1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Here's some politics for you.

Discussion in 'The Lounge' started by John Farrell, Sep 16, 2021.

  1. John Farrell

    John Farrell Well-Known Member

    Yesterday a deal was announced between Australia, the US, and Britain, which will supply Australia with nuclear powered, nuclear weapon capable submarines. New Zealand was not invited to join this deal, and would not have joined, if asked. A local leftwing blog had this comment from one contributor.

    "Hard not to see the British involvement in all this as the hubris of boomer imperial nostalgia and their politics of gerontocracy (see this as evidence for the prosecution – https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/imperial-measures-uk-return_uk_61439407e4b07ad8c8dd2c6a ).

    The UK currently has an aircraft carrier parading about Asia while they make noises about a return to the China Station and a presence east of Suez. There seems little concept in the UK about how offensive the optics of this might be to the Chinese for whom their century of humiliation is as fresh in their memory as yesterday while militarily it shows a wilful act of forgetting of the lessons of the the painful catastrophes of 1942 when Japan ended the illusions of the British Empire in the humiliation of crushing defeat in Malaya. It also just reinforces how much an ancillary of the United States the UK is these days – the carrier has mostly operated US Marine Corps F-35B aircraft and the British wouldn't dare risk a carrier anywhere near China without American support.

    The hubris of the British is mind boggling, and while the British are trying to carve out a post-Brexit place for their brand of Anglo-Saxon exceptionalism the wider meta (including the French anger) is it illustrates nicely the struggle with reality the Europeans have in general when confronted by evidence of the pivot of the centre of world power from Europe to North Asia and the loss of their accustomed place at the top of American considerations – this piece today in the Guardian is telling in it's expression of largely impotent European fury at the US failure to give their concerns precedence in a whole number of places: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...ing-france-and-eu-that-biden-not-all-he-seems The Europeans had better get used to paying their own way in defense, the Americans have sensed tomorrows world will be made in a dynamic Asia, not a moribund Europe. Germany, the fourth largest economy in the world, only having a few dozen operational jet fighters is a nonsense that cannot continue.

    Anyway, given the track record of the Australian defense industry there is no guarantee these submarines will ever even materialise from Adelaide. More likely, the Aussies will end up leasing some of the newer 688i boats before sometime in the next twenty years just buying Virginia class submarines, if they whole thing isn’t cancelled as the hopeless financial over-reach of an aspirational middle power."
    WillieJ, AGW, Fen and 1 other person like this.
  2. Mark101

    Mark101 Well-Known Member

    One thing to have nuclear powered subs, but the infrastructure to service and maintain is very very expensive,
  3. Andrew Flannigan

    Andrew Flannigan Well-Known Member

    I think the writer is displaying how little he knows.

    It's true that the current British government are a bunch of idiot narcisists with the reasoning ability of a teenager on LSD but they only make policy; the military is run by people who have gone through some of the most stringent training and selection available and who are very, very experienced in their roles.

    If the writer had the slightest understanding of the situation he would realise that the Queen Elizabeth is actually carrying on business as usual, by cooperating with strategic partners in the Pacific.

    The UK is currently a member of the Combined Maritime Forces alliance which includes several Pacific countries such as Australia and New Zealand. As a member of NATO it also has commitments to the NATO Pacific Partners (Australia, Japan, South Korea and New Zealand). There are other alliances with Pacific states which the UK is expected to honour.

    So: nothing to see here except an excess of bile.
  4. Zou

    Zou Well-Known Member

    Plus you need to be able to build the base in a part of the realm that you don't care about in case of issues...
    peterba, Mark101 and AGW like this.
  5. RovingMike

    RovingMike Crucifixion's a doddle...

    Well said. We actually have little choice in the roles we fulfill for NATO and plugging gaps in what the Yanks can do and supplementing them plays a large part.
    Learning likes this.
  6. daft_biker

    daft_biker Action Man!

    Seems as unbiased as the daily mail.

  7. Zou

    Zou Well-Known Member

    Seeing as the only significant player active in the region that's at war with someone in the region is America, when will we start forming alliances against them?
  8. Andrew Flannigan

    Andrew Flannigan Well-Known Member


    Let's get into bed with Russia and North Korea, those bastions of personal freedom and honest politics. :confused:
  9. GeoffR

    GeoffR Well-Known Member

    So we have upset France and the EU have we, that isn’t news it is business as usual.
    SqueamishOssifrage likes this.
  10. John Farrell

    John Farrell Well-Known Member

    China is Australia's largest trading partner, and rather than outward belligerence, the Chinese use trade pressure to push the Aussies. China is also a large trading partner of New Zealand's, and so far we have managed to keep a middle way of relations with them - far more subtle than Australia. There is also our antinuclear law, which dates from the mid 1980s - it marks New Zealand out as less aligned with the United States.
  11. Andrew Flannigan

    Andrew Flannigan Well-Known Member

    From an outsider's viewpoint, New Zealand looks pretty well tucked in with both the U.S. and the U.K. - being very much under their joint nuclear umbrella.
    Last edited: Sep 17, 2021
  12. Learning

    Learning Ethelred the Ill-Named

    Don't forget China.
    Is your antinuclear law only about nuclear devices that explode, or does it include nuclear power for propulsion and life systems?
  13. John Farrell

    John Farrell Well-Known Member

    Nuclear propulsion is included.
    peterba likes this.
  14. Terrywoodenpic

    Terrywoodenpic Well-Known Member

    I can not see Australia ever finding the money for Eight Nuclear submarines.
    Nor could the UK now.
    The USA may lend them the cash and keep them indebted and paying off the loan for evermore.

    China already has 74 modern submarine compared to Americas 66 though only three of them are as yet nuclear powered.
    By the time Australia could build eight, China will have already have launched many more on the current program alone.

    It is a futile exercise in gesture politics.
    steveandthedogs likes this.
  15. WillieJ

    WillieJ Well-Known Member

    The US finds another mug country to subsidise its nuclear agenda?
  16. Andrew Flannigan

    Andrew Flannigan Well-Known Member

    Not entirely.

    Australia's various alliances do mean it has to provide credible force in certain circumstances and whereas even the latest diesel submarines are seriously challenged by the sheer size of the Pacific, nuclear hunter killers are very credible threats to naughty mariners intent on doing bad things.
  17. GeoffR

    GeoffR Well-Known Member

    That might explain why we are building another hunter killer. We have eight of those already plus 4 SSBNs.
  18. Learning

    Learning Ethelred the Ill-Named

  19. Andrew Flannigan

    Andrew Flannigan Well-Known Member

    ...and therein lies the heart of the row...
  20. peterba

    peterba Well-Known Member

    You seem to harbour a rather touching faith in the notion that nuclear devices only cause catastrophic harm, when they were actually designed to do so. :confused:

Share This Page