Hi Canem Malum
[re your Saturday, 21 November 2020 11:52:20 AM post]

Sad to say all your comments addressed to me require a fair bit more background reading.

To take your points in turn:

"second hand submarine models" like high performance jetfighters, submarine, accrue metal fatigue from 30 years of use. Also old subs become too noisy compared to new subs and become too vulnerable compared to modern enemy sensors.

War is always expensive eg. efforts to make military vehicles "clean and green" fuel using, have inevitably failed.

Ideology counts for little. Stalin's "leftwing" Red Army was the most powerful army ever, because it had the most good tanks.

Untrue that "fixed nuclear bombs and missiles have some advantages over mobile platforms". It is land mobile ICBMs (on trucks or trains) and submarines (specifically SSBNs) that make the best nuclear missile platforms. This is because China, Russia or North Korea find them harder to hit.

China ulimattely wants Australian territory so "scorched earth" on lands it wants to advance in, is not in the China "playbook".

The "Dirty Bomb" concept is out of fashion compared to devastating nuclear explosions that can destroy already marked out underground missile silos and command centers. Underground missile silos and command centers have sealed air conditioning making Dirty Bombs ineffective.

The US may value trade with the US's already No.1 trade partner. CHINA over alliance with Australia. That is because the US could eventually see Australia as being in China's Sphere of Influence.

Malthusian ideas http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malthusian_catastrophe of reducing population to save the world forget that the 4 countries with the 4 largest populations (US, China, India to some extent Russia) also have the 4 most powerful, nuclear armed, defence forces.

Pete

Canem Malum,

We have our politicians, bureaucrats and business people to blame for the dilemma that they have put Australia in.

If China has been looking for a reason to justify an invasion of Australia it now has it.

And the Chinese won't need any coercion from their leaders to take up arms against Australia in defence of the wrongs that Australia has done to China.

And keep in mind that the enemy is already inside the gates so Australia will need to fight on two fronts.

But I think we might still have a chance of preventing this.

Yes you guessed it: Mr Opinion's 10 point plan to placate the Chinese.

The sooner we put it in motion the safer we will all be.

Plus I want to see Soot and the Boys crawling naked on their hands and knees around Emperor Xi kissing his feet. Maybe they can put it on YouTube.

In Answer To Plantagenet-

Thanks for your feedback Plantagenet.

Russian tanks were numerous rather than the best from memory- same with the US Sherman- the German Tiger and Leopard were the best in WWII. Tank armour is generally weakest at the back so if you can break their lines you can destroy them. Most offensive and defensive strategies are based on formations.

Ideology and culture is important in war- but an underlying issue is economic scarcity.

Your claim is old submarines are too weak from metal fatigue and noisy compared to new subs and become too vulnerable compared to modern enemy sensors- I'm not completely up on the latest sub counter measures- but metal fatigue appears to me to be most relevant to the depth of operation- military subs only operate at a few hundred metres anyway- it's possible to X-ray hull plates for micro-cracking- perhaps labour intensive and expensive. I feel that the reason for retiring old subs is for reasons other than superstructure integrity and more to do with hydrodynamics and systems requirements. Diesel/ electric subs seem to be quietest- nuclear powered subs need to keep the cooling systems running and so give away their position at short range. Though this is usually well offset by the advantages of submarine nuclear power. My understanding is sub detection is mainly possible at short distances- but weapons range is much greater.

I like the idea of land based mobile nuclear platforms but I'm unsure
if they can be kept hidden any more than silos. Chinese use of pre-emptive strikes against Australia would be very different to Australia using nuclear weapons against a Chinese invading force on Australian soil or waters.

I was referring to Australian use of scorched earth rather than Chinese use of scorched earth- it would be suicidal from our perspective but at least it would weaken the Communist Chinese so they couldn't become a thousand year blight on the earth

If the Chinese wanted to take the Australian land they wouldn't use either dirty bombs or nuclear weapons on Australian land- but the Australian's might use it to prevent China getting hold of Australian land- even if we die in the process

The US and the West cannot afford to let Communist China expand as they are an existential threat to the whole planet. The more they are allowed to expand the greater their threat. Sadly many regimes in Africa hate the West so much that they will kick the can down the road with China for temporary gain- the west shares some blame for this perhaps.

The best would be to use a multi-pronged strategy- but the dirty bomb is probably the easiest to achieve in the short term. Over the longer term atomic explosives and multi stage ballistic weaponry may be possible. This seems to be the major technical barrier in a SSBN- especially due to the NNPT and BMTT. Though I'm unsure of what Australia could purchase from our allies.

Trade yes- this is another issue- I don't think the US or Australia actually need China for Trade- it's more of a convenience. We should stop trading with China- because we lose "ground" with every negotiation.

I find Thomas Malthus interesting- I like Malthus believe that the only hope for humanity is a massive reduction in population especially in nations with a high base.

Hi Canem Malum

1. The very numerous (easy to build) nature of the Russian T-34/85 tank defeated the slightly better

but far less numerous German Panther and Tiger tanks.

Russia's T-34/85 meant good armour, mobility and its 85mm gun was better than the unreliable engined Panther's 75mm gun and only marginally less effective than the 88mm gun of the too heavy, slow, difficult to build, Tiger.

Shows you are not yet on top of German tanks that you are unaware Germany's Leopard tank only entered service in 1965 (ie. 20 years after the WWII) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leopard_1

Metal fatigue is the main reason submarines need to be replaced, then due to noise, then larger size is needed for longer range and greater crew comfort. So says the submariners who have talked to me offline.

Diesel-electric subs seem to be quietest UNTIL they need to run their NOISY diesel engines to recharge the batteries about 30 times over a 50 day mission.

The latest Nuclear powered subs use quiet natural motion inside their reactors without the noisy pump flows of Nuclear subs 10 years ago.

True, that sub detection is mainly possible at short distances. A diesel sub can only escape for about 2 hours at 25knots from an anti-submarine craft while a nuclear sub can escape at 30 knots for weeks.

Re "I like the idea of land based mobile nuclear platforms" Yes they are best used on trucks in Heavily Forested areas. ie in Tall Tree areas that don't exist in the scrub and desert of northern and central Australia.

Australia would tend NOT to use "nuclear weapons against a Chinese invading force on Australian soil or waters." because it would irradiate/lay waste our land and waters and invite a Chinese nuclear counterstrike on our towns/cities.
_____________________________

2. The US has been happy to coexist with China as the No.1 TRADE PARTNER in all the years since China has been the US's No.1 ENEMY.

This is a dynamic that might not stop if Australia were to fall into China's Sphere of Influence.

plantagenet,

I know something that would you happy.

It's a giant submarine the size of Cuba fitted out with a trillion hydrogen bombs that can be exploded simultaneously and completing destroying the planet and all life on it.

There, now you sleep at night.