AUKUS News, Views, Analysis.

As an Anglo-Australian with views that fall outside those approved by the establishment, these developments have all been rather depressing. It seems that the present Australian government is determined not only to further the cycles of suspicion and recrimination that have characterised Australia-China relations these past years, but to greatly constrain the ability of future governments to pursue a more independent foreign policy. For as the people of Okinawa know, once you invite the Americans in you will find it very difficult to get them out. More of my thoughts on the political aspects of all this can be found .

From a purely military perspective, Australia seems determined to field as little as they can by way of relevant capabilities, at the greatest possible cost. Nations concerned about shifting power dynamics in the region that seek to make themselves "match fit" in preparation for possible conflict do not embark on gold-plated generation-scale projects like the Hunter-class frigate or the Attack-class submarine. They do not waste valuable resources investing in irrelevant armoured vehicles, and they do not trash in-process procurements and relationships with friendly nations on a "plan to have a plan". If we are to be an adversary of Beijing, the latter can be reassured that we are, at least, incompetent.

nlalyst said:

Nuclear propulsion is not against the NPT.

However, this does set a precedent for a non-nuclear power and opens the doors for other major players like Japan and S. Korea (and even Canada) to go nuclear with their submarines.

Click to expand...

It is against it. This is not a "peaceful use of nuclear power". Please stop with this patronizing view.

ZeEa5KPul said:

Respond like France did? Like what, impotently cry and whine? What a silly suggestion.

Click to expand...

At least that is a respond. Beijing does nothing. Three countries coming together against you and proliferating nuclear weapons, all you do is nothing? This is exactly like Huawei ban. It started with New Zealand, China did nothing as a response so evidently there was no cost to harm China... and now half of the world banned Huawei and for practical purposed Huawei is erased from handset business and its future depends on whether China can come up with chips in 2 years.

I cannot believe how docile China is. After 300 years still learning the game

nlalyst said:

Nuclear propulsion is not against the NPT.

However, this does set a precedent for a non-nuclear power and opens the doors for other major players like Japan and S. Korea (and even Canada) to go nuclear with their submarines.

Click to expand...

Gives Iran every incentive to enrich HEU.

foxmulder said:

At least that is a respond [sic].

Click to expand...

No, it isn't a response, it's a child crying to get a lollipop from daddy. It's optics, and while the simple-minded are impressed by optics, the serious want results. These are results:

foxmulder said:

Huawei is erased from handset business and its future depends on whether China can come up with chips in 2 years.

Click to expand...

Do you think this is the first technological embargo China has faced? Since you obviously don't know the answer, let me provide it: No. Every single technological embargo China has faced it has crushed, and this will be no different.

foxmulder said:

I cannot believe how docile China is.

Click to expand...

As I said, noise and fury appeal to the simple-minded. China doesn't approach these situations like a social media feud, it just wins.

Sardaukar20 said:

This means. That Australia would need to fuel those 8 nuclear submarines with weapons grade HEU, and tons of them. It could either be imported from the US, UK, or made in Australia with their own uranium, but it doesn't matter. This is a blatant disregard of the NPT. Having tons of weapons grade HEU in the Australian inventory is just not gonna make China and ASEAN feel secure. It blurs the line between a nuclear and non-nuclear state.

Click to expand...

Well China now has until 2040 to reach parity with the US and Russia. Also, by 2026, China would have significantly more plutonium processing capacity. Australia (and Japan) can go nuclear as they wish, but if they disregard the NPT, Beijing could formally put aside all guardrails against the DPRK and Pakistan and share relevant nuclear technologies (beyond simple implosion devices both "rogue states" already possess) according to strategic needs. That is a risk Washington and Canberra need to consider. Additionally, if NPT were to be disregarded, China could simple back out from other arms control treaties like the Outer Space Treaty, CTBT, BWC, CWC, etc (and potentially mate the relevant WMDs with autonomous/AI technologies). With an economy and manufacturing sector likely greater than those of the U.S. by 2030s, China could have to capacity to stay ahead of the U.S. and its allies in the renewed WMD arms race.

ansy1968 said:

@bajingan bro China need to sit back, eat its pop corn and enjoy the show. Its a blockbuster with the sexy French doing the acting." profite du spectacle".

Click to expand...

"Ooh lala.

foxmulder said:

At least that is a respond. Beijing does nothing. Three countries coming together against you and proliferating nuclear weapons, all you do is nothing? This is exactly like Huawei ban. It started with New Zealand, China did nothing as a response so evidently there was no cost to harm China... and now half of the world banned Huawei and for practical purposed Huawei is erased from handset business and its future depends on whether China can come up with chips in 2 years.

I cannot believe how docile China is. After 300 years still learning the game

Click to expand...

Pfft...where the heck have you been mister, haven't you heard or seen from the pronouncements of the recently created AUKUS, GEEK QUAD, that China's very aggressive actions in the SCS, Taiwan, the border dispute with India and China's desire to upend the global elite order helped ushered and established by the U.S. is under immense stress from red Chyna!! And here you are implying that China is being docile? So when China takes action even from within it's own territory i.e. Xinjiang, Tibet, Taiwan and Hong Kong, it's interpreted in the worst possible light. And when she's being calm as f..k and relatively relaxed with it's reaction to the recently created AUKUS some people like yourself assumes that China is being basically a p...sy. lol

foxmulder said:

At least that is a respond. Beijing does nothing. Three countries coming together against you and proliferating nuclear weapons, all you do is nothing? This is exactly like Huawei ban. It started with New Zealand, China did nothing as a response so evidently there was no cost to harm China... and now half of the world banned Huawei and for practical purposed Huawei is erased from handset business and its future depends on whether China can come up with chips in 2 years.

I cannot believe how docile China is. After 300 years still learning the game

Click to expand...

One, China is not an aggressive nation. Two, China states it does not want war, but is not afraid of war [hope you can underdtand the underlined meanings].

Regarding to Huawei, it was a concogtion dreamt up by loud mouth trump followed now by biden to buy US stuff [gredd]! Guess what, China is chipping away [pun not intended!] to develop its own brand of chip which some are already in existence. China will do better than that because they are going full steam ahead to develop an innovative country, chip and other high tech items/equipment are in the cross-hair.

Not distant in the future US and its lackeys will regret as they might have to purchase from China the ultra high tech chip, among other things.

Indeed its not annoying, I just want to put the facts straight for our contributors.

Please let’s stay on topic, don’t feed the trolls and use the ignore feature for members that upset or annoy you. Thanks

“China is acting aggressive always..” —> Ignore.

It makes the threads much more pleasant. You can always Un-ignore if you see people responding to them in a positive way, which never really happens.

“In short, AUKUS not only negatively affects regional peace and stability from China’s perspective but it also appears to be a sucker deal from Washington’s perspective. So why, then, does Australia still want to do it? Behind all the beautiful but obviously hollow rhetoric of Joe Biden, the real purpose, in my view, is money. AUKUS tore apart a $66 billion existing contract involving a major ally in Europe, supplanting it with a deal worth about $100 billion for American defense contractors by replacing diesel engines with nuclear reactors. That is a lot of money, and it means a lot of jobs in Connecticut and other parts of the U.S.

Whether this deal is in the national interest of Australia or even whether these wonderful submarines will ever be delivered as promised are entirely different issues, and the current administration in Washington couldn’t care less.”