Chinese imperialism and future Australian sovereignty

[pietillidie]

Meanwhile, we have just bought into a modern, medium-range stealthy anti-ship missile system. This is exactly the type of leading-edge hardware capability we can and must maintain to avoid being relentlessly bullied.

We also need, of course, to avoid over-dependence on a single trading partner, we need to establish and maintain honest, open relationships with other countries focused on long-term benefit to both (not short-term quick bucks), and we need to be well-led by people looking at the future and not stuck in the past.

Oh well, one out of four isn't bad.

Indeed. It's an endless cycle of quick bucks then hysterical overreaction, because it's all too hard to work on serious relationships abroad, and serious industrial policy at home.

I don't have a view of this particular defence spending due to a lack of knowledge in that area, but in principle I support strong defensive capabilities under something like a 'trust no state because any one of them can go rogue, but build positive relationships with all peoples' approach. Australia has ample allies and positive relationships to keep things in balance for everyone's good - if it puts the work in.

The three things that worry me most are (1) the two decades of kowtowing to mining companies rather than building relationships and developing industry, (2) the void of serious leadership, and (3) the populist preference for hysteria and reaction over hard work and disciplined strategy.

[pietillidie]

The thing is, Stui, society relies on people like you to be at your level-headed best, regardless of whether or not some annoying CCP lackey mirrored a Trump tweet and got under your skin.

[David]

[stui magpie]

The thing is, Stui, society relies on people like you to be at your level-headed best, regardless of whether or not some annoying CCP lackey mirrored a Trump tweet and got under your skin.

I didn't write the article. It existed whether I posted it here or not, with or without my commentary.

And this wasn't some fringe bullshit media I quoted.

So how bout you consider that when you're taking aim at mine and others opinions.

[stui magpie]

[pietillidie]

I feel for Hong Kong. Psychologically, people can handle onward and upward change, but not backward constraining change.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-a ... a-53247144

I will be judging the Chinese leadership on two levels here: (1) this is a chance to use soft power; (2) every good state has its open market/urban liberal strongholds and these make the whole better. This doesn't have to end badly.

Let's also see if the UK comes to the party here as a release valve.

[watt price tully]

China’s fighting on a lot of fronts currently

You have to feel for the brave pro-democracy protestors. They have no hope now.

[think positive]

[roar]

[David]

I see the South China Sea stuff as less about territorial expansion than nationalist symbolism, and I honestly think we place way too much focus on it. It's disputed territory; if the tanks roll in to Manila, that would be a very different story. But I haven't seen any indication that the Chinese government is inclined toward invasion in the WW1/WW2 sense. We don't live in that world any more.

As I've said from the beginning of this thread, my concern regarding China is far less about military invasion (which I think is highly unlikely; and even if it wasn't, we'd be screwed anyway without external support) than it is about economic hegemony leading to the election of local client governments. So, for me, the greatest urgency is to shift our economic dependence away from China while, so far as possible, maintaining peaceful diplomatic relations with them. Any military confrontation would be disastrous and should not even be seriously considered.

[Pies4shaw]

Recognising the problem and being able to do anything about it with military hardware are two quite different things. Surely, everyone understands that we would be taking a pretzel to a joust?

[Tannin]

Surely, everyone understands that we would be taking a pretzel to a joust?

Actually, no.

China's standard of military equipment is way behind that of most Western nations. Say, on average, 20 or 30 years behind. China is working hard to bridge that gap, and has made a lot of progress over the last decade or two, but remains hopelessly off the pace when it comes to cutting-edge military technology. China's air force, for example, features equipment which, at best, is around about on par with the equipment Australia is retiring as obsolete. (There are differences in detail: Australia's old F/A-18s have shorter range, lower top speeds, and smaller payloads. China's largely Russian-based equivalents, on the other hand, have inferior sensors, communications, and availability. Call it even.)

Training standards are more difficult to assess, nevertheless, it is reasonable to count on a significant advantage here too - and training is generally far more important than equipment.

Numbers, on the other hand, are wildly in the opposite direction. Australian forces could (and very likely would) take out Chinese ones on a 10 to 1 win-loss ratio .... which would really be quite pointless, as that's nowhere near enough to win, given the numbers available.

All of this notwithstanding, it is essential that any country be able to defend itself, if not absolutely (no small country can win against a giant) then relatively. The object has to be the capability to inflict significant pain and inconvenience such that the attempt to invade is not considered worth the trouble.

I fully support the government's decision to upgrade to a modern missile, but am deeply doubtful of the downright weird decision to cancel another two tankers. What is the point of arming your shiny new F/A-18s with decent missiles if you can't deliver enough fuel to get them to where they are needed?

[David]

All of this notwithstanding, it is essential that any country be able to defend itself, if not absolutely (no small country can win against a giant) then relatively. The object has to be the capability to inflict significant pain and inconvenience such that the attempt to invade is not considered worth the trouble.

I understand the logic. But does this mean that it's futile to work toward goals such as peaceful pluralism, cooperation and mutual disarmament? Or are we essentially locked into the MAD doctrine all the way until the asteroid comes?

[Tannin]

I understand the logic. But does this mean that it's futile to work toward goals such as peaceful pluralism, cooperation and mutual disarmament? Or are we essentially locked into the MAD doctrine all the way until the asteroid comes?

Absolutely not! We (like any other country) must have both. This is the only, repeat only way to avoid war.*

* Theoretically, you could be so incredibly powerful that it doesn't matter a damn whether other countries get on with you or not. This has been tried many times, by (for example) the Roman Empire, the British Empire, and most recently by the United States. It never works. You always end up fighting an endless series of small, nasty wars, and they never end. Eventually, your national unity breaks up and your will to fight falls away and your empire falls apart, usually in a pretty nasty way.

* Or you could be so incredibly nice to everyone and so incredibly poor that no-one wants to invade you 'coz you ain't got anything at all that anybody wants. This state has been approached many times by many countries, and it has never yet worked. Conquering economically and militarily worthless countries provides dictators with easy street cred; it's Militarist Politics 101. And any country that poor is going to be having a more or less permanent civil war anyway, or at very least crime and violence and corruption so bad as to be pretty much the same thing. For a current example, close your eyes and stick a pin randomly into a map of Africa. (You might have to try twice, in case you happen to hit one of the African countries which are at war over the resources they have rather than the resources they don't have.)

[think positive]