International Australia's Position in Asia-Pacific Geopolitics, as Beijing's Rising Shadow Casts Over Canberra.

[original doom]

US should trade military protectionism for 60% stake in the REE deposits -- otherwise, they can invest in and man their own nuclear tech

no lol you guys will use it to fund hondurans. seriously though pine gap is an important installation for america so its all equal.

 

[Ruprecht]

Like a jetty but bigger but seriously it's not a big deal there are other ports and naval bases close by for the 3000 U.S. marines stationed in Darwin to sail from, It's not like the Chinese gov't have troops here ready to close it to anyone.

It's about as much of a threat as the thousands of excellent (Chinese owned and operated) Chinese restaurants dotted all over the country.
Although to be honest I'd be perfectly happy for the American military to piss off.

 

[Karasu-Hanta]

It's about as much of a threat as the thousands of excellent (Chinese owned and operated) Chinese restaurants dotted all over the country.
Although to be honest I'd be perfectly happy for the American military to piss off.

The Marines up in Darwin seam well behaved they get involved in heaps of community programs and school sports days they also did a hell of a job after the latest cyclone same with the ADF

 

[Karasu-Hanta]

Honestly....I wonder what will happen, if America said no to the debt..........I mean we are the top dawg, we do have the best military....Could we simply say no and fuck everyone else up, including banks up?......I really doubt the banks or anybody else will come asking us for money or anything.....including china...unless we became weaker, and then they could tell us what to do.

Economics how does it work?

 

[Ruprecht]

The Marines up in Darwin seam well behaved they get involved in heaps of community programs and school sports days they also did a hell of a job after the latest cyclone same with the ADF

They're also an economic boon, so I understand why the locals want them there. I'd just prefer Australia to hop off America's coattails.

 

[GOATER]

Economics how does it work?

Of course they would stop lending us money, but if we seriously became 100% evil....We can take over a lot of land, we can fuck up banks....This is true.

Of course, our politicians are little bitches to banks, etc......

 

[original doom]

It's about as much of a threat as the thousands of excellent (Chinese owned and operated) Chinese restaurants dotted all over the country.
Although to be honest I'd be perfectly happy for the American military to piss off.

why ?

 

[Supereem]

US nuclear attack submarines and navy warships should be based in Perth in response to China’s growing power projection into the Indo-Pacific, a new US report warns.

The report says Australia and its allies must “spotlight and push back” against China’s stepped-up efforts to project power and build military infrastructure in the region. Otherwise, it warns, Beijing’s behaviour may “upturn longstanding assumptions about the Indo-Pacific region remaining free and open”.

The strongly worded report by Washington’s Centre for Strategic and International Studies was written by Michael Green, the former director of Asian affairs at the National Security Council under George W. Bush, and by Andrew Shearer, former national security adviser to prime minister Tony Abbott.

It comes amid fears in Washington that China is taking a more assertive role in projecting military power across the Indo-Pacific region, including building new infrastructure, and is wielding its economic clout to secure favourable strategic outcomes.

The report also comes a week after it was revealed that three Australian warships were challenged by the Chinese military as they travelled through the disputed South China Sea early this month.

Tensions between Australia and China have risen sharply, with China’s ambassador to Australia warning last week that the relationship between the two countries had been marred by “systematic, irresponsible and negative remarks” about China.

Beijing has not hosted a senior Australian minister for several months and was highly critical of Malcolm Turnbull’s new security laws announced last year to protect Australia from foreign interference.

Former prime minister Kevin Rudd this week further accused the current Prime Minister of undermining Australia’s relationship with China, saying Mr Turnbull’s public remarks about our largest trading partner were tantamount to “punching the Chinese in the face”.

But the CSIS report warns that China’s behaviour in the region needs to be challenged by Australia and its allies. “China’s military penetration into the South Pacific would challenge one of the oldest and most fundamental tenets of Australian strategic doctrine, the exclusion of outside military powers from its island approaches,” the report says.

It says China is building extensive maritime infrastructure in the South Pacific, Southeast Asia and the Indian Ocean that supports its large merchant fleet and opens up military options that could destabilise the region.

“Much of it could be used to support increasing power projection operations in the region by the People’s Liberation Army-Navy.

“The United States and its region allies and partners need to pay attention and develop a more coherent and effective response,’’ the report says.

To counter this, the CSIS calls for a range of measures, including a rotational presence of US warships at HMAS Stirling in Perth.

It also calls on the Turnbull government to “consider the possibility of investing in the nuclear support infrastructure necessary for the basing of (US) attack submarines as well”.

These military options have been considered by the Turnbull and Abbott Coalition governments and by the Gillard and Rudd Labor governments but they have never been acted upon.

But Mr Shearer said the time was now right for a bigger US military presence at HMAS Stirling.

“US military aircraft and Marine forces are already operating from facilities in Australia’s north under the US Force Posture Initiatives,” he told The Australian in Washington. “It makes sense to add a naval component, and this has been under discussion for a number of years. It is time to press forward with greater urgency

“The RAN’s Fleet Base West at HMAS Stirling, south of Perth, is ideally situated to support a rotating US naval presence. It already has some relevant infrastructure in place and there is room for expansion. It has a large offshore exercise area and offers direct bluewater access to the Indian Ocean and its critical sea lanes.

“Australian and American naval forces operating from Western Australia would be well placed to build closer co-operation with the Indian navy, to maintain a greater presence in the Indian Ocean and to monitor China’s increasing naval presence.”

The report praised the “firm stand” taken by Mr Turnbull to reports, which have since been denied by Vanuatu, that China was seeking a military base in that country. But it said the informal security dialogue between Australia, the US, Japan and India, known as the Quad, was a useful framework for pushing back on China’s efforts to exert muscle in the Indo-Pacific.

It said Quad members should do more to provide economic investment alternatives and stronger diplomatic and economic support for South Pacific states to counter efforts by China to co-opt those states, including through “debt traps”.

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/na...h/news-story/af5d0e9dd300c8eb96bf74aca790198d


PS: The comments from Australian readers directly below the article are very interesting. I still can't believe a country with a massive coastline like Australia (roughly the size of continental United States) would spend $50 Billion to buy a bunch of old WW2-designed diesel subs from France, to be honest. How efficient can they patrol the vast Australian coasts if they constantly have to go back to port to refuel? Not to mention that Australia only have a few weeks worth of fuel in their strategic reserves at any given time...

Australia is very proud of its diesel submarines, as they are more quite than nuclear (you can turn the engine off) and have had great succsss in the war games, such as when they “sunk” US Nimitz class carriers.

Australia is not technically a nuclear power, but for some time has the technology and resources to become one very quickly.

This article is hilarious for other reasons. Kevin Rudd, the darling former baby faced prime minister, has the nerve th question Turnbull on Australian-Chinese relations, but he is the one who fucked it all up to begin with! Prior to Rudd, the Howard government played a perfect balancing act between China and the US. Economically, Australia is far more dependent on China and the country is almost like a banana republic in regards to its reliance on China. Anywhom, Rudd (who can speak Chinese) came in and fucked everything up, even releasing a white paper that named China as a future enemy in a war.

Ever since then things have been rocky. Australian political scientists warned not to rely too much on the US, because ‘Pax Americana’ is waning on them and eventually they will pull out and not honour ANZUS. Well with the election of Trump that prediction is slowly becoming a reality, and Australia should really take steps to be a more neutral player in Asia. It isn’t exactly easy for China to invade the continent as it is anyway.

 

[Ruprecht]

why ?

Australia's ongoing conflict between our Chinese economic interests and role as American foreign policy lap dog is currently at an all time low.
The relevance of the Anzus treaty, especially under the Trump regime, is also highly questionable. We don't even have an American ambassador (and haven't had one for 18 months). The "pivot to Asia" never happened. In a multipolar world I'm far from convinced our interests remain with the US, and the history of us joining in every American overseas adventure is ridiculous. We would have been better allies if we'd told the US to bugger off when they asked for us to validate their "coalition of the willing" in Iraq.

 

[Goonerview]

I can't help but wonder how the US empire can sustain containing China, containing Russia, and fighting wars in 7 different countries throughout the middle East and africa.

It shouldn't.

I wish America would stop trying to police the world. I hope Trump comes good on his America first promise.

 

[Arkain2K]

Although to be honest I'd be perfectly happy for the American military to piss off.

Like we said to the Filipinos back in the 90s: either way is fine with us.

Just make sure you're ready for what comes next after U.S forces piss off.

 

[Deleted member 457759]

It's necessary. We aren't a society of ostriches who fail to acknowledge that China is throwing down for the top seat.

 

[Fluffernutter]

In light of the Australian port of Darwin now in Chinese control for the next 99 years, there is one debate on whether they should apply to join collectively as the 51st State, or separately as seven new states.

I thought there would be some loud objections to the idea of nuclear submarines (since Australia is officially committed to be nuclear-free), but as it turns out, every territory want a piece of the U.S Navy's nuclear fleet instead of letting Perth having it all.

Years ago, I was meeting with members of AMCHAM in an office in Perth.

The premier of WA at the time (according to AMCHAM at the time) didn't want US naval ships docking in Perth/Fremantle. The people were pissed. After all, millions and millions of dollars were pumped into the local economy when aircraft carriers docked for a few days.

The other states rose their hands and said "We'll take them!"

Alas, WA kept the ships coming in.

 

[ShinkanPo]

Like we said to the Filipinos back in the 90s: either way is fine with us.

Just make sure you're ready for what comes next after U.S forces piss off.

Vietnam should have known that too back in 75' they should have made a deal with Nixo

 

[the ambush]

No not good, the West should be closing down bases in third world shitholes and slashing deficit. Europe needs to stop its obsession with immigration from third world shitholes, and Murica needs to stop meddling third world shitholes. Interventionism should be reserved only when directly threatened. The US military budget alone is 700 billion dollars. US funding for education is 68 billion in comparison.

What countries are third world shitholes you keep referencing? I am eager to read the reply on that one.

Where does all the education funding go to is the better question? Just take a look at what the annual tuition is for major state universities in the U.S. Why is the price so high to attend a four year university and that is not factoring in room & board and textbooks. The colleges mismanage the funds they already receive. There is no reason the tuition fee should be the price it is without books being included.

 

[Orgasmo]

Honestly....I wonder what will happen, if America said no to the debt..........I mean we are the top dawg, we do have the best military....Could we simply say no and fuck everyone else up, including banks up?......I really doubt the banks or anybody else will come asking us for money or anything.....including china...unless we became weaker, and then they could tell us what to do.

You can't stop debt payment to foreign countries, since that means you stop paying Americans holding savings bond too. The result is a massive financial collapse followed by hyperinflation, as US government backing become worthless overnight.

 

[Arkain2K]

It's too early into the discussion for these thread-derailment attempts, folks. Surely you are capable of making your own topics on unrelated subjects that you like?

This debate round-table was created for Australian Defense news & discussion. Try stay on it if it's within the extends of your knowledge and ability.

 

[Arkain2K]

Shortfin Barracuda submarines the wrong defence choice
by David Leyonhjelm

The 12 new Shortfin Barracudas are intended to begin entering service in Australia in the early 2030s with construction extending to 2050.​

Major wars in future will be fought remotely, with drones, long-range missiles and satellites. Surface ships will be quickly destroyed while manned aircraft and ground forces will either be wiped out or not particularly useful.

Submarines that can remain undetected beneath the surface of the ocean, on the other hand, will be largely untouchable. Armed with a variety of weapons, they offer genuine deterrence backed by the capacity, if required, to inflict massive deadly force on an enemy.

Replacing Australia's Collins class submarines is therefore a matter of major concern, given that the country's future may depend on them.

The Navy's program to replace the Collins class submarines is known as SEA 1000. It involves modification of a French Barracuda Class submarine from nuclear to diesel-electric propulsion, plus other changes specific to Australia.

The 12 new submarines, to be known as Shortfin Barracudas, are intended to begin entering service in the early 2030s with construction extending to 2050. The program is estimated to cost $50 billion and will be the largest and most complex defence acquisition project in Australian history.

For a country with limited financial resources and industrial capacity, the decision to develop an original design is high risk. This was highlighted in a timely Insight Economics report, released in September 2017, which said: "The capability requirements for the [future submarine] set out in the 2009 Defence White Paper… were highly ambitious… and any attempt to satisfy them with a [diesel-electric submarine] of a new and untested design, apart from being excessively expensive, would inevitably risk compromising the Submarine Force's ability to discharge its most essential operational tasks.

"Going forward with just one design has resulted in Defence gifting to Naval Group almost complete market power over capability, price and delivery. Should the design turn out to be inadequate or unworkable, the implications for Australia's future submarine capability would be dire."

Commitment to local build

Then there's the decision to build them in Australia. The Abbott government's 2016 Defence White Paper only committed to building them in Australia if it could be done without compromising capability, cost or project schedule. That changed because of South Australian politics, and the new submarines could now be more appropriately described as the Xenophon class.

Even if all goes well, the cost of building warships in Australia will be 30 to 40 per cent more than if they were built overseas. However, the plan to build them in Adelaide at the Australian Submarine Corporation, the same group currently building the Air Warfare Destroyer, years late and a billion dollars over budget, adds to a sense of foreboding.

This follows the prize fiasco of the Collins class submarine project. Their construction by the Australian Submarine Corporation ran years behind schedule, many millions over budget, and finally delivered a platform that the Navy has struggled to even keep operational.

And then there is the question of whether the new submarines will arrive before the Collins class subs are retired, scheduled for 2026 to 2033. Even if delivery occurs on schedule, the first will not enter service until 2033. At best there will be one new submarine in service and a nine-year gap between the retirement of the Collins class and the introduction into service of the first six of the 12 new submarines.

Given this, the government has apparently committed an additional $15 billion to keep the 30-year-old Collins submarines bobbing in the water. It's like refurbishing a World War II German U-Boat for the mid-1990s.

Expensive project

The elements are all there for the submarine replacement program to become the procurement scandal of the century. Our Shortfin Barracudas will probably be the most expensive submarines built anywhere in the world.

For a lot less money, we could achieve a far more potent submarine capability. For example, off-the-shelf Japanese Soryu submarines cost only $US540 million. Modified to meet additional Navy requirements, they were quoted as costing $750 million. If we simply bought 12 of those, the total cost to the taxpayer would be less than $10 billion.

Equally, the existing nuclear-powered Barracudas only cost $2 billion each, so we could get 12 of those for $24 billion.

For such an important defence capability, the government's failure to guarantee Australia is protected by submarines is nothing less than gross negligence.

http://www.afr.com/opinion/columnists/our-xenophon-class-submarine-fleet-20180103-h0d79d

 

[ShinkanPo]

Shortfin Barracuda submarines the wrong defence choice
by David Leyonhjelm

The 12 new Shortfin Barracudas are intended to begin entering service in Australia in the early 2030s with construction extending to 2050.​

Major wars in future will be fought remotely, with drones, long-range missiles and satellites. Surface ships will be quickly destroyed while manned aircraft and ground forces will either be wiped out or not particularly useful.

Submarines that can remain undetected beneath the surface of the ocean, on the other hand, will be largely untouchable. Armed with a variety of weapons, they offer genuine deterrence backed by the capacity, if required, to inflict massive deadly force on an enemy.

Replacing Australia's Collins class submarines is therefore a matter of major concern, given that the country's future may depend on them.

The Navy's program to replace the Collins class submarines is known as SEA 1000. It involves modification of a French Barracuda Class submarine from nuclear to diesel-electric propulsion, plus other changes specific to Australia.

The 12 new submarines, to be known as Shortfin Barracudas, are intended to begin entering service in the early 2030s with construction extending to 2050. The program is estimated to cost $50 billion and will be the largest and most complex defence acquisition project in Australian history.

For a country with limited financial resources and industrial capacity, the decision to develop an original design is high risk. This was highlighted in a timely Insight Economics report, released in September 2017, which said: "The capability requirements for the [future submarine] set out in the 2009 Defence White Paper… were highly ambitious… and any attempt to satisfy them with a [diesel-electric submarine] of a new and untested design, apart from being excessively expensive, would inevitably risk compromising the Submarine Force's ability to discharge its most essential operational tasks.

"Going forward with just one design has resulted in Defence gifting to Naval Group almost complete market power over capability, price and delivery. Should the design turn out to be inadequate or unworkable, the implications for Australia's future submarine capability would be dire."

Commitment to local build

Then there's the decision to build them in Australia. The Abbott government's 2016 Defence White Paper only committed to building them in Australia if it could be done without compromising capability, cost or project schedule. That changed because of South Australian politics, and the new submarines could now be more appropriately described as the Xenophon class.

Even if all goes well, the cost of building warships in Australia will be 30 to 40 per cent more than if they were built overseas. However, the plan to build them in Adelaide at the Australian Submarine Corporation, the same group currently building the Air Warfare Destroyer, years late and a billion dollars over budget, adds to a sense of foreboding.

This follows the prize fiasco of the Collins class submarine project. Their construction by the Australian Submarine Corporation ran years behind schedule, many millions over budget, and finally delivered a platform that the Navy has struggled to even keep operational.

And then there is the question of whether the new submarines will arrive before the Collins class subs are retired, scheduled for 2026 to 2033. Even if delivery occurs on schedule, the first will not enter service until 2033. At best there will be one new submarine in service and a nine-year gap between the retirement of the Collins class and the introduction into service of the first six of the 12 new submarines.

Given this, the government has apparently committed an additional $15 billion to keep the 30-year-old Collins submarines bobbing in the water. It's like refurbishing a World War II German U-Boat for the mid-1990s.

Expensive project

The elements are all there for the submarine replacement program to become the procurement scandal of the century. Our Shortfin Barracudas will probably be the most expensive submarines built anywhere in the world.

For a lot less money, we could achieve a far more potent submarine capability. For example, off-the-shelf Japanese Soryu submarines cost only $US540 million. Modified to meet additional Navy requirements, they were quoted as costing $750 million. If we simply bought 12 of those, the total cost to the taxpayer would be less than $10 billion.

Equally, the existing nuclear-powered Barracudas only cost $2 billion each, so we could get 12 of those for $24 billion.

For such an important defence capability, the government's failure to guarantee Australia is protected by submarines is nothing less than gross negligence.

http://www.afr.com/opinion/columnists/our-xenophon-class-submarine-fleet-20180103-h0d79d

Base the Subs in Subic or Nam for ultimate Chinese rustling!

 

[squeezewax]

Of course we should have American nuclear subs here, but i bet we won't. Australians have this incredible fear strike them when they hear the word nuclear, it's embarrassing.
No doubt the Greens and Labor will have a good old moan about this over the next week or so.
Our government is pretty gutless and will bow to the pressure of the other parties i suspect and say no to America. So much for this 'special' relationship we are supposed to have with the U.S.

I really don't think most Aussies or Westerners recognize the threat of China, too busy taking selfies.
Like i've said before, i believe in the event of a war with China some Western countries will abandon America and go with China as they'll think America has no chance. No loyalty.
China is wants it's own empire, simple as that.