.

Dear ttbn,

.

You ask :

« Are Australian Nuclear Submarines A Myth? »
.

Rather a long-term project, I would suggest, ttbn. Scomo’s presentation of UKUS as the starting point of a “forever partnership” is particularly significant from my point of view.

The notion of eternity is, undoubtedly, deeply entrenched in Scomo’s Pentecostal Christian religious beliefs.

However, apart from creating the buzz, I don’t think the announcement of the UKUS pact will have much practical effect on our foreseeable current, short, or even medium-term vulnerabilities.

It certainly does nothing to counter the crippling bullying tactics of our leading trading partner. China has got us by the short and curlies and apparently there’s not much we can do about it.

That’s no pact or promise. It’s harsh reality.

Of course, there’s nothing wrong with preparing for the long term. That’s fine, but our betrayal of France was a stupid move and totally unwarranted. Our existing partner and important ally in the Indo-Pacific should have been part of the deal. We’ll probably pay dearly for that forever too – “beware of the Aussies, they can’t be trusted” !

We upturned the tables like a bull in a china shop in a desperate lunge for a promise of future security that will remain well beyond our reach for many years to come.

Australian diplomacy, I guess.

"She’ll be right mate" (with the proverbial slap on the back) !

I hope we manage to bungle through the next half-century or so.

.

When it comes to international diplomacy, Morrison is still wet behind the ears, he has no idea of the Chinese/American relationship and the
intricacies involved. America would drop Australia as easily as it dropped Afghanistan if it believed American interests were being served. As for Morrison, he naively tries to "sabre-rattle" without actually having a sabre to rattle. Our minor allies in South East Asia are greatly concerned with Australia's foolhardy provocations of China. Where we should be following a carefully plotted nonaligned diplomatic course in the region to bring about stability and peace, we seem to be hell-bent on creating belligerency in a hostile environment. Maybe Morrison wants to be remembered as the Australian Prime Minister who "defeated" China in the Great War of 22!

Sorry I didn't mention the Poms....they're irrelevant, with that fool Johnson still living in the sad old days of empire and gunboat diplomacy!

BJ,

UKUS? You left Australia out of AUKUS, and the Pentecostals are not part of the deal as far as I know.

But no. I don't see futuristic submarines or any other preparations being of much use when China seems to be ready to hop into us next week. On the other hand, China has never fought a proper war, merely helping out fellow Commos in Korea; a tiff with India, and some interference in Vietnam, whose Ho Chi Min loathed them.

It has been said by one China-watcher that the one child policy has produced spoiled little "emperors" who would piss themselves if they had to actually fight instead of goose stepping.

Let's hope for our sake, as well as theirs, that we never have to find out.

According to the Lowy Institute's take on this deal - there
is a real long-term significance for Australia. We're told
that "it signals that Australia is betting on the United
States as a long-term partner in the region as China's
rise continues. Australia is gambling that over the decades
long lifespan of these submarines the United States will
remain committed to its defence and to maintaining a regional
presence."

We're also told that the fact that Australia has cancelled
the submarine program with France's Naval Group is not a
bad thing because the project was going to deliver the
submarines too late and at an eye watering cost.

Does Australia need nuclear powered submarines?
It depends on what we want to achieve. They would be
important assets in any allied effort to deter war with
China or to defeat China if deterrence failed.

However, in summing up the Lowy Institute tells us that
- "It's also worth noting that these
subs will be largely dependent on US and UK nuclear know
how. We had better hope that our defence and foreign policy
priorities remain closely aligned with these two partners.

Foxy,
>They would be important assets in any allied effort to deter war with
> China or to defeat China if deterrence failed.

I think it's more accurate to say they would be impotent assets in any allied effort to deter war with China or to defeat China if deterrence failed!

A few submarines won't be much use against China, but nor will any vessels or weapons. A much more effective strategy would be to ensure the Chinese people don't blindly follow militaristic leaders. A good start would be to concentrate our efforts on making Xi lose face.

Just looked up the figures again, China has 4,016,000 in their Armed forceps, we have 88,700, so buy some epoxy glue and coat your Sabre blades liberally, then sheath; this will not only stop the onset of ‘sabre rattle’ it will also stop them being drawn.