Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Australia buys nuclear subs au us uk pact

I've sometimes wondered why people bother with diesel subs - surely they're dead easy to track, you just need to follow the trail of bubbles?
There's a new-ish generation of non-nuclear subs that do away with the need for air, and appearently can be even stealthier than nuclear subs as they run on bioethanol & batteries and do not need pumps to constantly circulate coolants. Whilst their range is not unlimited, they can still manage 8,000 km +, which certainly allows for long range missions

 
What are you saying will take decades to get up to speed?

And Taiwan is not Hong Kong.

Even if the US didn't get involved, it is far from guaranteed that China could pull off an incredibly complicated beachhead with very few suitable landing points, a narrow window of time when weather is suitable for a beachhead, and an enemy who has been preparing for this very scenario for the past 70 years.

And for reasons I outlined above, a successful Chinese invasion of Taiwan is an existential threat to Japan - even if China does not attack Guam and directly confront the US Navy as part of its war on Taiwan, the lack of any response by the US would effectively give the PLAN total hegemony in the region. Having the power to use naval blockades against Japan, if you know anything about China, is not something they will use fairly or reasonably. Japan has very good reasons to fear this.

Because of this, Japan would likely get involved if they invade Taiwan and have started saying as much publicly:


And also because of the above, the US is almost certain to get involved because not doing so would effectively mark the end of them as a superpower. Additionally, 60% of the world's semiconductors are manufactured in Taiwan, so it is of huge importance to global supply chains. A war in Taiwan, aside from anything else, would cause global shortages of computers and phones. The disruption would be felt everywhere.

Also, nuclear deterrent might not be the issue you think it is, as it would be a naval war of limited scope rather than a total war. US goals would just be to destroy China's naval capabilities and no more. China's goals would be to destroy US naval capabilities within Asia-Pacific region and also to occupy Taiwan.

A Chinese invasion of Taiwan would not be a trivial affair and would not just be like what is happening in Hong Kong now. China already had control over Hong Kong, they would have to fight to get control over Taiwan. The stakes involved are extremely high and it could also be trigger for a number of other conflicts, e.g. North Korea and South Korea.

In the longer view are the Chinese going to use their blood and treasure in making Taiwan another Hainan? An existential attack on the USN and bridgeheads on Taiwan would draw a nuclear response from the Americans ( or us? If say a Prince of Wales led carrier group was destroyed perhaps with tactical nukes) even with the Chinese Minimum Deterrent Posture no one knows where that would end.

There main challenge in the 21st century is surely India. Xi knows it’s only a matter of time till the eclipse the US as ‘top nation’ and where other than Taiwan do their strategic interests really allow military flashpoints?

India is well behind Xi’s China but is on the up as well, complete with its own brand of nationalist nutters. We need to relax into a world where the main factor is that oval round the Himalaya where half the people live.
 
In the longer view are the Chinese going to use their blood and treasure in making Taiwan another Hainan? An existential attack on the USN and bridgeheads on Taiwan would draw a nuclear response from the Americans ( or us? If say a Prince of Wales led carrier group was destroyed perhaps with tactical nukes) even with the Chinese Minimum Deterrent Posture no one knows where that would end.

There main challenge in the 21st century is surely India. Xi knows it’s only a matter of time till the eclipse the US as ‘top nation’ and where other than Taiwan do their strategic interests really allow military flashpoints?

India is well behind Xi’s China but is on the up as well, complete with its own brand of nationalist nutters. We need to relax into a world where the main factor is that oval round the Himalaya where half the people live.

I agree with you that India is China's real rival, but the current nationalistic zeitgeist in China doesn't want to acknowledge that as they see themselves as competitors to the US for global supremacy. Vying with India rather than the US means they have to see themselves as a regional power rather than a global power, which ideologically they would prefer not to do. They see India as beneath them.

The Chinese government strongly believe that their rightful place is as the dominant global power, which they believe they were historically (not really true, but they believe it) and that they are destined to return to. A key part of this is becoming a Pacific naval hegemon and an essential part of that is control of Taiwan. So they care a great deal about it. It is really a central issue.

And would an attack on the US Navy actually elicit a nuclear response, as that would in turn elicit a Chinese nuclear response? And more importantly, does China believe that it would elicit a nuclear response? I'm not convinced that they do.

China's relative decline due to demographics, diplomacy and debt is pretty much assured for the next decade. IMO I think China's leadership let the western media hype over China's rise and the goodwill towards them of previous decades get to their heads, and also they aren't used to the more sensational and negative western media so they believed that 2008 crash, Brexit, Trump, refugee crisis and ISIS, BLM and so on were much more serious than they were. They ended up believing their own hype and acting like a global hegemon prematurely.

The emergence of other major regional powers like India or Indonesia, more cooperation between smaller countries via ASEAN, a modest or relative Chinese decline, and a concerted pushback against Chinese belligerence could well temper the nationalist fanaticism and see a backlash in a post-Xi era against the hothead nationalists who created so many setbacks for China through excessive belligerence and fantasies of world domination. I think trying to hold off a war for as long as possible and challenging China's view of itself as the natural global hegemon is the best approach here.

e.g. Pointing out that even at its peak, it was an East Asian power not a global power; "5000 years of history" is a myth and not that unique; India was the largest economy in the world more frequently than China was; the "tributary states" around China were in many cases just flattering China and exercising diplomacy with them as well as other powers; and so on. Too often these nationalist claims get repeated by journalists from other countries without really thinking about it and this helps to amplify Chinese assumptions about the inevitability of a Sino-centric world order.

Also, the dominant "common sense" of geopolitics in China is the idea of big powers and puppet states. US allies are viewed generally as puppet states of the US, secretly controlled through various means. The bullying of Australia stems from this belief that smaller states inevitably bow to strong states, and that Australia could be converted from a US client into a Chinese client by being more aggressive than the US. However this isn't how it works, and the fact that Australia trusts the US sufficiently and has sufficient common interests is more important than it "fearing" the might of the US.

Challenging this "great power" ideology is very important in getting China to act less aggressively and to be less of a bad faith actor in international organisations and agreements, but sadly there is still too weak an understanding of what the unstated, "common sense" assumptions of Chinese ideology are among world leaders.
 
Last edited:
"And would an attack on the US Navy actually elicit a nuclear response, as that would in turn elicit a Chinese nuclear response? And more importantly, does China believe that it would elicit a nuclear response? I'm not convinced that they do."

Yes. We've come to the brink over less.
Good stuff though.
 
Unfortunately just because we know our leadership are idiots.

Doesnt make the other side 3d chess masters😳.
China has Generations of Generals who haven’t been to war. But have lots of shiny new Toys and unlike the US and Russian generals haven’t had a proxy war to discover war is really rather shit😡. China’s a one party state and if similar idiocy of the American century and the axis of evil™️ has got a grip in the corridors of power bad things could happen.
 
channel 4 news had some Chinese think tank leader claiming Taiwan reunification was a duty and would not be an invasion.
America wouldn't dare intervene.
hopefully, he's the Chinese version of Farage.
 
There may be a non military resolution. Apparently because of the industriousness of the Taiwanese, many of the exporting manufacturing businesses of China are Taiwan owned, even Foxcon it was suggested to me might be Taiwanese or part Taiwan owned. There for the cheap labour. If this is true then strengthening economic ties might negate the need for a military solution at all.
 
France throws toys out of pram:



Twitter tells me that France (Macron) withdrew it's ambassador to Italy for a week of consultations in 2019 over some wildly-blown-out-of-proportion slight.

Yup, a fellow EU state...

I, for one, am convinced that such things lead other states to believe that Macron is a stable, non-thin-skinned professional who is truly the heir to Merkel...
 
This is why I think it’s so dangerous to have our strategic deterrent in the hands of the Navy. Come the day the captain of Vigil works out it was the Buttler what did it and he can’t hear the Today Programme, he or she isn’t going to read the letter of last resort, they are just going to glaze Paris for old times sake.
 
This is why I think it’s so dangerous to have our strategic deterrent in the hands of the Navy. Come the day the captain of Vigil works out it was the Buttler what did it and he can’t hear the Today Programme, he or she isn’t going to read the letter of last resort, they are just going to glaze Paris for old times sake.

I might quibble with the word dangerous...
 
This is why I think it’s so dangerous to have our strategic deterrent in the hands of the Navy. Come the day the captain of Vigil works out it was the Buttler what did it and he can’t hear the Today Programme, he or she isn’t going to read the letter of last resort, they are just going to glaze Paris for old times sake.

RAF types never been happy with RN being in charge of nukes - down to Kennedy and McMillian. The green eye over it has effectively cost FAA its fixed wing.

And if it were in the hands of the junior service. God forbid we ever needed to use it RAF would probably go on holiday

How many Voyager crews were furloughed during the Afgan withdrawl?
 
Last edited:
There may be a non military resolution. Apparently because of the industriousness of the Taiwanese, many of the exporting manufacturing businesses of China are Taiwan owned, even Foxcon it was suggested to me might be Taiwanese or part Taiwan owned. There for the cheap labour. If this is true then strengthening economic ties might negate the need for a military solution at all.

Probably not, in fact Taiwan under the DPP is trying to reduce its economic ties with China. Tsai Yingwen's government is pursuing the New Southbound Policy which aims to build more ties with Australasia and South-East Asia in order to reduce their reliance on China.

The problem is China systematically weaponises economic ties to achieve their political goals. E.g. Hilton Hotels and other businesses were forced to remove Taiwan as an option for Nationality in their online booking systems, or lose the Chinese market. Taiwanese celebrities who make money in China have to keep silent on politics, or they are erased from the Chinese Internet. Some Taiwanese Bubble Tea cafe chain was pressured to make a statement in favour of Beijing over the Hong Kong protests etc.

The new era of likely long term DPP rule can be said to have started with the Sunflower Revolution in 2014. CCP United Front Work Groups had been very busy at targeting and grooming influential Taiwanese businessmen and politics and had effectively infiltrated the KMT this way, and there was an effort by the KMT to force through a free trade deal which would have allowed China to dominate Taiwan economically, for example it would have made it possible for them to buy up Taiwanese private media.

Protesters stormed Taiwanese Parliament and occupied it to prevent the Bill going through, and DPP came to power in this context.

The issue is not about a conflict of interests between Taipei and Beijing which can be solved by better economic ties. It is about democracy versus fascism.

It's a shame the western left doesn't show any solidarity to Taiwan. Contrary to many assumptions, the pro-independence movement is left leaning and socially liberal (one of the most celebrated figures of the Sunflower Revolution and the Cyber Minister under DPP government is trans for instance, and Taiwan is the most LGBT-friendly country in Asia - but KMT are generally against this), and the most pro-China forces are Conservative or even far-right.

I think many still associate Taiwan with the right wing KMT of the Cold War, however today, it is figures associated with the KMT military dictatorship who are most pro-Beijing.

Bear in mind that Taiwan was governed as a part of Japan for 50 years by the time KMT came to the island. It isn't as simple as it breaking off from China during the Civil War. The KMT "liberation" left a sour taste in people's mouths. The anti-Japanese movement in Taiwan had tried to keep their native Chinese traditions alive, but when the KMT came, they repressed these traditions even more violently than the Japanese did, considering them backwards - however Taiwan under Japanese rule was actually significantly more advanced than China, so it was perceived as crudely rustic and backwards militarists invading and telling them their customs were backwards.

There was an uprising against the KMT after only 2 years of their arrival, and they responded by massacring nearly 30,000 people in one day and beginning a long period of White Terror. The Taiwanese Independence Movement today traces its genesis to this anti-KMT uprising, and not to the KMT itself, as many people erroneously suppose; and the democracy movement in the late 80s and early 90s was also an important aspect of it.

Today the main base of support for unification comes from those families descended from the KMT evacuation of the mainland. This is why pro-Beijing elements are associated with Conservative and far-right militarist elements, not leftist elements as one might superficially suppose.

But as time goes by, their influence in society is becoming more and more diluted. Chinese identity amongst the younger generation is extremely rare in fact.

Beijing is aware that time is not on its side. This next decade is a really decisive moment for Taiwan. I mean, some Chinese officials have literally advocated exterminating the entire population as one possible solution. Not sure how representative that is, but you can be pretty sure that they won't be humane about it.
 
It seems a lot of the trouble is because Taiwan makes so many things that are essential to the USA and EU etc etc, computer chips for example. However, if you are listening authorities, I am not prepared to get into a thermonuclear war with China over Taiwan, so don't let's go there please.
 
An existential attack on the USN and bridgeheads on Taiwan would draw a nuclear response from the Americans

they couldn't make an existential attack in just one area and i'll wager that we'll never use nukes again. (but we have to be seen as having them so the expenditures will continue.)

everything short of that, yes.
 
t seems a lot of the trouble is because Taiwan makes so many things that are essential to the USA and EU etc etc, computer chips for example. However, if you are listening authorities, I am not prepared to get into a thermonuclear war with China over Taiwan, so don't let's go there please.

I like the way you're happy to trade away other people's self determination - and lives - for a quiet life.

Perhaps you ought to think a little bit harder about the principles you espouse, and the subjects you pontificate on...
 
I like the way you're happy to trade away other people's self determination - and lives - for a quiet life.

Perhaps you ought to think a little bit harder about the principles you espouse, and the subjects you pontificate on...
Yeah weltweit is a subversive pacifist who needs to acknowledge the role of western kleptocracies in protecting strategically important nations on the other side of the world because he doesn't want to die in a nuclear war.
 
I like the way you're happy to trade away other people's self determination - and lives - for a quiet life.

Perhaps you ought to think a little bit harder about the principles you espouse, and the subjects you pontificate on...
The population of China aren't exactly enjoying self determinism and I wouldn't espouse nuclear confrontation to free them from their rulers. The west (America) has pursued low wages / globalisation to such an extent that now Taiwan (and China itself) is key to the US home economy.

Both the superpowers want Taiwan, for slightly different reasons. I am sure there are solutions short of a nuclear confrontation and I would prefer they focus on them.
 
Yeah weltweit is a subversive pacifist who needs to acknowledge the role of western kleptocracies in protecting strategically important nations on the other side of the world because he doesn't want to die in a nuclear war.

Tbf, don't know many this region who are up for a bit of the old ultra nuclear...
 
Back
Top Bottom