8 ms·

One of our former prime ministers, Paul Keating, came out strongly against the submarine deal. IIRC two important dimensions are that Australia has shallow wate

One of our former prime ministers, Paul Keating, came out strongly against the submarine deal. IIRC two important dimensions are that Australia has shallow waters which are not a good fit for the chosen submarine technology and that tactically it makes limited sense for Australia to focus on weapons to be used on our largest trading partner. https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/mar/15/paul-keating-labels-aukus-submarine-pact-worst-deal-in-all-history-in-attack-on-albanese-government https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/mar/15/paul-... I am not an expert on any of the above.

roenxi 2y ago
They might make sense if in the long term we build out a nuclear deterrent? We'd need a handful of deep water submarines with big missiles on them. Although I expect that it'll turn out they're designed wrong for that or something. Other than that I can't see what situation they'd be useful in practice though. If we get into a war with Indonesia, China or the like that is the end. There will be no winners and we'll either lose or be ruined. One of the lessons in the modern era is if a country can't defend itself with diplomacy then it is in a lot of trouble. I assume we're buying this gear as some sort of realpolitik tribute-style thing for the US military industrial complex. If the point isn't to give them money I doubt we're achieving our goals.
- ChrisMarshallNY 2y ago
  > if a country can't defend itself with diplomacy then it is in a lot of trouble. You are absolutely correct. I wish more folks understood this.
  - oroup 2y ago
    Diplomacy works _because_ you have the means to defend yourself. If they can fight and you can’t, why will they bother talking to you?
    - roenxi 2y ago
      Run me through Australia's strategic outlook if the US decides to invade us. Or if they decide Australia needs to go and starts supporting one of our neighbors in fighting us.
      - echoangle 2y ago
        Why are you talking about Australia fighting the US? Aren't the subs against China?
        roenxi 2y ago
        1) The subs are certainly not for fighting China. By the time they're delivered, assuming all else equal, China will be in a position to ignore them. People are talking about deliveries in the 2050s vs a country that can basically build an entire economy in a few decades; it'll never work out in our favour. And we can't afford to be in a war with an Asian power under any circumstances anyway, we'd probably be better off surrendering immediately rather than fighting back against China if the US's deterrence fails. Ironically we'd probably end up with better infrastructure. Fighting China with those submarines is a similar idea to fighting the US with those same subs. The plan is not to do that. It won't work out well for us. 2) Keep going with your thought, you haven't gone far enough. If diplomacy works because you have the means to defend yourself, why aren't we fighting the US? We can't possibly defend ourselves from them, and realistically we'd probably struggle to annoy them if they attacked us via a proxy war. And yet there is no realistic scenario where they fight us. Why is that, hm?
        echoangle 2y ago
        Here’s my view of why countries don’t attack each other: The downside for the attacker has to be larger than the upside, that’s when diplomacy becomes interesting. The downside doesn’t just have to be the defense of the attacked country but also the relation with other countries. The US won’t invade Australia because they wouldn’t gain much, compared to the loss of trust by other countries. Defense from china is more important than from the US for Australia, because the “public stage” deterrent is smaller for china than the US. That’s why you need to increase the deterrent by increasing your defense capabilities. You can correct me if you disagree though.
- bluefirebrand 2y ago
  > if a country can't defend itself with diplomacy then it is in a lot of trouble If you have a strong neighbor that wants to take something you have by force, how do you get them to instead practice diplomacy with you? The only way I'm aware of is by projecting enough of your own strength that they think it might not be worth it to try and take by force. Military might is an arm of diplomacy.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
josefresco 2y ago
I'm no "submarine warfare expert" but I believe the purpose/value of nuclear submarines is not defense of close coastal waters, but rather as a deterrence that can come "from anywhere". I don't believe shallow waters would hamper the operation of a submarine launching ICBMs or similar. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong. I also know nothing of Australian politics but Paul Keating seems to have some curious views regarding China: > Keating brushed aside human rights concerns about China by arguing there are “disputes about what the nature of the Chinese affront to the Uyghurs” > Keating is a noted dove towards China. He has previously labelled Taiwan “not a vital Australian interest” but rather a “civil matter” for China. > On Wednesday Keating said China “is not the Soviet Union” because it is involved in international institutions and would “fall over themselves to have a proper relationship” with Australia, except that Australia has “manufactured a problem” through its increasing alignment with US. > Keating said the “great sin” China had committed in the eyes of the west was developing its economy to equal the size of the US Yikes.
- throwawaythekey 2y ago
  A decent portion of the Australian population think the realpolitik of our situation means we should adopt a neutral approach towards China, even if it means a weakening of our relationship with the US. The need to act as world police (re uyghurs, taiwan) can be a game for the major powers. > Keating said the “great sin” China had committed in the eyes of the west was developing its economy to equal the size of the US This is somewhat supported by some of the wikileaks releases, but it's a little hard to disentangle if the economy is the sin or just an intensifier. > At the lunch, Mrs Clinton confided in Mr Rudd about America's fears about China's rapid economic rise and Beijing's multibillion-dollar store of US debt, asking Mr Rudd: ''How do you deal toughly with your banker?'' https://www.smh.com.au/national/explosive-wiki-rudd-cable-20101205-18lbz.html https://www.smh.com.au/national/explosive-wiki-rudd-cable-20...
- defrost 2y ago
  > I don't believe shallow waters would hamper the operation of a submarine launching ICBMs or similar. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong. The AUKUS submarines are conventionally-armed, nuclear-powered submarines. ICBM's don't come into this.

roenxi 2y ago

They might make sense if in the long term we build out a nuclear deterrent? We'd need a handful of deep water submarines with big missiles on them. Although I expect that it'll turn out they're designed wrong for that or something. Other than that I can't see what situation they'd be useful in practice though. If we get into a war with Indonesia, China or the like that is the end. There will be no winners and we'll either lose or be ruined. One of the lessons in the modern era is if a country can't defend itself with diplomacy then it is in a lot of trouble. I assume we're buying this gear as some sort of realpolitik tribute-style thing for the US military industrial complex. If the point isn't to give them money I doubt we're achieving our goals.

ChrisMarshallNY 2y ago
> if a country can't defend itself with diplomacy then it is in a lot of trouble. You are absolutely correct. I wish more folks understood this.
- oroup 2y ago
  Diplomacy works _because_ you have the means to defend yourself. If they can fight and you can’t, why will they bother talking to you?
  - roenxi 2y ago
    Run me through Australia's strategic outlook if the US decides to invade us. Or if they decide Australia needs to go and starts supporting one of our neighbors in fighting us.
    - echoangle 2y ago
      Why are you talking about Australia fighting the US? Aren't the subs against China?
      - roenxi 2y ago
        1) The subs are certainly not for fighting China. By the time they're delivered, assuming all else equal, China will be in a position to ignore them. People are talking about deliveries in the 2050s vs a country that can basically build an entire economy in a few decades; it'll never work out in our favour. And we can't afford to be in a war with an Asian power under any circumstances anyway, we'd probably be better off surrendering immediately rather than fighting back against China if the US's deterrence fails. Ironically we'd probably end up with better infrastructure. Fighting China with those submarines is a similar idea to fighting the US with those same subs. The plan is not to do that. It won't work out well for us. 2) Keep going with your thought, you haven't gone far enough. If diplomacy works because you have the means to defend yourself, why aren't we fighting the US? We can't possibly defend ourselves from them, and realistically we'd probably struggle to annoy them if they attacked us via a proxy war. And yet there is no realistic scenario where they fight us. Why is that, hm?
        echoangle 2y ago
        Here’s my view of why countries don’t attack each other: The downside for the attacker has to be larger than the upside, that’s when diplomacy becomes interesting. The downside doesn’t just have to be the defense of the attacked country but also the relation with other countries. The US won’t invade Australia because they wouldn’t gain much, compared to the loss of trust by other countries. Defense from china is more important than from the US for Australia, because the “public stage” deterrent is smaller for china than the US. That’s why you need to increase the deterrent by increasing your defense capabilities. You can correct me if you disagree though.
bluefirebrand 2y ago
> if a country can't defend itself with diplomacy then it is in a lot of trouble If you have a strong neighbor that wants to take something you have by force, how do you get them to instead practice diplomacy with you? The only way I'm aware of is by projecting enough of your own strength that they think it might not be worth it to try and take by force. Military might is an arm of diplomacy.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]

josefresco 2y ago

I'm no "submarine warfare expert" but I believe the purpose/value of nuclear submarines is not defense of close coastal waters, but rather as a deterrence that can come "from anywhere". I don't believe shallow waters would hamper the operation of a submarine launching ICBMs or similar. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong. I also know nothing of Australian politics but Paul Keating seems to have some curious views regarding China: > Keating brushed aside human rights concerns about China by arguing there are “disputes about what the nature of the Chinese affront to the Uyghurs” > Keating is a noted dove towards China. He has previously labelled Taiwan “not a vital Australian interest” but rather a “civil matter” for China. > On Wednesday Keating said China “is not the Soviet Union” because it is involved in international institutions and would “fall over themselves to have a proper relationship” with Australia, except that Australia has “manufactured a problem” through its increasing alignment with US. > Keating said the “great sin” China had committed in the eyes of the west was developing its economy to equal the size of the US Yikes.

throwawaythekey 2y ago
A decent portion of the Australian population think the realpolitik of our situation means we should adopt a neutral approach towards China, even if it means a weakening of our relationship with the US. The need to act as world police (re uyghurs, taiwan) can be a game for the major powers. > Keating said the “great sin” China had committed in the eyes of the west was developing its economy to equal the size of the US This is somewhat supported by some of the wikileaks releases, but it's a little hard to disentangle if the economy is the sin or just an intensifier. > At the lunch, Mrs Clinton confided in Mr Rudd about America's fears about China's rapid economic rise and Beijing's multibillion-dollar store of US debt, asking Mr Rudd: ''How do you deal toughly with your banker?'' https://www.smh.com.au/national/explosive-wiki-rudd-cable-20101205-18lbz.html https://www.smh.com.au/national/explosive-wiki-rudd-cable-20...
defrost 2y ago
> I don't believe shallow waters would hamper the operation of a submarine launching ICBMs or similar. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong. The AUKUS submarines are conventionally-armed, nuclear-powered submarines. ICBM's don't come into this.