Is this really the subs deal we had to have?

So you bleat on about Keating protecting his interests, but then pretend the ‘experts’ on Insiders are perfectly unbiased. One was the SMH editor, the paper doing its best ‘reds under the beds’ impression the other week, another a well known, long time “hawk” in Greg Sheridan, and just one that brought a little balance to the discussion (Laura Tingle).

The only reason the ‘threat from China is very real’ is because we are aligned with the US, who is desperately searching for a war to fight and happy to rattle the sabres at every opportunity. And China is very happy to play at that game – which is likely to just leave us caught in the middle somewhere, whether we like it or not.

It is utterly delusional to think a) we will see submarines anywhere near Australia any time soon and b) that the subs will make any difference should a major global power set their sights.

This response is exactly what the Hawks that run the dreadful dribble in the SMH want – to create fear so to garner support for unending defence expenditure, whether justified or not, whether useful or not, and whether needed or not. The Military Industrial Complex that is pulling the strings behind the scenes will laugh all the way to the bank however.

JS9,
do you honestly believe that China is benign in their actions and the threat is solely related to the USA’s moves?

Or perhaps should we listen to what the Chinese leadership is actually saying about what they believe and see as their strategic goals in the region are? That we should recognise and understand what they have actually been doing in the region over the last 10-20 years and the potential long term consequences of those moves? To ignore it is foolish and extraordinarily dangerous.

Keating was right in one area and that is around the likely threat of China invading us being very low.

But that’s not remotely the only thing they can do to expand their presence in our region, cripple our economy and lessen the long term safety of our region.

The submarines will not only allow us to protect our interests in the region for things like free and open shipping lanes, but the strategic partnerships with the US, UK and other regional partners will see us benefit significantly in the long term. Whether the likely cost is the best use of the expenditure is definitely debatable but that is separate to the threat of China itself.

You complain about the “hawks” but the China “doves” who just want to either ignore or show acquiescence to China’s expansionary moves and human rights abuses are equally if not more dangerous.

Not sure where exactly I said China was ‘benign’ in their actions – I suggest you read the words on the page, not the ones you think are there. But it is clear we are only anywhere near the middle of it because of our choices of being an effective puppet of the US from a military perspective. That fact is not in doubt. As you rightly say, the likelihood we are going to be invaded is very low.

A country like Australia will always be at risk economically from major powers – we are not big enough to avoid that fact, and there are relatively few things we can do to actually effectively reduce said threat. Not being provocative might be a good start though.

The submarines will be obsolete before they get anywhere near Australian control.

We are buying the equivalent of a dreadnought at the time of WW2.

When ‘protection of shipping lanes’ is the best one can come up with for spending $368 billion on a handful of submarines, its fairly clear the business case is lacking much justification more broadly. Especially when the broader benefits you cite can be achieved without the need to piss a very large amount of money up the wall on military hardware.

All I ask for is a balanced argument – what places like SMH and Insiders are dishing up is far from that. With the exception of Keating, what other doves have even been given a chance to provide an opinion? It is all one way at the moment, and that is not healthy.

And I never said anywhere that expansionary moves and human rights abuses of China should be ignored. But I fail to see how this is the best way to address said issues.

“But it is clear we are only anywhere near the middle of it because of our choices of being an effective puppet of the US from a military perspective. That fact is not in doubt.”

This is the reason why I questioned whether you thought China’s actions are benign because I disagree entirely.

The “fact” is entirely in doubt, with China’s actions over recent decades directly impacting both the regional security and our own, without even mentioning how this can impact economic security as well. Once again, not being invaded isn’t the benchmark of how our country can be impacted.

You claim to want balanced opinion yet then say we are a US puppet for looking to work on significant regional defence partnerships? In my opinion that’s not remotely balanced.

“A country like Australia will always be at risk economically from major powers – we are not big enough to avoid that fact, and there are relatively few things we can do to actually effectively reduce said threat. Not being provocative might be a good start though”

If you think we are being “provocative”, what on earth would you call China’s moves, which are far more extensive and expansionary in nature? They aren’t simply protecting their own territories either by word or deed. And there are definitely actions we can take to protect ourselves from countries like China exerting pressure on us. AUKUS is one of them

“The submarines will be obsolete before they get anywhere near Australian control.
We are buying the equivalent of a dreadnought at the time of WW2.”

And yet China, the US and other countries are expanding their submarine fleets over coming decades as well, seems to be a common mistake.

And its not like the current decisions mean that we would have to continue buying these Subs if what you say is true. There is plenty of scope to pivot to new technologies if they do become obsolete. Which is actually part of the main benefits of the AUKUS agreement, it isn’t just about Subs.

“When ‘protection of shipping lanes’ is the best one can come up with for spending $368 billion on a handful of submarines, its fairly clear the business case is lacking much justification more broadly.”

Who said it’s the best argument? It’s called an example and clearly an extremely important one. There are reams of expert opinion as to the significant benefits of this deal, how it will work amd the risks it manages. But as above, you would probably disagree with those opinions as “Hawkish”.

“All I ask for is a balanced argument – what places like SMH and Insiders are dishing up is far from that.”

I would suggest they are far more balanced and attuned to the threat than those who claim it doesn’t exist or can be talked away. China isn’t playing by the same rules that some think we should abide by.