AUKUS News, Views, Analysis.


gelgoog

Colonel
Registered Member
The SSN component of AUKUS is a problem for China. This is basically weapons proliferation and Australia might be just the first. Japan and South Korea both have much more advanced industry, submarines, and nuclear technology. They could even end up making their own nuclear submarines. This would make long distance sea travel in a case of conflict more problematic and would impact both China's OBOR initiative and world trade in general. Because if they do that, China will start producing submarines out of their gargantuan new submarine production facilities like sausages.

Remember way back when they were even considering putting privateering back on the table? Well this is as close to it as you can get.

Most modern SSNs are actually SSGNs and can conduct not just torpedo attacks but also cruise missile attacks. The South Korean submarines even have VLS cells with limited range ballistic missiles. Both South Korea and Japan have a highly advanced nuclear industry and could even build bombs if they wanted to.
 

weig2000

Captain
The SSN component of AUKUS is a problem for China. This is basically weapons proliferation and Australia might be just the first. Japan and South Korea both have much more advanced industry, submarines, and nuclear technology. They could even end up making their own nuclear submarines. This would make long distance sea travel in a case of conflict more problematic and would impact both China's OBOR initiative and world trade in general. Because if they do that, China will start producing submarines out of their gargantuan new submarine production facilities like sausages.

Remember way back when they were even considering putting privateering back on the table? Well this is as close to it as you can get.

Most modern SSNs are actually SSGNs and can conduct not just torpedo attacks but also cruise missile attacks. The South Korean submarines even have VLS cells with limited range ballistic missiles. ...

Japan and South Korea both have SSNs would only marginally increase their potential threats against China, at least compared to what SSN would help Australia. The biggest reason is geography.

Japan and SK are close neighbours and China has so many different weapons to retaliate and deter them, up to and including mass destruction of their homeland. Australia, on the other hand, is far away from China and it would take significant power projection capabilities to deter and relaliate Australia. Australia would not dare to threat China on its own, but would only be part of the US hostilities towards China. The cost-and-benefit calculus would be quite disproportionate for China to divert resources to deter and/or retaliate Australia as a accomplice. In effect, Australia would be play an asymmetric game against China.

Both South Korea and Japan have a highly advanced nuclear industry and could even build bombs if they wanted to.

If South Korea and Japan start to develop and own nuclear weapons, they would be more likely to become more independent from the US before they start to entertain the idea of threatening China (China would still be immensely more powerful than them). So the US would have strong incentive to prevent that from happening.
 

Mr T

Senior Member
Given that European states have spent the better part of two millenia fighting each other, I wouldn't call it zero.
I said "around zero". And the major European countries have been at peace since 1945. There are political arguments, but they're not going to go to war again - certainly the larger countries (can never rule out something in the Balkans).

When China overtakes the US as an economic power, or indeed dwarfs it, things will inevitably change.
A lot of assumptions there given China's demographic crisis and debt problems. Always best to deal with things as they are, rather than as we imagine them to be in the future.
There have been some fissures in the Euro/Anglo alliance - Brexit, the Australian nuclear submarine debacle. Widening those and creating new ones ought to be a priority for China.
Not sure how China intends to exploit the UK leaving the EU - we've already left. Beijing has nothing to offer the EU right now given it's on the Parliament's naughty step (investment deal is still frozen). And I'm not sure what China has to offer the UK that means we'd become more hostile towards the EU.

As for the Australian submarine purchase, again how is China going to exploit that? France has already moved on by signing arms contracts with other countries. China's attempt to bully Australia via direct and indirect trade sanctions has completely failed.
 

Mr T

Senior Member
Japan and SK are close neighbours and China has so many different weapons to retaliate and deter them, up to and including mass destruction of their homeland.
That's a moot point if China attacks first. Presumably Beijing isn't going to go straight to WMD especially against countries that don't have them, so one should consider a conventional war.

Japan and/or South Korea fielding SSNs would be a significant development, but they're less of a priority because their location means their modern SSKs are sufficient for the roles required of them. Whereas Australia's distance from SE Asia means, if they were to counter Chinese aggression, they need submarines that can be on station away from an RAN base longer than conventionally powered submarines can manage.

If South Korea and Japan start to develop and own nuclear weapons, they would be more likely to become more independent from the US before they start to entertain the idea of threatening China (China would still be immensely more powerful than them). So the US would have strong incentive to prevent that from happening.
You have it the other way around. South Korea and Japan would develop nuclear weapons because they lacked confidence in the US' determination to help defend them if they were attacked. In that scenario the US would not be able to stop them because it had already lost credibility.
 

weig2000

Captain
That's a moot point if China attacks first. Presumably Beijing isn't going to go straight to WMD especially against countries that don't have them, so one should consider a conventional war.

Why the hell China would attack Japan and South Korea first? In the most relevant scenario now, we're talking about Japan potentially joining the party in a Taiwan scenario, which constitutes a Japan-attack-first. Just because Japan or South Korea have SSN does not mean China would go WMD whenever there is a conflict. You're making China a North Korea - actually, even North Korea wouldn't use WMD against Japan or South Korea in the first go or under most circumstances.

I don't understand your logic.


Japan and/or South Korea fielding SSNs would be a significant development, but they're less of a priority because their location means their modern SSKs are sufficient for the roles required of them. Whereas Australia's distance from SE Asia means, if they were to counter Chinese aggression, they need submarines that can be on station away from an RAN base longer than conventionally powered submarines can manage.

What kind of "Chinese aggression" are you talking about? Australia specifically says they're very likely to participate hostilities against China in Taiwan contingency. That's not a "Chinese aggression" no matter how you spin the situation.

As for Australia's SSN, which they may or may not have in twenty years, it's not an imminent threat to China anytime soon if at all. When it does come, China will deal with Australia properly. The discussion so far is more or less theoretical.

You have it the other way around. South Korea and Japan would develop nuclear weapons because they lacked confidence in the US' determination to help defend them if they were attacked. In that scenario the US would not be able to stop them because it had already lost credibility.

The Americans have been trying to make a very sexy and self-serving argument that if the US leave Asia, Japan or even SK would arm themselves with nuclear weapons. Or put it another way, it's the presence of US military in Asia that guarantees the peace in Asia and that the US hegemony in Asia is in fact in the interest of China. Seriously.

In fact, if were it not for the US, China, Japan and South Korea would have long signed tri-lateral free trade agreement. The three countries would have long sought ways to manage their relationships better.

Finally, don't make it sound it like Japan and/or South Korea having nuclear weapons are so threatening to China. China will always be so much more powerful in every respect than Japan or South Korea whether they have nuclear weapon or not. In fact, if there should be situation that threaten China's interest and a military conflict is likely, China would have no problem to use force to defend its interet with conventional military force. Don't think so? Check with India. So to make it like if Japan or South Korea had nuclear weapons, they would dominate China or anything like that,is more an emotional play.

China has no desire or plan to invade Japan or South Korea.
 

Bellum_Romanum

Colonel
Registered Member
Why the hell China would attack Japan and South Korea first? In the most relevant scenario now, we're talking about Japan potentially joining the party in a Taiwan scenario, which constitutes a Japan-attack-first. Just because Japan or South Korea have SSN does not mean China would go WMD whenever there is a conflict. You're making China a North Korea - actually, even North Korea wouldn't use WMD against Japan or South Korea in the first go or under most circumstances.

I don't understand your logic.




What kind of "Chinese aggression" are you talking about? Australia specifically says they're very likely to participate hostilities against China in Taiwan contingency. That's not a "Chinese aggression" no matter how you spin the situation.

As for Australia's SSN, which they may or may not have in twenty years, it's not an imminent threat to China anytime soon if at all. When it does come, China will deal with Australia properly. The discussion so far is more or less theoretical.



The Americans have been trying to make a very sexy and self-serving argument that if the US leave Asia, Japan or even SK would arm themselves with nuclear weapons. Or put it another way, it's the presence of US military in Asia that guarantees the peace in Asia and that the US hegemony in Asia is in fact in the interest of China. Seriously.

In fact, if were it not for the US, China, Japan and South Korea would have long signed tri-lateral free trade agreement. The three countries would have long sought ways to manage their relationships better.

Finally, don't make it sound it like Japan and/or South Korea having nuclear weapons are so threatening to China. China will always be so much more powerful in every respect than Japan or South Korea whether they have nuclear weapon or not. In fact, if there should be situation that threaten China's interest and a military conflict is likely, China would have no problem to use force to defend its interet with conventional military force. Don't think so? Check with India. So to make it like if Japan or South Korea had nuclear weapons, they would dominate China or anything like that,is more an emotional play.

China has no desire or plan to invade Japan or South Korea.
What do you expect coming from @Mr T that dude took a vacation from posting on this forum and now that he's back from a self-imposed exile he's just back to how he's always operated which is to use every western arguments against China. Just watch he summarily and wryly dismiss China’s concerns as nothing more than a by product of the "See See Pee" evil intentions.

I never expect any nuance argument from that dude. It's all about if the See See Pee didn’t do X,Y,Z then all the problems of the world wouldn't be happening. How the heck do you reason with people that thinks the way he does.
 

Mr T

Senior Member
Why the hell China would attack Japan and South Korea first?
Because, depending on the circumstances, it could be strategically advantageous to do so.

China has a huge stockpile of first-strike (conventional) weapons, more than Japan and South Korea combined. There's no reason for either to attack first and not only face the Chinese response but also lose the moral high ground.

Can you safely say no Chinese government in the future would decide a first strike would help it win a conflict? Do you even know who's going to succeed Xi or the rest of the Standing Committee? Xi isn't going to live forever.

In the most relevant scenario now, we're talking about Japan potentially joining the party in a Taiwan scenario, which constitutes a Japan-attack-first.
Japan getting involved in a Taiwan war is not necessarily an attack on China. Japan's involvement could fall within a huge range, and none of them would be likely to involve a first strike on China.

If China wanted to wait until the US and other countries like Japan had formally announced a military intervention before firing a single missile, fair enough. But that would give up an advantage that a first strike has, and potentially pass the initiative to the US/Coalition. It's very possible, I would say more likely than not, that China would assume an outside intervention would happen and make attacks on Okinawa, Guam and elsewhere first. An attack on Okinawa would be an attack on Japan.

Just because Japan or South Korea have SSN does not mean China would go WMD whenever there is a conflict.
That's a strawman from you. I never said it would. I said that it would be extreme to use WMD against non-nuclear nations. Nuclear weapons are to deter nuclear conflict, not win conventional wars.
What kind of "Chinese aggression" are you talking about?
Is this where we play the make-believe game that China occupying islands/atols and building military bases with missile batteries, after Xi said he would not militarise the SCS, is not aggressive?

If we're talking about the future, I imagine control shipping in/around South East Asia would be one. Again, hypothetical scenario. A future Chinese government may take action it argues is necessary or reasonable but other countries see as aggressive.
When it does come, China will deal with Australia properly.
You mean respect the rights of a sovereign nation to develop military technology China already has?
The Americans have been trying to make a very sexy and self-serving argument that if the US leave Asia, Japan or even SK would arm themselves with nuclear weapons.
It would depend why they left. If they were no longer welcome then quite obviously the countries that just asked them to leave would have no reason to change their policy on nuclear weapons.

Then again if the US unilaterally pulled out even when South Korea and Japan wanted it to stay, the reaction would be quite different.
In fact, if were it not for the US, China, Japan and South Korea would have long signed tri-lateral free trade agreement. The three countries would have long sought ways to manage their relationships better.
I see. Is another part of the make-believe game where I have to pretend that RCEP isn't a free trade agreement? Or where I forget that South Korea and China have applied to join CPTPP, of which Japan is a member but the US isn't?
So to make it like if Japan or South Korea had nuclear weapons, they would dominate China
Again, that's another strawman from you. I never mentioned domination. Rather it was you that implied China might use nuclear weapons despite the fact neither South Korea nor Japan have them currently.
 

j17wang

Senior Member
Registered Member
Because, depending on the circumstances, it could be strategically advantageous to do so.

China has a huge stockpile of first-strike (conventional) weapons, more than Japan and South Korea combined. There's no reason for either to attack first and not only face the Chinese response but also lose the moral high ground.

Can you safely say no Chinese government in the future would decide a first strike would help it win a conflict? Do you even know who's going to succeed Xi or the rest of the Standing Committee? Xi isn't going to live forever.

Only one country in human history has used nuclear strikes (against Japan) and also launched an unprovoked total invasion and occupation against a sovereign country (Iraq) for the past 25 years.

I like your useless strawman, we can safely guarantee the US will launch another war of annihilation, either against China, or Mexico, or Cuba, or any other country that dares to defy their empire. And to drive the point home, they will use their repressed African and other visible minorities as a janissary corps to do so, like in the past.
 

Mr T

Senior Member
Only one country in human history has used nuclear strikes (against Japan) and also launched an unprovoked total invasion and occupation against a sovereign country (Iraq) for the past 25 years.
I'm not really sure what that has to do with anything, not least because the US was the only country with nuclear weapons in 1945 (it was also a US-UK-Canadian collaboration, rather than unilateral action the other Allies objected to). It was weig2000 that talked about (or implied) China using WMD.

If China will never use nuclear weapons against a country that doesn't have WMD, I'm not going to complain.

I like your useless strawman, we can safely guarantee the US will launch another war of annihilation, either against China, or Mexico, or Cuba, or any other country that dares to defy their empire.

The US has no reason to do so. Until recently it was quite willing to assist China with its economic development, including through large amounts of foreign investment (some investment is still continuing). Certainly there is no prospect of an attack on China. Helping defend other countries against a potential Chinese attack is one thing, but sending troops into China itself would not happen. The US knows this, and China knows this.

Mexico is still friendly towards the US. Whilst not a miltary ally, it's not opposed to US foreign policy as much as Chinese nationalists and other people hostile towards the US would like to think.

Cuba is simply not a threat. People who think it is or might be are stuck in the Cold War.

And to drive the point home, they will use their repressed African and other visible minorities as a janissary corps to do so, like in the past.
That's not a very nice thing to say about men and women who are proud to serve in the US military. No one is repressed or forced to join, regardless of their race. I think you shouldn't be so disrespectful.
 

Top