefully misinformed.

        • +2

          That statement just makes about as much sense as buying subs to defend our trade routes through the South China sea with China against China. As most of our trade going through that route are with China.

        • They are already causing problems in the Philippines

          They are causing problems with ALL its neighbours (except Russia and their ally North Korea).

        • +2

          https://youtu.be/MTCqXlDjx18 Watch this only 1 minutes and 31 seconds long..

      • +4

        Why would China invade when they can easily manipulate us economically anyhow?

        • +6

          Replace the word China with America

      • +4

        Australia is probably the biggest prize for natural resources in the world.

        A manufacturing country like China needs resources, thats why they are building the pipelines and roads to the Europe and the middle east. THey are also building all sorts of things in Africa so they get first grab at the local countries natural resources.

        Australia is one of the biggest if not the biggest jewel for natural resources in the world, food, stuff in the ground, and more.

        • +4

          That isn't in dispute.
          But it doesn't support the notion that China would invade Australia to get those resources, food, water, etc.

Login or Join to leave a comment