I am really happy for this reason that the UK is part of the deal.Here's the problem I have: You can't trust the yanks.
When we were being their lapdog and had words with China. Once China cut trade with us the US rushed in to fill the void on products they couldn't compete with us on.
The US would have no qualms letting Australians die rather than US citizens for their stupid quest to control the east.
Those subs lock us down into the idiocy of the Yank war machine.
I don't trust the US to have Australians interests in mind.
Sal is a great commentator on merchant shipping.Sal Mercogliano, creator of What's Going on With Shipping? , gives a very good explanation for Australia's requirement of submarines.
The case for protecting our commercial shipping is less credible again. The logic runs along the lines of China is our greatest threat and they will therefore attack ships from Australia which are essential to China's continued industrialisation??? Is there is a nation with more seaborne traffic than China? It would be somewhat obvious that it's China needing to protect its trading interest more than Australia!
We trade with others in the region besides China.
What if China hijacks a shipment of our iron ore to Japan deciding that they need it more ?
What could we do about it if we didn't have a long range capability like nuclear subs ?
Sal is a great commentator on merchant shipping. But....
In this particular case it is so filled with factual errors it's embarrassing...
Salvatore R. Mercogliano is an associate professor of History at Campbell University in Buies Creek, North Carolina and teaches courses in World Maritime History and Maritime Security. He is also an adjunct professor with the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy and offers a graduate level course in Maritime Industry Policy. A former merchant mariner, he sailed and worked ashore for the U.S. Navy’s Military Sealift Command. His book, Fourth Arm of Defense: Sealift and Maritime Logistics in the Vietnam War, available through the Naval History and Heritage Command.
Dr. Salvatore Mercogliano
Chair, Department of History, Criminal Justice and Politics
College of Arts & Sciences
Associate Professor of History, Chair
History Criminal Justice & Political Science
College of Arts & Sciences
Faculty Athletic Representative
Office of the President
Biography
Courses Taught: Western Civilization, U.S. History, Civil War, American Military Experience, and World Maritime History
Fields of Interest: Military and Maritime History; Maritime Industry Policy, and World History
You apparently think that someone who is an expert in a different field is more important than providing a justification for the obscene expenditure on nuclear subs that diminishes our army and airforce capability.Wow, you have the gall to belittle someone's work, a person that is qualified in many of the areas being discussed on this thread, teaches, and puts his name to his work. You, a person that hides behind a username and lets others believe that you are more qualified than the leading experts that comment. I think there is a word for that.
And this is relevant in what way?This picture shows how far and how long nuclear submarines can travel from Australia, through choke points.
What if the sky falls?What if China hijacks a shipment of our iron ore to Japan deciding that they need it more ?
Is your idea that after China takes this shipment we attack them with a missile barrage? And start a war?What could we do about it if we didn't have a long range capability like nuclear subs ?
What if the sky falls?
If that's the nature of thinking that spins in people's minds here then lord help us.
Is your idea that after China takes this shipment we attack them with a missile barrage? And start a war?
OMG.
That scenario is from cloud cuckoo land.
You apparently think that someone who is an expert in a different field is more important than providing a justification for the obscene expenditure on nuclear subs that diminishes our army and airforce capability.
Are you actually able to debate, or will you keep indulging in logical fallacies?
How about coming up with something other than Australia attacking China because they apparently needed Japan's iron ore.So anything China does is ok with you is it ?
How does that make sense?I'd suggest that a hijack of goods belonging to someone else is starting a war, not the reaction to it.
Your logical fallacies are not debate!I will always have more faith in someone that has proven qualifications and puts their name to their work, over a faceless person hiding behind a username.
You have not presented any relevant facts. You also claimed I had not answered your questions, so where are they?You my friend are a faceless person hiding behind a username, that is unable to accept any other views than your own. You appear unable to process facts from qualified and published professional works.
I doubt it.I doubt that there is anyone that is an expert on all the fields required, but Sal Mercogliano comes a lot closer than you.
I doubt it.
I was involved in combined force structure reviews and Sal probably was not.
How about coming up with something other than Australia attacking China because they apparently needed Japan's iron ore.
That's stretches reason.
How does that make sense?
Really?Even though your opinions are fallacious,
Really?... and you have started to try and move the goal posts
I presented my points clearly and have responded to questions put to me.... possibly in an attempt to incite rage when your rants don't take traction
Ask a cop on the beat.Stealing goods not belong to them is not an act of war ?
The real question is why they would do such a stupid thing when they have so many lawful options that they are already complying with.Should they get away with it ?
Stealing goods not belong to them is not an act of war ?
Why not ?
Should they get away with it ?
(Purely hypothetical of course, but who knows what might happen when dictators go bananas
).
Ask a cop on the beat.
The real question is why they would do such a stupid thing when they have so many lawful options that they are already complying with.
From a strategic perspective the AUKUS decision fails the test of literal "defense".
The idea that a small number of submarines can protect our borders does not cut the mustard. Worse, the Virginia class submarines are not ideal in continental waters.
Australia is geographically well placed from a defence perspective because any sustainable attack has to come a long way by sea and be vulnerable for days. Raining down tens of thousands of missiles on such a fleet from land or air would not be difficult nowadays. It was never an option in WWII.
Both China and Russia have missile capabilities that reach Australia from their soil so they could strike without actually going to sea. But that does not win them ground. Our defence needs a strong focus on an ability to repel landings, given that's the only thing that would prevent a takeover. The war in Ukraine shows how hard it is for an attacking nation to win ground if there is a capable defence.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?