Even though I've been able to demonstrate to the hilariously gullible AC that his favoured sources lied to him about all sorts of issues, he continues to beleive every word they utter and fall for all their lies. I guess it will always be thus. All we can do is sit back and giggle at how much he gets wrong and the mental gymnastics he has to go through to pretend otherwise.

'China actually spends less on militarism as a percentage of GDP than Australia does, China 1.7%,..."

It takes a special kind of naivety to believe official Chinese figures. Those who study such things know that China is spending closer to 5% of its real GDP on its military build-up. A while back I had to teach Paul that the Chinese navy is building vessels at a far greater rate than the US as it prepares itself for its imperialist ambitions. Paul ought to ponder where the money for that massive militaristic expansion is coming from if the numbers he falls for are true.

But back to the subs. The real threat from China will occur between now and 2040. But the main sub roll-out will occur after that and is therefore quite useless. After 2040 China will either be in irreversible decline or will have won its war of aggression and will dominate in ways that a few extra subs won't reverse.

People who don't know the difference between 'offence' and 'defence' are worry. You know, the type that describes people as "warmongers" if they want to defend themselves from possible aggressors.

China has made no bones about its plans for Taiwan. China - not Australia, not America, not Japan, not Vietnam, not the Philippines, - is doing the warmongering.

And, only the naive and halfwitted think that China will be satisfied just with taking over Taiwan.

If Australia does become involved in a conflict with China, these people, who clearly despise and hate Australia, will need to be rounded up and interned for the duration.

Hi Paul,
"Just as a side China actually spends less on militarism as a percentage of GDP than Australia does, China 1.7%, Australia 1.9%, America 3.4%..."
I'm not exactly sure your projected assumptions re China and the US are correct here, the 1.9% is correct though.
I think we spend 55bln, China spends around 250bln, but I'm not sure how to calculate that specifically in USD for comparison.
I looked back a while ago, and tried to work out by how much we'd have to spend to match Trumps 5% expectation.
What's really happening is that Trump wants EU countries to pay more so NATO can defend Ukraine I think, where America gets the weapons sales to bolster their own economy, while not having to foot the bill for a conflict which they started through NATO expansion and overthrowing the country in 2014 which cost them 5bln funded by USAID.

"Then there is the question as to what you spend all this new found wealth on?"
Well, if you are really talking about defense, and not being lackey to US conflicts such as a war with China, then the question your asking is how do we stop an invasion fleet and make it so costly to an adversary that it's not worthwhile trying.

[Cont.]
Drones, missiles, maybe mini-subs and mines, and a couple of subs with a nuclear weapon deterrent.
The cost of US weapons would be so great it would be better developing our own I think drones and missiles and we're so far behind, even for every single Iskander Russia fires at Ukraine they need 2 interceptors, so your looking at US$2million+ for every one fired at us, and we can't stop hypersonics, so an enemy can flood the airspace with $10k drones force us to exhaust all our interceptors and we cant stop the hypersonics from hitting their targets anyway.
Launching missiles with sea-mines could help but its a whole lot of sea to cover, mini-subs could be effective, but having a big sub with a nuclear deterrent could work, but only if we can get around our adversaries ability to shoot it down, which might be probable.
Even Indonesia has 280 million people, sucessfully fighting off an invasion on our shores could only be possible if we can make an enemies ability to resupply an invading force too costly.

So yeah, I'm no expert but I can only say 'difficult and costly' in any scenario, best to stay neutral, prioritise diplomacy over conflict and not get into wars in the first place.

"China has made no bones about its plans for Taiwan. China - not Australia, not America, not Japan, not Vietnam, not the Philippines, - is doing the warmongering."

Oh gawd here we go...

Do you not understand the US recognises Taiwan as a part of China, but at the same time it doesn't.

It's like the US saying this week that 'Yes we recognise Tasmania as a part of Australia' and next week they say 'We support democracy and Independence for the Tasmanians', when they wish to use it as a beachhead for their own hostile plans against us.
- Not our problem, let China and the Taiwanese figure it out themselves, it should stay a part of China, but have it's own autonomy without any foreign interference.

Similar to how Queensland's a part of the Commonwealth of Australia, but has it's own state laws.

"And, only the naive and halfwitted think that China will be satisfied just with taking over Taiwan."
China is already the industrial powerhouse of the planet, do you have any evidence they have imperialist expansionist plans on the planet?
How many military bases do they have in foreign countries as compared to the USA?

"If Australia does become involved in a conflict with China, these people, who clearly despise and hate Australia, will need to be rounded up and interned for the duration."

57,000 active personnel in ADF and 1.4 million Chinese living here.
Have fun rounding them up, the smart ones wont get caught, and what about those who are half-Chinese half-Australian?
Round up every family member who has contact with the Chinese mainland and has family there?
Good luck.

Again, best not to get into a conflict in the first place.
If the Chinese do wish to invade, we should just give it to them.
- Less costly than any alternative, (unless you wish to conscript every man and boy to fight a war we can't win anyway and bankrupts up within a few months, like the hapless Ukrainians)
We're 'multicultural' now, they already own half the place when we sold ourselves out.

As usual AC shows that he completely misunderstands the issues of the day....
"Do you not understand the US recognises Taiwan as a part of China, but at the same time it doesn't."

That's wrong. But of coarse, AC said it so the chances of it being right are small.

The US (and Australia for that matter) don't recognise Taiwan as being part of China. Instead they acknowledge that Peking makes that claim and the US takes no position either way on it. Australia, the US, the UK and many others "recognised the Government of the PRC as China's sole legal government, and acknowledged the position of the PRC that Taiwan was a province of the PRC", but "neither supports nor opposes the PRC position" on the matter." And in all cases they support the right of the Taiwanese to determine their destiny.

AC's silly Tasmanian analogy would only work if the Tasmanians wanted independence from Canberra.

But for dills like AC, if the CCP says it, it must be true.