3 ms·

Just announced hosting more US bombers as well https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-09-17/us-raises-concerns-about-china-economic-coercion-of-australia/100469360 h

Just announced hosting more US bombers as well https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-09-17/us-raises-concerns-about-china-economic-coercion-of-australia/100469360 https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-09-17/us-raises-concerns-ab... Reality is that AU needs nuclear subs for offensive deterrence againt PRC because AU has already sunk cost too much into US orbit that the only thing left is to double down. PineGap, Geraldton, Exmouth communication hubs, US is absurdly dependent on AU facilities for Indo-Pac operations. Aforementioned facilities will 100% be targeted by PRC if US containment efforts become kinetic. Hence these subs to threaten PLAN at choke points. It helps that AU is a steadfast historic US ally, bordering on sycophancy, but in Mearsheimer words on future PRC/US/AU dynamic, if AU picks PRC, they become US enemies. I would extend that to AU being neutral as well. US _NEEDS_ AU facilities for Indo-Pac operation the same way it needed ME oil pre-Shale. AU doesn't have a choice but to cooperate with US because “implications”. So here we are. Overdue capabilities for AU, assuming aquisition doesn't fall through. At least 8 nuke subs that AU has even less experience building, which likely will overshoot planned delivery by 10+ years, and go massively over budget, of which 2-3 can be deployed at once. Worse case scenario, project goes nowhere, PRC gets the crown jewels of SSN technology via espionage while having shipyard designed to launch 2 nuke subs per year.

cknight 5y ago
It seems our governments tried to walk a fine line for a while with China, because the trade dollars were so good. That's all a bit out the window now. They've slapped us (economically) a few times over the last couple of years but I don't think they can go too much further down that route - they still need a lot of the stuff we're digging out of the ground. With little for Australia left to lose trade-wise, doubling down on the US relationship makes sense. We're so intertwined already, we may as well get any more benefits we can out of it. The more the US has sitting in Australia, the more it's in their interests for us to be safe and stable. Pity about France but it seems that project was not going well anyway. If we're going to waste money we may as well get better kit out of it (eventually).

cknight 5y ago

It seems our governments tried to walk a fine line for a while with China, because the trade dollars were so good. That's all a bit out the window now. They've slapped us (economically) a few times over the last couple of years but I don't think they can go too much further down that route - they still need a lot of the stuff we're digging out of the ground. With little for Australia left to lose trade-wise, doubling down on the US relationship makes sense. We're so intertwined already, we may as well get any more benefits we can out of it. The more the US has sitting in Australia, the more it's in their interests for us to be safe and stable. Pity about France but it seems that project was not going well anyway. If we're going to waste money we may as well get better kit out of it (eventually).