AUKUS News, Views, Analysis.


Overbom

Colonel
Registered Member
In one sense, AUKUS can be seen as the latest development in Australia's ongoing conversation with itself about what sort of country it is and should be, a development that has been advanced by one particular faction in that argument. Paul Keating's robust criticism of AUKUS similarly reflects his role as one of the leading exponents of an alternative vision for Australia.
The alternative vision for Australia is already dead and buried. This development has solidified everyone's opinion about what sort of independent (or not) country Australia is.

This wasn't a surprise out of blue from Australia. Everyone was already unofficially treating it as the long arm of the US in the region. The only difference that AUKUS makes, is that the region will now officially treat it as a a US subordinate
 

Lethe

Senior Member
The alternative vision for Australia is already dead and buried. This development has solidified everyone's opinion about what sort of independent (or not) country Australia is.

There is no doubt that AUKUS is a major blow for those of us with alternative or at least more moderate visions for Australia, but as we have seen those voices are still present and their influence can still shape the nation in the years and decades ahead. The actual influence of such moderating or alternative sentiments will be determined by many factors. On the American side of the relationship, the daunting political-technological-industrial challenges of delivering a nuclear submarine capability to Australia, and the lack of any real clarity as to how this is going to be achieved (a "
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
" as one article put it) should provide many opportunities for friction and critique going forward. But certainly China should be aware that by her own words and actions she can either increase or decrease the opportunity space for those alternative or moderating sentiments.
 

FangYuan

Junior Member
Registered Member
AUKUS is not a problem for China. Britain is too far away, Australia is too weak, and the United States has to shoulder the whole alliance. The end result is still a confrontation between the US and China. Compared to AUKUS, the US-Japan threat is much bigger.
 

hashtagpls

Senior Member
Registered Member
In one sense, AUKUS can be seen as the latest development in Australia's ongoing conversation with itself about what sort of country it is and should be, a development that has been advanced by one particular faction in that argument. Paul Keating's robust criticism of AUKUS similarly reflects his role as one of the leading exponents of an alternative vision for Australia. In crude terms you could say that Keating, Rudd and Turnbull represent one faction in this ongoing debate, while Howard, Abbott, and Morrison can be seen as representing the other. But it is a mistake to focus too much on individuals. What is important is that these are the strands of thought that are alive in Australian public discourse and that the dialogue between them continues.
Good points but i take a particularly damning view of the faction as you put it, led by Howard, Abbott et al.

If anything, they represent the persistent undercurrent of white supremacism that pervades australian society; Australia was formed as what A. Karlin calls a 'fake and gay' country since its only purpose throughout its 100+ years of nationhood was to act as an extension of Anglo Chauvinism, the dream if you will, of Cecil Rhodes.

To that end, Australia culture and society has been characterised as antipodean insecurity: the idea of the West and european heritage and Britishness is idealised to guard against the fear of "being swamped by Asians" or being influenced by Asia; prior to Federation, there was already anxiety over Chinese immigration and language influences on australian english, thanks to the Gold Rush.

If you travel around and live in Asia today, you'll quickly become aware that the White Australia Policy is well remembered by Asians as a disgraceful period of racist outburst, fuelled by white supremacy. This AUKUS deal would have certainly re-invigorated those memories.

Continuing into the future, this dialogue that you speak of can only lead to one of two outcomes:

1) Australia as Switzerland of the Asia-Pacific;
Pros: neutral, multicultural, respected by both the east and west alike. Keating's vision is realistic and Howard was simply being a realist in working with china, albeit in a period of unchallenged anglo american hegemony. This outcome has the highest chance of Australia's survivability and highest chance of positive outcomes in terms of life expectancy and economic growth and social security.
Cons: Australians can no longer feel superior whilst being obnoxious in asia. This is really the biggest downside to your average Australian hoie polloi.

2) AUKUS future, Australia as Rhodesia of the Pacific; this is the path chosen by Australia since gillard;
Pros: An attempt to restore Anglo hegemony in the aftermath of the retreat from A-stan and the doomed Trumpian trade war; every year that passes, the PLAN get stronger and surety of american victory in the Pacific becomes ever more doubtful.
Cons: There may not be an Australia left after this future.

succinctly put, Australia going down 2) puts itself in the path of first strike nuclear target since those nuclear submarines now turn australia into a nuclear power, and as the Ministry of Foreign Affairs have said:

Australia possessing nuclear submarines makes it a nuclear power and therefore a target for first strike launch on warning nuclear retaliation.

and there is no middle ground since by default Australia is already at option 2.

Finally
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

I certainly hope frank talks involved how the Pentagon will mount a coup in the event of a US President ordering ww3 on China.
 
Last edited:

plawolf

Brigadier
Maybe a silly question, but could a HEU naval reactor go critical and produce a nuclear blast if it is hit with, say several hundred KG of HE?
 

SampanViking

The Capitalist
Staff member
Super Moderator
VIP Professional
Registered Member
What has actually changed? Three hostile countries have now made a formal organisation to continue doing the very sort of things that they have been doing for a long time. The US has always wanted to involve others in its adventurism, simply so it can claim to be part of a coalition.
It is a media story for domestic consumption and my MHO very little if nothing else.
 

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
Maybe a silly question, but could a HEU naval reactor go critical and produce a nuclear blast if it is hit with, say several hundred KG of HE?
No. That simple. Nuclear events even atomic are highly specific energy events. To create a H bomb comes in two forms. Requiring either an Implosion with the explosion shaped to create maximum force on the nuclear material which is spherical as opposed to the rods found in a reactor. The alternative form is a plutonium rod fired into a uranium sphere.
Worst case would be A nuclear fire or gas explosion sprewing radioactive material. This is why a number of nuclear subs sit as the bottom of the Pacific and Atlantic in relative safety.
What has actually changed? Three hostile countries have now made a formal organisation to continue doing the very sort of things that they have been doing for a long time. The US has always wanted to involve others in its adventurism, simply so it can claim to be part of a coalition.
It is a media story for domestic consumption and my MHO very little if nothing else.
Slightly different interpretation but generally I agree. This far Australia has not voiced any interest in establishing its own Nuclear deterrent. What we have then is simply a nuclear attack submarine. The Australian navy was looking for a new fleet submarine. The French Long fin has generally been viewed as second rate okay for a coastal SSK. Astute or Virginia class are top of the line and able to meet the needs of the remote reaches of pacific range.

The Rising Dragon of Asia has once again bullied the formal establishment of a new alliance against it.
 

ZeEa5KPul

Captain
Registered Member
The Rising Dragon of Asia has once again bullied the formal establishment of a new alliance against it.
China has done no such thing. Standing up for your interests is not "bullying", it's the bare minimum any government should do. The immediate cause of these problems is Donald Trump's policies, but the underlying cause is Anglo supremacism. Certain cultures feel that the world belongs to them (the so-called "rules-based order") and anyone who doesn't go along with that is "bullying".

And there's nothing new about AUKUS. It's been in effect in one form or another ever since Anglo colonization of China's near abroad. This was fated centuries ago.
 

weig2000

Captain
There is no doubt that AUKUS is a major blow for those of us with alternative or at least more moderate visions for Australia, but as we have seen those voices are still present and their influence can still shape the nation in the years and decades ahead. The actual influence of such moderating or alternative sentiments will be determined by many factors. On the American side of the relationship, the daunting political-technological-industrial challenges of delivering a nuclear submarine capability to Australia, and the lack of any real clarity as to how this is going to be achieved (a "
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
" as one article put it) should provide many opportunities for friction and critique going forward. But certainly China should be aware that by her own words and actions she can either increase or decrease the opportunity space for those alternative or moderating sentiments.

The odds are stacked that Australia and China can return to a more friendly relationship as before given what have happened in the last decade. But there are still chances. One is that this submarine deal may or may not pan out and it'll take a long time to know. This will create room for the two countries to cool down and re-engage. The other is that over the next two decades there is a fairly large chance that the US elites and society will realize it's pointless to pursue an overly hostile policy and aggressive military posture against China. Australia is taking a risky bet now and China will prove that it's a wrong bet via growth and strength, while leaving the door open for a better relationship with Australia. After all, the root of Australia's bet is a mixture of a sense of insecurity and racial superiority complex. It is not pursuing a primacy for itself. China should make sure on both counts, Australia is wrong. Hopefully that will form a new foundation to restart the more healthy relationship in the future. It's going to take a couple of decades.
 
Last edited:

Top