Of course we should be leaning towards Japan over China. Japan is democratic country with civilized attitudes towards its own people and the world.

China is no ally of Australia. It simply and sneakily wants our raw materials. Japan is, at least, a country with some experience of liberal democracy, even if it does possess an annoying culture. We can lean towards whomever we want, as those two countries do when it suits them.

We shouldn't suck up to China (or Japan or even Indonesia).

Kevin Rudd had the right idea: we should be a trusted friend who tells it to them straight. Unfortunately he didn't properly follow through on that. Had he defended (to the Americans) China's right to manipulate its own currency, he'd probably have achieved that. But as it is, China does not see us as a friend at all.

We should base our foreign policy on issues, not alliances.

Of course that doesn't mean we shouldn't have alliances. Our alliance with the USA is robust enough to withstand issues, and it should certainly continue. But we should never let alliances cloud our judgement.

Agree Aidan: As to the subject of subs;they should be built here, with our locally smelted steel and Nuclear powered.

Given modern nuclear power ( pebble reactors) is safer than diesel and able to stay at sea for more than a year if needed!

To that end we should import whatever technology that best allows that and the 50 knots plus escape speeds that would present?

Modern subs are bigger than 4,000 ton WW11 aircraft carriers; and given that is so, should be used to carry fleets of Aussie invented mini subs into harm's way? War machines must be war capable!

That being a better option than risking a whole ship (oops, boat) of the line and a hundred or more lives, just to deliver a sizable and deadly payload?

The completely acrylic Aussie invented bulletproof minisub dives deeper than any comparable metal sub, well below the range of conventional depth charges; and literally flies through the water due to a steam powered venturi jet system.

Stronger than steel transparent acrylics allows the operators to eyeball the targets and their countermeasures.

Moreover, rockets can be fired underwater and travel to the intended target far faster than torpedoes Which they can eyeball and knock out!

Given the number of subs possibly traveling these waters, we may well need to use our subs as a means to deliver countermeasures, that keep these things below a launch capability of their own?

The only real danger that presents in tricky man in the middle peacemaker role?

Not only should we build the subs here but decide for ourselves their most efficient role?

And given their cargo could be a fleet of mini subs able to descend below what others would normally expect?

Able to deliver unexpected firepower of our own, if threatened and needing to do so!

We can be China's friend, but given her two faced human rights record, never her ally!
Rhrosty.

This document, written by China's Ministry of Foreign Affairs, http://www.fmprc.gov.cn/mfa_eng/gjhdq_665435/2675_665437/ - purportedly written by a Uni student - contains nothing new.

And your point is . . . ?

Yes. What is Wang's point?

Why such a militaristic response, Rhosty? do you really think the government should waste squillions of dollars on unproductive military assets that are completely irrelevant to our strategic needs?

The main purpose of our submarines is espionage, not warfare. Nuclear submarines are totally unsuitable as they can only operate in deep water.

If we go to war it will be as part of an international coalition — we don't need our own nuclear submarines.

________________________________________________________________________________

Never mind Wang's point, plantagenet, what's yours?

I vill ask der questions.

What-are-ya Aidan?

The purpose of Subs is NOT espionage, that is secondary. Their primary purpose is to raise the cost of either direct or indirect military pressure to an unacceptable degree; hopefully unused by being existent. China's decision to escalate on the Spratly Islands would be heavily influenced by sub-surface forces.

A Division of troops takes about 1.5 million tonnes of shipping to support (blue sea), a large interdictable target.