US and UK to now furnish Australia with nuclear submarines.

dinorebel

France should apply to join AUFAKUS

Markcheese

https://youtu.be/MTCqXlDjx18

I know it's a spoof but it there's some reality in it ..

fly_agaric

Biden asked the EU to wait before he was in power before getting in bed with China but they concluded the deal the day before he was put in power. No surprise really they were not asked to join AUKUS as a partner and share military secrets was it.

No cherry picking remember !

May have been better to wait in hindsight but that EU-China agreement may never be implemented. Last I read, it was not looking good for it now.

The UK has welcomed an awful lot of investment from China over the last decade (more I think than most countries in Europe - edit: had a look and they have had more inward investment from China than any other country in Europe by quite a large margin, see https://www.bbc.com/news/world-47886902). UK were at one point a great customer of Huawei, a trailblazer for that. They were going to have China's state power company build a new nuclear power plant for them - there's trust for you. The "Golden Era of UK China Relations". UK also blocked EU level tarrifs being placed Chinese steel afair.

China hasn't suddenly become horrible (as regards govt./policies etc) - it was always so but UK were more prepared than most of Europe's large/wealthy countries to hold the nose and say its all just business, lets make some money here, dig in. It's good that their attitude changed drastically.

85603

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117916006#Comment_117916006

ok.

85603

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117916056#Comment_117916056

Yes those were my words alright.

Gatling

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117916595#Comment_117916595

Thought so

85603

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117916662#Comment_117916662

x

x

brickster69

Toys being thrown everywhere now. Macron has being going around for the last couple of years openly saying he will take business away from the city of London and cut off electric to Jersey, now someone does the same to him and all hell breaks loose.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/submarine-row-france-threatens-to-block-eu-trade-deal-with-australia-fbz8gjfc3?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1632151452

Even the Supreme Leader is getting involved, embarrassing really 🤣😂🤣

https://twitter.com/camanpour/status/1439969457229766662

Capt'n Midnight

This suggests that France was initially going to sell nuclear subs to Australia but that part of the deal fell through.

They can still change the contract to provide the same subs with nuclear power.

Diesel subs can be augmented with air independent systems to extend underwater performance and ROV's or autonomous vehicles are another option.

markodaly

One big advantage of the US nuclear subs is that they don't need to be refueled over the lifetime of the sub, 40 years or so. The French nuclear subs need to be refueled every 7 or so years, and with Australia having no local or civil nuclear capacity, the American option makes more sense.

cnocbui

The suggestion seems to be the UK supply the sealed reactor, which supposedly is good for 20 years without refueling, which is nearly 3 times better than the French ones, and I think there we have a core reason for the French being dropped. Even supplying French made subs, they would still not match the no maintainance for the life of the boat, Rolls Royce power units.

I suspect there is classified data on sub performance Australia has been given which is in favour of the latest UK subs and they are probably that much better it was worth angering the French and changing horses.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117898640#Comment_117898640

I’m guessing the South China Sea is closer to china than the US though.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117918096#Comment_117918096

This is an attempt to justify the decision based on technology. How could that not have been known beforehand?

The decision was political and military. The interesting thing to me is that Australia won’t get these subs until 2040. Until then it borrows US subs, or allows them into Australian ports. At a financial cost to Australia.

was Australia bullied into this? Until very recently trade with china was a driver of policy there.

Peregrinus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117918096#Comment_117918096

They didn't have to anger the French quite so gratuitously, though. If they changed their minds and decided that, yeah, we'd like nuclear-powered submarines after all, they could have notified the French, then publicly announced the change of direction, and then allowed the French, and the UK, and anyone else interested an opportunity to make a pitch. The outcome might have been the same, but at least the French wouldn't feel gratuitously disrespected and publicly humiliated, all of which has unfortunate direct and indirect consequences for Australia. I think the Aussies have stuffed this up, and I'm not quite sure why. Other considerations aside, they have now painted themselves into a corner where they are committed to getting the subs from the UK/US when they have no idea how long delivery will be and no idea what the cost will be.

There has also been no opportunity for discussion in parliament or by the public about the volte-face from a policy of having conventional subs that could be operated independently to one of having nuclear-powered subs that can't.

That doesn't look like good defence procurement practice to me.

Gatling

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117918143#Comment_117918143

It's closer to being countries other than china but yet china is claiming they own it all including other sovereign states Territorial waters ,

Is America claiming anything similar....

No ?

What’s interesting to me is that Biden is doing what Trump promised. You can see (Americanised) conservatives on this channel supporting him entirely. So much for China Joe.

Biden withdrew from Afghanistan, destabilised NATO, has upset the EU, pissed of the french, and is continuing the China policy.

In fact it looks like the US has entirely pivoted to China.

i don't particularly like US policy but I’ll admit that Biden is more substantial than trump as a leader, and a decisive guy. Implementation maybe not so good.

Peregrinus

I'm hearing that the US are quite ticked off at the Aussies for pissing off the French. The US has no particular interest in deepening divisions with NATO allies. Word is that the US asked the Aussies to terminate the French deal first and then negotiate something with the Americans, but Canberra didn't want to do that, and assured the US that the French had already gotten the message that the existing deal wasn't working out and wouldn't be surprised when it ended. That turned out to be not true.

So, it seems to be the Aussies who barrelled this thing through very fast, despite the US urging caution, and it's not entirely clear why. My guess is that it was because they feared domestic blowback; they didn't want public or parliamentary discussion about defence policy in general or the switch to nuclear power in particular.Now they've pissed off the French and burned a good deal of political capital with the US, and they are backed into a deal whose cost and timeframe will be decided by others.

wassie

Sources? You keep asserting the Aussies have backed themselves into a corner.

I'm not saying your necessarily wrong either - my take would be the opposite in that they have made a very tactical long term strategic decision with unprecedented access to US technology. And the US in turn see a new fleet of submarines aligned with its foreign policy heading to the South Pacific.

Granted the political optics may not be great at the moment, but I doubt anyone in charge in the US, UK or AUS are regretting this decision. Going to be an interesting week at the UN General Assembly of world leaders this week no doubt.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117918564#Comment_117918564

I don’t even get why the U.K. is involved. In fact a bilateral agreement with the Aussies would just be that, bring in a NATO member and it looks like you are neglecting the rest of the alliance.

cnocbui

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117918143#Comment_117918143

It's incredibly close to Vietnam and the Phillipines. Are you aware of what the Chinese have been up to, strongarming those countries, including a hot skirmish with Vietnam? Their voracious appetite for resources is no doubt behind the coup in Burma, which is basically a vassel state whever it is under the control of the milltary. The Chinese want to damn a river in Burma, own it from stem to stern and export every erg to China. No benefit whatsoever to Burma with nothing but ecological ruin and ruination for the Burmese who live, farm and fish on that river. China is a shocking menace to the world and there will be an armed conflict with them. The sooner the better, IMO, before they get much bigger and more accustomed to throwing their weight around unchallenged.

Dyr

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117918370#Comment_117918370

All good, America has ploughed those furrows long before both Trump and Biden. Since DeGaulle, The French know that the US falls into the category of "with friends like these..."

The French own a lot of water around Australia, I'm sure they can come up with ways to make the Aussies unhappy.

steddyeddy

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117918370#Comment_117918370

In fairness the "be careful with China policy isn't unreasonable. I worked in the US Dep of Energy previously and we got hacked several thousand times an hour by the the Chinese governments. They are a serious threat to world peace

As are the Americans and British to be honest.

Snickers Man

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117897770#Comment_117897770

Why should we join NATO? It's as dead as a Dodo.

We have a choice to join the new US/Britain realignment (along with its partners across the world, like the Australians) Or we could join with the rest of Europe, which given our continuing membership of the EU (sans UK) would be a better fit.

We don't have the luxury of being "neutral" any more. In the Cold War we were far in the rear; but now, as the only EU state with a land border with the UK, we are right on the front line.

Call me mad, but I've been saying this for years. Ever since the Brexit vote, which was the final nail in NATO's coffin.

Let's stay clear eyed about this and make the right choices. For us.

Gatling

This whole idea that this so called alliance between Australia, America and the UK is something completely new ,it's absolutely not they have been allies since WW1 and every major conflicts since including Vietnam onwards ,

Australia has already started a mass modernisation program of its military , spending several billions on various projects from land vehicles to the F35s and F18s they added to their airforce ,the first French submarine wasn't going be be delivered for another decade at least ,

NATO has been getting undermined for years doesn't help that some of the so called members are afraid of Russia ,we couldn't even get a real response when putin invaded and forceabble occupied parts of Ukraine ,

Could you replace NATO with a European army possibly over a number of decades and that's before you get to the infighting about who's got full control of the command structure and Stanags before ever deploying units on the ground

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117919512#Comment_117919512

in the front line of what?

are you predicting a war between this US/Britain realignment (whatever the hell that is) and the EU?

if you are, Ireland ain't gonna make much difference whatever it decides to do.

Snickers Man

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117919687#Comment_117919687

Not a "war" in the traditional sense. That's not the way the world operates any more. Did NATO and the Warsaw Pact ever go to "war" with each other? Of course not. They'd have wiped each other (and most of the rest of us) out. But that doesn't mean there wasn't a lot of brinkmanship, proxy wars, jostling for international position, eyeballing of each other over strategically important assets (eg Taiwan, West Berlin, Crimea, not to mention the whole Middle East imbroglio), all backed up with the threat that if it ever got out of hand, we could have a real shooting war and therefore the big guys had to have the latest and best military toys in their arsenals. Just in case.

But that Cold War is over. Has been since the Soviet Union imploded. The chess board has changed.

Britain has left the EU. It is looking to expand its global interests in partnership with its (re)new(ed) best friend, the Americans.

The Yanks may have preferred that Britain stay in the EU (their then president, Obama, said as much). But when Brexit happened, America simply assessed the new situation and considered what was its best policy. It has realised that the pieces have arranged in quite an advantageous setup for them. Instead of incurring the expense of guaranteeing European states' security from Russia (which it currently does) they now have a better option. They have, in the Europe and Middle East region, two aggressive, nuclear armed utterly loyal (ie utterly dependent) allies, namely the UK and Israel who like to think of themselves as utterly sovereign and free, don't mind that their neighbours dislike them and are quite prepared to be US lapdogs as long as the Americans allow them free hand with their own priorities.

Israel wants carte blanche to deal with its recalcitrant Arab citizens and those in neighbouring territories it occupies or controls. America grants this willingly. And with a lot of cheerleading from much of America's media.

Britain wants to be seen (by itself if nobody else) as a major global power with complete independence of operation, even if that means that it does the US's bidding without questioning. That's a piece of cognitive dissonance with which it can live. Being bossed about by Brussels? No chance; not the British way. Being bossed about by Biden? That's a different matter altogether and they're quite happy with it. After all, we're all in the Anglosphere together, aren't we? And even a Labour government realised that when America wanted to go to war with Iraq, Britain had no choice but to tug its forelock and say "Yes Boss".

Just as a Labour government behaved exactly as a Conservative one would have done re Iraq, so too does American foreign policy deviate very little from one regime to the next. Would Trump have behaved any differently in hightailing it out of Afghanistan? Unlikley. After all, it was his deal that was being fulfilled. America does what America does, regardless of whether the White House is occupied by a blue or red president.

So the "Western Alliance" is being recalibrated. NATO, like any military alliance in history, was and is terminal and is in its final death throes now. America is going on what a multinational firm might call a "partner reduction" program. Instead of allowing any and all like-minded countries to be its allies it is concentrating on a few really tried and trusted companions: UK and Israel in Europe. Taiwan and Australia in the Pacific. And whatever war lords in Africa can best serve their interests at any given time.

The EU and the US are now "frenemies". Unlikely to go to war with each other but not singing off the same hymn sheet any more. Ireland, as an "interface region" in this new scenario will have to assess what are its own interests and how best they can be served. Maybe we can stay as a "neutral" state, aloof from both power blocks but we will be under huge pressure to make one choice or another.

Challenging times.

mariaalice

Slightly whimsical view but if the next bond villain is Chinese we are in trouble!!

Snickers Man

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117906744#Comment_117906744

"possible..imperiled a EU/Aus trade deal worth 500bn dollars"....

Never mind. They screwed a good one out of Britain earlier this year, as even the rabidly pro-Brexit Daily Telegraph conceded earlier this year. :)

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117444245#Comment_117444245

Flinty997

There's a new arms race. US has fallen behind a bit due to being bogged down on the war on terror both consuming resources and budgets. Its pulling out of that to focus on the new arms race. Part of that is re arming its allies. That is big business. So there are new alliances and part of that is aligning procurement supply lines. Also R&D and modernization. France is a major player but its also a major competitor.

https://sipri.org/media/press-release/2021/world-military-spending-rises-almost-2-trillion-2020

Manic Moran

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117901982#Comment_117901982

I don't think the dollar value equivalence is exactly on point, here. The question is 'on a dollar value, is the capability that Australia receives for this cost appropriate on an economy scale, and is that capability required for Australian purposes?'

Yes, each boat will cost far more, but on the other hand, each boat is also capable of doing far more. The vast majority of conventionally-powered submarine operators use them for local territorial or shallow-water requirements: The Mediterranean, the Korean Peninsula, Baltic Sea, Straits of Taiwan, Sea of Japan, etc. Canada is something of an exception (but Canadian needs in the Atlantic and Pacific are very closely aligned with US needs so US Navy nukes can fill the gap), as is (was?) Australia. Australia's naval interests, however, extend far beyond the regional territories and, indeed, even just getting from one end of Australia to the other is a significant transit for a diesel boat. A nuke can get from Sydney to Perth in a hurry without any ill-effects on the boat at all, and much, much faster. A diesel won't be as fast, and may require a refuel at the other end. To get the same capability of coverage across Australia's area of interest as four nuke boats can provide would take far more than four diesels. Further, to counter the cost of the nukes, you also have the reduced manning requirements for that same level of coverage. Fewer boats equals fewer sailors to recruit, train, sustain and pension.

I strongly suspect that the aquisition of nuclear boats is a case of meeting a determined capability requirement most effectively, political impressions (ugh, nukes evil and thus not welcome in New Zealand!) be damned. Generally a weapons purchase is made on the question of "what capability do we want to achieve, and how best do we meet it?" rather than looking at the weapon first from a 'technical' standpoint, and then figuring how best to use it once they have it.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117920035#Comment_117920035

Afghanistan showed us two things.

America will do what it wants, as it always has.

Without America, Europe is toothless and an Eu army isn’t going to change that, unless France and more importantly Germany, massively increase their military spend, even then will that be enough to appease the likes of Poland and the other states bordering Russia and its allies?

Markcheese

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117920553#Comment_117920553

Do we really want the eu to be a great military power ? The population , the cash and the tech are all there (to degrees) but the will isn't ,

Which is why Europe pins itself (for better or worse ) to the US , the french never liked this - the Germans were more or less happy to have nato largely based in Germany , and the Brits tried to convince themselves that they're still at the top table and that the Yanks couldnt do it without them !

The only thing that's changed is china has swapped with Russia as the other big player , Russia hasn't gone away but they're not the Soviet union ...

fly_agaric

Do we really want the eu to be a great military power ? The population , the cash and the tech are all there (to degrees) but the will isn't...

^^No, that quote "Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed..." contains so much truth.

Since the end of the Cold war there has been a good peace dividend in Europe IMO, so reversing that further and building up some new "EU army" would be extremely depressing. Unfortunately the EU may not be left in peace over next few decades without having other allies who can be depended on to defend it at need (right now that is the US, UK to a lesser extent) or at least showing it has the collective ability to protect the members from the regional threats like Russia and Turkey. In fairness that probably doesn't need the EU/European countries to be a "great military power" (if that is defined as likes of US or China), just strong enough to deter neighbours without needing the US or UK backup as they do now. The threats are not on the scale of Soviet Union or China.

UK has "brexited". Alot of tension in the EU-UK relationship now and I don't think the UK govt. public face of "oh we detest the EU, but we really still hold a candle for the members, France, Germany, Ireland etc etc and want to work with them after Brexit just as before!" is credible/realistic. A sort of hate the sin love the sinners effort that doesn't wash. Asia/Pacific seems to be replacing Europe/Middle East as the US focus and it needs allies there (and probably also to concentrate an ever increasing amount of its own military resources there too as China's military grows in strength). The US public seem to have a strong desire for a more isolationist/selfish foreign policy anyway ("America First"). It all calls into question durability of US interest in defending Europe, and it'll make some countries in the EU consider if they need to do something.

France seem to be at that point (Macron's comments before about NATO) + getting more concerned.

I think that might be part of the angry/frustrated reaction to this UK/US/Aus. military alliance announcement. They believe the changes in the world are happening but there's no "European" response to them and one looks quite far away given the lack of unity. They can't do anything alone, certainly not without Germany at least being on board with it. Pushing harder for it is somewhat dangerous too as it will cause more division in the EU. If it did happen, I think it'll be a very small group at first IMO so another circle of cooperation, deepening a multi-speed EU (so many of these overlapping circles now it boggles you a bit, the Eurozone members, the EU entire, the states in Schengen, EEA etc etc etc).

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117920715#Comment_117920715

Britain knew before the end of the war that peace in Europe was dependent on the US.

At Yalta, Roosevelt wanted the UN, Stalin wanted Poland and Churchill wanted US bases in Europe and the three of them horse traded until they got what they wanted.

Manic Moran

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117920968#Comment_117920968

Militarily, I've seen nothing indicating that the US commitment to NATO has reduced. Yes, I have been seeing various commentaries on CNN etc saying that the move out of Afghanistan is another example of "America First", but I have seen nothing to indicate that this has affected the level of NATO support. It may be worth noting how US military activity in Europe has dramatically increased over the last five years. Demanding that Europe take a greater effort in its own defense is not contrary to the position that it is in America's interest to have a secure Europe, and Trump never downgraded the level of US effort in theater which remained from Obama through the current Biden administration. The US has been conducting tests of strategic lift, multi-national exercises, and rotations through Poland/Baltic States on a level not seen since the Peace Dividend of the Cold War, and whilst permanent basing of US troops in Europe remains relatively low (eg the only 'permanent' armored formation is the medium-weight 2nd Cavalry Regiment (Strykers)), we've been rotating heavy armored units constantly on 9-month tours, just like a combat deployment, since 2017. I personally partook in the largest multi-national corps-level exercise in thirty years earlier this year (Assigned to the French division headquarters. Whatever political differences the US and French administrations may have, I assure you they don't apply to the military). If you look at the US military press releases, you'll see all sorts of exercises now going on which are geared towards high-intensity conventional operations against a peer enemy capable of hitting hard. You can draw your own conclusions as to who they may be.

wassie

If you look at the US military press releases, you'll see all sorts of exercises now going on which are geared towards high-intensity conventional operations against a peer enemy capable of hitting hard.

I find that disturbing yet reassuring at the same time.

Flinty997

Considering all the recent activity around European militaries buying gear that's compatible with the latest US stuff like F35 etc. Can't see the US involvement in Europe changing.

Gatling

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117921785#Comment_117921785

There was a time European countries were capable of developing their own aircraft without American technology ,the Germans at one stage were working on a stealth aircraft that had a smaller radar cross section than the Americans secret f117 at the same time ,

I believe Europe can produce near equally good military vehicles weather it be aircraft , tanks or ships .

Just look at what the Swedish have done time after time.

The biggest issue is actual co-operations and control ,one country can throw their toys out of a pram and set programs behind

fly_agaric

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117921394#Comment_117921394

Thanks for the insight. I wasn't suggesting something had changed immediately and already affected NATO/US involvement in Europe. As I said, the US is currently defending EU countries. I was very vaguely aware that there was more activity over the last few years even with Trump in power. I would agree that "demanding that Europe take a greater effort in its own defense is not contrary to the position that it is in America's interest to have a secure Europe". However there's always a tension/balance for the US as regards how much European countries can defend themselves without them. The US's dominant postition providing security is very costly (and could end up costing American lives if something bad ever happened) but it gives the US massive influence over its allies. These countries also end up purchasing a lot of American weapons systems to equip what militaries they do have, which is good too and further increases dependence. So the European weakness and dependency and their need to have the US defending them has (or had until more recently) some benefits for the US apart from maintaining stability/security in Europe.

The factors I mentioned, Brexit, growth of China's power requiring increased US response + interest in Asia and allies there, the changes in US politics + views of worth of their European allies esp. in the Republican party [and more recent events like this "AUKUS" agreement or Afghanistan] are political. I think they show things are changing now, and they may have an effect at the military level in Europe eventually. 

Trump might have had a larger impact if he'd been reelected. He was also quite incompetent though. Eventually there may be another Republican in the presidency, he/she might have same beliefs as Trump (if those policies/ideas are embedded in the party now?), but be far more capable of implementing that agenda.

Flinty997

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117921831#Comment_117921831

The new command and control interoperability and networking is a massive force multiplier.

Yurt2

Spectacular diplomatic strop from the French - but they can't say they didn't see this coming, there was disquiet in Aussie press going back many many months about the French sub deal. No technology transfer to Aus, expensive for what they were getting, next to no onshoring of jobs. To say their intelligence agencies didn't know this was in the offing is beyond credibility as well. It's embarrassing for the French defence industry but those are the breaks.

Manic Moran

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117921831#Comment_117921831

Sweden builds some very good stuff, but it's still sortof the 'economy class' equipment. Good for the dollar, but not top tier. Kindof like Honda or Toyota vs Mercedes or BMW. The best thing they make is the CV90 armored vehicle, but you'll note that though they used to make their own tanks, they rejected the Swedish design in favour of German for their current one. Gripen is not in the same class as higher-end aircraft like Rafale or F-35, and I'm not sure Sweden could afford to build one which is. The example of Brasil's ENGESA is a lesson still borne in mind by defense companies. An up-until-then successful company, they pulled out all the stops and built a tank equal to the M1 Abrams, but when the sales didn't materialise, the company went bankrupt.

Gatling

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117922178#Comment_117922178

My personal favourite is the Visby class corvette ,

I agree with you on the above ,but if the likes of Saab and several other European aircraft producers were able to sit down with a blank piece of paper and a larger budget they likely could produce something up there with the best of them ,the Leopard 2 is an definitely up there tank wise ,as good as the Abrams I'll leave that one based your experience in the real world ,

But having multiple countries trying to come to a consensus on what aircraft and vehicles suit everyone's needs is never going to be easy , similar to the development of the Bradley vehicles too many people with too many ideas and demands Equals delays , confusion and no real leadership saying this is the design and construction we want to go with ,

Ifv developments have grown rapidly in the last few years especially 6x6 and 8x8 the UK were totally left behind till they literally went with an off the shelf model of the German boxer system , which is something we don't see too often no competition ,no evaluations of multiple vehicles just this is the one were buying and having speced to our needs ,

We can't seem to get a comment consensus in Europe ,the Eurofighter was a prime example that nearly never got off the ground due to budget constraints and France pulling out because they didn't get full control and an aircraft to suit they carrier needs ,

joseywhales

As cool as I think these subs are, you would have to think its a waste of money. If history teaches us anything its that arms races are a huge waste of resources that could be better invested in quality of life.

Timberrrrrrrr

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117924291#Comment_117924291

America and to a lesser extent the UK need a boogyman to keep the extremely lucrative war machine going.

40 years ago it was Russia.

Now it's China.

Give it another 40 years and it will probably be Europe 🤷‍♂️

Yurt2

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117924323#Comment_117924323

That's one way of looking at it. Another way (and one I'd agree with) is that if the region and the world at large allows the PRC to swarm Taiwan, the security of the region is very much under threat and the strategic map of the globe will change utterly in favour of a deeply illiberal and chauvinistic power like China.

For all its faults, the Pax Americana in the Pacific that allowed democracies like Japan, South Korea and Taiwan to grow and flourish largely on their own terms is one that is worth defending.

Timberrrrrrrr

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117924359#Comment_117924359

People said the same about Ukraine.

Don't get me wrong, everything should be done to defend Taiwan from falling into China's hands but is the world willing to go to war for them?

Gatling

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117924435#Comment_117924435

Yeah look at Ukraine ,

Under foreign occupation and sovereign territory annexed illegally ,all because people were afraid to stand up to putin ,the same applies to China they are building a massive offensive military ,this isn't about defence ,china sees its self at the only player on the world stage ,

Yurt2

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117924435#Comment_117924435

Crimea and Ukraine is positively low-stakes stuff compared to Taiwan. If the PRC take Taiwan, the Pacific immediately becomes their backyard pool, the Straight of Melacca fall into their hands and you'll see them immediately settling scores with Japan and the US. East Asia is increasingly the world's economic engine and Chinese hegemony under its current guise is not a pretty picture.

Is the world willing to go to war for Taiwan? I think Aus stumping up for some nuclear subs to make Beijing think twice about doing something reckless is a small price to pay.

Timberrrrrrrr

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117924471#Comment_117924471

Again, I'm not defending China's actions in that region, I'm saying that just like Ukraine I think the West will do nothing if China decides to move on Taiwan.