**Greetings humans.**
**Please make sure your comment fits within [THE RULES](https://www.reddit.com/r/AustralianPolitics/about/rules) and that you have put in some effort to articulate your opinions to the best of your ability.**
**I mean it!! Aspire to be as "scholarly" and "intellectual" as possible. If you can't, then maybe this subreddit is not for you.**
A friendly reminder from your political robot overlord
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AustralianPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Hanlon’s razor states: Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity. I think that that series was the opposite of that - directed by malice.
I don’t like China’s behaviour at all, but I feel like these articles are more about justifying the spend on missiles and subs.
The public seem to be (quite rightly) questioning the defence budget when many can’t afford groceries or power.
So what do they do? Tell us to be afraid. Tell us war is imminent. Well I’m thoroughly convinced…
Thank fuck for those subs eh?
Look on the bright side.
If we go to war in the next 3 years we can save $360b and Scotty Albanese will stop grinning about making us America's errand boy.,
If we go to war in the next 30 years it’ll be the same. The Americans and Brit’s are already struggling with available dry dock space for their own subs, why do we think they’d honestly prioritise the most junior of junior partners when they have ongoing, unavoidable issues?
I didn’t bother reading the series because I thought it would be sensationalism, but I still think China is a threat and they can’t be trusted.
It’s the stuff they do in the background or try to get away with like the spy balloons and the island building in the South China Sea - they get caught and either deny it, say it’s their right, or generally gaslight.
Yall forgetting the shit they pulled when covid first appeared, chinese sponsored planes bought 1000's of PPE products back to china. Literal state agents taken produts off our shelfs In what world does that happen? They flew out of chinese owned airstrip in WA. And some.of you morons have the gall to say theyre not a threat.
But you trust the US who conned us to war with a lie.
BTW the US government blocked hurricane aid to Puerto Rico ( a US territory!) because Trump doesn't like brown people in "shit hole" countries.
And oh yeah Trump ( Putin's bestie) and the Repugs will never spend a nickel defending us. They have a majority in the House are close to equal favs for the presidency in 2024. What strange bedfellows you choose.
Did you visit a shopping centre at the start of Covid? Everyone and their grandmother was doing the same.
Like, of all the terrible things China has done throughout history, buying PPE for a pandemic sits pretty low on the list.
Its the fact that they took PPE away from our supply circulation to hospitals and our vunerable people. Is that is not sickening to you? The knock on effect is the we pay more in our taxes to pay for this, be it a surgeon needing a gown, hospital gloves, masks etc. Not to mention loss of life. Its crony capitalism I agree. It just proves they're a country/govenment that will happily throw us under the bus when the going gets tough.
I get where you’re coming from, I just think it’s a weak reason to consider them a potential enemy. And I’m not saying they’re not, but they did what anyone would do in a situation where they didn’t have enough, they bought more. We live in a capitalist society built on international commerce. If the option was there, they’d be stupid to refuse it. Were we antagonists that deserve punishment for taking vaccines for our 2nd and 3rd doses while developing nations were still struggling to fill the quota for their first? Or were we just a country looking out for its people?
I don’t want to come off as pro china because they’re obviously guilty of horrific things but treating such a valuable trading partner so publicly as the enemy when we have no one to replace them with seems incredibly short sighted.
A capitalist world.
Also largely sounds like the acts of a responsible government who needed the ppe for themselves and couldn't get it through other means.
Let's be real, if Australia or America could afford to do this, they would have.
Responsible goverment that bolt the doors of people with covid and or genocide ethnic minorities? To think the CCP cherish life is laughable. They will happily use child labour or sell human organs to turn a profit. Most Australians know theyre no good, under the table deals done by mr frydenburg are just the tip of the corruption iceburg in this country...
> To think the CCP cherish life is laughable
Not sure who you think claimed it wasn't. But if you want to take government deeds into account, neither do we.
Genocide of indigenous peoples
Persecution of the poor (robodebt)
Locking people up as political prisoners with no trial (asylum seekers detention laws)
We aren't saints either.
If you want to say you're scared that's fine. But you shouldn't try and dress that up as concern for human rights when you aren't concerned about rights or genocides here.
Were talking about todays news, issues of the past are not irrelevent and we have made mistakes. But thats the beauty of what we have is we know we make mistakes and we have a goverment that can adknowledge that. Yeah I am scared actually, for my children and their children, to have the freedom of speech were expressing in this moment. To have the freedom to be able to outwardly express their anger on misakes our goverment have made is what im arguing for.
> Were talking about todays news, issues of the past are not irrelevent and we have made mistakes
You're the one who brought up the past mate, not me.
> Yeah I am scared actually, for my children and their children, to have the freedom of speech were expressing in this moment
What makes you think you won't be able to? If the answer is just "they might invade" well, tbh so might a lot of places. It's pretty faulty reasoning which articles like the one posted play into.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/10/08/china-began-stockpiling-ppe-months-covid-outbreak/. Theres a video of chinese plane being loaded on the strip with PPE they bought off our shelfs, CCP are not our friends. Theres absolutely sauce.
Put this in your cup and drink it tosser https://www.smh.com.au/national/second-developer-flies-82-tonnes-of-medical-supplies-to-china-20200326-p54e8n.html
State sponsored. You do know there no such thing as a private company in a communist country right? The governement ultimately have any right to use your assets as they wish. Look at alibaba CEO see how going against CCP will work out for you?
Working hard to find an enemy. We were selling it. They were buying it. You application of hindsight to the situation to make a boogie man out of China is a long stretch. Like it or not our economic fortunes are tied to the larger economies of the world we need China. Making an enemy out of them is ludicrous. If they invade Taiwan or emulate Japan's WWII feats in conquering SE Asia then we have something to fear.
Its not a stretch, its fact that CCP policy to assertain political and economic advantage in the southern hemiphere, influence in pacific islands show that. Be it through trade or loan sharking, or straight up buying anything they can get their hands on. We can make do without china we just need leadership with foresight to make action in our life time, not a every 4 years. Youre pulling the wool if you think by that point theyve invaded SE Asia we would stand any chance at all. If it smells bad, if it looks bad, well you might be wrong in thinking it might just be bad.
If they want us, they have got us. Militarily speaking. If they turned their full might here the US would be the only power that could stop them. What was the tagline from Dr Strangelove? How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb
It's to make sure we still want to be a vassel state of America and don't think about our own interests or sovereignty too much. We're free, to do as America tells us... and they may want to tell us to go to war with our primary trading partner.
Margaret Simons is […] a member of the board of the Scott Trust, which owns Guardian Media Group.
So her opinion piece is an alternative opinion to that of the Fairfax editors. Nothing more.
Her personal criticism of Peter Hartcher is unfair and unjustified.
To think that Foreign Minister Wong can stabilise relations with words alone is frankly infantile. There us truth in Roosevelt’s saying ‘speak softly and carry a big stick’
The subs are not a big stick, nor will they arrive any time soon. In fact, according to the Red Alert articles, they would be 16 yrs too late.
So I'll rephrase, we're talking loudly whilst holding a small twig, as we wait for our small stick to arrive.
You didn’t read very carefully did you. Subs will be sailing from HMAS Stirling with partly Australian crews in the next couple of years.
The only hold up is developing the ship to shore facilities so the US nuclear subs can dock there.
It’s not that there are a few more subs in the water that deters China, it is that they sailed the whole way underwater and Chinese don’t know where they are.
These subs would allow us to have nuclear weapons as a back up down the road. It’s shown by North Korea the best strategy is owning nuclear weapons to deal with a super power.
> It’s shown by North Korea
Oh yeah, because they're the shining light of what a country should be, a beacon on the hill for all nations aspiring to greatness.
Come on dude, find better arguments than that if you want people to be on board with nuclear arms proliferation.
Nuke proliferation is about to kick off big time though. South Korea are about to get some.
And then if we fail to contain China, Japan will get some.
And then if we leave the US alliance, we will have to get some. How else do you protect yourself from the worlds large mafia dictatorship with openly stated expansionist and hegemonic goals?
They are also still successfully independent, unlike numerous other small countries that have crossed the major powers.
The question is "how do we guarantee our sovereignty facing unfriendly major powers". NK illustrate one possible path.
> America is what is broken about the world right now
Understanding the USA is a fundamentally and irrevocably broken institution doesn't mean we have to automatically take the side of anyone opposite the USA.
USA is broken, North Korea is broken, hell even South Korea is pretty broken just in a different way.
Just ignore the fact NK also have one of the largest standing armies and largest special forces units on the planet.
A heavily fortified border with rocky, mountainous terrain being easy to defend. And a defence alliance with China, giving large amounts of body fodder. And defence agreements with USSR.
These are the main reasons North Korea lasted into the 1990's. They didn't need nukes to hold off the Americans beforehand.
> These are the main reasons North Korea lasted into the 1990's.
They're pointing out how they made it to where they are – it's not because they're individually some bastion of military/diplomatic/economic prowess.
How stupid. Nuclear propulsion and nuclear weapons are completely unrelated. We could launch nuclear weapons from a diesel electric sub if we had them.
Yes but, these new submarines already have 12 vertical launch tubes for launching Tomahawk missiles which can be armed with both conventional or nuclear warheads.
And today, the government has announced that we are buying 220 Tomahawk missiles.
>You realise Australia signed the nuclear non proliferation treaty and have committed to not having having nuclear weapons.
Just like Queensland committed to human rights.
How'd that go?
Going down the Iran and North Korea route I would hardly say is the pathway to prosperity.
If we broke it there would be significant sanctions that would be imposed on us those countries that have signed, including countries in the EU and it would cripple outlet economy. That's is hardly meaningless.
Nuclear warheads were removed from Tomahawks to comply with a now vacated treaty. Luckily, the nuclear warheads were only disassembled and not disposed of, so now the treaty that banned them has been torn up, the can be reused.
Also, the US Navy never retired them. Their government told the Navy to remove them from service to meet treaty obligations, and the Navy finally removed the last Tomahawk nuclear warheads in 2013.
Because the navy still has them in storage, and with the treaty now torn up, approval from the president is all that's needed to load them onto ships and submarines again.
They could be reinstated but it’s unlikely IMO. It’s not like the US need a relatively short range nuclear strike capability.
The odds of us getting them are ludicrously low.
Because nuclear subs can remain submerged for much longer. Therefore they can hide better.
A diesel electric would have to surface so many times between Stirling and China that they could easily track it.
A nuke could travel underwater the whole way submerging as it left port.
Well apply your big brain to the present case and stop making stupid statements like “diesel electric subs are harder to detect”. Because they must surface to recharge their batteries they stick out like dogs balls.
Stop crapping on about littoral warfare. That’s not where the security threat exists. So many people on here have pointed out to you that the threat is not an invasion of Australia. The threat exists in the shipping lanes in the South China Sea, and to the supply chain for the high tech semiconductors made in Taiwan.
Maybe in the past they would have. But the Collins class is now 30 years ago. They are old technology and need to be updated.
I'm also not convinced that these new subs are worth the investment, but at the end of the day the Collins are old and need to be replaced.
They are smaller which does give them an advantage but they can't go as deep, nor for as long as these ones we will eventually get.
Plus with satellites and quantum computing all submarines will be easier to detect by the time we eventually get these AUKUS ones.
Again... No... Unless you want to rip the roof off the Submarines we are buying and retrofit new roofing that opens and closes and then add ICBM systems we don't have to then shoot weapons we don't have out the ICBM launchers we don't have then yeah maybe. Until then.... NO. Just plain and simply No. You bought the wrong model honey.
Wow, so confidently wrong.
The Virginia class submarines have 12 vertical launch tubes for launching Tomahawk missiles which can have either conventional or nuclear warheads.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia-class_submarine
Edit: Government has just announced that we will be buying 220 Tomahawk missiles.
Interestingly.... Tomahawk missiles were designed for offence and not defense. Pretty weird purchase you made there guy with a military consisting of about 85k people 🤣
200 Offensive bombs.... What happens after you use them all and realise China has 15,000 comparable bombs to return fire with? 🤭
Edit: Have fun with your Tomahawks though 🔪😂
you're never getting nukes little man with small man syndrome. 🤏
I remember touring a Virginia class sub about 18 years ago in the early 2000's.... They were cute.😄
I imagine technology has come a fair way since then. Which is probably why Americans prefer LA or Seawolf Class subs today 😋
Secondly and just as 🥱worthy. Ill add this as an Edit:
Virginia Payload Module
"Initially eight payload tubes/silos were planned but this was later rejected in favor of four tubes installed in a 70-foot (21 m) long module between the operations compartment and the propulsion spaces. The VPM could potentially carry (non-nuclear) medium-range ballistic missiles."
🥱🥱🥱🥱🥱
It even comes from the lazy same source you chose.... But with background of me not being a dumb idiot.🎤💧
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia-class\_submarine
Wow, So confidently ignorant of military hardware 😂A tomahawk missile is TLAM. Not an ICBM. Its also not nuclear and from the standpoint of physics its impossible for the missile in the tube to ever be nuclear and hope to fire. 🥱
Take another swing sparky. 🔌
What was behind it?
It was an exercise to soften us up to swallow the $368,000,000,000 pricetag to be announced a handful of days later. I mean it wasn’t even subtle.
Who was behind it?
God it’s quicker to ask who wasn’t. When you have Labor, the coalition including Nine Chair Costello, the Defence/Defense establishment in 3 countries and their handmaidens on the job at ASPI all in favour.
And only unshutupable recalcitrants like PJK with the profile and candour to say otherwise. (Oh and the Greens of course, but no one pays them a second’s attention on security issues).
>What was behind it?
Chinas openly stated expansionist and hegemonic goals? And their now decades of actions?
Nah. Its all a conspiracy to make money.
But vaccines...not a money making conspiracy. Big pharma had our best interests are heart with those highly effective 5 doses that dont stop you catching covid.
I have insider information from a patriotic spy in the CCP who mentioned that they have developed Chat GPTwo so when we open our filthy vaccinated mouths, the English will be heard as Chinese and we will hear Chinese as English in our vaccinated 5G (the toppest G) ears.
You are giving out way too much credit. It was purely gutter journalism meant to get the chimps chattering and a desperate attempt to create drama. It was more likely wheeled out to distract from the corruption shitshow that is the NSW LNP and lead the conversation away from the whole Robodebt enquiry that's really shining a light on a previous federal government. I doubt Nine media had Labor's interests in mind.
Why? What would be the direct threat to us? Because obviously morally we'd be supporting Taiwan, but you don't just jump into a war because you feel sorry for a country.
Not needed. Stability in the region comes from making it too costly for Chins to step out of line.
As long as they think we’re on board China is discouraged from acting.
Worth the risk you reckon? What's the gain for us, if we do declare war against the second most powerful military in the world, when our nearest allies are on the other side of the planet?
Put another way: if China nukes us, would America nuke them? How much are we willing to gamble on that?
Or finally, even if we do enter a protracted war against a country on our doorstep, what happens to the 500,000 Chinese born Australians? Or the 1.3m Australians with Chinese ancestry? How many of them would suffer racist shit because of a war where we have nothing to gain at all?
Even if we do go to war and even if we do survive until US ships arrive and bolster our defences, what's our end game? What benefit would we get from an exercise that could potentially cost us more than a trillion dollars?
I'm asking genuinely, I haven't made up my mind and I've been tossing this around for a few days. I feel for the people in Taiwan. All I'm saying is that if we feel the need to start going to war for ethnic minorities, we could probably pick easier enemies. We didn't invade Burma or Sudan, but they might have been easier places to start.
>if China nukes us, would America nuke them?
Nukes isnt how you win. Everyone chill with the nukes. You notice how all the pariah states have nukes? Have they won anything?
>what happens to the 500,000 Chinese born Australians? Or the 1.3m Australians with Chinese ancestry?
Rasist CCP shill talking point. They like to focus on those handful of incidents in a country with millions of Chinese walking around. Could only find 2 or 3 low level incidents? Pathetic. CCP actively encourage racism against foreigners though, dont talk about that.
>What benefit would we get from an exercise that could potentially cost us more than a trillion dollars?
We wouldnt find ourselves on the list of pariah states? We would rather buy more lifted Ford Raptors than support the free world?
Sad times are these when we have to ask such questions.
The second this war kicks off China trade is over. Whether we join or not. The whole thing was a bit of an artificial state of affairs anyway. Part of the CCPs plans for global domination were to corner a whole bunch of globally important manufacturing industries. Steel is the big one. When the CCP falls, which it will, and China becomes a democratic country (imagine that for a future. Dare to imagine.) that giant low quality steel production will go away. Which is what Xiting is really worried about. The giant bubble that Australia has become. Oof. Get ready to be kicked in the nuts.
People have hardly any idea of what is going on.
> when our nearest allies are on the other side of the planet?
Our nearest allies are closer, but let's assume you were talking about the USA. They are closer to China than we are.
>Worth the risk you reckon? What's the gain for us
Our economy. The moment China invades Taiwan our economy over in an instant. We will be forced to fight.
I have, we routinely violate small nations sovereignty, especially with the debacle over Timor Leste and Agent K, as well as our offshore processing. We engage in bribery and exploitative resource extraction, in fact Rio Tinto is one of the most hated mining companies in Africa because of how bad we act. The aid we have given has been contingent on these small nations not asserting their authority or sovereignty on issues that we don't want to hear about, or even issues our allies don't want to hear about like nuclear testing bans. We are incredibly arrogant to the many small island nations around us, when the Solomon Islands started making deals with China people were talking about it like it was our Island. We constantly neglect building connections with our regional neighbours and choose instead to follow America and the UK. Not just AUKUS, we were committing war crimes in Afghanistan just a few years ago for no good reason, not to mention the Iraq war.
The only positive thing I have read Australia doing lately is pushing for a major trade deal with India, which I'm hoping helps strengthen connections but doesn't just end in more fossil fuels being dug up and sold.
What have you been reading that makes you think Australia is a good neighbour and ally?
So… your saying that when the economy crashes because we can no longer get Chinese manufactured goods we should then spend a couple hundred billion to trillion dollars on fighting them? Even if we win within the year (which is pretty frankly impossible) China wouldn’t be in any position to resume production.
Not being able to import consumer crap wont crash the economy.
Not being able to sell them billions of dollars of rocks would be the problem.
Not only that, but the entire Asian region would become a dangerous place to be for ships and planes. China and the USA and allies will be shooting at each other in the area. So not just Chinese and Taiwanese exports but Japanese, South Korean, Philippines, Indonesian, ships and planes wont want to go there. So shut it all down.
And tbh I think it would be over in a year. It wont be a land war. Either we succeed in pushing China back and they collapse internally or they win Taiwan, theyve sunk lots of US and Japan navy and shot down airforce planes and blown up US bases and then the new cold war really gets going and China collapses internally. Like no one is going to be trading with China after theyve blown us all up.
The fact they even entertain this war is what is scary. Its going to be bad for them either way. Because they are a scary regime. They don't seem rational. They have these delusions of grandeur about restoring past glory. Times have changed.
It's not the Chinese good that are the problem. It's the semiconductors from Taiwan and fuel imports through the Taiwan Strait.
That alone would be enough to take our economy out.
> Put another way: if China nukes us, would America nuke them? How much are we willing to gamble on that?
Nearly everything,Once the first nuke go's off..It's very doubtful a general would follow through on that comman in the current CCP climate they know they get ruined
They have to respond.. if they don't everyone else with nukes will see the red lines been crossed
America doesn't need to nuke you send you back to stone age.
Their response would likely be conventional,and they are MORE likely to nuke a carrier or something like guam before us
They have over 1300 LRASMS in stock, a classified amount of Tomahawk missles,but considering they just spent 4.2 billion re-up for them expect over 2000 in stockpile
The B2 launching from whiteman field are enough to bring democracy to any nation on their own,that's
Not to mention the air force
US doesn't need nukes to send china back to the stone age if it wanted to,they could just take out their coastal airfields from 1000nm away,and then starve the chinese with trade...till the people revolt
> would America nuke them?
No, likely very large conventional response. No reality does the US (or UK, or France or Russia) sacrifice its own existence and cities for someone else.
Leaked cold war plans sort of give this away, basically all the non-nuclear middle power states get a nuke, but the main nuclear powers generally try not nuke eachother.
The thing is, China has a no first strike policy and it's nukes aren't even assembled or kept in the same place as their launchers.
I though don't think Australia should go to war with China over Taiwan. It's actually pretty ridiculous to think we should considering internationally recognised policy on Taiwan (it's part of China).
A more relevant point is will the US pick up Australia's lost markets to China, will the US buy Australian beef? wheat? rice? Coal? at the same volume?
> will the US buy Australian beef? wheat? rice? Coal? at the same volume?
When China decided to limit and ban imports of Australian goods in these industries we quickly found other markets willing to buy them
Why do you say Taiwan is part of China?
Do Taiwanese people want to dismantle their democracy to join a dictatorship? Are they clamouring to be ruled by Beijing? Do they look longingly at Hong Kong's protests?
Communist China has never ruled Taiwan, and I doubt that they ever will. In the 20th century, China only ruled Taiwan from 1945-1949.
The CCP's imperialist ambitions will be the death of them.
Everyone says Taiwan is part of China.
>Do Taiwanese people want to dismantle their democracy to join a dictatorship? Are they clamouring to be ruled by Beijing? Do they look longingly at Hong Kong's protests?
Why would we care? All over the world people have their democratic rights threatened. Should we invade any time a democratic government is under threat?
>Communist China has never ruled Taiwan, and I doubt that they ever will. In the 20th century, China only ruled Taiwan from 1945-1949.
...and from 1949 to now. Also why are you just talking about the 20th century? In the 19th century Taiwan was part of China until Japan took it from China in a shameful war of aggression.
>The CCP's imperialist ambitions will be the death of them.
Actually their desire to unite all of China and to undo the century of humiliation is by far the most popular thing about the CCP to the common Chinese person.
Because it's literally part of China according to international law, according to the Australian Government, according to every Western Government.
>Do Taiwanese people want to dismantle their democracy to join a dictatorship? Are they clamouring to be ruled by Beijing? Do they look longingly at Hong Kong's protests?
Should we support all successionist movements? Are the Russians right to attack then over the DPR/LPR/Crimea? Is Transnistria a real country? Should we attack Spain over the refusal to let Catalonia leave? Should we go to war for Kurdistan? Why should Australians die for Taiwanese people? Independence in Taiwan polls at a grand total of 5%. Americans and Australians seem to care far more about Taiwnese independence than the Taiwanese.
>Communist China has never ruled Taiwan, and I doubt that they ever will. In the 20th century, China only ruled Taiwan from 1945-1949.
The CPC haven't ruled Taiwan simply because it escaped decolonisation thanks to the intervention of the United States. The reality is though, Taiwan is a historical region of China, China is a civilizational state rather than a nation state of which Taiwan is a core region, and the Chinese people will never, ever let Taiwan be independent, not now, and not in a 1000 years (and on top of that, the Taiwanese see themselves as part of this civilization and claim the exact same back, hell the ROC claims a hell a lot more than the 9 dash line lol).
Also more importantly in the context of Australia and the west, we recognise that Taiwan is part of the PRC and that the PRC is the legitimate legal successor to the Qing Dynasty and Chinese Republic.
Again, why should Australians die for Taiwan? [Will Taiwanese die for Australia if Australia got attacked by say Indonesia?](https://i.pinimg.com/originals/6a/6d/11/6a6d1124cf69e5588588bc7e397598f6.png)
Where has this ridiculous Team America World Police mindset among Australians come from?
Yes let’s support succession movements if they have democratic goals and their oppressors are just thugs running a country for a cash cow.
Australia stands up for Democracy - don’t you think? There’s a few in Ukraine demonstrating this.
>Yes let’s support succession movements if they have democratic goals and their oppressors are just thugs running a country for a cash cow.
All movements claim to have "democratic goals", hell the Chinese and Singaporeans literally poll the "most Democratic countries on earth" by the their own citizens.
The idea that political legitimacy only comes from "liberal democracy" is a purely Western idea and simply doesn't stand up to any scrutiny, not one in reality (why are people often more happy, satisfied under "authoritarian" states and why are authoritarian governments ranking higher than liberal democracies on Government responisveness in studies?) and not in reality (You can't claim that the UK, US are more healthy socities than the Asian tigers, who are massively authoritarian by Western standards).
Again as well, why should the Australia play "world police", these actions for "Democracy" have resulted in actual real Genocides (not bullshit "cultural genocides" that the west accuses everyone it doesn't like of) and the deaths of millions and millions and displacement of a hundred million in the past 50 years alone.
>There’s a few in Ukraine demonstrating this.
Haha, look at Ukraine's "Democracy" rating or it's domestic policies (Thatcherx1000+Literally Illegal to criticise the Government), or even how popular it's Government was before this war (20% approval), also just ignore like, all the brazen Fascist Nazi worship stuff. Those swastikas? Buddhism! Bandera? He was just a patriot! Government youth camps teaching Mein Kampf and kids to use guns and basic military training, oh normal! (They literally printed and handed out Tarrant's manifesto as well).
The idea that the Ukraine war has anything to do with "Democracy" is idiotic. It's a war of Russian cultural chauvinism vs Ukrainian ultra-Nationalism being used by the US as a proxy war to deplete Russian forces. (exactly how we bragged about "Dragging the Soviets into their own Vietnam" in Afghanistan). The war is wrong, but it has nothing to do with Democracy. Hell set google search to before this war started or even read how European redditors and the media spoke about Ukrainians before this war started. The UK literally *left the EU* to boot out Ukrainians, Poles and Romanians from their country lol a lot of the rhetoric about that was that people from those countries, were Nazi, authoritarian, undemocratic and incompatable with "british values".
And no, why is it Australia's job to defend Ukraine? A country most couldn't even point to on a map before 2022? [Would Ukrainian's defend Australia if Indonesia invaded?](https://i.pinimg.com/originals/6a/6d/11/6a6d1124cf69e5588588bc7e397598f6.png)
Do you think Australia should have boots on the ground in Ukraine then? What about Syria? Should we be invading Spain over Catalonia? Turkey over Kurdistan?
Only you keep the ‘boots on the ground‘ meme going, you’re on a mission - I get that you like the strong daddy that keeps you safe - that’s ok and China being over on the ‘authoritarian’ end of the ‘democratic scale’ appeals more than the runaway freedom at the other end of the scale. That’s ok we are not all the same.
Australians in Ukraine are Volunteers, badly paid mostly voting for democracy at their own cost. Your wall means nothing.
Okay. I’m a little bit undecided like you. So I was putting this out for conversation. I’m not overly keen on war.
But … what is our biggest defence system? The US military. That’s why they call them alliances. We help them, they help us.
I genuinely have no fear of ever being invaded. But Taiwan should have. Do we not support other smaller nations if that happens.
I lean towards if China has a crack at Taiwan it’s game on. Happy to be corrected on it. I don’t work in International affairs nor defence.
Based on your user name, I'm going to assume you are not a military aged male. It's easy to think a senseless war is justified when you won't be the one thrown into a meat grinder in the first round
It wont be a meat grinder.
And besides, what are we meant to do if China decides to make it one?
Yes, if China decides to make it one. Its entirely their choice. Why are they not happy with the status quo? Have they not gotten rich? Why do they want to ruin this?
Interesting that it’s only the pacifists who contemplate war.
The realist simply arranges things so that war doesn’t happen.
The policeman doesn’t carry a gun so she can shoot speeding motorists or jaywalkers. He or she carries a gun so that a malicious person thinks twice before starting something and so he or she can defend themselves if something kicks off.
That’s both a valid point with regards my age, and off point with my circumstances. I have 3 children that I would rather I die than them. But we will not have conscription again. We send out defence forces. Who kinda signed up for certain stuff.
Secondly I’d argue an invasion of Taiwan by China may not be ‘senseless.’ War is ugly. So you think our involvement in East Timor was ‘senseless’ because it wasn’t on our own soil?
Yeah that's fair, I well and truly overlooked the fact that you may have children
I dunno I just can't see how we wouldn't have conscription if a war breaks out with China, we are a country of what, 28 million people against 1.5 billion
Also fair point with Timor, but was more like a peace keeping operation than global nuclear war
Do you really think this potential conflict is just black and white, the good guys vs the evil guys? The world is a lot more complex than that
I'd highly suggest having a read of Kevin Rudd's recent book "The avoidable war". He makes a good case for how savvy diplomacy could help circumvent a conflict, but hawkish attitudes on both sides will lead us down a path of devastation
What was behind it? Lots of ASPI and other weapons manufacturer funding, a flailing media company needing outrage clicks, and neocons trying to play to yellow peril fears.
>out of proportion to any of China's actions
The CCP has promised to murder millions of Chinese in Taiwan to take their island home by force. It's a promise. They WILL go to war.
Are you just going to racistly sit back and let it happen, because who cares it's just Chinese? Who cares, Chinese people deserve to oppressed by a brutal dictatorship?
Stop being a racist. Understand the reality of the promise of violence the CCP has against Chinese people in Taiwan.
Yes I'm going to racistly sit in my chair and do nothing but like, in a racist way.
Why do you think it's your place to save Taiwan? Did they ask us? Why do you want to reduce authoritarianism in the world by fighting China? There are a million easier ways to reduce authoritarianism in the world. In fact picking a fight with literally any other dictatorship would work better. This is about using Taiwan as an excuse for America to contain China. All wars are unjust, but wars to protect America's dominance is especially evil.
Intervention is Imperialism. There is no way to send an army somewhere for anything other than a nation's own national interest. It is simply not a tool that can be used to help other nations, and the 21st century has already created plenty of examples to show this.
>Why do you think it's your place to save Taiwan?
Are you the type of person who sees a woman being beaten to death in the street and do nothing? You're right, not our business. You seem like a nice person!
>Did they ask us?
Yes. Over and over and over again.
>Are you the type of person who sees a woman being beaten to death in the street and do nothing? You're right, not our business. You seem like a nice person!
So you admit you have a saviour complex and that's why you don't understand foreign policy?
Remember the "beaten woman" of Afghanistan? Remember Iraq? You're talking about invading a nation and forcing your will on their people. It will go how it always goes.
Right now sharia law is being imposed on Afghanistan by the Taliban in a much much harsher way than it ever was before. Women are being threatened for getting an education, and anyone who helped us out while we were in Afghanistan is seen as a traitor now. But it's ok because we had good intentions. We wanted good things. Like somehow that matters to the girls of Afghanistan we betrayed and lied to.
Please focus your energies Australia, the country where you are openly asked to vote and participate in where we have many problems we need to address. Don't worry so much about all the human rights abuses all around the world, there's nothing our government can do about it apart from giving the refugees fleeing violence asylum.
>Yes. Over and over and over again.
Who specifically?
That's subjective.
I think the opposite. We have been exceedingly patient with Chinas belligerence.
Dictatorships only respect power. They are forcing our reaction.
What belligerence? China has always been this way. They've been doing nothing new lately other than having a harsher tone. Do you really think competing claims over the Spartly Islands or ignoring EEZ's is really that belligerent? It's fairly common behaviour especially for nations with massive economies like China that feel like they can throw their weight around.
>Dictatorships only respect power.
This is something in your head, a narrative you've made about the virtues and moral failings of dictatorship. This isn't reflected in reality at all, we've made incredible progress by working with China as opposed to using power. Furthermore anytime China hears their rivals talking this way, they immediately think of all the horrible things powerful nations forced on them in the century of humiliation. They think we're going to start another Opium war, or Japan is going to rape their cities again.
>They've been doing nothing new lately other than having a harsher tone.
Bullshit. [They surrounded their island and did "unprecedented" live-fire drills all around their island](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/aug/03/china-to-begin-series-unprecedented-live-fire-drills-off-coast-of-taiwan).
You know you can just not lie about the CCP, right?
Lol this is after Nancy Pelosi *visited* Taiwan. That was what was "unprecedented". The Chinese carry out live fire drills all the time, the difference is this one was much larger and closer than usual. You are completely uninformed if you think China is the one rocking the boat when the second most important American politician visits an unrecognised state.
There is nothing unprecedented about Nancy Pelosi visiting Taiwan... she wasn't even the first Speaker of the House to do so. Trips between US and Taiwanese politicians have been going on since Taiwan became governed by the ROC.
The fact is US policy does not consider Taiwan to be part of the PRC, and US policy allows such trips to occur. China does not get to dictate where US politicians go, and China does not get to dictate who can and cannot enter Taiwan.
It's very unprecedented, the US hadn't sent any major representatives of the government between 1979 and 2020.
>China does not get to dictate where US politicians go, and China does not get to dictate who can and cannot enter Taiwan.
You can't send top American politicians to the other Chinese government that no one even recognises without the main China getting furious. Of course Americans can choose to reopen old wounds of the Chinese civil war if they really want to. It goes against the whole point of diplomacy but whatever.
> It's very unprecedented, the US hadn't sent any major representatives of the government between 1979 and 2020.
Wrong. [House of Representatives Speaker Newt Gingrich also visited the island in 1997](https://english.president.gov.tw/NEWS/1034). Newt Gingrich at that time was literally the same position within the US government as Pelosi.
----
>You can't send top American politicians to the other Chinese government that no one even recognises without the main China getting furious. Of course Americans can choose to reopen old wounds of the Chinese civil war if they really want to. It goes against the whole point of diplomacy but whatever.
China can cry, but again, US policy never recognized Taiwan as part of the PRC. The United States does not consider Taiwan to be part of China.
Ah cool so dropping in and saying hello warrants a war. What a peaceful and rational action by the CCP. I don't know why people like you are called 'tankies', it's not like you're defending unreasonable levels of violence against people doing non-violent political activity.
You're defending imperialism and un-provoked violence.
Recognising Taiwan has been a defacto act of war against China for the entire time America and Australia have had diplomatic relations with China, and Pelosi going over to Taiwan was a huge escalation. We have always gone along with the One China Principle, and then for no reason people like you are expecting our government to change course and act belligerent to a nation that has had the same problems it had 60 years ago when we started diplomatic relations with China.
No nation would allow their rivals to visit the region of their country still controlled by the government that they fought a civil war against. No nation has the right to assert Taiwan's independence other than Taiwan. Taiwan is a Chinese province that was lost by the Qing dynasty due to Japanese aggression and internal weakness, it was part of a long period of death and destruction for China that motivates them to strengthen their military.
>You're defending imperialism and un-provoked violence.
a) Taiwan is a Chinese province regardless of whether or not the ROC or PRC controls it. You are the one trying to redraw borders like an imperialist.
b) It is a massive provocation to send any diplomatic mission to the Republic of China, a nation that the People's Republic of China fought a brutal prolonged civil war against and each deny each other's existence. They are mortal enemies that have always fought on and off with each other since the communist party existed.
Visiting Taiwan has NEVER been an act of war you copium addict. JFC.
If you believe that, it's too late, we're at war. Some butthurt commies think that visiting and island is an act of war.
> We have always gone along with the One China Principle,
This is false. Neither Australia nor the United States has ever gone along with or agreed with the "One China Principle".
[You are doing exactly what the US State Department warns about](https://twitter.com/USA_China_Talk/status/1528235347057967109), and mixing up the "one China principle" with the "one China policy":
>**The PRC continues to publicly misrepresent U.S. policy. The United States does not subscribe to the PRC’s “one China principle”** – we remain committed to our longstanding, bipartisan one China policy, guided by the Taiwan Relations Act, Three Joint Communiques, and Six Assurances.
[Here is LTC Paul Mostafa from the Australian Army, Department of Joint, Interagency and Multinational Operations](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_20tt4tb0Ig&t=4736s&ab_channel=USArmyCGSC) explaining Australia has a similar position with respect to Taiwan and the "one China" policy of Australia.
What is the difference between the US "one China policy" and the "one China principle" that would require clarification? Oh yeah, their positions on Taiwan.
----
>No nation has the right to assert Taiwan's independence other than Taiwan.
Yes, and no nation has the right to decide who can and cannot visit Taiwan.
Taiwan is clear that they are a sovereign independent country already... and they have every right to decide or invite politicians from *any* other country.
----
>Taiwan is a Chinese province that was lost by the Qing dynasty due to Japanese aggression and internal weakness, it was part of a long period of death and destruction for China that motivates them to strengthen their military.
Waahhhh, wahhhh, wahhhh. Poor China. The United States were a British colony lost by the British Empire due to French aggression and internal weakness... do you hear the UK crying about losing the United States and their other long lost colonies? Move on.
----
>a) Taiwan is a Chinese province regardless of whether or not the ROC or PRC controls it. You are the one trying to redraw borders like an imperialist.
No.
Taiwan is the colloquial name for the Republic of China, a sovereign independent country.
----
>b) It is a massive provocation to send any diplomatic mission to the Republic of China, a nation that the People's Republic of China fought a brutal prolonged civil war against and each deny each other's existence. They are mortal enemies that have always fought on and off with each other since the communist party existed.
ROC has moved on. Time for the PRC to do the same thing. Children have to become adults at some point.
i think its clear all along that some people need a boogieman
its been funny over the last few years... remember when North Korea was firing missiles over the sea of japan and trump was going bonkers? and that worked itself out
and then it was iran... and then when trump found out he couldnt invade anyone then it went to china
and china is a convenient enemy... our biggest trading partner...something like $1.5 trillion over a decade... and yet our mortal enemy
i'm not saying that dont deserve that title, clearly they are belligerent and their activities within their own borders and in the south china sea are legend
and we have leftover covid symptoms so china is a wonderful stand in for that 'reds in the bed thing' our boomers ancestors worried about
i honestly think china knows how they're portrayed and they dont care... their path is set and why would they care about 25 mil people who are making payments day one on subs that will be delivered in 2042... by that time Xi will be dead already
Why do you think we should fight (and very likely all die) for Taiwan? We've told the world that Taiwan is part of China and we don't recognise the ROC.
Furthermore why not care about all the other areas of the world having their freedom and autonomy denied?
Yeah its a good question.
The stakes are a bit different with this though.
We're not talking about city states or backwaters. Chinese control of Taiwan changes the calculus of South Korea and Japan. China will have a hand around their throats because of the shipping that goes past Taiwan. We're talking some of the largest, most advanced, most powerful and important countries in the world.
Will Taiwan fight? Thats the lynchpin. If Taiwan just decide to downgrade their lives by a factor of ten (TSCM wont survive) and just give up and become a Chinese naval base...then there is nothing we can do.
Asian NATO would be on the cards after that and containment efforts would become much worse for China than they are now. Paradoxically. As in, it would be full scale economic isolation. I hope they know that.
Like we talk about containment now but it is really just military containment. Which says it all really. We're struggling to contain them militarily. Because they are moving agressively. Admittedly is has spilled over into economic and technological because of our failure to contain their military expansion. But if the main containment barrier falls, the first island chain, then the other containment barriers will need to be heavily reinforced.
If they could just liberalise a bit, there wouldn't be a problem. But mafia dictatorships cannot liberalise. Not an inch.
How much do you understand about the dynamic between China, Taiwan, and the USA? You understand the US isn't going to bat for the Taiwanese just out of the goodness of their heart, right? I don't want to tell you what you already know, but it's complicated and the likelihood of China invading is very low.
My recollection is the leftish US media suggesting Trump was a lunatic and war with NK was inevitable.
But it didn’t happen.
And then he didn’t start any wars. First President for about 40 years.
And he got voted into power saying that he was sick of the US being the World’s police. Maybe he kinda … actually did what he said.
> My recollection is the leftish US media suggesting Trump was a lunatic and war with NK was inevitable.
Okay..1st
Left media in the US..fucking where..
Left in the US,is still liberal right wing for us,MSNBC would maybe be the most progressive news program,and even they are pro war.CNN drunk the kool aid as is now firmly centrist in us politics
General Milley,Openly told congress,that he had ppl in his chain of command being told not to accept orders from trump on jan 6 because he was worried what he might do,to the point that per HCGB44 Testimonials the triad may have even been removed from the presidents location,if true that implies a serious concern he wanted to attack someone,as all US service personal have a legal duty to their oathe to deny,or prevent the carrying out,or acceptance of orders that they,or common law would consider illegal.
the entire US joint chiefs had zero confidence in trump not chucking a feral
To the point the chair,of the joint chiefs had to ring china up and say..we have no plans to attack you...Imagine that,that's never happened
The NK shit was overblown,it was more the shit trump would of done leading up to jan 6 to destablize the joint to stay in power more ppl concerned about.
MSNBC are left, The Young Turks are really just a bunch of Trots and they were going on about it as well.
Besides the media hated Trump so even if it wasn't because of left they were still going on about how the US will be going to war and that the country will be in ruins when Trump is President and now is President.
MSNBC are left,on the US poltiical spectrum,which would be Right wing,Centrist-right at best on the global political spectrum
Burny would be a member of the labor party right if he was here
Two points
- the US media is not centrist nor middle leaning. By our standards they may be. But go and watch ‘The Loudest Voice’
- where did Jan 6th enter the debate. It’s has nothing to do with NK?
Trump's military record isn't exactly pristine - particularly in Yemen.
And the claim to not start any new wars isn't exactly impressive.
Nixon technically didn't start any new wars either, but he was still responsible for plenty of bloodshed in SE Asia.
The time is not the point.
Nixon bombed the shit out of Cambodia and Laos, but hey, he technically didn't start any new wars either.
So where's Nixon's big "I'm a peace loving president" statue?
https://www.whitehouse.gov/about-the-white-house/presidents/richard-m-nixon/
A bloke who lost office ingloriously in 1974?
Fuck me, that’s stretching the timeline. And for the record I think it was Carter that was the previous best non-war-monger.
You're missing the point. Presidents not starting war is such a meaningless "achievement."
It's also funny how the Trump claim was he was the first president since Eisenhower, until someone opened a history book and pointed out that was bullshit.
Obama didn't start any wars either, but Republicans love bringing up Libya (which wasn't a war) and drone strikes (which Trump didn't stop). In fact Trump removed the Obama requirement to report drone strike casualties, which is a bit odd for someone wanting to flex their "peaceful" credentials.
Jimmy Carter is consistently criticised as a limp dicked President by the same people who praise Trump as being "strong" for choosing diplomacy over conflict. Even though his support of the Saudis (which included US military involvement) hasn't really worked out well for the Yemenis.
Some consistency would be nice.
>And then he didn’t start any wars.
This is because he realised the US didn't really need to, it can do anything and nobody can do anything about it but seethe.
He literally assassinated the most awarded and decorated Iranian General/Politican on a diplomatic mission of peace.
Irans response was to accidentally shoot down it's own airliner.
The US blows up Nordstream? Everyone shrugs despite being one of the most damaging attacks on infrastructure in decades and aimed at essentially threatening Germany into submission.
I genuinely believe the US can do and basically get away with anything short of actually nuking Beijing and it will at most get a sternly worded letter.
I waSn’t defending Trump globally.
If you want to start a convo about involvements US Presidents have had in foreign countries were both ducked. There is NO way Trump had a disproportionate foreign involvement compared to his predecessors.
Even his wall. FFS 1/3 of it was built before he came into office.
Look at the facts.
Trump never started WW3 let alone a war. He at least tried to stop the escalation towards war.
Biden is running a proxy war against Russia and is escalating towards war with China let alone no policy on NK.
Worth pointing out that he was goading NK and insulting Kim. It's not like the fear came from nothing.
He'd really have my respect if he had have had the balls to actually pull out of Afghanistan. Then Biden of all people has the big enough balls to finally do it
I'm not sure your point? I'm not rewriting history at all. Yes of course he met with him and all was well and they became best bros, but before that he teased and provoked him in the media.
Trump lowered the bar needed for a presidential intervention in response to a teenage tantrum
making every subsequent tantrum potentially more costly.
guess your kids are not teens yet, or you would n’t be ‘Orange man the best man’ all the time. I suppose.
Jeez chill out man. Trump had a phase earlier in his presidency, 2017ish, of tweeting that Kim was short and fat and antagonised him as being weak etc. So no wonder AT THAT POINT the media was worried about it creating conflict. That's all I'm saying.
The sources I’m googling pretty much has Trump saying bring it on. Do you have any great source suggesting Trump did anything other than averted war?
And stop with the ‘chill out man’ bullshit. If you’ve got something to add then say it. The Trump-bad nonsense doesn’t work in every scenario.
You're fighting with yourself. I like Trump being a dove, it's his best quality. All I'm saying is that he has his rhetoric, and he said some inflammatory things on Twitter. To a level no President ever had before. So I can understand people being anxious, that's all I've said. I think he did do well calming down the situation with NK. I think it was in a better place when Trump left office than it was with Obama. So I don't understand what your issue is, all I said is that he was inflammatory and that I can understand that that was scary to people.
Re the chill out man, I only said that cause you said orange man bad. Not sure who you're fighting with
but he went to North Korea had lovely 'relationship' with Kim Jong, saluted a few Korean generals as is customary of American Presidents and everything was ok...
> their path is set and why would they care about 25 mil people who are making payments day one on subs that will be delivered in 2042...
By that stage China will be the world’s largest economy, dominate Eurasia, the UK will be just England, a remote isolated basket case island with less clout than Botswana, and the US will be fractured into two separate nations.
if this is true then i doubt a few F35s and nuclear subs is gonna make much of a difference...
i get that the military is often based on 'deterrance'... we never used the F111s in anger but the threat that we could bomb Jakarta was ever present...
you see how enemies change?
**Greetings humans.** **Please make sure your comment fits within [THE RULES](https://www.reddit.com/r/AustralianPolitics/about/rules) and that you have put in some effort to articulate your opinions to the best of your ability.** **I mean it!! Aspire to be as "scholarly" and "intellectual" as possible. If you can't, then maybe this subreddit is not for you.** A friendly reminder from your political robot overlord *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AustralianPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Hanlon’s razor states: Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity. I think that that series was the opposite of that - directed by malice.
Definitely malicious! Just look at these people... https://michaelwest.com.au/whats-the-scam-with-nines-panel-of-experts-red-alert-its-aspi/
Horrifying.
I don’t like China’s behaviour at all, but I feel like these articles are more about justifying the spend on missiles and subs. The public seem to be (quite rightly) questioning the defence budget when many can’t afford groceries or power. So what do they do? Tell us to be afraid. Tell us war is imminent. Well I’m thoroughly convinced… Thank fuck for those subs eh?
Look on the bright side. If we go to war in the next 3 years we can save $360b and Scotty Albanese will stop grinning about making us America's errand boy.,
If we go to war in the next 30 years it’ll be the same. The Americans and Brit’s are already struggling with available dry dock space for their own subs, why do we think they’d honestly prioritise the most junior of junior partners when they have ongoing, unavoidable issues?
I didn’t bother reading the series because I thought it would be sensationalism, but I still think China is a threat and they can’t be trusted. It’s the stuff they do in the background or try to get away with like the spy balloons and the island building in the South China Sea - they get caught and either deny it, say it’s their right, or generally gaslight.
Yall forgetting the shit they pulled when covid first appeared, chinese sponsored planes bought 1000's of PPE products back to china. Literal state agents taken produts off our shelfs In what world does that happen? They flew out of chinese owned airstrip in WA. And some.of you morons have the gall to say theyre not a threat.
But you trust the US who conned us to war with a lie. BTW the US government blocked hurricane aid to Puerto Rico ( a US territory!) because Trump doesn't like brown people in "shit hole" countries. And oh yeah Trump ( Putin's bestie) and the Repugs will never spend a nickel defending us. They have a majority in the House are close to equal favs for the presidency in 2024. What strange bedfellows you choose.
Did you visit a shopping centre at the start of Covid? Everyone and their grandmother was doing the same. Like, of all the terrible things China has done throughout history, buying PPE for a pandemic sits pretty low on the list.
Its the fact that they took PPE away from our supply circulation to hospitals and our vunerable people. Is that is not sickening to you? The knock on effect is the we pay more in our taxes to pay for this, be it a surgeon needing a gown, hospital gloves, masks etc. Not to mention loss of life. Its crony capitalism I agree. It just proves they're a country/govenment that will happily throw us under the bus when the going gets tough.
I get where you’re coming from, I just think it’s a weak reason to consider them a potential enemy. And I’m not saying they’re not, but they did what anyone would do in a situation where they didn’t have enough, they bought more. We live in a capitalist society built on international commerce. If the option was there, they’d be stupid to refuse it. Were we antagonists that deserve punishment for taking vaccines for our 2nd and 3rd doses while developing nations were still struggling to fill the quota for their first? Or were we just a country looking out for its people? I don’t want to come off as pro china because they’re obviously guilty of horrific things but treating such a valuable trading partner so publicly as the enemy when we have no one to replace them with seems incredibly short sighted.
A capitalist world. Also largely sounds like the acts of a responsible government who needed the ppe for themselves and couldn't get it through other means. Let's be real, if Australia or America could afford to do this, they would have.
Responsible goverment that bolt the doors of people with covid and or genocide ethnic minorities? To think the CCP cherish life is laughable. They will happily use child labour or sell human organs to turn a profit. Most Australians know theyre no good, under the table deals done by mr frydenburg are just the tip of the corruption iceburg in this country...
> To think the CCP cherish life is laughable Not sure who you think claimed it wasn't. But if you want to take government deeds into account, neither do we. Genocide of indigenous peoples Persecution of the poor (robodebt) Locking people up as political prisoners with no trial (asylum seekers detention laws) We aren't saints either. If you want to say you're scared that's fine. But you shouldn't try and dress that up as concern for human rights when you aren't concerned about rights or genocides here.
Were talking about todays news, issues of the past are not irrelevent and we have made mistakes. But thats the beauty of what we have is we know we make mistakes and we have a goverment that can adknowledge that. Yeah I am scared actually, for my children and their children, to have the freedom of speech were expressing in this moment. To have the freedom to be able to outwardly express their anger on misakes our goverment have made is what im arguing for.
> Were talking about todays news, issues of the past are not irrelevent and we have made mistakes You're the one who brought up the past mate, not me. > Yeah I am scared actually, for my children and their children, to have the freedom of speech were expressing in this moment What makes you think you won't be able to? If the answer is just "they might invade" well, tbh so might a lot of places. It's pretty faulty reasoning which articles like the one posted play into.
You have evidence for this claim, of course.
https://www.smh.com.au/national/second-developer-flies-82-tonnes-of-medical-supplies-to-china-20200326-p54e8n.html
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/10/08/china-began-stockpiling-ppe-months-covid-outbreak/. Theres a video of chinese plane being loaded on the strip with PPE they bought off our shelfs, CCP are not our friends. Theres absolutely sauce.
[удалено]
Put this in your cup and drink it tosser https://www.smh.com.au/national/second-developer-flies-82-tonnes-of-medical-supplies-to-china-20200326-p54e8n.html
[удалено]
State sponsored. You do know there no such thing as a private company in a communist country right? The governement ultimately have any right to use your assets as they wish. Look at alibaba CEO see how going against CCP will work out for you?
Working hard to find an enemy. We were selling it. They were buying it. You application of hindsight to the situation to make a boogie man out of China is a long stretch. Like it or not our economic fortunes are tied to the larger economies of the world we need China. Making an enemy out of them is ludicrous. If they invade Taiwan or emulate Japan's WWII feats in conquering SE Asia then we have something to fear.
Its not a stretch, its fact that CCP policy to assertain political and economic advantage in the southern hemiphere, influence in pacific islands show that. Be it through trade or loan sharking, or straight up buying anything they can get their hands on. We can make do without china we just need leadership with foresight to make action in our life time, not a every 4 years. Youre pulling the wool if you think by that point theyve invaded SE Asia we would stand any chance at all. If it smells bad, if it looks bad, well you might be wrong in thinking it might just be bad.
If they want us, they have got us. Militarily speaking. If they turned their full might here the US would be the only power that could stop them. What was the tagline from Dr Strangelove? How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb
Man SMH has really went down hill since the buyout. Xenophobia sells and Mr Murdoch knows it!
It's to make sure we still want to be a vassel state of America and don't think about our own interests or sovereignty too much. We're free, to do as America tells us... and they may want to tell us to go to war with our primary trading partner.
Margaret Simons is […] a member of the board of the Scott Trust, which owns Guardian Media Group. So her opinion piece is an alternative opinion to that of the Fairfax editors. Nothing more. Her personal criticism of Peter Hartcher is unfair and unjustified. To think that Foreign Minister Wong can stabilise relations with words alone is frankly infantile. There us truth in Roosevelt’s saying ‘speak softly and carry a big stick’
Cept we speak loudly and carry a small twig...
That’s why we are buying the subs … I would have thought that was obvious.
The subs are not a big stick, nor will they arrive any time soon. In fact, according to the Red Alert articles, they would be 16 yrs too late. So I'll rephrase, we're talking loudly whilst holding a small twig, as we wait for our small stick to arrive.
You didn’t read very carefully did you. Subs will be sailing from HMAS Stirling with partly Australian crews in the next couple of years. The only hold up is developing the ship to shore facilities so the US nuclear subs can dock there. It’s not that there are a few more subs in the water that deters China, it is that they sailed the whole way underwater and Chinese don’t know where they are.
These subs would allow us to have nuclear weapons as a back up down the road. It’s shown by North Korea the best strategy is owning nuclear weapons to deal with a super power.
> It’s shown by North Korea Oh yeah, because they're the shining light of what a country should be, a beacon on the hill for all nations aspiring to greatness. Come on dude, find better arguments than that if you want people to be on board with nuclear arms proliferation.
Don't you dare disparage Best Korea
Nuke proliferation is about to kick off big time though. South Korea are about to get some. And then if we fail to contain China, Japan will get some. And then if we leave the US alliance, we will have to get some. How else do you protect yourself from the worlds large mafia dictatorship with openly stated expansionist and hegemonic goals?
Citation needed
They are also still successfully independent, unlike numerous other small countries that have crossed the major powers. The question is "how do we guarantee our sovereignty facing unfriendly major powers". NK illustrate one possible path.
> successfully independent lol
[удалено]
[удалено]
> America is what is broken about the world right now Understanding the USA is a fundamentally and irrevocably broken institution doesn't mean we have to automatically take the side of anyone opposite the USA. USA is broken, North Korea is broken, hell even South Korea is pretty broken just in a different way.
I'd love to see you try this on in ROK and Japan.
Just ignore the fact NK also have one of the largest standing armies and largest special forces units on the planet. A heavily fortified border with rocky, mountainous terrain being easy to defend. And a defence alliance with China, giving large amounts of body fodder. And defence agreements with USSR. These are the main reasons North Korea lasted into the 1990's. They didn't need nukes to hold off the Americans beforehand.
[удалено]
> These are the main reasons North Korea lasted into the 1990's. They're pointing out how they made it to where they are – it's not because they're individually some bastion of military/diplomatic/economic prowess.
How stupid. Nuclear propulsion and nuclear weapons are completely unrelated. We could launch nuclear weapons from a diesel electric sub if we had them.
Yes but, these new submarines already have 12 vertical launch tubes for launching Tomahawk missiles which can be armed with both conventional or nuclear warheads. And today, the government has announced that we are buying 220 Tomahawk missiles.
Our Tomahawks have HE warheads. Do you think sone of the neutrons will escape the power plant and infect the warheads?
You realise Australia signed the nuclear non proliferation treaty and have committed to not having having nuclear weapons.
>You realise Australia signed the nuclear non proliferation treaty and have committed to not having having nuclear weapons. Just like Queensland committed to human rights. How'd that go?
Pointless and meaningless treaty. Just as valuable as the ones Russia and china violates on Ukraine and Hong Kong.
Going down the Iran and North Korea route I would hardly say is the pathway to prosperity. If we broke it there would be significant sanctions that would be imposed on us those countries that have signed, including countries in the EU and it would cripple outlet economy. That's is hardly meaningless.
Oh no so we wouldn’t be an EU vassal?
You mean the same European countries that the yanks are allied with as part of NATO?
Nuclear Tomahawks were retired in the 90s. They could exist, but the don’t currently.
Nuclear warheads were removed from Tomahawks to comply with a now vacated treaty. Luckily, the nuclear warheads were only disassembled and not disposed of, so now the treaty that banned them has been torn up, the can be reused. Also, the US Navy never retired them. Their government told the Navy to remove them from service to meet treaty obligations, and the Navy finally removed the last Tomahawk nuclear warheads in 2013. Because the navy still has them in storage, and with the treaty now torn up, approval from the president is all that's needed to load them onto ships and submarines again.
They could be reinstated but it’s unlikely IMO. It’s not like the US need a relatively short range nuclear strike capability. The odds of us getting them are ludicrously low.
So then why go nuclear propulsion then? Do our Defence personnel deserve inferior technology?
Because nuclear subs can remain submerged for much longer. Therefore they can hide better. A diesel electric would have to surface so many times between Stirling and China that they could easily track it. A nuke could travel underwater the whole way submerging as it left port.
Inferior to what?
[удалено]
The battle field is near your place China.
[удалено]
Well apply your big brain to the present case and stop making stupid statements like “diesel electric subs are harder to detect”. Because they must surface to recharge their batteries they stick out like dogs balls. Stop crapping on about littoral warfare. That’s not where the security threat exists. So many people on here have pointed out to you that the threat is not an invasion of Australia. The threat exists in the shipping lanes in the South China Sea, and to the supply chain for the high tech semiconductors made in Taiwan.
[удалено]
Bullshit.
Maybe in the past they would have. But the Collins class is now 30 years ago. They are old technology and need to be updated. I'm also not convinced that these new subs are worth the investment, but at the end of the day the Collins are old and need to be replaced. They are smaller which does give them an advantage but they can't go as deep, nor for as long as these ones we will eventually get. Plus with satellites and quantum computing all submarines will be easier to detect by the time we eventually get these AUKUS ones.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Again... No... Unless you want to rip the roof off the Submarines we are buying and retrofit new roofing that opens and closes and then add ICBM systems we don't have to then shoot weapons we don't have out the ICBM launchers we don't have then yeah maybe. Until then.... NO. Just plain and simply No. You bought the wrong model honey.
Wow, so confidently wrong. The Virginia class submarines have 12 vertical launch tubes for launching Tomahawk missiles which can have either conventional or nuclear warheads. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia-class_submarine Edit: Government has just announced that we will be buying 220 Tomahawk missiles.
Interestingly.... Tomahawk missiles were designed for offence and not defense. Pretty weird purchase you made there guy with a military consisting of about 85k people 🤣 200 Offensive bombs.... What happens after you use them all and realise China has 15,000 comparable bombs to return fire with? 🤭
Edit: Have fun with your Tomahawks though 🔪😂 you're never getting nukes little man with small man syndrome. 🤏 I remember touring a Virginia class sub about 18 years ago in the early 2000's.... They were cute.😄 I imagine technology has come a fair way since then. Which is probably why Americans prefer LA or Seawolf Class subs today 😋
Secondly and just as 🥱worthy. Ill add this as an Edit: Virginia Payload Module "Initially eight payload tubes/silos were planned but this was later rejected in favor of four tubes installed in a 70-foot (21 m) long module between the operations compartment and the propulsion spaces. The VPM could potentially carry (non-nuclear) medium-range ballistic missiles." 🥱🥱🥱🥱🥱 It even comes from the lazy same source you chose.... But with background of me not being a dumb idiot.🎤💧 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia-class\_submarine
Wow, So confidently ignorant of military hardware 😂A tomahawk missile is TLAM. Not an ICBM. Its also not nuclear and from the standpoint of physics its impossible for the missile in the tube to ever be nuclear and hope to fire. 🥱 Take another swing sparky. 🔌
What was behind it? It was an exercise to soften us up to swallow the $368,000,000,000 pricetag to be announced a handful of days later. I mean it wasn’t even subtle. Who was behind it? God it’s quicker to ask who wasn’t. When you have Labor, the coalition including Nine Chair Costello, the Defence/Defense establishment in 3 countries and their handmaidens on the job at ASPI all in favour. And only unshutupable recalcitrants like PJK with the profile and candour to say otherwise. (Oh and the Greens of course, but no one pays them a second’s attention on security issues).
>What was behind it? Chinas openly stated expansionist and hegemonic goals? And their now decades of actions? Nah. Its all a conspiracy to make money. But vaccines...not a money making conspiracy. Big pharma had our best interests are heart with those highly effective 5 doses that dont stop you catching covid.
Reddit is fucked, I'm out this bitch. -- mass edited with redact.dev
I have insider information from a patriotic spy in the CCP who mentioned that they have developed Chat GPTwo so when we open our filthy vaccinated mouths, the English will be heard as Chinese and we will hear Chinese as English in our vaccinated 5G (the toppest G) ears.
Reddit is fucked, I'm out this bitch. -- mass edited with redact.dev
This is confidential top G insider information you're spreading to these lowly 4G's m(G)8...
You are giving out way too much credit. It was purely gutter journalism meant to get the chimps chattering and a desperate attempt to create drama. It was more likely wheeled out to distract from the corruption shitshow that is the NSW LNP and lead the conversation away from the whole Robodebt enquiry that's really shining a light on a previous federal government. I doubt Nine media had Labor's interests in mind.
You're naive.
Explain?
Wow. I just joked about conspiracy theories in my above comment. Didnt realise you were turning it up to 11.
In this country it's hardly a media conspiracy, it's just a normal day
If China attacks Taiwan, and Japan and the US jump in, are we in or out? I say in.
Why? What would be the direct threat to us? Because obviously morally we'd be supporting Taiwan, but you don't just jump into a war because you feel sorry for a country.
Not needed. Stability in the region comes from making it too costly for Chins to step out of line. As long as they think we’re on board China is discouraged from acting.
Worth the risk you reckon? What's the gain for us, if we do declare war against the second most powerful military in the world, when our nearest allies are on the other side of the planet? Put another way: if China nukes us, would America nuke them? How much are we willing to gamble on that? Or finally, even if we do enter a protracted war against a country on our doorstep, what happens to the 500,000 Chinese born Australians? Or the 1.3m Australians with Chinese ancestry? How many of them would suffer racist shit because of a war where we have nothing to gain at all? Even if we do go to war and even if we do survive until US ships arrive and bolster our defences, what's our end game? What benefit would we get from an exercise that could potentially cost us more than a trillion dollars? I'm asking genuinely, I haven't made up my mind and I've been tossing this around for a few days. I feel for the people in Taiwan. All I'm saying is that if we feel the need to start going to war for ethnic minorities, we could probably pick easier enemies. We didn't invade Burma or Sudan, but they might have been easier places to start.
>if China nukes us, would America nuke them? Nukes isnt how you win. Everyone chill with the nukes. You notice how all the pariah states have nukes? Have they won anything? >what happens to the 500,000 Chinese born Australians? Or the 1.3m Australians with Chinese ancestry? Rasist CCP shill talking point. They like to focus on those handful of incidents in a country with millions of Chinese walking around. Could only find 2 or 3 low level incidents? Pathetic. CCP actively encourage racism against foreigners though, dont talk about that. >What benefit would we get from an exercise that could potentially cost us more than a trillion dollars? We wouldnt find ourselves on the list of pariah states? We would rather buy more lifted Ford Raptors than support the free world? Sad times are these when we have to ask such questions. The second this war kicks off China trade is over. Whether we join or not. The whole thing was a bit of an artificial state of affairs anyway. Part of the CCPs plans for global domination were to corner a whole bunch of globally important manufacturing industries. Steel is the big one. When the CCP falls, which it will, and China becomes a democratic country (imagine that for a future. Dare to imagine.) that giant low quality steel production will go away. Which is what Xiting is really worried about. The giant bubble that Australia has become. Oof. Get ready to be kicked in the nuts. People have hardly any idea of what is going on.
> when our nearest allies are on the other side of the planet? Our nearest allies are closer, but let's assume you were talking about the USA. They are closer to China than we are.
I did mean the USA but also the UK. That's pretty interesting re the distance. I'd always assumed we were a lot closer.
Curvature of the Earth, though looking into it, seems we are both about the same distance.
>Worth the risk you reckon? What's the gain for us Our economy. The moment China invades Taiwan our economy over in an instant. We will be forced to fight.
That just shows how bad a war would be for Australia regardless of the outcome, and that we should do a lot more to focus on peace and diplomacy.
Which we have been doing, doesn't mean China won't still decide to take control the the Pacific.
How have we been doing that? What do you think we're doing in the Pacific that promotes peace and builds our reputation and trustworthiness?
We have been in dialogue with them, worked with other nations, given out aid, and other support. You really should read more about it
I have, we routinely violate small nations sovereignty, especially with the debacle over Timor Leste and Agent K, as well as our offshore processing. We engage in bribery and exploitative resource extraction, in fact Rio Tinto is one of the most hated mining companies in Africa because of how bad we act. The aid we have given has been contingent on these small nations not asserting their authority or sovereignty on issues that we don't want to hear about, or even issues our allies don't want to hear about like nuclear testing bans. We are incredibly arrogant to the many small island nations around us, when the Solomon Islands started making deals with China people were talking about it like it was our Island. We constantly neglect building connections with our regional neighbours and choose instead to follow America and the UK. Not just AUKUS, we were committing war crimes in Afghanistan just a few years ago for no good reason, not to mention the Iraq war. The only positive thing I have read Australia doing lately is pushing for a major trade deal with India, which I'm hoping helps strengthen connections but doesn't just end in more fossil fuels being dug up and sold. What have you been reading that makes you think Australia is a good neighbour and ally?
India, Yeah appeasing dictators has always worked out for trade! But not so much for humanitarian and democratic values.
So… your saying that when the economy crashes because we can no longer get Chinese manufactured goods we should then spend a couple hundred billion to trillion dollars on fighting them? Even if we win within the year (which is pretty frankly impossible) China wouldn’t be in any position to resume production.
Not being able to import consumer crap wont crash the economy. Not being able to sell them billions of dollars of rocks would be the problem. Not only that, but the entire Asian region would become a dangerous place to be for ships and planes. China and the USA and allies will be shooting at each other in the area. So not just Chinese and Taiwanese exports but Japanese, South Korean, Philippines, Indonesian, ships and planes wont want to go there. So shut it all down. And tbh I think it would be over in a year. It wont be a land war. Either we succeed in pushing China back and they collapse internally or they win Taiwan, theyve sunk lots of US and Japan navy and shot down airforce planes and blown up US bases and then the new cold war really gets going and China collapses internally. Like no one is going to be trading with China after theyve blown us all up. The fact they even entertain this war is what is scary. Its going to be bad for them either way. Because they are a scary regime. They don't seem rational. They have these delusions of grandeur about restoring past glory. Times have changed.
It's not the Chinese good that are the problem. It's the semiconductors from Taiwan and fuel imports through the Taiwan Strait. That alone would be enough to take our economy out.
> Put another way: if China nukes us, would America nuke them? How much are we willing to gamble on that? Nearly everything,Once the first nuke go's off..It's very doubtful a general would follow through on that comman in the current CCP climate they know they get ruined They have to respond.. if they don't everyone else with nukes will see the red lines been crossed America doesn't need to nuke you send you back to stone age. Their response would likely be conventional,and they are MORE likely to nuke a carrier or something like guam before us They have over 1300 LRASMS in stock, a classified amount of Tomahawk missles,but considering they just spent 4.2 billion re-up for them expect over 2000 in stockpile The B2 launching from whiteman field are enough to bring democracy to any nation on their own,that's Not to mention the air force US doesn't need nukes to send china back to the stone age if it wanted to,they could just take out their coastal airfields from 1000nm away,and then starve the chinese with trade...till the people revolt
>The B2 launching from whiteman field are enough to bring democracy to any nation Like Vietnam? Afghanistan? Libya? Somalia? Yemen?
are u daft,it was sarcasm. And only one of those has been bombed by a b2
>one of those has been bombed by a b2 only one of those has been bombed by a b2 *so far...*
> would America nuke them? No, likely very large conventional response. No reality does the US (or UK, or France or Russia) sacrifice its own existence and cities for someone else. Leaked cold war plans sort of give this away, basically all the non-nuclear middle power states get a nuke, but the main nuclear powers generally try not nuke eachother. The thing is, China has a no first strike policy and it's nukes aren't even assembled or kept in the same place as their launchers. I though don't think Australia should go to war with China over Taiwan. It's actually pretty ridiculous to think we should considering internationally recognised policy on Taiwan (it's part of China). A more relevant point is will the US pick up Australia's lost markets to China, will the US buy Australian beef? wheat? rice? Coal? at the same volume?
> will the US buy Australian beef? wheat? rice? Coal? at the same volume? When China decided to limit and ban imports of Australian goods in these industries we quickly found other markets willing to buy them
Why do you say Taiwan is part of China? Do Taiwanese people want to dismantle their democracy to join a dictatorship? Are they clamouring to be ruled by Beijing? Do they look longingly at Hong Kong's protests? Communist China has never ruled Taiwan, and I doubt that they ever will. In the 20th century, China only ruled Taiwan from 1945-1949. The CCP's imperialist ambitions will be the death of them.
Everyone says Taiwan is part of China. >Do Taiwanese people want to dismantle their democracy to join a dictatorship? Are they clamouring to be ruled by Beijing? Do they look longingly at Hong Kong's protests? Why would we care? All over the world people have their democratic rights threatened. Should we invade any time a democratic government is under threat? >Communist China has never ruled Taiwan, and I doubt that they ever will. In the 20th century, China only ruled Taiwan from 1945-1949. ...and from 1949 to now. Also why are you just talking about the 20th century? In the 19th century Taiwan was part of China until Japan took it from China in a shameful war of aggression. >The CCP's imperialist ambitions will be the death of them. Actually their desire to unite all of China and to undo the century of humiliation is by far the most popular thing about the CCP to the common Chinese person.
Because it's literally part of China according to international law, according to the Australian Government, according to every Western Government. >Do Taiwanese people want to dismantle their democracy to join a dictatorship? Are they clamouring to be ruled by Beijing? Do they look longingly at Hong Kong's protests? Should we support all successionist movements? Are the Russians right to attack then over the DPR/LPR/Crimea? Is Transnistria a real country? Should we attack Spain over the refusal to let Catalonia leave? Should we go to war for Kurdistan? Why should Australians die for Taiwanese people? Independence in Taiwan polls at a grand total of 5%. Americans and Australians seem to care far more about Taiwnese independence than the Taiwanese. >Communist China has never ruled Taiwan, and I doubt that they ever will. In the 20th century, China only ruled Taiwan from 1945-1949. The CPC haven't ruled Taiwan simply because it escaped decolonisation thanks to the intervention of the United States. The reality is though, Taiwan is a historical region of China, China is a civilizational state rather than a nation state of which Taiwan is a core region, and the Chinese people will never, ever let Taiwan be independent, not now, and not in a 1000 years (and on top of that, the Taiwanese see themselves as part of this civilization and claim the exact same back, hell the ROC claims a hell a lot more than the 9 dash line lol). Also more importantly in the context of Australia and the west, we recognise that Taiwan is part of the PRC and that the PRC is the legitimate legal successor to the Qing Dynasty and Chinese Republic. Again, why should Australians die for Taiwan? [Will Taiwanese die for Australia if Australia got attacked by say Indonesia?](https://i.pinimg.com/originals/6a/6d/11/6a6d1124cf69e5588588bc7e397598f6.png) Where has this ridiculous Team America World Police mindset among Australians come from?
Yes let’s support succession movements if they have democratic goals and their oppressors are just thugs running a country for a cash cow. Australia stands up for Democracy - don’t you think? There’s a few in Ukraine demonstrating this.
>Yes let’s support succession movements if they have democratic goals and their oppressors are just thugs running a country for a cash cow. All movements claim to have "democratic goals", hell the Chinese and Singaporeans literally poll the "most Democratic countries on earth" by the their own citizens. The idea that political legitimacy only comes from "liberal democracy" is a purely Western idea and simply doesn't stand up to any scrutiny, not one in reality (why are people often more happy, satisfied under "authoritarian" states and why are authoritarian governments ranking higher than liberal democracies on Government responisveness in studies?) and not in reality (You can't claim that the UK, US are more healthy socities than the Asian tigers, who are massively authoritarian by Western standards). Again as well, why should the Australia play "world police", these actions for "Democracy" have resulted in actual real Genocides (not bullshit "cultural genocides" that the west accuses everyone it doesn't like of) and the deaths of millions and millions and displacement of a hundred million in the past 50 years alone. >There’s a few in Ukraine demonstrating this. Haha, look at Ukraine's "Democracy" rating or it's domestic policies (Thatcherx1000+Literally Illegal to criticise the Government), or even how popular it's Government was before this war (20% approval), also just ignore like, all the brazen Fascist Nazi worship stuff. Those swastikas? Buddhism! Bandera? He was just a patriot! Government youth camps teaching Mein Kampf and kids to use guns and basic military training, oh normal! (They literally printed and handed out Tarrant's manifesto as well). The idea that the Ukraine war has anything to do with "Democracy" is idiotic. It's a war of Russian cultural chauvinism vs Ukrainian ultra-Nationalism being used by the US as a proxy war to deplete Russian forces. (exactly how we bragged about "Dragging the Soviets into their own Vietnam" in Afghanistan). The war is wrong, but it has nothing to do with Democracy. Hell set google search to before this war started or even read how European redditors and the media spoke about Ukrainians before this war started. The UK literally *left the EU* to boot out Ukrainians, Poles and Romanians from their country lol a lot of the rhetoric about that was that people from those countries, were Nazi, authoritarian, undemocratic and incompatable with "british values". And no, why is it Australia's job to defend Ukraine? A country most couldn't even point to on a map before 2022? [Would Ukrainian's defend Australia if Indonesia invaded?](https://i.pinimg.com/originals/6a/6d/11/6a6d1124cf69e5588588bc7e397598f6.png) Do you think Australia should have boots on the ground in Ukraine then? What about Syria? Should we be invading Spain over Catalonia? Turkey over Kurdistan?
Only you keep the ‘boots on the ground‘ meme going, you’re on a mission - I get that you like the strong daddy that keeps you safe - that’s ok and China being over on the ‘authoritarian’ end of the ‘democratic scale’ appeals more than the runaway freedom at the other end of the scale. That’s ok we are not all the same. Australians in Ukraine are Volunteers, badly paid mostly voting for democracy at their own cost. Your wall means nothing.
Okay. I’m a little bit undecided like you. So I was putting this out for conversation. I’m not overly keen on war. But … what is our biggest defence system? The US military. That’s why they call them alliances. We help them, they help us. I genuinely have no fear of ever being invaded. But Taiwan should have. Do we not support other smaller nations if that happens. I lean towards if China has a crack at Taiwan it’s game on. Happy to be corrected on it. I don’t work in International affairs nor defence.
Based on your user name, I'm going to assume you are not a military aged male. It's easy to think a senseless war is justified when you won't be the one thrown into a meat grinder in the first round
It wont be a meat grinder. And besides, what are we meant to do if China decides to make it one? Yes, if China decides to make it one. Its entirely their choice. Why are they not happy with the status quo? Have they not gotten rich? Why do they want to ruin this?
Interesting that it’s only the pacifists who contemplate war. The realist simply arranges things so that war doesn’t happen. The policeman doesn’t carry a gun so she can shoot speeding motorists or jaywalkers. He or she carries a gun so that a malicious person thinks twice before starting something and so he or she can defend themselves if something kicks off.
That’s both a valid point with regards my age, and off point with my circumstances. I have 3 children that I would rather I die than them. But we will not have conscription again. We send out defence forces. Who kinda signed up for certain stuff. Secondly I’d argue an invasion of Taiwan by China may not be ‘senseless.’ War is ugly. So you think our involvement in East Timor was ‘senseless’ because it wasn’t on our own soil?
Yeah that's fair, I well and truly overlooked the fact that you may have children I dunno I just can't see how we wouldn't have conscription if a war breaks out with China, we are a country of what, 28 million people against 1.5 billion Also fair point with Timor, but was more like a peace keeping operation than global nuclear war
It will the be the USA, Japan and others. What is wrong with people? We arnt starting shit, they are. And theyre starting it with a lot of people.
Do you really think this potential conflict is just black and white, the good guys vs the evil guys? The world is a lot more complex than that I'd highly suggest having a read of Kevin Rudd's recent book "The avoidable war". He makes a good case for how savvy diplomacy could help circumvent a conflict, but hawkish attitudes on both sides will lead us down a path of devastation
What was behind it? Lots of ASPI and other weapons manufacturer funding, a flailing media company needing outrage clicks, and neocons trying to play to yellow peril fears.
Defending the Chinese in Taiwan from the CCP is not 'implicitly racist'. Criticising the CPP is not 'implicitly racist'.
It does imply racism when the media's hysteria is completely out of proportion to any of China's actions.
>out of proportion to any of China's actions The CCP has promised to murder millions of Chinese in Taiwan to take their island home by force. It's a promise. They WILL go to war. Are you just going to racistly sit back and let it happen, because who cares it's just Chinese? Who cares, Chinese people deserve to oppressed by a brutal dictatorship? Stop being a racist. Understand the reality of the promise of violence the CCP has against Chinese people in Taiwan.
Yes I'm going to racistly sit in my chair and do nothing but like, in a racist way. Why do you think it's your place to save Taiwan? Did they ask us? Why do you want to reduce authoritarianism in the world by fighting China? There are a million easier ways to reduce authoritarianism in the world. In fact picking a fight with literally any other dictatorship would work better. This is about using Taiwan as an excuse for America to contain China. All wars are unjust, but wars to protect America's dominance is especially evil. Intervention is Imperialism. There is no way to send an army somewhere for anything other than a nation's own national interest. It is simply not a tool that can be used to help other nations, and the 21st century has already created plenty of examples to show this.
>Why do you think it's your place to save Taiwan? Are you the type of person who sees a woman being beaten to death in the street and do nothing? You're right, not our business. You seem like a nice person! >Did they ask us? Yes. Over and over and over again.
>Are you the type of person who sees a woman being beaten to death in the street and do nothing? You're right, not our business. You seem like a nice person! So you admit you have a saviour complex and that's why you don't understand foreign policy? Remember the "beaten woman" of Afghanistan? Remember Iraq? You're talking about invading a nation and forcing your will on their people. It will go how it always goes. Right now sharia law is being imposed on Afghanistan by the Taliban in a much much harsher way than it ever was before. Women are being threatened for getting an education, and anyone who helped us out while we were in Afghanistan is seen as a traitor now. But it's ok because we had good intentions. We wanted good things. Like somehow that matters to the girls of Afghanistan we betrayed and lied to. Please focus your energies Australia, the country where you are openly asked to vote and participate in where we have many problems we need to address. Don't worry so much about all the human rights abuses all around the world, there's nothing our government can do about it apart from giving the refugees fleeing violence asylum. >Yes. Over and over and over again. Who specifically?
[удалено]
[удалено]
That's subjective. I think the opposite. We have been exceedingly patient with Chinas belligerence. Dictatorships only respect power. They are forcing our reaction.
What belligerence? China has always been this way. They've been doing nothing new lately other than having a harsher tone. Do you really think competing claims over the Spartly Islands or ignoring EEZ's is really that belligerent? It's fairly common behaviour especially for nations with massive economies like China that feel like they can throw their weight around. >Dictatorships only respect power. This is something in your head, a narrative you've made about the virtues and moral failings of dictatorship. This isn't reflected in reality at all, we've made incredible progress by working with China as opposed to using power. Furthermore anytime China hears their rivals talking this way, they immediately think of all the horrible things powerful nations forced on them in the century of humiliation. They think we're going to start another Opium war, or Japan is going to rape their cities again.
>They've been doing nothing new lately other than having a harsher tone. Bullshit. [They surrounded their island and did "unprecedented" live-fire drills all around their island](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/aug/03/china-to-begin-series-unprecedented-live-fire-drills-off-coast-of-taiwan). You know you can just not lie about the CCP, right?
Lol this is after Nancy Pelosi *visited* Taiwan. That was what was "unprecedented". The Chinese carry out live fire drills all the time, the difference is this one was much larger and closer than usual. You are completely uninformed if you think China is the one rocking the boat when the second most important American politician visits an unrecognised state.
There is nothing unprecedented about Nancy Pelosi visiting Taiwan... she wasn't even the first Speaker of the House to do so. Trips between US and Taiwanese politicians have been going on since Taiwan became governed by the ROC. The fact is US policy does not consider Taiwan to be part of the PRC, and US policy allows such trips to occur. China does not get to dictate where US politicians go, and China does not get to dictate who can and cannot enter Taiwan.
It's very unprecedented, the US hadn't sent any major representatives of the government between 1979 and 2020. >China does not get to dictate where US politicians go, and China does not get to dictate who can and cannot enter Taiwan. You can't send top American politicians to the other Chinese government that no one even recognises without the main China getting furious. Of course Americans can choose to reopen old wounds of the Chinese civil war if they really want to. It goes against the whole point of diplomacy but whatever.
> It's very unprecedented, the US hadn't sent any major representatives of the government between 1979 and 2020. Wrong. [House of Representatives Speaker Newt Gingrich also visited the island in 1997](https://english.president.gov.tw/NEWS/1034). Newt Gingrich at that time was literally the same position within the US government as Pelosi. ---- >You can't send top American politicians to the other Chinese government that no one even recognises without the main China getting furious. Of course Americans can choose to reopen old wounds of the Chinese civil war if they really want to. It goes against the whole point of diplomacy but whatever. China can cry, but again, US policy never recognized Taiwan as part of the PRC. The United States does not consider Taiwan to be part of China.
Ah cool so dropping in and saying hello warrants a war. What a peaceful and rational action by the CCP. I don't know why people like you are called 'tankies', it's not like you're defending unreasonable levels of violence against people doing non-violent political activity. You're defending imperialism and un-provoked violence.
Recognising Taiwan has been a defacto act of war against China for the entire time America and Australia have had diplomatic relations with China, and Pelosi going over to Taiwan was a huge escalation. We have always gone along with the One China Principle, and then for no reason people like you are expecting our government to change course and act belligerent to a nation that has had the same problems it had 60 years ago when we started diplomatic relations with China. No nation would allow their rivals to visit the region of their country still controlled by the government that they fought a civil war against. No nation has the right to assert Taiwan's independence other than Taiwan. Taiwan is a Chinese province that was lost by the Qing dynasty due to Japanese aggression and internal weakness, it was part of a long period of death and destruction for China that motivates them to strengthen their military. >You're defending imperialism and un-provoked violence. a) Taiwan is a Chinese province regardless of whether or not the ROC or PRC controls it. You are the one trying to redraw borders like an imperialist. b) It is a massive provocation to send any diplomatic mission to the Republic of China, a nation that the People's Republic of China fought a brutal prolonged civil war against and each deny each other's existence. They are mortal enemies that have always fought on and off with each other since the communist party existed.
Visiting Taiwan has NEVER been an act of war you copium addict. JFC. If you believe that, it's too late, we're at war. Some butthurt commies think that visiting and island is an act of war.
> We have always gone along with the One China Principle, This is false. Neither Australia nor the United States has ever gone along with or agreed with the "One China Principle". [You are doing exactly what the US State Department warns about](https://twitter.com/USA_China_Talk/status/1528235347057967109), and mixing up the "one China principle" with the "one China policy": >**The PRC continues to publicly misrepresent U.S. policy. The United States does not subscribe to the PRC’s “one China principle”** – we remain committed to our longstanding, bipartisan one China policy, guided by the Taiwan Relations Act, Three Joint Communiques, and Six Assurances. [Here is LTC Paul Mostafa from the Australian Army, Department of Joint, Interagency and Multinational Operations](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_20tt4tb0Ig&t=4736s&ab_channel=USArmyCGSC) explaining Australia has a similar position with respect to Taiwan and the "one China" policy of Australia. What is the difference between the US "one China policy" and the "one China principle" that would require clarification? Oh yeah, their positions on Taiwan. ---- >No nation has the right to assert Taiwan's independence other than Taiwan. Yes, and no nation has the right to decide who can and cannot visit Taiwan. Taiwan is clear that they are a sovereign independent country already... and they have every right to decide or invite politicians from *any* other country. ---- >Taiwan is a Chinese province that was lost by the Qing dynasty due to Japanese aggression and internal weakness, it was part of a long period of death and destruction for China that motivates them to strengthen their military. Waahhhh, wahhhh, wahhhh. Poor China. The United States were a British colony lost by the British Empire due to French aggression and internal weakness... do you hear the UK crying about losing the United States and their other long lost colonies? Move on. ---- >a) Taiwan is a Chinese province regardless of whether or not the ROC or PRC controls it. You are the one trying to redraw borders like an imperialist. No. Taiwan is the colloquial name for the Republic of China, a sovereign independent country. ---- >b) It is a massive provocation to send any diplomatic mission to the Republic of China, a nation that the People's Republic of China fought a brutal prolonged civil war against and each deny each other's existence. They are mortal enemies that have always fought on and off with each other since the communist party existed. ROC has moved on. Time for the PRC to do the same thing. Children have to become adults at some point.
The only person being racist is you with your ‘peril’ remark. That’s offensive and shows your true colours.
i think its clear all along that some people need a boogieman its been funny over the last few years... remember when North Korea was firing missiles over the sea of japan and trump was going bonkers? and that worked itself out and then it was iran... and then when trump found out he couldnt invade anyone then it went to china and china is a convenient enemy... our biggest trading partner...something like $1.5 trillion over a decade... and yet our mortal enemy i'm not saying that dont deserve that title, clearly they are belligerent and their activities within their own borders and in the south china sea are legend and we have leftover covid symptoms so china is a wonderful stand in for that 'reds in the bed thing' our boomers ancestors worried about i honestly think china knows how they're portrayed and they dont care... their path is set and why would they care about 25 mil people who are making payments day one on subs that will be delivered in 2042... by that time Xi will be dead already
So if China invades Taiwan you reckon we should tell America to fuck off, shrug our shoulders and look away?
Why do you think we should fight (and very likely all die) for Taiwan? We've told the world that Taiwan is part of China and we don't recognise the ROC. Furthermore why not care about all the other areas of the world having their freedom and autonomy denied?
Yeah its a good question. The stakes are a bit different with this though. We're not talking about city states or backwaters. Chinese control of Taiwan changes the calculus of South Korea and Japan. China will have a hand around their throats because of the shipping that goes past Taiwan. We're talking some of the largest, most advanced, most powerful and important countries in the world. Will Taiwan fight? Thats the lynchpin. If Taiwan just decide to downgrade their lives by a factor of ten (TSCM wont survive) and just give up and become a Chinese naval base...then there is nothing we can do. Asian NATO would be on the cards after that and containment efforts would become much worse for China than they are now. Paradoxically. As in, it would be full scale economic isolation. I hope they know that. Like we talk about containment now but it is really just military containment. Which says it all really. We're struggling to contain them militarily. Because they are moving agressively. Admittedly is has spilled over into economic and technological because of our failure to contain their military expansion. But if the main containment barrier falls, the first island chain, then the other containment barriers will need to be heavily reinforced. If they could just liberalise a bit, there wouldn't be a problem. But mafia dictatorships cannot liberalise. Not an inch.
How much do you understand about the dynamic between China, Taiwan, and the USA? You understand the US isn't going to bat for the Taiwanese just out of the goodness of their heart, right? I don't want to tell you what you already know, but it's complicated and the likelihood of China invading is very low.
My recollection is the leftish US media suggesting Trump was a lunatic and war with NK was inevitable. But it didn’t happen. And then he didn’t start any wars. First President for about 40 years. And he got voted into power saying that he was sick of the US being the World’s police. Maybe he kinda … actually did what he said.
> My recollection is the leftish US media suggesting Trump was a lunatic and war with NK was inevitable. Okay..1st Left media in the US..fucking where.. Left in the US,is still liberal right wing for us,MSNBC would maybe be the most progressive news program,and even they are pro war.CNN drunk the kool aid as is now firmly centrist in us politics General Milley,Openly told congress,that he had ppl in his chain of command being told not to accept orders from trump on jan 6 because he was worried what he might do,to the point that per HCGB44 Testimonials the triad may have even been removed from the presidents location,if true that implies a serious concern he wanted to attack someone,as all US service personal have a legal duty to their oathe to deny,or prevent the carrying out,or acceptance of orders that they,or common law would consider illegal. the entire US joint chiefs had zero confidence in trump not chucking a feral To the point the chair,of the joint chiefs had to ring china up and say..we have no plans to attack you...Imagine that,that's never happened The NK shit was overblown,it was more the shit trump would of done leading up to jan 6 to destablize the joint to stay in power more ppl concerned about.
MSNBC are left, The Young Turks are really just a bunch of Trots and they were going on about it as well. Besides the media hated Trump so even if it wasn't because of left they were still going on about how the US will be going to war and that the country will be in ruins when Trump is President and now is President.
MSNBC are left,on the US poltiical spectrum,which would be Right wing,Centrist-right at best on the global political spectrum Burny would be a member of the labor party right if he was here
If you think Rachael Maddow is Centrist right in Australia, you have listened to her properly.
I have listened to her,sadly. And her political ideology would put her in the liberal party at worts,Labor factional right at best
Two points - the US media is not centrist nor middle leaning. By our standards they may be. But go and watch ‘The Loudest Voice’ - where did Jan 6th enter the debate. It’s has nothing to do with NK?
Trump's military record isn't exactly pristine - particularly in Yemen. And the claim to not start any new wars isn't exactly impressive. Nixon technically didn't start any new wars either, but he was still responsible for plenty of bloodshed in SE Asia.
> Nixon technically didn't start any new wars either, Nixon was over 40 years ago
The time is not the point. Nixon bombed the shit out of Cambodia and Laos, but hey, he technically didn't start any new wars either. So where's Nixon's big "I'm a peace loving president" statue?
Well it is, the guy you responded to said first in 40 years.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/about-the-white-house/presidents/richard-m-nixon/ A bloke who lost office ingloriously in 1974? Fuck me, that’s stretching the timeline. And for the record I think it was Carter that was the previous best non-war-monger.
You're missing the point. Presidents not starting war is such a meaningless "achievement." It's also funny how the Trump claim was he was the first president since Eisenhower, until someone opened a history book and pointed out that was bullshit. Obama didn't start any wars either, but Republicans love bringing up Libya (which wasn't a war) and drone strikes (which Trump didn't stop). In fact Trump removed the Obama requirement to report drone strike casualties, which is a bit odd for someone wanting to flex their "peaceful" credentials. Jimmy Carter is consistently criticised as a limp dicked President by the same people who praise Trump as being "strong" for choosing diplomacy over conflict. Even though his support of the Saudis (which included US military involvement) hasn't really worked out well for the Yemenis. Some consistency would be nice.
>And then he didn’t start any wars. This is because he realised the US didn't really need to, it can do anything and nobody can do anything about it but seethe. He literally assassinated the most awarded and decorated Iranian General/Politican on a diplomatic mission of peace. Irans response was to accidentally shoot down it's own airliner. The US blows up Nordstream? Everyone shrugs despite being one of the most damaging attacks on infrastructure in decades and aimed at essentially threatening Germany into submission. I genuinely believe the US can do and basically get away with anything short of actually nuking Beijing and it will at most get a sternly worded letter.
I waSn’t defending Trump globally. If you want to start a convo about involvements US Presidents have had in foreign countries were both ducked. There is NO way Trump had a disproportionate foreign involvement compared to his predecessors. Even his wall. FFS 1/3 of it was built before he came into office.
Look at the facts. Trump never started WW3 let alone a war. He at least tried to stop the escalation towards war. Biden is running a proxy war against Russia and is escalating towards war with China let alone no policy on NK.
Worth pointing out that he was goading NK and insulting Kim. It's not like the fear came from nothing. He'd really have my respect if he had have had the balls to actually pull out of Afghanistan. Then Biden of all people has the big enough balls to finally do it
Trump did announce it and started the process, Biden just pulled the timeline forward.
Trump met Kim. I think twice. This is rewriting history. I’m not defending other things he did but … NK is not a mistake of his.
I'm not sure your point? I'm not rewriting history at all. Yes of course he met with him and all was well and they became best bros, but before that he teased and provoked him in the media.
And … what? He diffused a potential conflict. Orange man bad I suppose.
Trump lowered the bar needed for a presidential intervention in response to a teenage tantrum making every subsequent tantrum potentially more costly. guess your kids are not teens yet, or you would n’t be ‘Orange man the best man’ all the time. I suppose.
Jeez chill out man. Trump had a phase earlier in his presidency, 2017ish, of tweeting that Kim was short and fat and antagonised him as being weak etc. So no wonder AT THAT POINT the media was worried about it creating conflict. That's all I'm saying.
The sources I’m googling pretty much has Trump saying bring it on. Do you have any great source suggesting Trump did anything other than averted war? And stop with the ‘chill out man’ bullshit. If you’ve got something to add then say it. The Trump-bad nonsense doesn’t work in every scenario.
You're fighting with yourself. I like Trump being a dove, it's his best quality. All I'm saying is that he has his rhetoric, and he said some inflammatory things on Twitter. To a level no President ever had before. So I can understand people being anxious, that's all I've said. I think he did do well calming down the situation with NK. I think it was in a better place when Trump left office than it was with Obama. So I don't understand what your issue is, all I said is that he was inflammatory and that I can understand that that was scary to people. Re the chill out man, I only said that cause you said orange man bad. Not sure who you're fighting with
I’m not on Twitter. Never have been. Can you hit me with his most inflammatory comments please?
but he went to North Korea had lovely 'relationship' with Kim Jong, saluted a few Korean generals as is customary of American Presidents and everything was ok...
Yep. But before that he attacked Kim in the media, which made people scared of retaliation
> their path is set and why would they care about 25 mil people who are making payments day one on subs that will be delivered in 2042... By that stage China will be the world’s largest economy, dominate Eurasia, the UK will be just England, a remote isolated basket case island with less clout than Botswana, and the US will be fractured into two separate nations.
if this is true then i doubt a few F35s and nuclear subs is gonna make much of a difference... i get that the military is often based on 'deterrance'... we never used the F111s in anger but the threat that we could bomb Jakarta was ever present... you see how enemies change?