Showing posts with label AUKUS. Show all posts
Showing posts with label AUKUS. Show all posts

Friday, 13 June 2025

"What does the AUKUS deal really say about Australia’s long-term defence policy?" | Sam Roggeveen

From an Occasional Reader, an article in the Aussie Mag, Monthly. 

First and last paras:

In the long story of Australia’s ascent to fully realised nationhood, who would have predicted a final chapter about submarines? The nation’s relationship with them goes back to 1914, when the Royal Australian Navy acquired two British E-class boats. A year later, in the Sea of Marmara, Australian submarines were used in anger for the first and only time, to attack Turkish shipping. Since then, submarines have occasionally excited controversy among our politicians and the public. From the time the Hawke government decided to build the Collins-class boats in Adelaide, submarine acquisition and sustainment has been a source of almost constant intrigue among defence analysts.

...

Yet despite our record and our geographical advantages, our political class suffers from what former Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade secretary Peter Varghese called a “deeply held mindset that Australia is incapable of [defending itself]. This sense of vulnerability, the historical legacy of a small colonial population inhabiting a vast continent adjacent to an alien region, continues to dominate the way Australians see their security.” Given Australia’s record, the refusal of our political and security elites to countenance the idea that we have the ability and resolve to meet this challenge represents a failure of imagination, and a deficit of ambition that is unworthy of a great nation. 

For the whole middle bit of the article, click here

=====================

My response:

I’ve had a read of the article. I’ll have a second read and then maybe write something in the blog. It does rather inspire me to. 

My quick and dirty take is that we’re better off as an ally of a powerful friend, like the US, than we are as an “independent” entity in a region increasingly tested by an assertive China. With which we share very few values indeed. Despite my life having been spent in its motherly embrace. 

“Self reliant” is fine. That’s what various US presidents have pushed us to, after all. But “independent” or “neutral" is a whole 'nother thing. As are the nuclear subs, a weird and complex issue, that we seem to have stumbled into half blind. 
 
Anyway, thanks for sending me the link. Much appreciated. 

Trust this finds you all well. 

Here, things are much as ever. I remain in my own self-imposed contemplative exile. Observing birds. And our blooming orchids. Our many orchids, inside and out, are right now a very fine sight indeed. One of them is called “Dancing Lady”, an epiphyte on our travellers’ palms, which has just erupted in exuberant marigold bloom, that I commented on this morning to Arlene. Who replied, “Yes… and we have our Dancing Dog”, pointing to Byron. Our labradoodle, who does an excited dance when it’s throw-the-ball time.  

For all that exile, I’m very optimistic. Very Optimistic…in caps. I want to live, live to see what happens with self-driving cars. With humanoid robots. With AI. With Man on Mars. With John (who’s now negotiating major mergers and acquisitions...weird).

It strikes me that we humans are on the cusp of Some Very Great Things. Things I can’t even imagine. That we can’t yet see. 

“To infinity and beyond!”

Cheers, 

Buzz Forse

Saturday, 13 July 2024

“What will the world be like in 10 years” | An Occasional Reader asks

An Occasional Reader asks me:  “What will the world be like in 10 years?” 

I answer: "I don’t know". [And wonder: why should I be asked? What do I know?]

Pressed, I do answer. Kind of. Quick and Dirty. TL;DR: Avoid “Suicidal Empathy”. 

Europe and the U.K.:

I’m pessimistic about Europe and the UK. 

There are two major themes here: one is that the governments of the European Union -- in which we must include the U.K. despite Brexit -- are stubbornly bureaucratic, given to winding red tape around every industry, hostile to innovation. Count the number of new world-class companies in America. It’s easy to name a dozen or more. Count the number of new world-class companies in Europe, that aren’t the likes of Siemens, Krupps or Airbus, and see how many you can come up with. 

The second problem is that of uncontrolled immigration. And here the main issue is of Muslim immigration, because Muslims have -- by their own stated preferences -- the least tendency to integrate into the society they emigrate to, coupled with the most intense desire to get the rest of society to hew to Islam. 

Islam is an openly, unabashedly supremacist religion, which makes no secret of its desire to see the ideology of Islam spread across the globe. And that brings Sharia law. And that brings all sorts of negative values into a society: misogyny, homophobia, intolerance of minorities, anti-free speech, anti-freedom of conscience, anti-freedom of religion. That’s not the agenda of a modern tolerant liberal. 

Islam is a serious threat across Europe and the U.K. and it’s getting worse. Madame Merkel was largely responsible: in 2015 she said “Wir schaffen das” -- We can manage this. Turns out they couldn’t. Germany has become more unmanageable because of it, and so has the rest of Europe. In just ten years. 

Together, the lack of vibrant economic growth, coupled with the incursions of a supremacist ideology are going to make Europe a worse place to live over the next ten years. At least to those of us who find the freedoms and tolerance of the west rather more bracing than the values of a medieval theocracy. 

Russia/Ukraine:

More hope than prediction: in ten both are at peace. An armistice has been in place for 8 years. Whereby it was agreed in 2025 that Russia keeps occupied Donbas and Crimea and Ukraine committed to not joining NATO. 

The alternative is the super scary scenario. That the United States has so provoked Putin that he launches tactical nukes. Then all bets are off, for the world. It doesn’t bear contemplating, but must be contemplated. We would be foolish to think Putin is bluffing. 

Which of these scenarios depends a lot on the United States. 

And if the worse, the latter, the nuke, scenario, it makes all other scenarios moot. Boom goes the moot.

United States:

I’m either way about the United States: could be great, could be a huge mess. It’s not a coin toss but a matter of choices. I hope they make the right ones, in which case it’s going to be “great”. 

The big thing on America’s side is its sheer exuberance. Its passions. Its optimism. Its can-do attitude. 

America has one huge advance over its main rival China. That is a very vibrant and deep civil society. But that I mean every type of non-government institution. The church, charities, societies, human rights bodies, hobby clubs, sports clubs.... You get the picture. Everything and anything is the go in the United States, and you’re allowed to pursue any wild and wacky idea you have. 

That’s the genesis of an Elon Musk. Wanted to build Electric Vehicles. Wanted to launch rockets. That happened. It probably could only have happened in America. 

There’s a huge future in AI, in robots, it driverless cars, in private space travel. All of that can be to the benefit of America. 

The pessimistic side is what’s going on in academia -- the “long march through the institutions” by modern Marxism, aka neo-Marxism, aka cultural Marxism. That’s a real thing. We should not allow these that are infiltrating this into schools, to pretend -- as they do -- that there’s none of this happening in schools, in Universities, then out into the broader society. Because it most certainly is happening. 

The panoply of TLAs -- three letter acronyms -- the DEI, the CRT, the ESG -- all of these are poisonous and harmful to broader society. I say this as someone who witnessed the end-game of this kind of Marxism in the late stage Great Proletariat Cultural Revolution of China in the 1970s, something that they were about to overthrow, because of how harmful it had been. That’s what’s going on in so many institutions in America. It could fatally wound the country. 

The adherents to this neo-Marxist piffle, schools, Universities and woke companies, express contempt and hatred for America. They fly flags of Palestine and Pride, but burn the American flag. That hatred can only go on for so long before the wounds on the body politic -- on society, on the very nature of what it’s been to be “America”, the ideals of freedom and e pluribus unum -- become fatal injuries. 

East Asia: 

Will do pretty well, but depending on the United States. I don’t have much to say here, save that South Koreas seems in pretty good shape to me. That Japan seems to be able to keep on muddling through, although its population decline may come to bite its bum. The rest of ASEAN, Malaysia, Indonesia, etc.. they seem to be in their own worlds, and fine for them. 

China: 

I’m neutral on China. That is: I think it could go either way: recover and re-grow, or fall down badly.

It’s currently in a big funk. But shorting China over the last 40 years has been a losing bet. Still, they got huge problems. And seem to be looking inwards, looking to revive Marxism, which is always a loser, in my view. So: neutral bet on China in ten years. It’ll still be there. And somewhat richer. But maybe not so much. And maybe in an ongoing funk. 

The big issue for China and the world is what happens to Taiwan. I’ve always thought the best thing, for all parties, is the status quo. Don’t do anything to change the perfectly fine relationship Taiwan has with the mainland, with cross Strait tourism and good economic exchanges. China may well try to take it back by force at some stage. Though I’d always be asking “why”? Just for pride? There can be not other reason, given that everything goes along fine as long as Taiwan doesn’t make the mistake of trying to become independent. It doesn’t need to be de jure independent, when it’s already de facto  independent. 

Australia

it could go either way, a bit like the U.S. It’s a matter of choices. If Australia chooses to let ideology drive its immigration policy, for example, and keep the very high levels of the last few years, and to have big increases in Muslim immigration, then that’s not going to be good for the peace, stability, unity, comity, and economic development of the country. Already we have a new “Muslim Voice” party which threatens to make Australian politics more sectarian. Not good. 

If Australia becomes a bit more robust, if we make better choices -- which, yet, includes having a more discrimination immigration policy -- it has everything it needs to be a huge ongoing success. 

And, by the way, another matter of choice is now on the table: do we go nuclear or not for our caseload electricity. In my view we must. But many are against it. Mostly on the Left, amongst the Greens. This is a matter of choice. A good choice, a wise choice, or not. 

So, toss up for Oz, like the U.S.. 

Middle East

I can’t think of much positive to say about the developments in the Middle East. Iran is moving ever closer to having a nuclear weapon. And when they have one, they may well use it in a war to extinguish Israel. 

That would be the most catastrophic thing to happen in the region, but it could. And that would be the result of policy. Specifically of western (Barack Obama and Ben Rhodes)  policy to try to buy Iranian niceness in return to cutting back on sanctions. Result: Iran has more money to pursue both the nuclear weapon policy and to fund its proxies of Hamas and Hezbollah. 

Saudi will stumble along, I guess. 

Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, all stumbling along, too, all still killing their own people while denouncing Israeli “genocide”, no matter there’s a war or not. And not at all improving the quality of life of their citizens, for their obsession with Jew hatred and the desire to obliterate Israel. Which may have happened via their friend and mentor, the Islamic Republic of Iran. 

I guess one very different outcome might be that there’s a popular revolt in Iran, that overthrows the horrid theocratic government. There are a few straws flowing in the wind that could lead to that. A resurgence of Persia, of the non-Arab, non--Islamic republic of independent Persia, would be a game changer. The United States should be on the lookout for this, and not let the opportunity to slide by, as did Obama with the Iranian Green Movement of 2009-10

All up, for the Middle East, I guess it all comes down to how Iran acts, and that, to quite a degree, comes down to how the west treats it, and that in turn comes down to how the United States treats it. Being “nice” to Iran, the basis Obama strategy, pushed by his aide Ben Rhodes, has backfired. A be tough to Iran policy is in order.

================

A Norwegian politician was once asked what accounted for the success of Norway. He answered: “Norway and Venezuela have the same amount of oil and gas. We are successful and Venezuela is not. The difference is we made better choices”. 

Norway chose to use the money from oil and gas to establish a National Wealth Fund. Which is now the largest in the world. And is there to help with the retirements of its citizens. Venezuela chose to elect a Marxist to head the country -- Hugo Chavez -- who set about looting the country’s resource wealth. His successor Maduro has done the same. Result: penury. 

================

It’s all down to choices. We all have choices. Countries have choices. Those choices should be driven by self-interest. We need to have empathy for foreigners who want to migrate to successful western countries. But we also need to have justice for our citizens, the ones already living in our countries. If we have so much empathy for others that we lose our sense of justice for our own, we end up destroying our successful countries. 

That’s “Suicidal Empathy”. 

Monday, 20 June 2022

The UK's Decision to Extradite Assange Shows Why The US/UK's Freedom Lectures Are a Farce

Glenn Greenwald has been long time supporter of Julian Assange. Me not so much till recently. And till UK gave in to the US’ extradition request. Shameful. 

Australia must lobby against the extradition. After all, Aussie new PM Albanese has spoken strongly against when he was in opposition. 

Thursday, 21 October 2021

No, Jen Psaki, we don’t “Welcome stiff competition from China”. Still: is the hypersonic missile a “sputnik moment” or not?

 

“Stiff competition” is fine in building cars, or silicon chips. Not when we’re talking “war, war” instead of “jaw, jaw”. Why should we welcome China becoming more assertive? With their “Fractional Orbital Bombardment Systems”, aka Hypersonic missiles. 
Here is Psaki saying just that, though I very doubt the US military is so sanguine. I wouldn’t hyperventilate about what a spokesperson says. They’re paid to block, to play the straight bat.

Arguing that we’ve been here before, kind of, so nothing to see here, nothing to worry about, but still:
The test should thus be seen more as an indication of China’s intent rather than its superior technology. By developing such systems, Beijing is demonstrating that a new nuclear competition is forming, with hundreds of billions of dollars likely to be spent by both sides on both offensive and defensive system

In "China’s reported hypersonic missile test is not a ‘Sputnik moment’, but is still cause for concern”.

There are others, many others, saying this is indeed a “Sputnik moment” for the US. Though if that really is that case, there’s not as much being said about it as one would expect. Sputnik at the time it was complete panic.

Wednesday, 20 October 2021

‘If the US and EU were divided on China, Aukus ‘betrayal’ just dug the trenches deeper’ | SCMP

Click screenshot for article 
We’re supposed to worry about the hurt feelings of the EU.
The geniuses who:
  • Built the worlds biggest, unaccountable, bureaucratic state
  • Which free rides in US defence spending
  • Which blundered in the GFC which gave us the Greek/Italian/Spanish debt crises which led to mishandling the Covid pandemic 
  • Whose Merkel shut clean reliable nuclear power in favour of coal and Russian gas; who tells 5 million unvetted migrants to “come on in
  • Whose Macron is so blinded by bitterness over Brexit he can’t think straight
  • Whose Charles Michel tells Poland to keep quiet about its nuclear power in case the Greens get angry 
  • Whose leaders all, offer obeisance to Beijing 
These are the strategic geniuses we should hitch our wagon to. Right. 
Too late, anyway.

Thursday, 7 October 2021

Shorter Malcolm: we need nuclear subs, just not the way ScoMo did it

 

Above image from here
Ex Aussie PM Malcolm Turnbull talks to the National Press Club about the AUKUS alliance and those nuclear subs. Malcolm is a quick study and it shows. He was PM during part of the long process deciding which sub to buy and from where. 

To me he seems to be saying (1) that Australia is better off buying nuclear-powered submarines than conventional ones. But (2) not the way Aussie PM Scott Morrison went about it. Maybe. Then again, remember that Scott Morrison ousted Malcolm so there’s no love lost there. Factor that in to his critiques. Still, it’s an interesting talk.

I don’t think I’d be quite as concerned as Malcolm says he is about the delicate feelings of Les Francais.  I’ve followed this issue for some years and even I know that we (Australia) have been signalling to them for some time we’re not happy. They should have known for a couple of years that a cancellation might be in the cards.

And for sure we’re better off with a relationship with America than with France, in this part of the world. If it has to be an either-or. Which it only has to be if France grumbles on in high dudgeon. Back to Malcolm, here’s his opening:

With the swirl of media soundbites, the impression has been created that the Australian Government has replaced a diesel electric French designed submarine for a nuclear powered American, or British, one. This is not the case.

Australia now has no new submarine programme at all. We have cancelled the one we had with France and have a statement of intent with the UK and the US to examine the prospect of acquiring nuclear powered submarines.

Over the next eighteen months there will be a review of the possibilities – the biggest probably being whether the new submarine should be based on the UK Astute submarine or the larger US Virginia class[2]. [Read on…]

ADDED: Australia, absurdly, has laws preventing development of nuclear energy and even nuclear energy expertise. Yet we are the largest exporter of uranium in the world. It’s time we ditched that law. There is no reason why Australia cannot develop home-grown nuclear expertise to repair and maintain submarine reactors. No reason save for politics, that is. And, in time, why not GenIV small modular reactors? Baseload, baby.

ADDED: an OR sends link to “Nuclear submarines will not deter China... but Australia has alternative arsenal”. To which I comment: