antiterror13
Brigadier
And tell me again how many SSN and SSBN China will have in 2040s? ... probably will have many SSN Type 99 and SSBN Type 100
And Chinese GDP will be much higher than the US or AUKUS
China can build SSN and SSBN a lot cheaper and faster
And Chinese GDP will be much higher than the US or AUKUS
China can build SSN and SSBN a lot cheaper and faster
Lethe
Captain
Hugh White has made a bold prediction: that .
As some folks know, I'm a big fan of Professor White. I can't say I agree with this, however. The costs and risks are indeed enormous, and any one of the three players could, in theory, deal a crippling blow to the enterprise. But I can see this program stumbling on, zombie style, well beyond the point where its folly has become obvious, carried on institutional and diplomatic inertia alone.
I do think that Professor White is on point , however:
The Virginia-class submarines to be delivered in the 2030s were the surprise in this AUKUS announcement. It was a surprise because we know that the US Navy has no submarines to spare, nor spare production capacity. Hence, superficially, selling Australia scarce Virginia-class submarines is an act of great generosity on the part of the United States. Yet we well know that in international affairs, no country is going to degrade its own capabilities to bolster those of another. To put it another way, the only reason the United States is willing to sell us these submarines is because they don't actually regard the RAN as distinct from its own forces. That is to say, the United States is assuming that where it leads, we will follow and do as we are told, no matter the potentially calamitous consequences.
That is what Washington believes, and it is evidently what Canberra has allowed Washington to believe. What Canberra has not done is articulate this to the Australian people. If it is indeed the position of the Australian government that we will go to war if and when Washington tells us to, then the government needs to inform the Australian people of this so that they may can be judged at the ballot box accordingly. Anything less is a grotesque betrayal of the Australian people.
I'm no fan of AUKUS but I don't see how the number of Chinese SSNs is relevant to the question of how suitable SSNs are for Australia.
As some folks know, I'm a big fan of Professor White. I can't say I agree with this, however. The costs and risks are indeed enormous, and any one of the three players could, in theory, deal a crippling blow to the enterprise. But I can see this program stumbling on, zombie style, well beyond the point where its folly has become obvious, carried on institutional and diplomatic inertia alone.
I do think that Professor White is on point , however:
The Virginia-class submarines to be delivered in the 2030s were the surprise in this AUKUS announcement. It was a surprise because we know that the US Navy has no submarines to spare, nor spare production capacity. Hence, superficially, selling Australia scarce Virginia-class submarines is an act of great generosity on the part of the United States. Yet we well know that in international affairs, no country is going to degrade its own capabilities to bolster those of another. To put it another way, the only reason the United States is willing to sell us these submarines is because they don't actually regard the RAN as distinct from its own forces. That is to say, the United States is assuming that where it leads, we will follow and do as we are told, no matter the potentially calamitous consequences.
That is what Washington believes, and it is evidently what Canberra has allowed Washington to believe. What Canberra has not done is articulate this to the Australian people. If it is indeed the position of the Australian government that we will go to war if and when Washington tells us to, then the government needs to inform the Australian people of this so that they may can be judged at the ballot box accordingly. Anything less is a grotesque betrayal of the Australian people.
I'm no fan of AUKUS but I don't see how the number of Chinese SSNs is relevant to the question of how suitable SSNs are for Australia.
Last edited:
This is not how foreign policy has been historically conducted and it is unlikely to ever be conducted that way in Western countries. More importantly, as I've seen from my own country, domestic audiences pay little attention to various intricacies of foreign policy. They tend to go along with whatever the government consensus is.
Who cares about the people? Irrelevant.
The center has sent the diktat, its now the imperial territory's duty to implement it. That's the basic structure of the American Empire.
Australian people are at the bottom tier of the American Empire's policy making and as such they don't need to know anything. Their only duty is to faithfully implement the center's commands
First of all the idea that there needs to be an arms race is a misconception.
The US could afford to build up its military only because of Bretton Woods which means that in real terms it could be thought as the entire world paying for the navy. In reality the world paid for the army and the air force because the navy would always be the foundation of strategy but it's not important for this argument. WW2 allowed for expansion of the fleet, reductions took some of it but during the Cold War a previously unsustainable fleet was maintained due to US Dollar's position in the global financial system.
This expansion however came at cost to domestic economy or social programs. Look at US and EU and compare defense expenditures. Most EU Countries don't cross 2% not because they don't want to but because they can't. They have to make a political choice and because most EU countries are more democratic than the US it is impossible to fund military spending at the expense of social programs and the alternative is debt or inflation which affect social programs in the long run. Those few that spend more like Greece do it at even greater cost to themselves.
The US achieves its military expenditure through aggressive suppression of any policy that could establish a welfare program unless it has absolutely no alternative. The idea of "states can do it" is a deception because states can't do it due to competitive race to the bottom in a single market. You need harmonization which is what happens in EU with tremendous difficulties because of the advantage that lack of expansive social policy provides for capital owners. But the EU has states which have such policy and push to harmonize to protect themselves. In the US the states that don't have such policy are the majority and prevent federal government from harmonizing.
As soon as expanding welfare becomes a necessity US military expenditures will plummet to 2-2,5% at best. China keeps its spending at that level precisely because it understands that internal stability is more important than external power projection. China won't spend more unless it is forced to. It's an issue of ecology rather than economics. The level of (approximately) 2% is sustainable if and if your economy is on a long-term growth trend then 2% will be sufficient. It's the US that is spending itself into problems and needs an increasingly aggressive foreign policy to maintain what is an unbalanced ecological calculus.
In other words China is playing the US' role in the Cold War when USSR exceeded its natural threshold for military spending at the cost of welfare and prosperity. That's always the correct play if you're not threatened directly. Fundamentally China may simply plan its expansion with the assumption that US will have to reduce its own fleet due to inability to sustain it. The US can maintain oversized fleet at the expense of army or air force but that has to be compensated by others which needs to be arranged politically. The US is in a position to influence its vassals to play along as long as the population understands Washington interest as their own. This is for example the case in my country where Russia is perceived as a fundamental threat. But at the same time support for Ukraine isn't natural and the extent to which propaganda has to be employed to maintain it is unprecedented. Poles support Ukrainian refugees because they see that as a preferable cost of weakening Russia compared to direct involvement. But anything that doesn't align with national interest is problematic. For example anti-Chinese rhetoric has been growing in recent years due to US influence and control of media but it's far from what the US needs. Rhetoric is matched by rhetoric because words cost nothing. EU will do the minimum that it needs to get Washington off its back and only as much as it sees in its own self-interest. No more.
And that means that US needs to maintain full-spectrum capability. It can't rely on naval power or even naval and air power because it can't be sure that vassals or allies or partners will compensate land power. Also land power is the single largest constituency in political terms due to size and most important for internal stability. It is impossible to cut the land power below certain threshold.
China might simply assume that parity is more beneficial because while it comes from lower numbers and with a positive balance the US comes to it from higher numbers and a negative balance. US will be degenerated. China will be regenerated.
The idea that there must be a race to match or outmatch each other is repeating of Cold War but Cold War had two new superpowers competing for position. US-China contest is an old superpower vs new superpower. It's Britain vs America. (Britain vs Germany is not ideal due to Germany's unique need for land power). That contest looked very differently from Cold War and ended with a number of naval treaties.
Secondly I just realized something that is obvious in retrospect: AUKUS base is near Perth in Western Australia.
SSNs are bad for littoral operations for many reasons that I won't get into here. SSKs are used because they're cheaper despite limited mobility and endurance because in littorals submarines will increasingly have a very limited role.
Everywhere else the seas are an obstacle and SSNs will have to cross it. It also makes no sense for AUKUS to be about South China Seas or even the West Pacific because there are potential problems everywhere. If not now then in the near future.
However in open seas where depth and terrain don't limit dynamic maneuvering to evade detection SSNs have an advantage.
This makes perfect sense:
If you think about SEA archipelagos as GIUK then Indian Ocean can become the Atlantic. It's not about the SSNs it's about the infrastructure for SSNs. That infrastructure will be ready before Virginias enter service in 2030s and will be ensured by rotation of USN and RN SSNs.
Prediction: AUKUS is preparation for inevitable ceding of territory. It is about providing the pivot point for shifting of strategy toward one that won't need US to force Australia against its perceived national interest. No point in pushing a country into war if war can be brought to it. Again - think Ukraine and Poland/EU. Australians won't matter because they will never have to make the decision.
And as for why France had to be cut out of it.
France d'Outre-Mer
British Overseas Territories:
French territories in the Indian Ocean have a population of over 1 million (Reunion, Mayotte) and the French Southern and Antarctic Land are open to military infrastructure if necessary.
It's about ensuring a physical foothold in a crucial waterway. UK has a leash. France for all that we may think of it has a much larger degree of independence which is why it's kept out of Five Eyes for example. And France has influence in the EU which brings in comparable economic potential.
Think about the 42 Rafales that Indonesia bought. That's a sign where many countries in SEA see themselves - not party to either US or China. And that can't be allowed. Therefore any actor that can bring in additional options must be eliminated.
Ceding of what territory and to whom?
If they paid 250 billion USD worth to China they can buy themselves a whole navy. It is more than a full year of Chinese military budget.
To sum it up - AUKUS is basically the US and the UK parking their subs in Australia while making Canberra pay for them.
Why does it sound so suspiciously familiar to how US bases and facilities are hosted in South Korea and Japan? Hmm...
Why does it sound so suspiciously familiar to how US bases and facilities are hosted in South Korea and Japan? Hmm...
Last edited:
Lethe
Captain
Australia's Defence Minister, Richard Marles, has rejected the contention that Australia receiving nuclear submarines from Australia is conditional upon a commitment to join the United States in a potential conflict with China:
Let us say for the sake of argument that Marles is right: that no such assurance was given, nor was one sought. This says nothing about Washington's perceptions of Canberra's position, or what Canberra has allowed Washington to assume. If Canberra were to clearly state that it makes no commitment to support the United States in hypothetical combat operations against China, I suspect that Washington's enthusiasm for this submarine enterprise would markedly diminish, if not evaporate entirely.
I would also ask Marles if current and envisioned basing arrangements for US forces in Australia will operate under agreements specifying either that (a) US forces cannot conduct combat operations from bases in Australia without approval from Canberra or (b) that US forces can be evicted from Australian bases at a moment's notice. In the absence of either of these conditions, Washington can effectively commit Australia to war without Canberra's consent, making the above considerations moot.
Let us say for the sake of argument that Marles is right: that no such assurance was given, nor was one sought. This says nothing about Washington's perceptions of Canberra's position, or what Canberra has allowed Washington to assume. If Canberra were to clearly state that it makes no commitment to support the United States in hypothetical combat operations against China, I suspect that Washington's enthusiasm for this submarine enterprise would markedly diminish, if not evaporate entirely.
I would also ask Marles if current and envisioned basing arrangements for US forces in Australia will operate under agreements specifying either that (a) US forces cannot conduct combat operations from bases in Australia without approval from Canberra or (b) that US forces can be evicted from Australian bases at a moment's notice. In the absence of either of these conditions, Washington can effectively commit Australia to war without Canberra's consent, making the above considerations moot.
Last edited: