US and UK to now furnish Australia with nuclear submarines.

Timberrrrrrrr

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117924499#Comment_117924499

Aus agreeing to buy subs and Aus having the subs and ability to use them in the next ten years are two different things.

Those subs will be no use to anyone if China decides to move on Taiwan in the next five years, or do you think China will sit on its hands for a decade and move on Taiwan when everyone is fully armed and ready for that?

I think some time in the next five years we will all wake up one morning to hear that Taiwan is fully in control of China and they have 50,000 troops there, at that stage it will be too late for the West to do anything other than condemn them and call for sanctions.

Yurt2

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117924505#Comment_117924505

It's clear the US has bet big on the Asia-Pacific. I'd invert that, and argue that the fact that Beijing hasn't moved on Taiwan is that they are deathly afraid of what the US would do. They'd be right, I don't think that's a line the US will allow the PRC to cross. Japan has long had a pacifist constitution, the likes of Abe have low-key questioned it for a long time, and Taiwan being put in the crosshairs would almost certainly prompt major changes to Japan's military posture.

Gatling

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117924505#Comment_117924505

Of course they won't they are afraid to even say Taiwan is a country let alone coming to the defence of the country

Timberrrrrrrr

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117924563#Comment_117924563

If China invaded today, and landed thousands of troops on Taiwan, what do you see happening?

This isn't iraq/Kuwait where a coalition of governments would come together and drive the invaders out. This is (wether you like it or not) a nuclear armed superpower with a massive military.

Do you envision troops on the ground fighting them until they leave?

Yurt2

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117924610#Comment_117924610

It would primarily be a naval engagement, and I can see the US sea and air power getting involved (along with possibly Japan and Aus such would be the severity of such a crisis) yes.

Edit: If you read through a lot of the scenarios, China even landing on Taiwan would be a major military undertaking - the Taiwan straight is very unforgiving and PRC ships would be sitting ducks.

Timberrrrrrrr

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117924631#Comment_117924631

Why would it be naval though, China could land 10,000 troops on Taiwan tomorrow with minimal fuss and minimal loss, once that beachhead is established and while the world wakes up to what's happened they would then move another 10/20,000 troops with artillary, troop carriers and tanks.

By the time the US fleet or the Aus navy arrive the chines will have pulled thier boats back to Chinese waters. Now how do you deal with that situation?

You can have all the aircraft carriers you want circling Taiwan but unless you are willing to put boots on the ground to remove the soldiers already there then your carriers are worthless.

Yurt2

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117924662#Comment_117924662

I recall reading scenarios from naval and military experts on this. Such are the conditions on the Taiwan straight, that there are only two short windows a year where any sort of realistic stab at invading can be attempted, it would require a major military and navel buildup in Fujian which would never go unnoticed by intelligence in a heavily surveyed and patrolled area, and the Taiwanese coast is incredibly well fortified. If it could be done with minimal fuss, it would have been done already. The US move carrier groups and subs to the area during these windows and they could strike from Okinawa, Korea and Guam as well quickly and with devastating force. And that's not to mention Taiwan's own defence forces who spend 24/7 - 365 planning for such a scenario.

People are fond of overstating China's military competency. Very little about invading Taiwan could be done with ease - chances of success are relatively low with China's current capacity, and it would probably be a regime ending defeat for the CCP should it occur.

markodaly

Any war games I've read about a possible invasion of Taiwan would involve the airforce trying to knock out Taiwan's defenses first before any navel or amphibious action. That may take a few days and would give the Americans and others time to counter any amphibious assault. For all, we know there could be half a dozen American nuclear attack subs stationed in the South China sea at all times, just in case.... What we do know is that there is an American Carrier Strike Group permanently stationed in Japan that patrols these waters.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrier_Strike_Group_5

Just this weak they had another Carrier strike group doing exercises in the South China Sea.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrier_Strike_Group_1

Put it this way, they won't have to set sail from San Diego or Hawaii, the Americans will either be in the region or very close by if the **** hits the fan.

On China itself, they have precious few allies in the region and the CCP know this. Who do they have in their corner? Myanmar, under a military coup? North Korea? That is about it.

The Americans on the other hand have Taiwan, Japan, South Korea, Thailand, Australia, New Zealand and don't forget India who themselves are a nuclear power and have had run-ins with China the past year. Even the Vietnamese can't stand the Chinese and would back the Americans if it came to it.

Also, invading Taiwan is high stakes for the CCP. If they get it wrong and are defeated in some way, then it could very well be the end of them.

bob mcbob

The Taiwanese army is 160K strong so the Chinese would need a lot more than 10K troops. In fact it is accepted that defenders have an inbuilt advantage so attackers need a 3:1 ratio for a successful attack.

Everyone would notice if ships were being put in place in China to transfer 500K troops across the Taiwan Strait.

Manic Moran

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117924662#Comment_117924662

So if the ships all go back to the Chinese coast after dropping off 10-20,000 troops, how are they going to be sustained? Fuel, food, ammunition will run short very, very quickly. An assault would require that the strait be opened to China, and kept open.

cnocbui

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

What was the last time an openly belligerent socialist ideology lead country with a near dictator as head started on a big one sided arms buildup for no apparent reason - oh yes, Germany.

cnocbui

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117924515#Comment_117924515

Australia currently has subs. There is a rather nice Yt video of them engaged in exercises with the Amircans when they were supposed to try and get close to a US destroyer:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nqFVOL7mLd4

The last bit is amusing.

brickster69

Boris explaining things.

https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/1440709976822099969

Capt'n Midnight

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117924610#Comment_117924610

The Taiwanese will not let China capture TSMC's factories intact. Besides right now there is a shortage of chips affecting everyone.

Even the new TSMC plant for Arizona will be a generation behind the latest tech when it opens.

Larbre34

France should deliberately obstruct progress on sectoral agreements with Britain for that cheek from Boris Johnson.

You would think he'd had his arse handed to him enough of late without antagonising further, people that can either help or hinder Britain in its post-Brexit turmoil. But then, thats the leadership the people of Britain seem willing to tolerate as their Country circles the porcelain bowl.

joseywhales

Subs or not, the invasion of Taiwan would be extremely prohibitive. The country(in its current guise) has spent its entire existence fortifying and preparing for invasion. Receiving cutting edge tech and training for years. I'd say it would be a horrifying mess.

The Chinese are better off wearing them down and using soft power and economic stimulus to bring the political change in Taiwan that they want. Militarily it would be a tragedy to invade.

archer22

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117924662#Comment_117924662

The American and vassal warships will be entering the kill zone of DF21D when they are 1,500 miles from China...if they survive to get closer they will be in the kill zone of a vast array of other Chinese anti ship missiles and submarines plus attack aircraft, drones, and god knows what else..I have lost track of the ever growing array of Chinese military systems at this stage.

Anybody who thinks China couldn't take Taiwan and that America and its vassals could stop them is living in doo la la land.

Yurt2

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117925644#Comment_117925644

The CCP spent many years courting and influencing the Kuomintang, and now significant swathes of Taiwanese hate them for it, particularly the young. The DPP are firmly ensconced in Taiwan as a political force which has broken Beijing's brain and ruined their strategy for the island.

Yurt2

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117925668#Comment_117925668

War gamed scenarios would not agree with your 'la la land' theory. An invasion of Taiwan would be one of the most challenging military operations in history and if you've declared Beijing a winner here on boards maybe you should go to Zhongnanhai to share the good news with the CCP brass.

Your statements about 'vassals' speaks more about your politics than anything else.

joseywhales

It would be the worst decision since Napoleon invaded Russia. THe most likely thing to happen would be a revolution in mainland china

Snickers Man

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

40 years?

I give it less than that.

Perfidious Albion indeed!

Gatling

Wow China have DF21D ,

That's seriously amazing like the DF21D is what exactly archer22 ????

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117925402#Comment_117925402

Apparently France declared war over the remarks earlier this afternoon.

Boris is heading home as we speak to negotiate their surrender

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117926344#Comment_117926344

I imagine if they cut off gas or electricity to protect the EU and themselves in this crisis, you wouldn't be so flippant about France's response.

It isn't outside the realms of possibility that that's his plan. Rally anti-France and anti-EU sentiment in the likes of you to cover for the UK's failures. It isn't our lack of storage and Brexit, it's France cutting off supplies because of a few little words.

When a country's politics revolves around an external force, that force has to be kept relevant at all times.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117927265#Comment_117927265

Imagine if France did declare war, or aliens landed, or Spurs won the league.

anyway, back to reality……..

Peregrinus

The reality is that Johnson has decided to piss off the French at the same time as the US is trying to conciliate them, which of course means he will piss off the US as well.

Still, Johnson was never one to miss an opportunity to sacrifice his country's interests for the sake of a favourable tabloid headline.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117927344#Comment_117927344

No, the reality is the French have thrown a massive hissy fit and need to get a grip.

Ardillaun

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117898347#Comment_117898347

Building domestically is so attractive to politicians because of the jobs angle but once they sign on they’re up against a contractor with all sorts of local lobbying power. Canada made this mistake with warships and is watching the bill escalate progressively:

https://atlantic.ctvnews.ca/slow-to-deliver-federal-auditor-general-calls-shipbuilding-delays-concerning-1.5325064

Peregrinus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117927353#Comment_117927353

And how, exactly, does Johnson's behaviour contribute towards the achievement of this end?

He should look at how the grownups are trying to handle this situation, and learn from them. Or, at the very least, he should shut up and let the grownups handle this. But, as I say, there's a cheap tabloid headline to be had here, and we know Johnson too well to hope that he can look beyond that.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117927374#Comment_117927374

Grown ups don’t recall ambassadors from allies.

Peregrinus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117927380#Comment_117927380

Keep deflecting, Aegir. The issue is Johnson's behaviour; you repeatedly try to turn the discussion to Macron's behaviour. I think I know why.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117927405#Comment_117927405

Nothing wrong whatsoever with Johnson's behaviour, other than in your "Boris is the reincarnation of the devil" imagination. Macron needs (if you'll forgive the less than PC phrase) to man the **** up and stop throwing his toys out of the pram.

If Macron thinks that is worth withdrawing the ambassadors from Washington and Canberra because the Australians decided to cancel a contract that had become not only troublesome thanks to the underperformance of the supplier, but also somewhat obsolete, as the needs of the customer were changing, then telling him to get a grip seems to be a fairly diplomatic comment.

Peregrinus

You'd think that, before Johnson reacts to the withdrawal of ambassadors from Washington and Canberra, it might cross his mind to look at how Washington and Canberra are reacting, and to wonder "if I do my usual back-end-of-a-pantomime-horse routine on this, could that possibly annoy Washington and Canberra, who are evidently trying to mend fences with Paris?"

Well, actually, knowing Johnson as we do, we could confidently predict that it wouldn't cross his mind to ask himself this question. But acknowledging that we all know that Johnson is a complete arsewit isn't much of a defence of Johnson.

Perhaps Johnson was pissed at the evaluation of the UK's status and influence implicit in France's decision not to recall its ambassador from London, as well as Washington and Canberra, and he hoped by acting the clown to provoke France into doing so? Nah, that would be overthinking it. He did this because it gets tabloid headlines that gratifies the base. It would never cross his mind to wonder how it might play in Parish, Washington or Canberra.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117927460#Comment_117927460

Macron threw a hissy fit, the likes of which we haven't seen since Ursula Von De Leyen invoked article 16. This meant Biden's team and Macron's team had to come up with a carefully worded statement (including smiley photo of Biden on the phone) so that France could back themselves out of the corner and the US could still show who actually is the boss.

Froma UK perspective, the French tried to demean their involvement by only cancelling a meeting with the defence secretary, so they didn't need to climb down. in return, Macron got the political equivalent of a wet willy from Boris.

that's pretty much it. no one is making an issue of this, other than the usual suspects.

brickster69

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117927265#Comment_117927265

But let's line Putin's pockets and build a pipeline with him. Cut off gas and electric to one of the founders of NATO which has been protecting Europe for the last 70 years, and people wonder why EU countries were left out of AUKUS.

Peregrinus

The general view seems to be that Macron will be quite pleased with the US statement; he's got the US to support French efforts in the Sahel, which is something he wanted and hasn't been able to get up to now. Obviously the US have done this because they want to make a gesture to France in light of the way it was treated in the construction of the AUSUK deal, which the US is not best pleased about, and for which they are mainly blaming Australia.

The UK is a bit of a sideshow in all this; France regards them as only secondarily responsible for the AUSUK shitshow, and the US does not regard them as primarily responsible for France's hurt feelings.

Frankly, that would be quite a good outcome for the UK; they get the benefit of the AUSUK deal and avoid most of the blame going around. Given that the question of how to respond to the French recall of ambassadors from Washington and Canberra is, fundamentally, not the UK's business, the best thing for the UK would be to keep its head down, not get in the way of Franco-US rapprochement, and not do anything that might upset this beneficial outcome.

But, no. Given the choice between (a) behaving wisely and in his country's interest, and (b) drawing attention to himself and pissing off his allies, Johnson will go with the attention-seeking, every time.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117927786#Comment_117927786

Indeed, Macron should be grateful to the US for throwing him a bone, after his tantrum.

fly_agaric

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117927605#Comment_117927605

Come on now, get a grip as Boris said (!) When did the French cut off Great Britain's leccy and gas? Or suggest such a thing? The UK is also the last country that can point fingers about Russian influence IMO.

You enjoy Boris Johnson's antics, and the show is put on for you. You are part of the UK Conservative Brexiter core vote going by your posts.

You were all excited about Boris's pig French efforts + posting up memes and jokes about the French being embarrassed and humiliated etc. A dark part of me would love to see what would happen if UK were faced with a cluster of far right populist govt.'s (Boris/Trump-alikes) across the channel in France/Germany/Italy instead of normal centrist and boring politicians but...I'd want to be at safe distance in time or space!

Peregrinus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117927870#Comment_117927870

Well, these days he's certainly better at getting things out of the US than the UK is.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117927896#Comment_117927896

UK gets part of a tripartate agreement that not only supports British jobs and innovation, it also helps increase their influence in the region.

France gets a little rub on the head and put back in their box.

I know a little rub on the head and a bounce on the knee from the US president is seen as the be all and end all of international relations in some countries, but personally I would prefer the former.

fly_agaric

The UK is a bit of a sideshow in all this; France regards them as only secondarily responsible for the AUSUK shitshow, and the US does not regard them as primarily responsible for France's hurt feelings.

I don't think UK is a "side show" or not responsible for or important in what happened here. Would just throw it out there that maybe the French are expecting that sort of behaviour now (??).

I suppose you'd call it an(other) extremely competitive/'frenemy' action - not quite hostile but edging close from the UK govt. It's disappointing I'm sure, but should be no great shock and continues a possibly inevitable downward trend of UK-French relations post Brexit.

It will probably spill over into the UK-French military cooperation eventually. I'd imagine stuff like that will be the very last to get burned up on the altar of "Brexit" as all it works through the system and the new reality comes into focus and most painful to have to reduce (for both sides).

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117928396#Comment_117928396

stuff like what? Australia deciding they want nuclear powered submarines?

wtf has that got to do with Brexit?

fly_agaric

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117928466#Comment_117928466

I'm not getting your point. What have I said that was badly wrong? I actually agreed with you.

UK was a key part of this (you said that, disagreeing with another poster). 

It benefits directly in several ways, some of it at French expense (again you pointed that one out as well - see below quote)

"UK gets part of a tripartate agreement that not only supports British jobs and innovation, it also helps increase their influence in the region.France gets a little rub on the head and put back in their box."

You can't have it both ways, where UK was at once a key part of all this strategy & secret manouvering and then also intended no real harm to France. Not quite hostile but definitely very, very competitive & some sharp practice involved.

As to connections back to "Brexit", I'm not sure how that can be denied? The UK published a raft of documents about how it's intending to reposition itself in the world post Brexit and we've the UK government statements about it also ("Global Britain" using one of the slogans) and "AUKUS" idea fits in very well with that. I may be wrong, but would all be much harder if UK were still an EU member I think.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117928466#Comment_117928466

I would imagine a lot....

The UK invariably have ties to Aus. This relationship could act as a conduit to funnel through US technology and influence through the UK without any direct hassle from the EU... This could be under a further guise of trade deals etc... (which the UK has been gunning for since Brexit, so has plausible deniability) and the US essentially don't have direct involvement, meaning no one can escalate anything over this move...

As I mentioned already, there has been some very interesting defence company acquisitions in Aus by UK/US companies over the past few months, which all of this would explain.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117928938#Comment_117928938

why would the US need to "Funnel" US technology through the UK, when they can just sell them the technology direct, if they wish.

Australia are buying a load of F35s and are already a member of the five eyes consortium. You don't get much more high tech/secret squirrel than that.

And what does any of this have to do with being in or out of the EU?

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117928778#Comment_117928778

why would it be harder if the UK was still a member of the EU?

If France can sell submarines to Australia and the UK can sign agreements such as Five Eyes, why would they need to be outside of the EU to do what they are doing now?

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117929057#Comment_117929057

I'd just be repeating myself answering half of that... Aviation technology and operations is not as secret anymore as sub-marine

Having a truckload of gas guzzling F-35's which you can watch their whereabouts using satellite, track using OTH (or their tankers for long range ops using conventional radar) compared to a sub (possibly 8) which can sit off your coast for months with the potential of a nuclear capability (or even conventional strike at certain targets) is a completely different ballgame

cnocbui

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117927405#Comment_117927405

The issue is Morrison cancelling the contract. Boris being Boris shouldn't be surprising to Macron or anyone else. He's a shoot first, and apologise later kind of person, but he's also a nappy changing adult. I personally suspect there is at least a 50 IQ point gap between Morrison and Boris - in the latters favour, of course. If Macron doesn't have a grasp of Johnson's character and style by now, he shouldn't be in the job.

MrMusician18

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117928396#Comment_117928396

I think you've identified the direction of travel pretty well here and I think it will ultimately end with a NATO split, with European nations forming their own defence pact outside of NATO, and the Anglosphere forming their own alliance. Ireland, I would assume will sit it out, despite pressure from both sides, particularly Europe, to pick one.

Gatling

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117929187#Comment_117929187

Breaking from NATO would make no sense ,it would take years to start all over again and built a European army ,

Essentially we would need a standing European army Strong enough to deal with the threat from putin let alone any other threats ,