China on our doorstep

[Sean K]

In regards to fuel and the industrial base and manufacturing etc, let's not forget that if it ever got to a total war situation the entire country is turned to support the war footing. The government will take anything it needs. Not having much of a manufacturing base is a problem for sure, but if the country is at existential threat, we'd be surprised as how quickly things would happen. We came close to this in WW2 but still had spare capacity. Baristas will be be put in uniform first.

 

[qldfrog]

In regards to fuel and the industrial base and manufacturing etc, let's not forget that if it ever got to a total war situation the entire country is turned to support the war footing. The government will take anything it needs. Not having much of a manufacturing base is a problem for sure, but if the country is at existential threat, we'd be surprised as how quickly things would happen. We came close to this in WW2 but still had spare capacity. Baristas will be be put in uniform first.

I like your optimism, being an engineer myself I somewhat doubt we would be able to design factories required within less than 5 y ,and then we would need to build , furnished (with equipment, not bathroom extensions) and operate them...
We are technically in the primary level, rural and mining, next to nothing in term of any level between that and FinTech/accounting levels...
Good luck doing a war effort with no skill/brain, no people, no machine or robotics, no power/oil and lump of concentrated iron ore.
Feeding ourself alone would be a huge challenge ..
Ukraine was the industrial basket of the USSR, where rockets and high tech ..for ussr was made , at least they can use what is send to them, could we even?
I believe maybe shockingly we should have a dozen of nuclear war heads against state wars, and fleets of automated drones to protect our northern (mostly) .borders.
No point having even nuke when you open borders as EU demonstrated
Anything else is just big boys toys and wishful thinking IMHO.
I am sorry Sean if what I trust is a genuine belief in your army work and time ,is IMHO a waste of money and your time...
it might have helped Timoreses, Afghans etc...no denying that
But if the aim is to protect our country and way of life, nada....
Definitely not a personal attack
And you are not to blame: the population, the leaders we elect and military heads chosen are..
Let's all pray we will not have to live and see the results of this bi partisan idiocy
All right time for mowing and leave China work ?

 

[JohnDe]

In regards to fuel and the industrial base and manufacturing etc, let's not forget that if it ever got to a total war situation the entire country is turned to support the war footing. The government will take anything it needs. Not having much of a manufacturing base is a problem for sure, but if the country is at existential threat, we'd be surprised as how quickly things would happen. We came close to this in WW2 but still had spare capacity. Baristas will be be put in uniform first.

Exactly.

When people are in a crisis, they pull together and get things done. History is littered with examples.

As for building factories, in time of war speed is of the essence, factories will be built in double time+ with no bells and whistles or frills. Add to that modern engineering and techniques -

The speed at which the factories are being built is drawing attention. While other buildings take years to complete, gigafactories are built in just months. Elon Musk is a pioneer in this regard.​

 

[Sean K]

I like your optimism, being an engineer myself I somewhat doubt we would be able to design factories required within less than 5 y ,and then we would need to build , furnished (with equipment, not bathroom extensions) and operate them...
We are technically in the primary level, rural and mining, next to nothing in term of any level between that and FinTech/accounting levels...
Good luck doing a war effort with no skill/brain, no people, no machine or robotics, no power/oil and lump of concentrated iron ore.
Feeding ourself alone would be a huge challenge ..
Ukraine was the industrial basket of the USSR, where rockets and high tech ..for ussr was made , at least they can use what is send to them, could we even?
I believe maybe shockingly we should have a dozen of nuclear war heads against state wars, and fleets of automated drones to protect our northern (mostly) .borders.
No point having even nuke when you open borders as EU demonstrated
Anything else is just big boys toys and wishful thinking IMHO.
I am sorry Sean if what I trust is a genuine belief in your army work and time ,is IMHO a waste of money and your time...
it might have helped Timoreses, Afghans etc...no denying that
But if the aim is to protect our country and way of life, nada....
Definitely not a personal attack
And you are not to blame: the population, the leaders we elect and military heads chosen are..
Let's all pray we will not have to live and see the results of this bi partisan idiocy
All right time for mowing and leave China work ?

Agree, it would take a long time and maybe it couldn't be done, but I am optimistic as you say. We used to work off a 10 year strategic warning of a major conflict and that seems to have been shortened significantly. Our strategic planners are probably working on 5 years now. What do you think we could do with 5 years warning @qldfrog ?

Let's also not forget, if China did sail towards Australia, there's a whole bunch of obstacles in their way on the way down who are not China friendlies and after colonial rule and WW2 experiences will not give up their own sovereignty lightly.

 

[qldfrog]

Agree, it would take a long time and maybe it couldn't be done, but I am optimistic as you say. We used to work off a 10 year strategic warning of a major conflict and that seems to have been shortened significantly. Our strategic planners are probably working on 5 years now. What do you think we could do with 5 years warning @qldfrog ?

Let's also not forget, if China did sail towards Australia, there's a whole bunch of obstacles in their way on the way down who are not China friendlies and after colonial rule and WW2 experiences will not give up their own sovereignty lightly.

If planning for a China state war, not hidden way via let's say Indonesia disruption/ agitation..not much we can do except pushing for access to nukes..
In parallel, push for cyber protection..we are sitting ducks via our infrastructure hospitals etc
Stop wasting money on planes and subs, push a very small share of that$ toward a drone autonomous weapon CRC/ defence arm and funding for startups in that domain/market for their products.
Autonomous bombs and missiles( aka thinking..not just going to specific GPS..) miniature subs/ torpedoes.
Unmanned planes and automated drone surveillance networksp
Also as I think it is an Achilles weak point, remove GPS reliance..not easy but doable ..
A lot of the toys demonstrated as high tech weapons would currently failed lamely in the absence of GPS .and China can disable theses ,at worst they can blow the satellites.
Then stop that BS of green revolution and ensure we can extract and use our gas oil locally ...
Startups can do a lot in 5 years and we can restate some oil sufficiency in that time..
For nukes, we have to beg to everyone UK France Israel US and whoever we can get some and a few delivery systems asap
That is key..
But I am not in charge and I am white male not gay and with an accent:
No ivy private school network, nor woke showcase..so I go back to sleep ?

 

[mullokintyre]

But I am not in charge and I am white male not gay and with an accent:
No ivy private school network, nor woke showcase..so I go back to sleep ?

Ya really don't have much going for ya there Monsieur Frog!
Mick

 

[UMike]

Agree, it would take a long time and maybe it couldn't be done, but I am optimistic as you say. We used to work off a 10 year strategic warning of a major conflict and that seems to have been shortened significantly. Our strategic planners are probably working on 5 years now. What do you think we could do with 5 years warning @qldfrog ?

Let's also not forget, if China did sail towards Australia, there's a whole bunch of obstacles in their way on the way down who are not China friendlies and after colonial rule and WW2 experiences will not give up their own sovereignty lightly.

Each of these "obstacles" have self interest and some form of grasp of reality so I hold no comfort in that.

I seriously question any sort of "tough stuff" unity ability of this country.

 

[Sean K]

Each of these "obstacles" have self interest and some form of grasp of reality so I hold no comfort in that.

I seriously question any sort of "tough stuff" unity ability of this country.

Agree to some extent. Like Japan marching through SE Asia they'd just be overwhelmed eventually so might just give up. But, Vietnam has proved to be pretty resilient in the face of an 'invasion', and Indonesia have a national defence policy called 'total defence' where every man woman and child would defend their province. The Philippines is sliding back to the US. Malaysia and Singapore are part of the FPDA so that brings in the UK, us and NZ.

Talking all about this, I think it's a long time before China would ever consider advancing militarily by force through SE Asia. Unless Taiwan changes their political position and accepts Chinese peaceful unification they will be having to deal with that issue for a decade plus, even after they try to take them by force. And, maybe that's all they want to do? I don't think Japan agree with that premise though.

 

[JohnDe]

Agree to some extent. Like Japan marching through SE Asia they'd just be overwhelmed eventually so might just give up. But, Vietnam has proved to be pretty resilient in the face of an 'invasion', and Indonesia have a national defence policy called 'total defence' where every man woman and child would defend their province. The Philippines is sliding back to the US. Malaysia and Singapore are part of the FPDA so that brings in the UK, us and NZ.

Talking all about this, I think it's a long time before China would ever consider advancing militarily by force through SE Asia. Unless Taiwan changes their political position and accepts Chinese peaceful unification they will be having to deal with that issue for a decade plus, even after they try to take them by force. And, maybe that's all they want to do? I don't think Japan agree with that premise though.

Yes, a lot of land mass to go through or around -

 

[farmerge]

It feeds the rich while it buries the poor.

That's actually just a song lyric but hits the nail on the head in my view. That's exactly what it does.

Trouble is, humans keep going down this path. Peace is achieved but in due course we enable an enemy. From there it's only a matter of time until conflict erupts.

War monfering countries like US of A depend on a war/conflict somewhere in the world to keep the infrastructure going.

 

[JohnDe]

War monfering countries like US of A depend on a war/conflict somewhere in the world to keep the infrastructure going.

The colonisation of the Americas started in the 16th century, by 1890 the USA was the largest economy in the world. Their early significant wars were against the British for independence, and against their own with the Civil War. There were minor battles and wars up until WW1, when they came in late. And then the biggest of all was WWII, were the US lost many young men in Europe and many more in the Pacific and eye watering numbers against the Japanese.

If you want to compare which countries are war mongers, look at Europe. The reason WWI & WWII were called wars to end all wars was because Europe had been in constant war and battles for thousands of years. The great nations of Europe did not get rich from producing their own goods, they found it in their neighbours land. The sea merchants of the world were the English, the Dutch and the Spanish, plundering the world and even creating piracy.

List of conflicts in Europe

No one is innocent, none of the major countries free from death, but most strive for fairness and good by creating laws to protect.

Using only parts of history is like telling everyone the weather by looking out of a North window while the storm rides in from the South. We must look out of all the windows before making judgement.

The US is not perfect but since the end of WWII they have helped with world peace and international laws.

Give them some credit.

The American monopoly on international rule-writing is facing its stiffest challenge since the fall of the Soviet Union.​

​

To truly understand the contours of the growing competition between the United States and China, look beyond the corridors of power in Washington and Beijing, past the tensions in the waters and skies around Taiwan, away from the bellicose rhetoric at international forums, and even off the tennis court, the new front opened by the trauma of Peng Shuai. Instead, look to the courtroom.​

​

In the U.S. and much of the liberal West, the concept of the “rule of law” is vital to a properly functioning society—the idea (at least in theory) that the law is impartial, independent, and applied evenly and consistently to all, and that it serves to protect the innocent, including from the state. China’s leaders, however, follow the concept of the “rule by law,” in which the legal system is a tool used to assure Communist Party dominance; courts are forums for imposing the government’s will. The state can do just about anything it wants, and then find some helpful language in the “laws” to justify it.....​

​

...For 75 years, the United States has been the world’s self-anointed rule writer and enforcer. Intent on preventing another global bloodletting on the scale of World War II, Washington attempted to craft a world order cemented in shared norms, with international institutions to enshrine and uphold them. Backing it all up was the might of the American military. That order has been imperfect, subject to abuse by an array of countries—America included—but it has kept a lid on big-power conflict, while spreading economic prosperity and democratic principles across much of the globe. It’s an order that, though somewhat tattered, the Biden administration is striving to maintain with, for instance, today’s Summit for Democracy.​

​

But the American monopoly on rule writing is now facing its stiffest challenge since the fall of the Soviet Union. As China rises in stature, Beijing is promoting its own concepts about global governance, development, and international relations, grasping influence at institutions such as the United Nations to infuse these concepts into global discourse, and using its growing wealth and military might to contest the existing norms of the American world system....​

​

...The main purpose of the West’s original policy of engagement with China was to avoid this very situation. By integrating Beijing into the U.S.-led system, the thinking went, the Chinese leadership would see its benefits and come to support it. On a certain level, the plan succeeded. China has been a major beneficiary of the American order—perhaps the biggest of all. The security, trade, and cross-border investment fostered by the U.S. order propelled China’s rise from poverty, while Beijing eagerly immersed itself in U.S.-backed institutions such as the World Trade Organization.​

​

Yet today, China’s paramount leader, Xi Jinping, appears to consider the U.S. system a constraint on Chinese power. For a proud autocracy, the American order can seem an unfriendly, even threatening place, one where liberal political values reign supreme, and the Chinese form of government is perceived as illegitimate, while Chinese companies and officials are vulnerable to foreign sanction and Chinese ambitions are hemmed in. From Xi’s perspective, it is critical that Beijing rewrite the rules to better suit its interests and, more broadly, those of authoritarian states. Simply, Xi intends to flip the global hierarchy, placing illiberal governments and ideals at its apex.​

​

Xi “wants to dominate the rule of law,” Jerome Cohen, a longtime expert in Chinese law, told me. Xi believes that “you have to have rules that suit the interest of the majority of countries,” and “he sees the Anglo-Americans as being a minority now,” Cohen continued. “That minority should be governed by the autocracies of the world who are amenable to the Chinese point of view.”​

​

The U.S. has faced a similar challenge before, from the Soviet Union during the Cold War. But because China is more integrated into the American order, especially economically, than the Soviets ever were, it presents a more dangerous threat. Beijing is attacking the world order in a pincer movement. From the outside, it markets its ideas, governance, and development model as superior to the West’s; from the inside, it works within the very institutions and networks that bind the U.S. order together.​

​

Read: Xi Jinping’s terrifying new China​

​

Take, for instance, the Belt and Road Initiative, Xi’s pet program that finances and builds railways, power stations, and other infrastructure in developing nations. This undertaking is an effort to change the way international development is done by offering an alternative to the established practices of the Western powers and their institutions, such as the World Bank. Beijing’s state banks generally don’t follow the norms on lending to poor nations designed (after much trial and error) by other major creditor countries, nor has China participated in processes to manage that debt, such as the Paris Club. Instead, Chinese lending is based on China’s rules, often with less transparent terms and weaker standards on labor practices, corruption, and environmental protection. Kristen Cordell, a development policy expert, wrote in a 2020 report on Belt and Road that “the willingness of China to abide by international rules and processes for these investments has been secondary to its interest of shaping norms for its favor.”.....​

 

[qldfrog]

War monfering countries like US of A depend on a war/conflict somewhere in the world to keep the infrastructure going.

That was relying on the USD as the world currency..this is getting eroded as we actually see right now

 

[Craton]

Thanks for your response. "No association", so no business connection or anything at all.

Just to chime in on @rederob's response.
If one reads the DSC thread, one will note that rederob has written reports for our military so his words have some weight.

 

[Sean K]

War monfering countries like US of A depend on a war/conflict somewhere in the world to keep the infrastructure going.

There's certainly a very large military industrial complex but I don't think it's the linchpin of their economy. Playing World police according to generally accepted democratic Western values like stopping communist expansion, intervening in civil wars on the 'right' side, preventing dictators from killing their own population and conducting humanitarian interventions has caused them to do some other stuff that may have been well intentioned, but will go down in history as massive failures. Gulf War 2 prime example.

 

[qldfrog]

Just to chime in on @rederob's response.
If one reads the DSC thread, one will note that rederob has written reports for our military so his words have some weight.

am I the only one to be scared by this?

 

[qldfrog]

am I the only one to be scared by this?

to be fair with rederob, his point is the same as mine about the critical role of armed drones, and I assumes unmaned vehicles..drone not being limited to the flying type buzzing around at the beach

 

[Sean K]

am I the only one to be scared by this?

The only thing scarier is Paul Keating's unhinged ramblings at the Press Club today.

 

[JohnDe]

Just to chime in on @rederob's response.
If one reads the DSC thread, one will note that rederob has written reports for our military so his words have some weight.

No weight at all when a real name is not used.

I could be Paul Keating for all you know, but my ramblings would be worth zilch under a pseudonym

 

[JohnDe]

How to avoid war over Taiwan
A superpower conflict would shake the world

Europe is witnessing its bloodiest cross-border war since 1945, but Asia risks something even worse: conflict between America and China over Taiwan. Tensions are high, as American forces pivot to a new doctrine known as “distributed lethality” designed to blunt Chinese missile attacks. Last week dozens of Chinese jets breached Taiwan’s “air defence identification zone”. This week China’s foreign minister condemned what he called America’s strategy of “all-round containment and suppression, a zero-sum game of life and death”.



As America rearms in Asia and tries to galvanise its allies, two questions loom. Is it willing to risk a direct war with another nuclear power to defend Taiwan, something it has not been prepared to do for Ukraine? And by competing with China militarily in Asia, could it provoke the very war it is trying to prevent?

No one can be sure how an invasion of Taiwan might start. China could use “grey-zone” tactics that are coercive, but not quite acts of war, to blockade the self-governing island and sap its economy and morale. Or it could launch pre-emptive missile strikes on American bases in Guam and Japan, clearing the way for an amphibious assault. Since Taiwan could resist an attack on its own only for days or weeks, any conflict could escalate quickly into a superpower confrontation.

Both sides are shoring up their positions and trying to signal their resolve, with destabilising consequences. Some acts generate headlines, as when Nancy Pelosi, then speaker of the House of Representatives, visited Taipei last year; others are almost invisible, such as the mysterious severing of undersea internet cables to remote Taiwanese islands. Diplomacy has stalled. Top American and Chinese defence officials have not spoken since November. During the recent spy-balloon incident, a “hotline” failed when China did not pick up. Rhetoric aimed at domestic audiences has grown more martial, whether on the American campaign trail or from China’s top leaders. What one side sees as a defensive act to protect its red lines, the other sees as an aggressive attempt to thwart its ambitions. Thus both sides are tempted to keep hardening their positions.

It is unclear how far America would go to defend Taiwan. The island is not a domino. China has some territorial designs beyond it, but does not want to invade or directly rule all of Asia. And as our special report explains, it is unclear how many Taiwanese see China as a real threat, or have the stomach for a fight.

The Taiwanese, like the Ukrainians, deserve American help. The island is admirably liberal and democratic, and proof that such values are not alien to Chinese culture. It would be a tragedy if its people had to submit to a dictatorship. If America walked away, the credibility of its security umbrella in Asia would be gravely in doubt. Some Asian countries would accommodate China more; South Korea and Japan might seek nuclear weapons. It would boost China’s worldview that the interests of states come before the individual freedoms enshrined in the un after the second world war.

But the help Taiwan receives should aim to deter a Chinese attack without provoking one. America needs to consider Mr Xi’s calculus. A blanket American security guarantee might embolden Taiwan to declare formal independence, a red line for him. The promise of a much larger American military presence on Taiwan could lead China to invade now, before it arrives. A botched invasion, however, would cost Mr Xi and the Communist Party dearly. America needs to calibrate its stance: reassure Mr Xi that his red lines remain intact, but convince him that aggression carries unacceptable risks. The goal should not be to solve the Taiwan question, but to defer it.

Taiwan has avoided provocation. Its president, Tsai Ing-wen, has not declared independence. But it needs to do more to deter its neighbour, by boosting defence spending so that it can survive longer without American help, and by preparing its citizens to resist grey-zone tactics, from disinformation to vote-rigging. For its part, America should try harder to reassure China and to deter it. It should avoid symbolic acts that provoke China without strengthening Taiwan’s capacity to defend itself. It should keep modernising its armed forces and rallying its allies. And it should be prepared to break a future blockade, by stockpiling fuel, planning an airlift, providing backup internet links and building an allied consensus on sanctions.

America and today’s Chinese regime will never agree about Taiwan. But they do share a common interest in avoiding a third world war. The first 15 years of the American-Soviet cold war featured a terrifying mixture of brinkmanship and near-catastrophic mistakes, until the Cuban missile crisis prompted a revival of diplomacy. This is the terrain the world is now on. Unfortunately, the potential common ground between America and China on Taiwan is shrinking. Somehow, the two rival systems must find a way to live together less dangerously. ■

 

[mullokintyre]

The only thing scarier is Paul Keating's unhinged ramblings at the Press Club today.

Hon PJ Keating failed to tell his audience that some of his thoughts may be as a paid shill for the CCP.
Most people would understand that what it means when you get paid by an entity, you support that entity.
Don't know how long he has been on the CDB board, or how much he is paid, but those French Clocks don't come cheap, even on a generous Parliamentary salary.
The thought just popped into my head that Rederob may actually be PJK with a Pseudonym.
There is some similarity in style.
Mick