AUKUS News, Views, Analysis.


Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Moderator - World Affairs
If the hour-long talk is a bit too much to sit through, the Q&A segment in the 2nd half of the programme is still worth checking out which is simply golden with the way Keating laid the smackdown on every single one of those journos as they just lined up and took it full blunt one after the other -

Q&A starts @
Please, Log in or

EDIT: Just realised Lethe has already posted it. Sorry for the repost :p
The effect on Aussie government policy? Zero


New Member
Registered Member
Another horizontal escalation opportunity: Malvinas.

If the UK keeps it up with provocative actions against China by using Taiwan, the China can horizontally retaliate by discounting the price fighter aircraft Argentina seeks to buy. With the purchase of JF-17s, the UK air defenses and Typhoon detachment on the island would need to be reinforced. The energy of the UK would be shifted to the South Atlantic.

If a big name politician from the UK chooses to visit Taiwan, then immediately offer the JF-17 discount to drive home the use of horizontal escalation.


Registered Member
Argentina is an economic basket case and their military is not even at the level it was back then. It would have to fix its economic issues and rearm itself. But that could cause its own set of issues.

The UK is becoming increasingly irrelevant economically, they cannot afford even the Navy they have and it keeps shrinking, so I think the problem will solve itself.

China needs to continue pushing for coal imports from Russia and Mongolia, and they need to get their iron ore elsewhere than Australia, they need to make their own hardware chips, civilian aviation, and continue to push in all fronts. It also needs to pursue its own nuclear attack submarine fleet and continue with development of surface ships. It needs to provide its own alternative to US Five Eyes network of intelligence gathering and sharing to other partner nations. They could be doing this now with Russia for a start but thus far I only heard about having satellite navigation network equipment.
Last edited:


Senior Member
Please, Log in or

The poll of 1,124 voters, released on Tuesday, suggests Australians are at odds with the Aukus deal, with just one in five voters labelling China a “threat to be confronted” and only one quarter happy to pay the price tag of up to $368bn to acquire nuclear submarines.

In the poll, 40% of respondents said the submarine partnership would make Australia more secure, down four points since November. Those who said the nation would be less secure rose four points to 21%, while 39% said it would not affect security.

Respondents were split on the cost, with 26% saying Australia needed nuclear submarines and “it’s worth paying that amount to get them”, while 27% said they were necessary but “not worth” the price tag, 28% said Australia does not need them and 19% were unsure.

Two-thirds (67%) of respondents in the poll said Australia’s relationship with China was a “complex relationship to be managed”, up seven points since February.

The proportion who described China as a “threat to be confronted” fell by six points to 20%, while a steady 13% said the relationship was a “positive opportunity to be realised”.

The basic ingredients for a movement to overturn AUKUS exist. It occurs to me that two things are missing:

(1) An articulation of an alternative strategic posture, i.e. one that opts out of the increasingly hostile US-China dynamic, that rejects a Manichean choice between the two powers, and seeks to advance and protect Australia's prosperity through a policy, as articulated by one of one of the founding fathers of the United States, Thomas Jefferson, of "peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations; entangling alliances with none."

(2) An articulation of a specific and credible alternative course of action in relation to Australia's submarine capability.

In relation to (1), The Morrison and Albanese governments argue that they are driven to the current course by sober consideration and advice as to how best to protect Australia's national security amidst the rise of China. That narrative needs to be tackled head-on, not just criticised on grounds of cost or anti-nuclear sentiment. Critics of AUKUS need to go on the offensive by highlighting how AUKUS reduces our sovereign decision-making capacity and endangers our national security.

In relation to (2) it is clear that the Collins-class life extension program simply must go ahead if Australia is to avoid the collapse of its submarine capability in the 2030s. At the same time, that life extension program does provide opportunity space for alternatives.


New Member
Registered Member
UK parliament delegation visited Taiwan on Monday.

Perfect time to announce a horizontal defense deal with Argentina.
China may be close to clinching a huge weapons sale to Argentina involving fighter jets and armored vehicles, a deal that would give Beijing military clout in a region traditionally seen as America’s sphere of influence.
Time to offer a discount.
the real issue is whether Argentina can afford the JF-17.
Damn it would change the military balance.
Meta-Defense noted in a December 2022 article that while it had 240 combat aircraft during the Falklands War, the collapse of military rule, economic crises and sanctions have left it with only around 20 upgraded A-4AR Fighting Hawks, less than ten Pampa 3 trainer aircraft and no supersonic fighters.
UK is going to have to start rotating a full squadron in the South Atlantic. Chinese media should announce that we are giving Argentina a 10% discount after the next UK parliament delegation visit.