New Defence Pact between the UK, USA and Australia

[Scotrail314209]

Aukus: UK, US and Australia launch pact to counter China

Beijing says the deal, involving nuclear-powered submarines, undermines regional peace.

www.bbc.co.uk

The UK, US and Australia have announced a special security pact to share advanced defence technologies, in an effort to counter China.
The partnership will enable Australia to build nuclear-powered submarines for the first time.
The pact, to be known as Aukus, will also cover artificial intelligence, quantum technologies and cyber.
The three countries are worried about China's growing power and military presence in the Indo-Pacific.

This seems a little bit out of the blue given how quiet things have been with China recently (at least in my book).

Of course people seem to be misunderstanding the nuclear-powered submarine as they think it means nuclear weapons.

What is everyones thoughts on this new pact, is there really a point in it? Especially since the purpose of it is to curb China.

I do feel this will just make the planet a little bit more divided.

 

[the sniper]

This seems a little bit out of the blue given how quiet things have been with China recently (at least in my book).

Probably a bit embarrassed about how well the prevailing circumstances have served them and their interests. Best to keep their head down and soldier on...

 

[Gloster]

I wonder to what extent the US is allowing us to join what is, in effect, a deal between the US and Australia to which we are not really necessary in order to put us, or at least the current government, in its debt. Are we being allowed to join in as part of our PM’s dreams of Global Britain, and are we going to be required to support the US and allied forces in the the Asia-Pacific region as the price for this?

 

[yorksrob]

It's a shame for the French, who I believe have lost a submarine contract in this. However, from a geopolitical point of view, it seems a necessary move to me.

 

[DarloRich]

This is clearly about:

• Allowing Australia to operate nuclear powered submarines ( they looked at buying them in 2016 but the political " fallout" was to great)
• By extension increasing the chance of orders coming our way
• Obtaining naval bases for the Royal Navy/US Navy
• create a formal "regional partner" in containing China
• limit the pressure China can exert in the area/force them to change policy

Have the French lost thier contact to build Australian submarines then? If so they will be quite unhappy!

 

[yorksrob]

This is clearly about:

• Allowing Australia to operate nuclear powered submarines ( they looked at buying them in 2016 but the political " fallout" was to great)
• By extension increasing the chance of orders coming our way
• Obtaining naval bases for the Royal Navy/US Navy
• create a formal "regional partner" in containing China
• limit the pressure China can exert in the area/force them to change policy

Have the French lost thier contact to build Australian submarines then? If so they will be quite unhappy!

That's what I read on the BBC, although I understand the contract may have been in difficulties.

 

[DarloRich]

That's what I read on the BBC, although I understand the contract may have been in difficulties.

It did seem a strange decision: A diesel version of a nuclear submarine!

 

[yorksrob]

It did seem a strange decision: A diesel version of a nuclear submarine!

I don't know that much about that contract, but I doubt the decision was taken lightly. I suspect it was overridden by the geopolitical factors that you've listed.

 

[Senex]

At what point should the United Kingdom admit that it should no longer claim to be a world power with a seat alongside the United States and the (now-gone) Union of Soviet Socialist Republics at the high table of world affairs* and settle for being a significant and still-potentially-influential middling-sized trading nation, as for example all of Spain, Portugal, and the Nethelands have become over the years, having once had great sea-empires? I'd rather wish to argue we should have started to change after WW1, but given that there was probably no way the state would have accepted it then, most certainly after WW2 when we were so reliant on US support. Or is there any argument that still trying to play the Great Power, one of the Big Four, has actually done us good over the last 70 years?
*I was told during a visit very many years ago to the Palais des Nations in Geneva that one big reasons for us moving away from the use of the name "Great Britain" (as in "Made in Great Britain" etc) was specifically that with alphabetic seating the other put us next to the two really big players.

 

[AlterEgo]

It's a shame for the French, who I believe have lost a submarine contract in this. However, from a geopolitical point of view, it seems a necessary move to me.

Annoying the French is a cornerstone of our foreign policy and I, for one, approve.

 

[yorksrob]

At what point should the United Kingdom admit that it should no longer claim to be a world power with a seat alongside the United States and the (now-gone) Union of Soviet Socialist Republics at the high table of world affairs* and settle for being a significant and still-potentially-influential middling-sized trading nation, as for example all of Spain, Portugal, and the Nethelands have become over the years, having once had great sea-empires? I'd rather wish to argue we should have started to change after WW1, but given that there was probably no way the state would have accepted it then, most certainly after WW2 when we were so reliant on US support. Or is there any argument that still trying to play the Great Power, one of the Big Four, has actually done us good over the last 70 years?
*I was told during a visit very many years ago to the Palais des Nations in Geneva that one big reasons for us moving away from the use of the name "Great Britain" (as in "Made in Great Britain" etc) was specifically that with alphabetic seating the other put us next to the two really big players.

You mean apart from the fact that the country isn't actually called "Great Britain" anyway ? Whatever the faults of the UN, I like to credit it with some commitment to factual accuracy.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 16 Sep 2021 ==

Annoying the French is a cornerstone of our foreign policy and I, for one, approve.

On a serious note though, the French are an ally with a military and geographical presence in the area, so it would have been better to have them on board. Maybe they were asked.

 

[Purple Orange]

At what point should the United Kingdom admit that it should no longer claim to be a world power with a seat alongside the United States and the (now-gone) Union of Soviet Socialist Republics at the high table of world affairs* and settle for being a significant and still-potentially-influential middling-sized trading nation, as for example all of Spain, Portugal, and the Nethelands have become over the years, having once had great sea-empires? I'd rather wish to argue we should have started to change after WW1, but given that there was probably no way the state would have accepted it then, most certainly after WW2 when we were so reliant on US support. Or is there any argument that still trying to play the Great Power, one of the Big Four, has actually done us good over the last 70 years?
*I was told during a visit very many years ago to the Palais des Nations in Geneva that one big reasons for us moving away from the use of the name "Great Britain" (as in "Made in Great Britain" etc) was specifically that with alphabetic seating the other put us next to the two really big players.

Well it’s a nuclear power for starters. At the same time, Australia isn’t a world power either. I don’t think this is about the world super power thing, although Johnson will probably attempt to play that to his base voters. I was more surprised by the omission of Canada & New Zealand, as I expected a 5-eyes style arrangement.

 

[DarloRich]

Annoying the French is a cornerstone of our foreign policy and I, for one, approve.

On a serious note though, the French are an ally with a military and geographical presence in the area, so it would have been better to have them on board. Maybe they were asked.

I doubt they were asked, but we do need to keep them on board. We might need ot store out Trident subs at thier base at this rate

I was more surprised by the omission of Canada & New Zealand

New Zealand prohibits all nuclear powered vessels from entering thier waters.

 

[AlterEgo]

Well it’s a nuclear power for starters. At the same time, Australia isn’t a world power either. I don’t think this is about the world super power thing, although Johnson will probably attempt to play that to his base voters. I was more surprised by the omission of Canada & New Zealand, as I expected a 5-eyes style arrangement.

Have you seen New Zealand’s attitude to China? I’m surprised they’re still in Five Eyes.

 

[Scotrail314209]

France aren’t too happy…

France says Biden acted like Trump to sink Australia defence deal

France accused U.S. President Joe Biden on Thursday of stabbing it in the back and acting like his predecessor Donald Trump after Paris was pushed aside from a historic defence export contract to supply Australia with submarines.

www.reuters.com

PARIS, Sept 16 (Reuters) - France accused U.S. President Joe Biden of stabbing it in the back and acting like his predecessor Donald Trump after Paris was pushed aside from one of the world's most lucrative defence deals that it had signed with Australia for submarines.

The United States, Britain and Australia said earlier they would establish a security partnership for the Indo-Pacific that will help Australia acquire U.S. nuclear-powered submarines and scrap the $40 billion French-designed submarine deal.

Looks like France were shafted from the whole thing, and in a way I can see why they are angry.

However, people are now saying that this signals a new Cold War in Asia, given the increasing tensions. Lovely morning reading!

 

[DarloRich]

Interestingly digging to this pact a bit more it seems Australia will operate at least 8 nuclear submarines (which is more than the UK) and operate more frigates than the Royal Navy. Nelson must be spinning!

However, people are now saying that this signals a new Cold War in Asia, given the increasing tensions. Lovely morning reading!

"People" must have missed that this new "cold war" has been going on for some time!

 

[birchesgreen]

Part of the US pivot to the Pacific and countering China, this will mean a British blood sacrifice will be expected if things get shooty shooty over there.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 16 Sep 2021 ==

Interestingly digging to this pact a bit more it seems Australia will operate at least 8 nuclear submarines (which is more than the UK) and operate more frigates than the Royal Navy. Nelson must be spinning!

Nuclear attack boats indeed (we'll have a fleet of 7) though we also have 4 SSBNs too.

 

[DarloRich]

Part of the US pivot to the Pacific and countering China, this will mean a British blood sacrifice will be expected if things get shooty shooty over there.

If things get "shooty shooty" with China everyone will pay a blood sacrifice.

With the Submarines I don't really see this as any different to US/UK tactics during Cold War I. We just swap Russia with China. This deal gives the USA another pair of hands in finding tracking and ultimately destroying if required Chinese missile submarines. Exactly what we did with the Soviets.

 

[AlterEgo]

China is a much less belligerent power than Russia ever was. Their interests are commercial and they recognise war is detrimental to their trade and image.

 

[DarloRich]

China is a much less belligerent power than Russia ever was. Their interests are commercial and they recognise war is detrimental to their trade and image.

Doesn't stop them pushing people around and developing and deploying missile submarines. If they do that someone needs to track them, just in case.

 

[birchesgreen]

China is a much less belligerent power than Russia ever was. Their interests are commercial and they recognise war is detrimental to their trade and image.

Countries like the Philippines might be interested in the idea of China being less belligerent.

 

[hst43102]

China is a much bigger threat than the USSR ever was. How many "Made in Russia" goods did you get over here in the 60's or 70's?

 

[the sniper]

Have the French lost thier contact to build Australian submarines then? If so they will be quite unhappy!

That whole program seems to have been a disaster.

Looks like France were shafted from the whole thing, and in a way I can see why they are angry.

The Australians were looking to escape this thing for a while I believe, looks to me like this deal just gave them a viable, if expensive, way out.

 

[Sm5]

I think the bark of the announcement is bigger than its bite.

The US needs a place to dock nuclear subs in the Southern Pacific, and Guam is far away.
The Aussies need subs faster than the French can deliver.
So setting up Australia with facilities to serve nuclear subs gives short term access to the USN, skills to the Australians and time to build new Australian nuclear subs.
By pivoting away from ME to APAC I wouldnt be surprised if Diego Garcia now becomes less vital to the US (Subs can go much longer without stopping, and they still have Bahrain/Qatar)…so it gets the UK out of its Maldives issues too.

Whats in it for us ?

idle speculation, but i’m guessing Australia probably doesnt want spent nuclear waste on its continent, and neither does the US want other peoples nuclear waste either.. so i’m guessing to Cumbria it cometh.

 

[Trackman]

China is a much less belligerent power than Russia ever was. Their interests are commercial and they recognise war is detrimental to their trade and image.

I watched that James May in China thing on TV, it's incredible how far they have come in such a very short space of time.
I don't know if it's an urban myth or not, but about 15 years ago they were building new power plants at the rate of one a week.

 

[Sm5]

China is a much less belligerent power than Russia ever was. Their interests are commercial and they recognise war is detrimental to their trade and image.

Tibet, Mongolia, North Vietnam, Uighers, Taiwan, South China sea, Kashmir ..
even Hong Kong is having its will imposed. North Korea exists because of China.. (the last thing they want is a unified westernised Korea on their doorstep and the resultant refugee crisis that brings).

Their interests are commercial. They take advantage of local situations and use money / services to influence their way in, and once they have advantage they hold it tight.
its not war, its more like weed growth in a garden.. creeps up and takes over.

if you look at the latest, with South China Sea, there is no war, just implant the seed, protect it and ignore / push away distractions, develop, grow it until you have total control over it.

Many African nations are under Chinese influence now using the same strategy… China is not afraid to take its time to get the result it wants.

Yes China is commercial, they use the military forces less like hunters, but more like farmers.. to grow into, develop and then establish control over local resources… local politics / foreign civilian control they care less about.

 

[yorksrob]

I think the bark of the announcement is bigger than its bite.

The US needs a place to dock nuclear subs in the Southern Pacific, and Guam is far away.
The Aussies need subs faster than the French can deliver.
So setting up Australia with facilities to serve nuclear subs gives short term access to the USN, skills to the Australians and time to build new Australian nuclear subs.
By pivoting away from ME to APAC I wouldnt be surprised if Diego Garcia now becomes less vital to the US (Subs can go much longer without stopping, and they still have Bahrain/Qatar)…so it gets the UK out of its Maldives issues too.

Whats in it for us ?

idle speculation, but i’m guessing Australia probably doesnt want spent nuclear waste on its continent, and neither does the US want other peoples nuclear waste either.. so i’m guessing to Cumbria it cometh.

Getting shot of Diego Garcia would certainly be a big benefit for us diplomatically.

 

[AlterEgo]

Doesn't stop them pushing people around and developing and deploying missile submarines. If they do that someone needs to track them, just in case.

Oh of course. I think the new pact is a good idea, on balance.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 17 Sep 2021 ==

Countries like the Philippines might be interested in the idea of China being less belligerent.

Has China gone to war anywhere recently? They’re not a war making people. They’re nouveau-imperialists, and they’re bad, but it’s not Cold War 2. It’s something else.

 

[Sm5]

Oh of course. I think the new pact is a good idea, on balance.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 17 Sep 2021 ==


Has China gone to war anywhere recently? They’re not a war making people. They’re nouveau-imperialists, and they’re bad, but it’s not Cold War 2. It’s something else.

As mentioned above..

Chinese arent Hunters, they are farmers.
so not arms bearing warriors.. more likely tool wielding developers.
Show up,pay bribes to locals to gain influence, start construction, take over the resource and defend it as theirs.

No need for armed conflict unless someone tries to push them off ”their” lands.

That construction force mentality is why infrastructure projects move so fast, the barriers are simply pushed aside.

They even tried this with Iceland in 2010.. offering to buy part of their country in return for paying off the 2008 crash debts… Had they have done so, there would be a fully functioning military base there by 2021, regardless what any politician or promise says.

Thats why the 50 year agreement on Hong Kong will be long forgotten long before 2047, and why Kowloon is completely different by 2007 from what it was just 10 years earlier.

 

[24Grange]

Korean War, they were pretty heavily involved I believe. They hate Japan for WW2 and Nanjing in particular.