UK, US and Australia launch landmark security pact

[Danllan]

More fool them.

The EU? Where did I mention the EU. Non of the military misadventures we have embarked on with the USA have had anything to do with the EU. When faced with an argument you have no answer to you inexplicably return to the irrelevant and settled Brexit debate. As an aside I do think our long term goal militarily should be to make any nuclear deterrent we have independent of the USA. If it’s not independent what’s the point of it?

You didn't mention the EU, my point regarding that is that I can't recall a single instance of you criticising it, ever - apologies if I'm wrong about that, happy to be set right. But since Brexit you endlessly whinge about the UK and everything else we involve ourselves in, so I was merely iterating...

For example, I've not seen you at any point being critical of the UK having close relations with, say, France, or the Netherlands, but as soon as we look to Australia or any of our other relations you start complaining - perhaps because of the Imperial history you so hate - though let's not forget that the EU is a self-declared 'Empire'. To me Brexit seems very relevant to you, because since it you've done nothing but slag off and bitch about all the UK does.

Anyway, back on topic... you haven't an argument, just an opinion which really doesn't fit with the real-world situation in re China. Delighted you see the value of a deterrent; we agree that the deterrent would best be entirely independent. Grateful if you'd expand on your thoughts about China...

 

[fudge]

You didn't mention the EU, my point regarding that is that I can't recall a single instance of you criticising it, ever - apologies if I'm wrong about that, happy to be set right. But since Brexit you endlessly whinge about the UK and everything else we involve ourselves in, so I was merely iterating...

For example, I've not seen you at any point being critical of the UK having close relations with, say, France, or the Netherlands, but as soon as we look to Australia or any of our other relations you start complaining - perhaps because of the Imperial history you so hate - though let's not forget that the EU is a self-declared 'Empire'. To me Brexit seems very relevant to you, because since it you've done nothing but slag off and bitch about all the UK does.

Anyway, back on topic... you haven't an argument, just an opinion which really doesn't fit with the real-world situation in re China. Delighted you see the value of a deterrent; we agree that the deterrent would best be entirely independent. Grateful if you'd expand on your thoughts about China...

The only political difference between you and I is that you want the UK to be tied to US coat tails in a military sense. This is a mistake because we have seen successive US presidents take an America first stance. I don’t know what that means but it looks as though arms sales, primarily to their own taxpayers is a priority. We have no influence. Blair told lies in order to join an illegal war in Iraq, on the delusional belief that in joining the enterprise Britain could be some sort of back seat driver. You and the government seem hell bent on continuing this delusional policy. The pay off for the USA is arms sales what’s in it for the UK? Nothing worth the cost of carrying US luggage on their military misdeeds. Economically I don’t see why we can’t have a good relationship with China, in the same way as the Americans do. A point which you ignore when you casually talk about the “west” protecting Taiwanese democracy.

 

[Montexy]

The only political difference between you and I is that you want the UK to be tied to US coat tails in a military sense. This is a mistake because we have seen successive US presidents take an America first stance. I don’t know what that means but it looks as though arms sales, primarily to their own taxpayers is a priority. We have no influence. Blair told lies in order to join an illegal war in Iraq, on the delusional belief that in joining the enterprise Britain could be some sort of back seat driver. You and the government seem hell bent on continuing this delusional policy. The pay off for the USA is arms sales what’s in it for the UK? Nothing worth the cost of carrying US luggage on their military misdeeds. Economically I don’t see why we can’t have a good relationship with China, in the same way as the Americans do. A point which you ignore when you casually talk about the “west” protecting Taiwanese democracy.

America doesn't have a "economically good relationship with China" - there is a 300 billion dollar deficit in China's favour.

 

[Danllan]

The only political difference between you and I is that you want the UK to be tied to US coat tails in a military sense. This is a mistake because we have seen successive US presidents take an America first stance. I don’t know what that means but it looks as though arms sales, primarily to their own taxpayers is a priority. We have no influence. Blair told lies in order to join an illegal war in Iraq, on the delusional belief that in joining the enterprise Britain could be some sort of back seat driver. You and the government seem hell bent on continuing this delusional policy. The pay off for the USA is arms sales what’s in it for the UK? Nothing worth the cost of carrying US luggage on their military misdeeds. Economically I don’t see why we can’t have a good relationship with China, in the same way as the Americans do. A point which you ignore when you casually talk about the “west” protecting Taiwanese democracy.

No; but I don't see any harm working with the US when our interests coincide.

My 'ideal' future will be for us to get ever closer with our family overseas - yes, I do mean the former Dominions - and to do all we can to ensure free trade and democracy wherever possible.

I don't think it would be accurate to class the US / China relationship as 'good'; however, I have no problem with having relations with China*, but very great problems in doing nothing to stop its attempt to expand and monopolise.

And that is, I think, where we differ. I believe that China can be reined in, because no dictatorship will risk conflicts it is not certain of winning, because if it is seen as fallible, it will fall - this, above all else (and there are a lot) is China's greatest weakness under the CCP.

China would not have any hope of 'winning' against a strong alliance, starting with AUKUS, but which will probably expand to include all of the other countries it has p!ssed off in that region - of which there are many, and some of which are substantial regional powers in their own right.

Note that when I write 'winning', I am not necessarily inferring violence, but trade restrictions too. There is the capacity in Asia to replace China in production terms, and in Africa too - though that seems unlikely for obvious reasons. China knows this and wants to secure its position, but it can't do so without threatening the use of force, force it can't risk applying... tricky situation for them.





*Here I'll ask you, and others, a simple question... is it alright practically / morally to 'work with' totalitarian regimes, be they 'Left' or 'Right', or religiously based, if it is in our national interest to do so?

 

[fudge]

No; but I don't see any harm working with the US when our interests coincide.

My 'ideal' future will be for us to get ever closer with our family overseas - yes, I do mean the former Dominions - and to do all we can to ensure free trade and democracy wherever possible.

I don't think it would be accurate to class the US / China relationship as 'good'; however, I have no problem with having relations with China*, but very great problems in doing nothing to stop its attempt to expand and monopolise.

And that is, I think, where we differ. I believe that China can be reined in, because no dictatorship will risk conflicts it is not certain of winning, because if it is seen as fallible, it will fall - this, above all else (and there are a lot) is China's greatest weakness under the CCP.

China would not have any hope of 'winning' against a strong alliance, starting with AUKUS, but which will probably expand to include all of the other countries it has p!ssed off in that region - of which there are many, and some of which are substantial regional powers in their own right.

Note that when I write 'winning', I am not necessarily inferring violence, but trade restrictions too. There is the capacity in Asia to replace China in production terms, and in Africa too - though that seems unlikely for obvious reasons. China knows this and wants to secure its position, but it can't do so without threatening the use of force, force it can't risk applying... tricky situation for them.





*Here I'll ask you, and others, a simple question... is it alright practically / morally to 'work with' totalitarian regimes, be they 'Left' or 'Right', or religiously based, if it is in our national interest to do so?

I really don’t understand how you have become so deluded. A “stong alliance” of Britain and America could not defeat the taliban in Afghanistan. Indeed the only beneficiary of that debacle were American arms manufacturers. They even left the victorious tribesmen some free samples. Those guys all want American arms and sunglasses. There’s no sign of lightly armed landrovers in their instagram posts it’s all American sales material.

 

[Ashtree]

No; but I don't see any harm working with the US when our interests coincide.

My 'ideal' future will be for us to get ever closer with our family overseas - yes, I do mean the former Dominions - and to do all we can to ensure free trade and democracy wherever possible.

I don't think it would be accurate to class the US / China relationship as 'good'; however, I have no problem with having relations with China*, but very great problems in doing nothing to stop its attempt to expand and monopolise.

And that is, I think, where we differ. I believe that China can be reined in, because no dictatorship will risk conflicts it is not certain of winning, because if it is seen as fallible, it will fall - this, above all else (and there are a lot) is China's greatest weakness under the CCP.

China would not have any hope of 'winning' against a strong alliance, starting with AUKUS, but which will probably expand to include all of the other countries it has p!ssed off in that region - of which there are many, and some of which are substantial regional powers in their own right.

Note that when I write 'winning', I am not necessarily inferring violence, but trade restrictions too. There is the capacity in Asia to replace China in production terms, and in Africa too - though that seems unlikely for obvious reasons. China knows this and wants to secure its position, but it can't do so without threatening the use of force, force it can't risk applying... tricky situation for them.





*Here I'll ask you, and others, a simple question... is it alright practically / morally to 'work with' totalitarian regimes, be they 'Left' or 'Right', or religiously based, if it is in our national interest to do so?

Oh dear….. overseas family, eh! Have a sip of coco and an early night tonight. Coco they say, calms the most delusional elements of ones thoughts. You’ll notice I’ve never actually tried it, but a friend swears by it.

 

[unlacedgecko]

*Here I'll ask you, and others, a simple question... is it alright practically / morally to 'work with' totalitarian regimes, be they 'Left' or 'Right', or religiously based, if it is in our national interest to do so?

Yes. As long as it benefits Britain, and British citizens.

I remember lots of talk about the Iraq war being about oil. Well I never noticed a difference in the pump price.

 

[Danllan]

I really don’t understand how you have become so deluded. A “stong alliance” of Britain and America could not defeat the taliban in Afghanistan. Indeed the only beneficiary of that debacle were American arms manufacturers. They even left the victorious tribesmen some free samples. Those guys all want American arms and sunglasses. There’s no sign of lightly armed landrovers in their instagram posts it’s all American sales material.

No you don't understand, and that isn't an insult, it's probably just that you haven't studied the matter in depth and given it sufficient thought. Of course the Taliban could have been 'defeated', utterly, but it wasn't 'acceptable' in terms of lives, politics and money to do so. And, anyway, we weren't in Afghanistan because of them or 'terrorism' etc.. Asymmetric warfare is simple in theory but very complicated in practice.

Oh dear….. overseas family, eh! Have a sip of coco and an early night tonight. Coco they say, calms the most delusional elements of ones thoughts. You’ll notice I’ve never actually tried it, but a friend swears by it.

That was written with either tongue in cheek or hitherto unheard of self-insight...

Yes, overseas family - I'd stake my last penny on our relations with Australia, Canada and New Zealand; I'll grant that the US needs to be handled a wee bit differently. I'd not trust your bosses in Europe over any of them, ever.

But if you do trust your overlords, or want to pretend to anyway, what would you term them as? You can't claim them as family - we're the closest you have to that in the neighbourhood, both literally and metaphorically. So I guess it's 'partners' then, if a catamite can claim to have a 'partner'...


Still afraid to talk about your EU and its members breaking their laws regarding migrants?

 

[Muck Spreader]

Australia have decided to go down the nuclear powered route, at this point they only had three choices for the power plant, USA, UK or France and everyone knows that the French reactor is a poor 3rd performance wise. USA has been building these subs since 1955 and the UK since 1960, Australia will need a lot of technical help to shorten their learning curve.

I take from this you don't know that much about French nuclear technology. If you did you would understand that the current French reactor family would possibly suit a non nuclear nation better if it wished to maintain a degree if independence from the USA. In reality the modern diesel electric subs are way cheaper, quieter and allow them to keep their independence.

All the Australians have done at the moment is cancel their existing order and placed a letter of intent to buy an Anglo/US propulsion unit for a submarine yet to be designed with possible delivery dates in the 2040's couple this with the fact that the aging Collins class boats are due to start being withdrawn from 2025 could leave them without a submarine force for 15 to 20 years.

 

[FonterraFarmer]

Policies change...

Just explain how the current Labour government enforces it's "No nuclear" policy with regard to foreign nuclear submarines within NZ territorial waters???
NZ Navy surveillance???

 

[FonterraFarmer]

With the government we currently have in power the policy changes are not in the right direction.

Equally they have no idea to witch direction they are going, and nor is any democratic process being implemented either.
None of what this government has done since the last election was indicated before the last election in any detail let alone with regard to how it will be implemented.
As for the Three Waters reform, that going to go the same as the Seabed and Foreshore legislation.....

 

[Danllan]

I take from this you don't know that much about French nuclear technology. If you did you would understand that the current French reactor family would possibly suit a non nuclear nation better if it wished to maintain a degree if independence from the USA. In reality the modern diesel electric subs are way cheaper, quieter and allow them to keep their independence.

All the Australians have done at the moment is cancel their existing order and placed a letter of intent to buy an Anglo/US propulsion unit for a submarine yet to be designed with possible delivery dates in the 2040's couple this with the fact that the aging Collins class boats are due to start being withdrawn from 2025 could leave them without a submarine force for 15 to 20 years.

You're being a bit naive now, the obvious route is secondment and lends.

The pros for d e sub's are far, far outweighed by cons in the Ozzy theatre.

Frog reactor not advantageous because Oz wants a domestic nuclear industry, just hasn't said so publicly yet...

 

[BrianV]

With our current electric supply stretched to the limit & now relying on the French to keep our lights on might Bozo end up regretting upsetting our so called "friends" across the water?

 

[Bongodog]

I take from this you don't know that much about French nuclear technology. If you did you would understand that the current French reactor family would possibly suit a non nuclear nation better if it wished to maintain a degree if independence from the USA. In reality the modern diesel electric subs are way cheaper, quieter and allow them to keep their independence.

All the Australians have done at the moment is cancel their existing order and placed a letter of intent to buy an Anglo/US propulsion unit for a submarine yet to be designed with possible delivery dates in the 2040's couple this with the fact that the aging Collins class boats are due to start being withdrawn from 2025 could leave them without a submarine force for 15 to 20 years.

I take it that you actually don't know much about French reactors for naval vessels. The UK and US now build them to last for the whole life of the vessel, the French reactors require refuelling every 10 years. Thats a difficult enough process for the French carrier, but even more difficult and lengthy for a sub.
Also as previously mentioned the US has no influence/hold over the UK nuclear propulsion technology. They do control the Trident missiles in the SSBN's, but that's an entirely different submarine for an entirely different purpose

 

[nivilla1982]

Tridents missiles manufactured in the USA for a "shared US/UK pool" but the actual warheads are British, on the missiles in our subs.

 

[fudge]

No you don't understand, and that isn't an insult, it's probably just that you haven't studied the matter in depth and given it sufficient thought. Of course the Taliban could have been 'defeated', utterly, but it wasn't 'acceptable' in terms of lives, politics and money to do so. And, anyway, we weren't in Afghanistan because of them or 'terrorism' etc.. Asymmetric warfare is simple in theory but very complicated in practice.


That was written with either tongue in cheek or hitherto unheard of self-insight...

Yes, overseas family - I'd stake my last penny on our relations with Australia, Canada and New Zealand; I'll grant that the US needs to be handled a wee bit differently. I'd not trust your bosses in Europe over any of them, ever.

But if you do trust your overlords, or want to pretend to anyway, what would you term them as? You can't claim them as family - we're the closest you have to that in the neighbourhood, both literally and metaphorically. So I guess it's 'partners' then, if a catamite can claim to have a 'partner'...


Still afraid to talk about your EU and its members breaking their laws regarding migrants?

oh I see the Taliban are the wrong kind of enemy. Yes you are right you and British Foreign policy is in no way delusional.

 

[Muck Spreader]

You're being a bit naive now, the obvious route is secondment and lends.

The pros for d e sub's are far, far outweighed by cons in the Ozzy theatre.

Frog reactor not advantageous because Oz wants a domestic nuclear industry, just hasn't said so publicly yet...

I wouldn't dispute that and I could be wrong about who builds them as well. I was taking to one of my son's who's in that line of business. He reckons it doesn't really make any logical sense to bin the French contract, as currently the Australia has no skill base to build a nuclear sub, no subcontractors to manufacture any components and no ability to maintain them. He thinks Biden could be offering a big bung but with the nuclear tech coming via the UK as the US doesn't like to share certain aspects of its tech with anyone, so the UK acts as a gatekeeper.

The French ship reactors have an advantage over the US ones in that that can utilise ordinary civilian enriched fuel as used in power stations, avoiding the costly and potently more dangerous military grade highly enriched fuel that would have to come from the UK or US. The downside being a lifespan of around 10 years compared to highly enriched that could last the life of the sub.

 

[robs1]

The only political difference between you and I is that you want the UK to be tied to US coat tails in a military sense. This is a mistake because we have seen successive US presidents take an America first stance. I don’t know what that means but it looks as though arms sales, primarily to their own taxpayers is a priority. We have no influence. Blair told lies in order to join an illegal war in Iraq, on the delusional belief that in joining the enterprise Britain could be some sort of back seat driver. You and the government seem hell bent on continuing this delusional policy. The pay off for the USA is arms sales what’s in it for the UK? Nothing worth the cost of carrying US luggage on their military misdeeds. Economically I don’t see why we can’t have a good relationship with China, in the same way as the Americans do. A point which you ignore when you casually talk about the “west” protecting Taiwanese democracy.

If you look up history that's what people said during the 1930's about a certain european country, that didnt end too well, the world needs to wake up and stop selling its soul to China

 

[fudge]

If you look up history that's what people said during the 1930's about a certain european country, that didnt end too well, the world needs to wake up and stop selling its soul to China

We have an independent nuclear deterrent!! If China and the USA want to play empire games let them. The UK cannot afford to join in any conflict. We don’t have the capability anymore.

 

[robs1]

We have an independent nuclear deterrent!! If China and the USA want to play empire games let them. The UK cannot afford to join in any conflict. We don’t have the capability anymore.

And if they play " ganes" you think the whole world wont be involved ? The chinese have bought up huge quantities of raw materials, they hold large amounts of the worlds debris, they are building huge amounts if military equipment and are now threatening neighbours, I dont fancy a world war with them in 5 or ten years, we need to rein them in financially before it's too late, avoiding buying anything made there if at all possible is they way we as individuals can help, ignore history and it will be repeated, the ordinary chinese citizen has got used to improved standards of living, if we stop buying their cheap sh!t their government can be held back