3 ms·

Australia couldn't be more eager to spend tens of billions on this white elephant. But of course anything the U.S. says is good for Australia just has to be, r

Australia couldn't be more eager to spend tens of billions on this white elephant. But of course anything the U.S. says is good for Australia just has to be, right? We'd have been better off spending billions buying anti ship missiles.

Trundle 8y ago
No you were right with the second sentence. We're better off spending our defence budget doing what the US says. Unless we're going to nuke up, our defence strategy is being an actual powers bitch. Solid relations with the US will go a lot further than some anti ship missiles.
- eksemplar 8y ago
  Except right now, you may be paying for a lot of nothing because US relations change from tweet to tweet. I mean, I know politics is playing for the long run in these things, and Trump won’t be there in 10 years, but his voters might, and if the US is really closing up, then the powers at be near Australia just might end up being China.
  - sjwright 8y ago
    It would be worth reconsidering if and when the Trump influence proves itself to be durable, not before, not reflexively. The thing to remember is that Trumpism is a combination of cynicism towards prior experts/elites, and Donald’s extreme narcissism. The latter is certainly not durable.
    - eksemplar 8y ago
      There is no doubt that Trump is the temporary protest vote, but nationalism is on the rise everywhere. Before WWII America was perfectly fine minding its own business, and it might be dangerous to plan for their internationalism to recover post Trump.
  - Trundle 8y ago
    That's certainly the risk when going for this sort of strategy. Basically prepaying and hoping the stronger party will actually deliver when the time comes. Id be interested to see how that would play out though. Like at what point in poor military decisions do generals ignore the president? Like hypothetically if China started landing troops and pillaging, and the pres have the military a stand down order, I can only assume hed get ignored/a bullet. I wonder where letting allies fall lands in that. If military command/intelligence has data showing that to be safe the US needs allies, and that if they don't defend Australia then the rest of their allies will immediately all run to hide behind whoever, then what are the chances of the president waking up to a spook in his bedroom telling him that if he doesn't change his decision then he's going to have a heart attack very soon?
- throwaway000021 8y ago
  After a lifetime of being anti nuke, I do now believe Australia has to "nuke up". I also believe now that we need at least 2 very large U.S. bases on our soil, and if the U.S. aren't interested then maybe the U.K. or the Europeans. Expansionist countries could easily see Australia right now as a virtually undefended, resource rich sweet piece of fruit to be plucked, and given that Australia's traditional allies seem to be internally engaged, there's plenty of room for such expansionists to start laying the foundations that will allow them to exert such control in the future.
  - greglindahl 8y ago
    You don't have enough money to nuke up, unless you plan a much bigger defense budget.
    - threeseed 8y ago
      Really ? Australia has the 13th highest GDP in the world. Higher than Israel, Pakistan and North Korea which all have them.
      - greglindahl 8y ago
        They can't really afford them, either. You'll also need missiles capable of hitting your adversary, and you won't find much help building them cheaply.
  - Guthur 8y ago
    Who exactly would have capability and resources to mount an invasion and then supply the necessary force to occupy a territory the size of Australia.
    - greglindahl 8y ago
      China. Also worth noting that the force needed to occupy a country is mainly proportional to the population.
    - 8y ago

Trundle 8y ago

No you were right with the second sentence. We're better off spending our defence budget doing what the US says. Unless we're going to nuke up, our defence strategy is being an actual powers bitch. Solid relations with the US will go a lot further than some anti ship missiles.

eksemplar 8y ago
Except right now, you may be paying for a lot of nothing because US relations change from tweet to tweet. I mean, I know politics is playing for the long run in these things, and Trump won’t be there in 10 years, but his voters might, and if the US is really closing up, then the powers at be near Australia just might end up being China.
- sjwright 8y ago
  It would be worth reconsidering if and when the Trump influence proves itself to be durable, not before, not reflexively. The thing to remember is that Trumpism is a combination of cynicism towards prior experts/elites, and Donald’s extreme narcissism. The latter is certainly not durable.
  - eksemplar 8y ago
    There is no doubt that Trump is the temporary protest vote, but nationalism is on the rise everywhere. Before WWII America was perfectly fine minding its own business, and it might be dangerous to plan for their internationalism to recover post Trump.
- Trundle 8y ago
  That's certainly the risk when going for this sort of strategy. Basically prepaying and hoping the stronger party will actually deliver when the time comes. Id be interested to see how that would play out though. Like at what point in poor military decisions do generals ignore the president? Like hypothetically if China started landing troops and pillaging, and the pres have the military a stand down order, I can only assume hed get ignored/a bullet. I wonder where letting allies fall lands in that. If military command/intelligence has data showing that to be safe the US needs allies, and that if they don't defend Australia then the rest of their allies will immediately all run to hide behind whoever, then what are the chances of the president waking up to a spook in his bedroom telling him that if he doesn't change his decision then he's going to have a heart attack very soon?
throwaway000021 8y ago
After a lifetime of being anti nuke, I do now believe Australia has to "nuke up". I also believe now that we need at least 2 very large U.S. bases on our soil, and if the U.S. aren't interested then maybe the U.K. or the Europeans. Expansionist countries could easily see Australia right now as a virtually undefended, resource rich sweet piece of fruit to be plucked, and given that Australia's traditional allies seem to be internally engaged, there's plenty of room for such expansionists to start laying the foundations that will allow them to exert such control in the future.
- greglindahl 8y ago
  You don't have enough money to nuke up, unless you plan a much bigger defense budget.
  - threeseed 8y ago
    Really ? Australia has the 13th highest GDP in the world. Higher than Israel, Pakistan and North Korea which all have them.
    - greglindahl 8y ago
      They can't really afford them, either. You'll also need missiles capable of hitting your adversary, and you won't find much help building them cheaply.
- Guthur 8y ago
  Who exactly would have capability and resources to mount an invasion and then supply the necessary force to occupy a territory the size of Australia.
  - greglindahl 8y ago
    China. Also worth noting that the force needed to occupy a country is mainly proportional to the population.
  - 8y ago