Talking Politics

[caesar]

Is Biden a geriatric ?

On this BIG bilaterial sub agreement:

I want to thank Boris and umm “I want to thank ... uh ... that fella Down Under. Thank you very much, pal,” Biden said.

The fella from Down Under heads to a nuclear-powered election

Joe Biden appeared to forget Scott Morrison’s name, but the Australian Prime Minister now has a nuclear-powered story for the coming election.

www.theage.com.au

 

[Tigers of Old]

Is Biden a geriatric ?

On this BIG bilaterial sub agreement:

I want thank Boris and umm “I want to thank ... uh ... that fella Down Under. Thank you very much, pal,” Biden said.

The fella from Down Under heads to a nuclear-powered election

Joe Biden appeared to forget Scott Morrison’s name, but the Australian Prime Minister now has a nuclear-powered story for the coming election.

www.theage.com.au

It's not actually that funny. Morrison was joined at the hip to Trump. It appears his relationship with Biden isn't quite the same.

 

[caesar]

It's not actually that funny. Morrison was joined at the hip to Trump. It appears his relationship with Biden isn't quite the same.

You are right it is an indictment of the relationship.

 

[Redford]

not at all.

Morrison keep handing Labour free hits, and they dont even swing a punch, let alone land one.

Can you recall seeing Albonese looking down the camera and getting stuck into them on The ABC or in The guardian?

The only blokes swinging are Turnbull and Shorten.

Porter has just publicly accepted $1m in a brown paper bag. there should be blood flowing in the streets of Canberra.

Albonese is an impotent, no cut through dud. Forget about the “let them hang themselves” argument. Wont work with a Murdoch Media in play. Albonese has no combative, front foot energy. He’s a plodder.

 

[BT Tiger]

This is a good cartoon representing Australia's relationship under Trump and Biden. Might be the wrong thread but it's a brilliant cartoon.

 

[MB78]

It's not actually that funny. Morrison was joined at the hip to Trump. It appears his relationship with Biden isn't quite the same.

How do you read that into Biden being incompetent in forgetting Morrison’s name? This is nothing to do with Trump.

 

[AngryAnt]

For better or worse we judge presidents by how they compare to previous presidents and Americans do it too. Why do you think Trump supporters always call him "the greatest Pres ever"???

Another point of comparison - Biden actually gave a speech on the commemoration of ANZUS, something Trump would never take the time to do.

‘Easy mateship’: Biden’s message to Australia for 70 years of ANZUS

US President Joe Biden says the partnership between the United States and Australia remains essential, as he marked the 70th anniversary of the alliance between the two countries.

www.smh.com.au

 

[Tigers of Old]

How do you read that into Biden being incompetent in forgetting Morrison’s name? This is nothing to do with Trump.

I reckon it has plenty to do with it.

 

[IanG]

How do you read that into Biden being incompetent in forgetting Morrison’s name? This is nothing to do with Trump.

Or it was deliberate

 

[eZyT]

Albonese is an impotent, no cut through dud. Forget about the “let them hang themselves” argument. Wont work with a Murdoch Media in play. Albonese has no combative, front foot energy. He’s a plodder.

agree. He may be great at policy. He may have great vision. He may have great leadership qualities and be able to pick and lead a great cabinet full of talent.

But in modern democracy, you've got to be sharp with a quip and appealing to get a crack.

'Christian Porter should have a cloud of blow-flies around him, this stinks so much'

seriously? are his advisors and speech writers in Grade 3?

 

[MD Jazz]

There is such a thing called diplomacy, this government doesn't appear to know the meaning of the word.

The problem is what does diplomacy with one of the more corrupt, racist, bullying, lying & human rights abusing countries in the world look like?

Silence? By remaining silent do we essentially condone their actions?

It's a massive challenge for any government but particularly now with China much more powerful than at any previous time in history. Morrison does not have the skills to negotiate this but neither does Albanese.

Aligning with the US is not the answer, we need to foster deeper trading ties with our other Asian neighbours, particularly India & Indonesia.

 

[Panthera Tigris]

w'eve already paid a shitload for the French subs. As usual, the costs and delivery date blew out the more we paid upfront.

so much so, the Government took legal action to stop any Australians seeing the French contracts to see how much we were blowing.

I cant imagine we'd get out of the $90b debacle without $20 or $30b down the tube?

This sudden pivot to Nuke Subs and 'till death do us part' pledges to Biden and Johnson is disturbing.

But at the end of the day, If I had to choose between a huge American nuclear powered base in Broome,

or planting rice rice all day in red tunic for my Chinese masters, for half a hard bed and a bowl of rice,

I'll take the Americans everyday.

I guess Id rather die of stupidity and obesity than exhaustion and malnutrition.

Agree, did you see Turnbull and Albanese making statements last night? Turnbull talked about someone handing you cash in a brown paper bag wearing a mask as the equivalent of a blind trust - the imagery was great and memorable. Albanese mumbled something I can't even remember. He is a terrible communicator. They need to cut through more. I can imagine Labor hacks watching Turnbull and just dismissing it as he is a Lib, but they should have been watching it and asking themselves why they couldn't come up with that line and get Albanese to deliver it.

The subs is an interesting one. No idea what this means for the French subs we have on order, are they cancelled? I don't like nuclear powered anything but the nuclear powered subs would have the advantage that they can stay under water for longer, no need for air to run the diesel generators on a conventional sub. I can't see any point in the further proliferation of nuclear weapons, too many of them already. The situation with China is a balancing act. The way the world works under the current arrangements, China can't really be allowed to just claim large areas of the ocean, but they also can't just be bullied into submission on this. China is now a very powerful country whether we like it or not. Not only Australia, but pretty much everywhere in the world is reliant on China for a fair bit of manufacturing and also as a market for exports. There has to be some accommodation with China, from China's perspective they feel like they are being hemmed in while the USA is allowed to roam all over the world influencing whatever governments they want and doing what they want. China is a major power and they want to be treated as such. Not an easy situation.

DS

For anyone interested on Australian specific defense policy more broadly, Hugh White's book, "How to Defend Australia" is an interesting read. One may not agree with everything he writes in it's entirety. But no one can doubt the depth of analysis and putting forward different alternatives.

Essentially Professor White argues that Australia indeed does in theory, have the capability to take a Swiss or Swedish form of armed neutrality (France actually did this for a large chunk of the post WWII era too) and successfully hold our own. Even against adversaries much larger. But we choose not to. Instead of producing a defence force fit for this purpose, we choose to create one that is basically a 'plug in' defence force. As in, it just plugs into the wider US military industrial complex.

Armed neutrality is something very different to rollover, belly up pacifism (which NZ seems to increasingly angle towards). People often incorrectly mistake armed neutrality for pacifism. When the concepts are not really similar at all.

And so he did discuss that the current policy of simply 'plugging in' to the US military system is the only reason we get away with spending 1.8% of GDP on defence. If we were committed to independent armed neutrality, and to do it properly (not half arsed), it would be more like 3.5% of GDP. A large price to pay. But it would also give you more independent foreign policy. The reason Australia is always riding on the back of US interventionism in all manner of conflict, is because it's a quid pro quo. Essentially, we owe them for saving us that extra 1.7% of GDP we choose not to spend and hence fall under their security guarantee and nuclear umbrella. But as Hugh White asks. What happens in 3-5 decades down the track if that guarantee is not so much a guarantee, but a guideline? Have you given up the chance of your own independent foreign policy over a century for nothing?

 

[eZyT]

For anyone interested on Australian specific defense policy more broadly, Hugh White's book, "How to Defend Australia" is an interesting read. One may not agree with everything he writes in it's entirety. But no one can doubt the depth of analysis and putting forward different alternatives.

Essentially Professor White argues that Australia indeed does in theory, have the capability to take a Swiss or Swedish form of armed neutrality (France actually did this for a large chunk of the post WWII era too) and successfully hold our own. Even against adversaries much larger. But we choose not to. Instead of producing a defence force fit for this purpose, we choose to create one that is basically a 'plug in' defence force. As in, it just plugs into the wider US military industrial complex.

Armed neutrality is something very different to rollover, belly up pacifism (which NZ seems to be angling towards), which some people mistake it for. And so he did discuss that the current policy of simply 'plugging in' to the US military system is the only reason we get away with spending 1.8% of GDP on defence. If we were committed to independent armed neutrality, and to do it properly (not half arsed), it would be more like 3.5% of GDP.

I know I should read the book, but I won't.

wouldnt 'armed neutrality' translate into 'free steel and cheese' in chinese?

 

[Panthera Tigris]

I know I should read the book, but I won't.

wouldnt 'armed neutrality' translate into 'free steel and cheese' in chinese?

Depends what form your 'armed neutrality' took.

For France, WWII was a near death experience. Had things gone differently and the allies didn't win a clear cut victory (actually a reasonably rare occurrence in modern warfare), France as as we know it could well not exist today. Charles de Gaulle hence took a stance of self reliant, self assured, independent armed neutrality in the decades after WWII. de Gaulle said to the nation, "Never again" (will we find ourselves in that situation).

Of course in a hypothetical all out conflict with the Warsaw Pact. France fighting independently would be annihilated. But at what cost was the Warsaw Pact willing to take them on? Would it be worth losing a number of the major cities across the Warsaw Pact, which potentially causes those countries’ societies to crumble and cease to exist? Would it be worth losing millions of Warsaw Pact troops as they crossed Europe towards France? Such an exercise perhaps becomes self defeating. The potential costs too great. de Gaulle's strategy wasn't so much to win a potential conflict. It was to not lose one. That is what armed neutrality in his mind was all about.

And France was confident in it's ability to do this on their own if need be, without calling on any assistance. Sure they would prefer assistance. But it wasn't essential. And it also gives a country the self confidence and greater flexibility to formulate their own independent foreign policy. The reason Australia is so strongly tied to US foreign policy is as a down payment on the security guarantee and nuclear umbrella they provide. Something de Gaulle did not want to wed France to, as it may not be sustainable 3, 4, 5 decades down the track.

Professor White doesn't necessarily argue that our armed neutrality should take the exact form of France's did in those decades following WWII. But it is used as an example. Another point he makes is that Australia has a whole host of geographic tools at our disposal. The vastness of Australia and the distance from the rest of the world is often looked upon as a challenge to defend. But Hugh White argues to the reader to not look at it as a challenge. Look at it as a distinct advantage and a natural tool that you use. And build your defence force around using this unique suite of natural advantages. Not enough space to go into it all here. But it is a fascinating read. Do yourself a favour and get hold of a copy Ezy.

 

[IanG]

The problem is what does diplomacy with one of the more corrupt, racist, bullying, lying & human rights abusing countries in the world look like?

Silence? By remaining silent do we essentially condone their actions?

It's a massive challenge for any government but particularly now with China much more powerful than at any previous time in history. Morrison does not have the skills to negotiate this but neither does Albanese.

Aligning with the US is not the answer, we need to foster deeper trading ties with our other Asian neighbours, particularly India & Indonesia.

Diplomacy isn't silence. And I agree that deeper ties with other Asian neighbours is probably at least part of the answer. As for Labor it wouldn't be Albanese it would be Penny Wong, who does have the skills.

 

[22nd Man]

So the deal with France goes to waste for an even more expensive deal. Yet we can't fund essential services properly.

But you could make that argument on any "non essential" area of govt spending eg AIS Winter Olympics, Kardinia Park upgrades. Some would argue all military spending is unnecessary. All I know is that Defence are masters of wasteful spending and have been for generations (there's no political will to make them accountable for their budgets)

 

[Panthera Tigris]

But you could make that argument on any "non essential" area of govt spending eg AIS Winter Olympics, Kardinia Park upgrades. Some would argue all military spending is unnecessary. All I know is that Defence are masters of wasteful spending and have been for generations (there's no political will to make them accountable for their budgets)

That’s another issue that Hugh White covers in his book. How there is no drive to get best bang for buck with defence expenditure. Such poor outcomes in this area are just accepted with no accountability.

And if a middle power like us ever had serious aims of producing a defence force capable of an independent armed deterrent. Efficiency of spending, getting best bang for our buck - as in getting the best, most suited capabilities for the amount of money spent - would be imperative. The blank cheques need to cease.

 

[DavidSSS]

Yep, I remember many years ago, I think it was the 80s and pretty sure it was Hugh White, saying that, yes, Australia is undefendable - but it is also unattackable. You need desert troops, you need mountain troops and you somehow need to get them thousands of miles across oceans where they are very vulnerable. Think how easy it would be to take out troop ships on the way to Australia with fleets of drones. If they do make it, where are they going to go? If Darwin, geez, more fleets of drones while they make their way to where we all live. Simply not worth it.

Then you get to procurement. No more of those F-35s, much cheaper and capable aircraft out there. We could buy whatever we want from whoever we want.

Dealing with China is like dealing with any other bully. We are obsequious to the USA. We need to deal with China, but we don't need to antagonise them. Firm but respectful. Plus, a bit of foresight like not relying on too few countries for exports.

Nobody is saying that armed neutrality would be easy or that dealing with China is easy. But it isn't some black and white obvious situation, it's not simply USA good, China Bad. We live in this world and the powerful are powerful, we have to take that into account, we need to tread a more intelligent path.

DS

 

[Panthera Tigris]

Yep, I remember many years ago, I think it was the 80s and pretty sure it was Hugh White, saying that, yes, Australia is undefendable - but it is also unattackable. You need desert troops, you need mountain troops and you somehow need to get them thousands of miles across oceans where they are very vulnerable. Think how easy it would be to take out troop ships on the way to Australia with fleets of drones. If they do make it, where are they going to go? If Darwin, geez, more fleets of drones while they make their way to where we all live. Simply not worth it.

Then you get to procurement. No more of those F-35s, much cheaper and capable aircraft out there. We could buy whatever we want from whoever we want.

Dealing with China is like dealing with any other bully. We are obsequious to the USA. We need to deal with China, but we don't need to antagonise them. Firm but respectful. Plus, a bit of foresight like not relying on too few countries for exports.

Nobody is saying that armed neutrality would be easy or that dealing with China is easy. But it isn't some black and white obvious situation, it's not simply USA good, China Bad. We live in this world and the powerful are powerful, we have to take that into account, we need to tread a more intelligent path.

DS

Yes, defence is one of those areas where once you get past a certain level of capability or quality on a particular item. To get any improvement and bells and whistles beyond that is seriously diminishing returns. As in, you spend huge sums, for only small gains.

And as has been attributed to Stalin, sometimes "Quantity has quality all it's own.”

So to put into context, using your F35 example. Should you buy 120 Very expensive F35s with all the bells and whistles, with very expensive ongoing running costs? Or do you buy a fleet 300-400 slightly less capable (but adequate) SAAB Grippens for the same price as 120 F35s? And complement your fleet of fighter jets by spending on drone technology. Certainly other middle powers like Turkey and some ex Soviet republics are finding drones are a relatively cheap way of evening the scales with adversaries who are much more powerful on paper.

Huge tanks and large amphibious assault ships? Complete waste of money. Where the *smile* are we deploying that equipment? Are we planning open field tank battles with China in the highly unlikely event they land a few tank battalions in the north of Australia and drive them thousands of miles across our continent with inadequate fuel supplies? Or even more outlandishly unlikely. Do we think we will be successfully landing our amphibious assault ships in Taiwan or China and deploying our heavy tanks and equipment there for open tank battle. It just isn’t going to happen. Total waste of money.

Australia shouldn’t be trying to create an expeditionary force beyond a fairly light, easily mobile force that may need to intervene and offer assistance in the case of political strife in our small Pacific neighbours. I think this area we very much have a duty and responsibility to take leadership. But we don’t need massive US built tanks or the huge amphibious assault ships for that. Probably higher infantry troop numbers could be invested in, to serve this function. Perhaps a couple of extra battalions. Which could potentially be done with the cost savings from foregoing some of the heavy equipment.

Besides that. The focus should be denial, denial, denial. Deny access to our sea lanes, airspace and landmass. That would be aircraft, aircraft, aircraft complemented by drones. And submarines, submarines, submarines in sufficient quantity (half a dozen to a dozen doesn’t cut it - Professor White favours 24-32). Perhaps anti-missile technology too. A totally different ADF than is currently in place.

 

[DavidSSS]

Yeah, but you need the massive ships to move the massive tanks (which are probably massive targets too) - in fact, I can't recall, but wasn't there an issue with trying to move those big tanks on any of the ships we have?

300-400 planes over 120 is a no brainer given the problems the F35 have anyway.

I reckon we could develop and make our own drones, then you just send 10 or more for every target you want to hit.

Why anyone would want to invade Australia if we were an armed neutral is beyond me, the cost in people, machinery, equipment etc would be way way too high.

DS