The imperial / metric debate is depressing. We're utter utter morons in this country - accepting that we need to use modern measures (metric) shared by the rest of the known universe. Yet still cling onto stupid like miles and pints and gallons.
Miles per bloody gallon! You don't buy fuel in gallons so why on earth we didn't convert to at least miles per litre measures I don't know. Personally I'd go full metric for everything. That pillock Worzel is likely to do the reverse and kill off "European" measures used by the entire world for some archaic crap that pretty much only we use.
Some traditions are worth junking. There's no benefit and some downsides to insisting in Imperial, we need to get over ourselves.
Or rather, we need to get over pandering to the over 65 Tory vote.
Well that's a wider problem and probably beyond us, so we could try for some small wins, like the Imperial stuff, and getting rid of the penny.
Must be hard for the Guardian to write this about Aukus
"From the British perspective, this is a triumph. Many diplomats had predicted the UK would become less important to the US once it had left the EU, since it had acted as the bridge between Washington and Brussels. That looks less true now. The Australian right is delighted because it has always seen Brexit as a path to a closer relationship with the British."
It is good optics, that's exactly the point I'm making, it's a sub deal + optics, but being a bridge between Washington and Canberra as opposed to between Washington and Brussels (AND Canberra) doesn't represent a great leap forward in practice. It's going backwards in terms of influence. And the reference to the Australian 'right' is apposite. What happens to this when they get kicked out of power? That'll be quite interesting.
Sort of on topic, the horrible Covid numbers we have seen in recent weeks in the SW - making it one of the hotspots in the UK - now seem to be tumbling. Lots of places halving in a week. Hopefully our contribution to the case numbers will start to abate - and be part of a wider decline in incidences of the Bastard Bug.
Covid has shown up quite how sparse our weapons against disease are. The vaccines were later then we needed, even fat a brilliantly accelerated development. Therapeutic developments have been very disappointing.
I would like to see a Manhattan Project on therapeutics. The world needs to throw billions into development of drugs and strategies that will help keep people out of hospital from even 'normal' illnesses such as flu.
An issue is that vaccines have been seen to work and, in a couple of cases, vastly profitable. The sector will throw lots of money into vaccines. But vaccines are inevitable delayed; they need to be developed for each individual illness. Therapeutic drugs and techniques can help with many different illnesses that attack in similar ways.
The Manhattan Project is a really bad analogy. Apart from the huge sums spent on research every year in any event, the problem is not a singular one amenable to a brute force approach like that. While it's true that some agents will prove useful in multiple diseases, defining what those might be and why is still as much as hoc as it is systemic.
Fundamentally we just need a lot more knowledge - a project which industry, government and academia are already spending hundreds of billions on.
The Manhattan project is frequently used as shorthand for a "Crash Program to do X"
The interesting bit about the Manhattan project was that the basic answers - "We need need kilos of U235 and Pu239" - were already known. As were the list of possible ways to get there. There was surprisingly little abstract science innovation in the project. It was an engineering competition to see which methods worked the best, by trying them all in competition with each other.
The COVID treatment issue equivalent would be if we had micro grams of various treatments that probably work in the labs, but need tons. And don't have the methods to make tons.
We don't have that. What we need (and is happening) is alot of primary science to find the treatment methods and ideas. Once we have the treatments, the pharma industry will give us the tons in fairly short order.
Point taken from both NigelB and yourself. I did indeed mean it as the sense of a crash project.
One thing that surprised me is that the Manhattan Project wasn't even the most expensive single US project of the war. The B-29 Superfortress project cost $3 billion to develop and build; the Manhattan Project only cost $1.9 billion.
I'd argue the Manhattan Project was also much more effective: the B-29 didn't end the war. The nukes did - and probably with much less loss of life than if the war had continued.
(And before anyone says 'Enola Gay'! - problems with the B-29 meant there were plans to use modified Lancaster bombers to drop the nuclear bombs. - although the Lancaster was less well-suited to the task - https://www.atomicheritage.org/history/project-silverplate )
The B29s shut down what was left of Japanese maritime trade - see the forgotten aerial mining campaign.
The Lancaster nuke thing is one of those bits of history that don't make sense when you examine the reality. The Lancaster didn't have the range. The B29 was a vastly bigger plane, all round - for equivalent projects look at the the British 75 and 100 ton bomber projects (cancelled) ....
A Lancaster could have carried Little Boy. Fat Man would have been a problem (width). But it would have had very little range while doing so, and would have been flying very low, and very slow compare to the B29.
The RAF demanded and got B29s after the war, because of the performance issues.
Indeed, the Lancaster wasn't perfect for the job. But the US had massive problems getting the B-29 flying, yet alone the modified versions for carrying nukes. For every B-29 lost to enemy action, two more were lost due to engine, technical or other failures. They were far from sure in 1944 whether the bird could do it. The Lancaster was about the only other alternative they had.
The other, real alternative was different engines for the B29. See the XB39 & B29D (aka B50).
There was serious consideration given to the XB-39 for Silverplate, IIRC.
EDIT: without aerial refuelling (multiple times), the Lancaster (or Lincoln) couldn't get from the islands to Japan.
The XB-39 first flew in December 1944. Far too late to become reliable enough to trust, and to be modified for such an important mission. The XB-44 first flew in May 1945, so was right out of the question.
The XB-44 was prototype to the B-29D, which was redesignated B-50 in December 1945.
The other "family member" was the Tu-4, the Soviet-built "copy".
IIRC the PRC had some - [edit] own-build derivatives (they had different engines I think) or ex-US machines?
An emboldened Trump will now focus his energy and attention on purging the remaining Republicans he views as disloyal, backing primary challengers to those on his impeachment hit list such as Reps. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.), Adam Kinzinger (R-Ill.) and Jamie Herrera Beutler (R-Wash.).
“1 down, 9 to go!” Trump said in a statement Friday.
He followed up with a second statement: “RINO Congressman Anthony Gonzalez, who has poorly represented his district in the Great State of Ohio, has decided to quit after enduring a tremendous loss of popularity, of which he had little, since his ill-informed and otherwise very stupid impeachment vote against the sitting President of the United States, me.”
The stunning move by Gonzalez, a 36-year-old Cuban American former NFL player, underscores two obvious truths about today’s GOP politics: Those who want to rise in the Republican party must pledge absolute fealty to Trump, and Trump’s power and influence over the party is only growing as he and his staunch loyalists take their revenge on political enemies one by one. …
What is being missed in all this talk of France having a strop, what it means for UK / USA / EU relations... Australia are really the ones taking a very brave path here.
They are signalling to China they aren't going to play patter-cake like NZ, despite their economy having become very interconnected with China and much more important than NZ.
They could easily just tow the line, play nice with China and life would be much simpler.
Yes, this takes real courage from the Aussies. Good for them. NZ looks weedy in comparison
However the Chinese were openly bullying Australia, putting sanctions on Australian goods (wine, coal, etc) just because Australia demanded a global investigation into the origins of Covid (and that question is highly relevant to these new maneuvers).
If Australia had yielded to that, then that would have made Australia a vassal state of China. Unable to have an independent foreign policy. Always checking their positions with Beijing first
The Aussies are free-spirited, they told China to fuck off. Well done them
What is depressing, but not surprising, is the attitude expressed by some environmental protestors that it is racist to question whether China should be doing more to cut emissions.
It also runs the risk of being counter productive. Let’s say that protestors tell Western nations they have to be responsible for reducing all global emissions. That gives a powerful incentive to China to become more dirty, knowing that Western nations would then have to cut faster and harder to satisfy the global commitments.
You almost think that the main priority of some is not global climate change but having the opportunity to swing against western governments.
Quite right. This bit from Roger Harrabin gives the game away:
But when I initially asked the radical green group Extinction Rebellion (XR) if they had considered demonstrating against China, it triggered a furious response.
An XR member tweeted accusing me of perpetuating anti-Chinese racist stereotypes and failing to report climate change properly.
Why so vitriolic?
Well, there are two reasons. The first is practical: climate campaigning groups like Greenpeace and WWF have offices in Beijing and if they rattle China too hard, they could be swiftly closed down.
Ie the subject touches on two critical matters: their totalitarian anti liberal friends and jobs for the boys and girls in the international NGO industry.
Indeed, most young people quite reasonably won't understand imperial measurements.
Yes we can happily drink beer in pints, or drive in miles, but those are integer unit. No conversions necessary. There's no need to think about how many fluid ounces or gallons or firkins or whatever are related to pints.
You need to know how many pints are in a firkin if you are serving beer! (72, but 65 is a better estimate of saleable pints).
I tend to switch between metric and imperial, and if I had kids they would have learned about imperial as I use them. And the fact that a pound contains 16 ounces is a feature, not a bug. Customary measures are quite useful for everyday transactions, cooking, weighing and measuring people and familiar objects, etc. If I need precision or I'm doing any sort of tricky calculation I naturally use metric. The two systems can happily co-exist.
It is young people who have babies, and I have never yet heard a new one's weight given in kilos. Does it happen in trendier parts?
Our babies weight was given to us and tracked for their first year in NHS visits on kilos.
I'm not sure how much the imperial/metric divide is the biggest worry in the UK at the moment. As an ex Science Teacher I would obviously prefer metric because the numbers are easy to manipulate, it was difficult enough getting my students to add/subtract in decimal, just imagine how difficult it is to teach 16 ounces to the pound and 14 pounds to the stone.
Having said that I like a pint of beer now and again. I think publicans have missed a trick there. If they sold beer in litres and half litres they'd make more money. Whiskey used to be sold in sixths of a gill (23.5ml), now it's 25ml.
Do we have any sense yet as to what this will actually involve?
I'd be surprised if it is more than winding back to the right of choice which system to use, and that the market will keep things done in metric behind the display.
We already do have the right to choose. The supplier can insist on using metric as of right and the shopkeeper can use imperial if he wants.
The imperial / metric debate is depressing. We're utter utter morons in this country - accepting that we need to use modern measures (metric) shared by the rest of the known universe. Yet still cling onto stupid like miles and pints and gallons.
Miles per bloody gallon! You don't buy fuel in gallons so why on earth we didn't convert to at least miles per litre measures I don't know. Personally I'd go full metric for everything. That pillock Worzel is likely to do the reverse and kill off "European" measures used by the entire world for some archaic crap that pretty much only we use.
Some traditions are worth junking. There's no benefit and some downsides to insisting in Imperial, we need to get over ourselves.
Or rather, we need to get over pandering to the over 65 Tory vote.
Well that's a wider problem and probably beyond us, so we could try for some small wins, like the Imperial stuff, and getting rid of the penny.
Getting rid of the penny? Some mistake? I'd have thought the Tory core vote wanted the farthing and ha'penny back as well!
Indeed, most young people quite reasonably won't understand imperial measurements.
Yes we can happily drink beer in pints, or drive in miles, but those are integer unit. No conversions necessary. There's no need to think about how many fluid ounces or gallons or firkins or whatever are related to pints.
You need to know how many pints are in a firkin if you are serving beer! (72, but 65 is a better estimate of saleable pints).
I tend to switch between metric and imperial, and if I had kids they would have learned about imperial as I use them. And the fact that a pound contains 16 ounces is a feature, not a bug. Customary measures are quite useful for everyday transactions, cooking, weighing and measuring people and familiar objects, etc. If I need precision or I'm doing any sort of tricky calculation I naturally use metric. The two systems can happily co-exist.
It is young people who have babies, and I have never yet heard a new one's weight given in kilos. Does it happen in trendier parts?
Our babies weight was given to us and tracked for their first year in NHS visits on kilos.
I'm not sure how much the imperial/metric divide is the biggest worry in the UK at the moment. As an ex Science Teacher I would obviously prefer metric because the numbers are easy to manipulate, it was difficult enough getting my students to add/subtract in decimal, just imagine how difficult it is to teach 16 ounces to the pound and 14 pounds to the stone.
Having said that I like a pint of beer now and again. I think publicans have missed a trick there. If they sold beer in litres and half litres they'd make more money. Whiskey used to be sold in sixths of a gill (23.5ml), now it's 25ml.
Do we have any sense yet as to what this will actually involve?
I'd be surprised if it is more than winding back to the right of choice which system to use, and that the market will keep things done in metric behind the display.
We already do have the right to choose. The supplier can insist on using metric as of right and the shopkeeper can use imperial if he wants.
Don't bring facts into this emotional argument.
I'm reminded of the old chap in 1984 who blamed his weak bladder of old age on being made to drink half-litres rather than pints.
Gérard Araud seems to think France should pull out of NATO.
The new reality of the world rivalry of great and middle powers should lead France to a 2.0 Gaullist stance. Allied but not aligned. Some confrontations are not ours.
And that for the benefit of @kinabalu is why AUKUS and not FR/GER are the "chaps we can trust."
French anger is directed at the US and Oz and the reason for this is we have little to do with what’s happening, which is all about the submarine deal. Australia was offered the nuclear option by America, said yes to that, therefore cancelled their order of lower tech ones from France. That's the essence of it.
According to The Times (posted up thread) Australia approached the UK first over submarines because the French contract was well over budget and very late - it was the UK that suggested expanding it into a broader scope project and not just “a submarine deal”. The UK and Australia then worked through the US system to get it agreed.
The funny thing is that while Macron was strutting his stuff at the G7 in Cornwall with stories of “isolated Britain” the biggest strategic alliance in decades was being cooked up behind his back.
France doesn’t want any narrative to get out about post-Brexit Britain being other than isolated which is why they are pretending it had little to do with us.
That sounds unlikely to me, that we were the driver. But I get the Times today so I'll check out the story.
"Britain is the driver" is something of an overstatement, here's the take of the NYT
Fact is all three countries really wanted this deal, for different but compelling reasons. So when Australia opened the talks they had a very receptive audience
The Australians, being bullied by China, were desperate to get out of a crappy French diesel sub contract, they really wanted nuke subs, and the French refused to share the tech. That really just left the US and UK as possible partners
When the Ozzies went to London, HMG realised this was a chance to build a bigger alliance - giving Britain that post-Brexit role AND pushing back against China (which is something the UKG genuinely desires)
So the two junior partners went to America, and the Americans leapt at the chance, because Biden is ruthlessly "pivoting to Asia" - (ie confronting China) what could be better than a big, strong, formal alliance spread around the world, including the entire continent of Australia, facing China across the Ocean. The Americans were happy to share precious nuke sub tech because it gives the alliance another edge over the Chinese navy. A key part of deterrence is unpredictability. China will now have to factor in a "nuclear-equipped" Australia as an adversary
Finally, this alliance was so politically and militarily beneficial to all three partners they were prepared to shaft Macron and humiliate France along the way,: it was an unavoidable and painful necessity
With one minor tweak - that the tripartite strategic alliance (Aukus) is mainly a dressing up of the bipartite submarine supply deal - that is essentially my take.
An emboldened Trump will now focus his energy and attention on purging the remaining Republicans he views as disloyal, backing primary challengers to those on his impeachment hit list such as Reps. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.), Adam Kinzinger (R-Ill.) and Jamie Herrera Beutler (R-Wash.).
“1 down, 9 to go!” Trump said in a statement Friday.
He followed up with a second statement: “RINO Congressman Anthony Gonzalez, who has poorly represented his district in the Great State of Ohio, has decided to quit after enduring a tremendous loss of popularity, of which he had little, since his ill-informed and otherwise very stupid impeachment vote against the sitting President of the United States, me.”
The stunning move by Gonzalez, a 36-year-old Cuban American former NFL player, underscores two obvious truths about today’s GOP politics: Those who want to rise in the Republican party must pledge absolute fealty to Trump, and Trump’s power and influence over the party is only growing as he and his staunch loyalists take their revenge on political enemies one by one. …
Has a defeated American president ever had such control over his party? It's remarkable.
The imperial / metric debate is depressing. We're utter utter morons in this country - accepting that we need to use modern measures (metric) shared by the rest of the known universe. Yet still cling onto stupid like miles and pints and gallons.
Miles per bloody gallon! You don't buy fuel in gallons so why on earth we didn't convert to at least miles per litre measures I don't know. Personally I'd go full metric for everything. That pillock Worzel is likely to do the reverse and kill off "European" measures used by the entire world for some archaic crap that pretty much only we use.
Some traditions are worth junking. There's no benefit and some downsides to insisting in Imperial, we need to get over ourselves.
Or rather, we need to get over pandering to the over 65 Tory vote.
Well that's a wider problem and probably beyond us, so we could try for some small wins, like the Imperial stuff, and getting rid of the penny.
Getting rid of the penny? Some mistake? I'd have thought the Tory core vote wanted the farthing and ha'penny back as well!
What is being missed in all this talk of France having a strop, what it means for UK / USA / EU relations... Australia are really the ones taking a very brave path here.
They are signalling to China they aren't going to play patter-cake like NZ, despite their economy having become very interconnected with China and much more important than NZ.
They could easily just tow the line, play nice with China and life would be much simpler.
Yes, this takes real courage from the Aussies. Good for them. NZ looks weedy in comparison
However the Chinese were openly bullying Australia, putting sanctions on Australian goods (wine, coal, etc) just because Australia demanded a global investigation into the origins of Covid (and that question is highly relevant to these new maneuvers).
If Australia had yielded to that, then that would have made Australia a vassal state of China. Unable to have an independent foreign policy. Always checking their positions with Beijing first
The Aussies are free-spirited, they told China to fuck off. Well done them
Any indication about what the Australian opposition's take on all this is? The Coalition have had a decent run, in modern Australian terms.
Must be hard for the Guardian to write this about Aukus
"From the British perspective, this is a triumph. Many diplomats had predicted the UK would become less important to the US once it had left the EU, since it had acted as the bridge between Washington and Brussels. That looks less true now. The Australian right is delighted because it has always seen Brexit as a path to a closer relationship with the British."
It is good optics, that's exactly the point I'm making, it's a sub deal + optics, but being a bridge between Washington and Canberra as opposed to between Washington and Brussels (AND Canberra) doesn't represent a great leap forward in practice. It's going backwards in terms of influence. And the reference to the Australian 'right' is apposite. What happens to this when they get kicked out of power? That'll be quite interesting.
Er, the Aussie Opposition has already expressed support for Aukus, as long as it doesn't mean Aussie nuke missiles or civil nuclear power stations
This is a strategic shift by all three countries which will be quasi-permanent, it is endorsed across the board, politically, in Washington, London, and Canberra. Because it makes total sense for all three nations
As for Britain-in-the-EU being a bridge for DC into Brussels, that was always a nice idea than doing anything significant. But it made europhiles feel better about the slow destruction of British sovereignty
The imperial / metric debate is depressing. We're utter utter morons in this country - accepting that we need to use modern measures (metric) shared by the rest of the known universe. Yet still cling onto stupid like miles and pints and gallons.
Miles per bloody gallon! You don't buy fuel in gallons so why on earth we didn't convert to at least miles per litre measures I don't know. Personally I'd go full metric for everything. That pillock Worzel is likely to do the reverse and kill off "European" measures used by the entire world for some archaic crap that pretty much only we use.
Some traditions are worth junking. There's no benefit and some downsides to insisting in Imperial, we need to get over ourselves.
Or rather, we need to get over pandering to the over 65 Tory vote.
Well that's a wider problem and probably beyond us, so we could try for some small wins, like the Imperial stuff, and getting rid of the penny.
Getting rid of the penny? Some mistake? I'd have thought the Tory core vote wanted the farthing and ha'penny back as well!
Vote for the Groat!
Won't be long before I have to change my money for this sort of thing when visiting the Tank Museum or buying a pint of Greene King in Dorchester.
Gérard Araud seems to think France should pull out of NATO.
The new reality of the world rivalry of great and middle powers should lead France to a 2.0 Gaullist stance. Allied but not aligned. Some confrontations are not ours.
And that for the benefit of @kinabalu is why AUKUS and not FR/GER are the "chaps we can trust."
French anger is directed at the US and Oz and the reason for this is we have little to do with what’s happening, which is all about the submarine deal. Australia was offered the nuclear option by America, said yes to that, therefore cancelled their order of lower tech ones from France. That's the essence of it.
According to The Times (posted up thread) Australia approached the UK first over submarines because the French contract was well over budget and very late - it was the UK that suggested expanding it into a broader scope project and not just “a submarine deal”. The UK and Australia then worked through the US system to get it agreed.
The funny thing is that while Macron was strutting his stuff at the G7 in Cornwall with stories of “isolated Britain” the biggest strategic alliance in decades was being cooked up behind his back.
France doesn’t want any narrative to get out about post-Brexit Britain being other than isolated which is why they are pretending it had little to do with us.
That sounds unlikely to me, that we were the driver. But I get the Times today so I'll check out the story.
"Britain is the driver" is something of an overstatement, here's the take of the NYT
Fact is all three countries really wanted this deal, for different but compelling reasons. So when Australia opened the talks they had a very receptive audience
The Australians, being bullied by China, were desperate to get out of a crappy French diesel sub contract, they really wanted nuke subs, and the French refused to share the tech. That really just left the US and UK as possible partners
When the Ozzies went to London, HMG realised this was a chance to build a bigger alliance - giving Britain that post-Brexit role AND pushing back against China (which is something the UKG genuinely desires)
So the two junior partners went to America, and the Americans leapt at the chance, because Biden is ruthlessly "pivoting to Asia" - (ie confronting China) what could be better than a big, strong, formal alliance spread around the world, including the entire continent of Australia, facing China across the Ocean. The Americans were happy to share precious nuke sub tech because it gives the alliance another edge over the Chinese navy. A key part of deterrence is unpredictability. China will now have to factor in a "nuclear-equipped" Australia as an adversary
Finally, this alliance was so politically and militarily beneficial to all three partners they were prepared to shaft Macron and humiliate France along the way,: it was an unavoidable and painful necessity
With one minor tweak - that the tripartite strategic alliance (Aukus) is mainly a dressing up of the bipartite submarine supply deal - that is essentially my take.
That's what you want it to be because it's less of a humiliation for the EU and France. In reality it's a technology sharing pact between three English speaking nations that will always have each other's backs. The EU was never really in the running.
Gérard Araud seems to think France should pull out of NATO.
The new reality of the world rivalry of great and middle powers should lead France to a 2.0 Gaullist stance. Allied but not aligned. Some confrontations are not ours.
And that for the benefit of @kinabalu is why AUKUS and not FR/GER are the "chaps we can trust."
French anger is directed at the US and Oz and the reason for this is we have little to do with what’s happening, which is all about the submarine deal. Australia was offered the nuclear option by America, said yes to that, therefore cancelled their order of lower tech ones from France. That's the essence of it.
According to The Times (posted up thread) Australia approached the UK first over submarines because the French contract was well over budget and very late - it was the UK that suggested expanding it into a broader scope project and not just “a submarine deal”. The UK and Australia then worked through the US system to get it agreed.
The funny thing is that while Macron was strutting his stuff at the G7 in Cornwall with stories of “isolated Britain” the biggest strategic alliance in decades was being cooked up behind his back.
France doesn’t want any narrative to get out about post-Brexit Britain being other than isolated which is why they are pretending it had little to do with us.
That sounds unlikely to me, that we were the driver. But I get the Times today so I'll check out the story.
Hmm. This kind of has Boris written all over it - indulging in his usual fantasy by trying to be Churchill to Biden's FDR. Biden's going senile and is advised by idiots, so it's easy to see how they'd be persuaded. Quite why the Fella Down Under thought it would be a good approach remains mysterious.
The whole Aukus thing, you mean, or the nuclear subs?
What is being missed in all this talk of France having a strop, what it means for UK / USA / EU relations... Australia are really the ones taking a very brave path here.
They are signalling to China they aren't going to play patter-cake like NZ, despite their economy having become very interconnected with China and much more important than NZ.
They could easily just tow the line, play nice with China and life would be much simpler.
Yes, this takes real courage from the Aussies. Good for them. NZ looks weedy in comparison
However the Chinese were openly bullying Australia, putting sanctions on Australian goods (wine, coal, etc) just because Australia demanded a global investigation into the origins of Covid (and that question is highly relevant to these new maneuvers).
If Australia had yielded to that, then that would have made Australia a vassal state of China. Unable to have an independent foreign policy. Always checking their positions with Beijing first
The Aussies are free-spirited, they told China to fuck off. Well done them
Any indication about what the Australian opposition's take on all this is? The Coalition have had a decent run, in modern Australian terms.
The Aussie Opposition is in favour of the deal
"The Opposition Leader did concede his team had been briefed on the deal and “fully endorsed” the new nuclear-powered submarines."
But of course they are playing party politics and saying the French contract was mishandled, money was wasted, and so on
An emboldened Trump will now focus his energy and attention on purging the remaining Republicans he views as disloyal, backing primary challengers to those on his impeachment hit list such as Reps. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.), Adam Kinzinger (R-Ill.) and Jamie Herrera Beutler (R-Wash.).
“1 down, 9 to go!” Trump said in a statement Friday.
He followed up with a second statement: “RINO Congressman Anthony Gonzalez, who has poorly represented his district in the Great State of Ohio, has decided to quit after enduring a tremendous loss of popularity, of which he had little, since his ill-informed and otherwise very stupid impeachment vote against the sitting President of the United States, me.”
The stunning move by Gonzalez, a 36-year-old Cuban American former NFL player, underscores two obvious truths about today’s GOP politics: Those who want to rise in the Republican party must pledge absolute fealty to Trump, and Trump’s power and influence over the party is only growing as he and his staunch loyalists take their revenge on political enemies one by one. …
Has a defeated American president ever had such control over his party? It's remarkable.
If he’s still semi sentient in 2024 it seems very likely he’ll run again. Certainly no Republican will be able to stop him if chooses to do so.
Must be hard for the Guardian to write this about Aukus
"From the British perspective, this is a triumph. Many diplomats had predicted the UK would become less important to the US once it had left the EU, since it had acted as the bridge between Washington and Brussels. That looks less true now. The Australian right is delighted because it has always seen Brexit as a path to a closer relationship with the British."
It is good optics, that's exactly the point I'm making, it's a sub deal + optics, but being a bridge between Washington and Canberra as opposed to between Washington and Brussels (AND Canberra) doesn't represent a great leap forward in practice. It's going backwards in terms of influence. And the reference to the Australian 'right' is apposite. What happens to this when they get kicked out of power? That'll be quite interesting.
Er, the Aussie Opposition has already expressed support for Aukus, as long as it doesn't mean Aussie nuke missiles or civil nuclear power stations
This is a strategic shift by all three countries which will be quasi-permanent, it is endorsed across the board, politically, in Washington, London, and Canberra. Because it makes total sense for all three nations
As for Britain-in-the-EU being a bridge for DC into Brussels, that was always a nice idea than doing anything significant. But it made europhiles feel better about the slow destruction of British sovereignty
Exactly.
There's no need to 'bridge' the US to Brussels when Brussels is pretty irrelevant and has no military or strategic depth.
The 21st century threats are in the Pacific more than the Atlantic and a reliable alliance with the UK and Aus is of more value than a 'bridge' to Brussels.
I once heard the PM described as “the man [sic] you hire to do the things that you don’t want to think about but know that they need to be done”. I’ve never been able to track it down again though!
In a perfect world we wouldn’t do deals with Saudi. But they are not an existential threat to us in the way that China could be. Sometimes your enemy’s enemy is your friend (in this case to counterpoint Iran) for geopolitical reasons. Regardless of how distasteful they may be.
And when they overstep even those weak limits - as with that guy in the Saudi embassy in Turkey - then they need to be slapped down
In that case I’m glad we can dispense with cant about ‘fundamental’ values.
It’s not cant.
There is a powerful authoritarian dictatorship that threatens our way of life and that of our friends. I’m glad we are standing up for freedom and democracy
It also enables our way of life. It makes what we consume and lends us the money to buy it. China, QE, debt, low interest rates, these are key ingredients of the potion we use to stave off a painful readjustment.
Indeed. We need to rebuild the security of our supply chain. For example all the precursor molecules for paracetamol are only available from Chinese manufacturing sites. That’s a strategic risk.
And we need to wean ourselves off plastic crap
But there'll be an economic hit. Are we up for this? Not sure we are. Especially not when you look at our financial position post Covid. It's precarious.
Must be hard for the Guardian to write this about Aukus
"From the British perspective, this is a triumph. Many diplomats had predicted the UK would become less important to the US once it had left the EU, since it had acted as the bridge between Washington and Brussels. That looks less true now. The Australian right is delighted because it has always seen Brexit as a path to a closer relationship with the British."
It is good optics, that's exactly the point I'm making, it's a sub deal + optics, but being a bridge between Washington and Canberra as opposed to between Washington and Brussels (AND Canberra) doesn't represent a great leap forward in practice. It's going backwards in terms of influence. And the reference to the Australian 'right' is apposite. What happens to this when they get kicked out of power? That'll be quite interesting.
Er, the Aussie Opposition has already expressed support for Aukus, as long as it doesn't mean Aussie nuke missiles or civil nuclear power stations
This is a strategic shift by all three countries which will be quasi-permanent, it is endorsed across the board, politically, in Washington, London, and Canberra. Because it makes total sense for all three nations
As for Britain-in-the-EU being a bridge for DC into Brussels, that was always a nice idea than doing anything significant. But it made europhiles feel better about the slow destruction of British sovereignty
Exactly.
There's no need to 'bridge' the US to Brussels when Brussels is pretty irrelevant and has no military or strategic depth.
The 21st century threats are in the Pacific more than the Atlantic and a reliable alliance with the UK and Aus is of more value than a 'bridge' to Brussels.
Indeed
The irony is that the one EU partner America might want in the future..... is France. They are prepared to shed blood, they can project power, they have significant overseas territories (including in the Indo-Pac)
I bet the French will slowly get over their huff, realise that an EU army/navy of any real size ain't happening, and they will seek some formal semi-detached attachment to Aukus, as they eventually did with NATO
It leaves the pro-American eastern EU states in a bind, however. They REALLY want American power to protect them from Putin. This looks like the USA losing interest in them.
What is being missed in all this talk of France having a strop, what it means for UK / USA / EU relations... Australia are really the ones taking a very brave path here.
They are signalling to China they aren't going to play patter-cake like NZ, despite their economy having become very interconnected with China and much more important than NZ.
They could easily just tow the line, play nice with China and life would be much simpler.
Yes, this takes real courage from the Aussies. Good for them. NZ looks weedy in comparison
However the Chinese were openly bullying Australia, putting sanctions on Australian goods (wine, coal, etc) just because Australia demanded a global investigation into the origins of Covid (and that question is highly relevant to these new maneuvers).
If Australia had yielded to that, then that would have made Australia a vassal state of China. Unable to have an independent foreign policy. Always checking their positions with Beijing first
The Aussies are free-spirited, they told China to fuck off. Well done them
Any indication about what the Australian opposition's take on all this is? The Coalition have had a decent run, in modern Australian terms.
The Aussie Opposition is in favour of the deal
"The Opposition Leader did concede his team had been briefed on the deal and “fully endorsed” the new nuclear-powered submarines."
But of course they are playing party politics and saying the French contract was mishandled, money was wasted, and so on
Gérard Araud seems to think France should pull out of NATO.
The new reality of the world rivalry of great and middle powers should lead France to a 2.0 Gaullist stance. Allied but not aligned. Some confrontations are not ours.
And that for the benefit of @kinabalu is why AUKUS and not FR/GER are the "chaps we can trust."
French anger is directed at the US and Oz and the reason for this is we have little to do with what’s happening, which is all about the submarine deal. Australia was offered the nuclear option by America, said yes to that, therefore cancelled their order of lower tech ones from France. That's the essence of it.
According to The Times (posted up thread) Australia approached the UK first over submarines because the French contract was well over budget and very late - it was the UK that suggested expanding it into a broader scope project and not just “a submarine deal”. The UK and Australia then worked through the US system to get it agreed.
The funny thing is that while Macron was strutting his stuff at the G7 in Cornwall with stories of “isolated Britain” the biggest strategic alliance in decades was being cooked up behind his back.
France doesn’t want any narrative to get out about post-Brexit Britain being other than isolated which is why they are pretending it had little to do with us.
That sounds unlikely to me, that we were the driver. But I get the Times today so I'll check out the story.
Hmm. This kind of has Boris written all over it - indulging in his usual fantasy by trying to be Churchill to Biden's FDR. Biden's going senile and is advised by idiots, so it's easy to see how they'd be persuaded. Quite why the Fella Down Under thought it would be a good approach remains mysterious.
The whole Aukus thing, you mean, or the nuclear subs?
The sub thing would have gone ahead anyway, though I suspect more would have been done to soothe French indignation. The AUUKUS branding element however is pure Boris: heavy on slogans and wishful thinking but poorly conceived and riddled with hidden dangers.
There won't be another full lockdown unless hospitalisations as well as cases rise significantly and the vaccinations are still keeping hospitalisations down even if cases rise
Hospitalisations per day are currently running at about a quarter of the peak rate in January.
Essentially if cases double, and then double again, we'll be back where we were then.
So basically we would need four times the current case rate this winter to even consider another lockdown
The point I'm making is that if "cases" (I put it in quotation marks because that terminology is just plain wrong) were four times higher than they are now - other things being equal - hospitalisations would be as high as they have ever been.
That's at the current rate of hospitalisation per infection. Which, according to the REACT study, is actually about the same as it always has been. Because - as I understand it - the Delta variant's higher hospitalisation rate cancels out the effect of vaccines. But of course it's also possible that when the hospitalisation rate is relatively lower, people who aren't so severely ill can be hospitalised.
Whether we should "even consider" a lockdown in those circumstances is a political decision. But among the factors to be taken into account would be that the peak infection rate at the turn of the year was short and sharp, because there _was_ a lockdown then. If that rate of hospitalisation were allowed to continue steadily, obviously the consequences would be worse.
Gérard Araud seems to think France should pull out of NATO.
The new reality of the world rivalry of great and middle powers should lead France to a 2.0 Gaullist stance. Allied but not aligned. Some confrontations are not ours.
And that for the benefit of @kinabalu is why AUKUS and not FR/GER are the "chaps we can trust."
French anger is directed at the US and Oz and the reason for this is we have little to do with what’s happening, which is all about the submarine deal. Australia was offered the nuclear option by America, said yes to that, therefore cancelled their order of lower tech ones from France. That's the essence of it.
According to The Times (posted up thread) Australia approached the UK first over submarines because the French contract was well over budget and very late - it was the UK that suggested expanding it into a broader scope project and not just “a submarine deal”. The UK and Australia then worked through the US system to get it agreed.
The funny thing is that while Macron was strutting his stuff at the G7 in Cornwall with stories of “isolated Britain” the biggest strategic alliance in decades was being cooked up behind his back.
France doesn’t want any narrative to get out about post-Brexit Britain being other than isolated which is why they are pretending it had little to do with us.
That sounds unlikely to me, that we were the driver. But I get the Times today so I'll check out the story.
Hmm. This kind of has Boris written all over it - indulging in his usual fantasy by trying to be Churchill to Biden's FDR. Biden's going senile and is advised by idiots, so it's easy to see how they'd be persuaded. Quite why the Fella Down Under thought it would be a good approach remains mysterious.
The whole Aukus thing, you mean, or the nuclear subs?
The sub thing would have gone ahead anyway, though I suspect more would have been done to soothe French indignation. The AUUKUS branding element however is pure Boris: heavy on slogans and wishful thinking but poorly conceived and riddled with hidden dangers.
The French are indignant because they've lost billions of Aussie dollars.
Its pure mercantile greed that is the only reason they're upset. There's no way to soothe that over. That's their problem.
France well understands close alliances can be variable. During Brexit talks French Govt was admirably clear to us it would make life as hard as possible for UK (as is their right/maybe in their interest) but they wanted rest of UK/France bilateral relationship to prosper 1/2
This isn't to say AUKUS decision/approach has anything to do with Brexit. But simply to highlight that allies don't always agree & don't even always treat each other well but it doesn't mean the whole relationship gets chucked. (2/2)
Gérard Araud seems to think France should pull out of NATO.
The new reality of the world rivalry of great and middle powers should lead France to a 2.0 Gaullist stance. Allied but not aligned. Some confrontations are not ours.
And that for the benefit of @kinabalu is why AUKUS and not FR/GER are the "chaps we can trust."
French anger is directed at the US and Oz and the reason for this is we have little to do with what’s happening, which is all about the submarine deal. Australia was offered the nuclear option by America, said yes to that, therefore cancelled their order of lower tech ones from France. That's the essence of it.
According to The Times (posted up thread) Australia approached the UK first over submarines because the French contract was well over budget and very late - it was the UK that suggested expanding it into a broader scope project and not just “a submarine deal”. The UK and Australia then worked through the US system to get it agreed.
The funny thing is that while Macron was strutting his stuff at the G7 in Cornwall with stories of “isolated Britain” the biggest strategic alliance in decades was being cooked up behind his back.
France doesn’t want any narrative to get out about post-Brexit Britain being other than isolated which is why they are pretending it had little to do with us.
That sounds unlikely to me, that we were the driver. But I get the Times today so I'll check out the story.
Hmm. This kind of has Boris written all over it - indulging in his usual fantasy by trying to be Churchill to Biden's FDR. Biden's going senile and is advised by idiots, so it's easy to see how they'd be persuaded. Quite why the Fella Down Under thought it would be a good approach remains mysterious.
The whole Aukus thing, you mean, or the nuclear subs?
The sub thing would have gone ahead anyway, though I suspect more would have been done to soothe French indignation. The AUUKUS branding element however is pure Boris: heavy on slogans and wishful thinking but poorly conceived and riddled with hidden dangers.
Except, maybe you're just talking out your ass?
Here's an Australian defence expert writing in The New Statesman
"What does the new AUKUS alliance mean for global relations?
"The new pact between the UK, US and Australia could lead to nothing less than a merger of military, industrial and scientific capabilities."
"AUKUS’s initial priority will be to pool US and British expertise and technology to develop a nuclear-powered submarine fleet for Australia over the decades ahead. This has cascading significance for Australia and the Indo-Pacific; for China – the power this is largely about keeping at bay; and for Britain, the United States and Europe.
"For Australia, it’s a huge deal, and in a military sense almost existential. Anxieties about Chinese power have intensified with Beijing’s totalitarian turn, aggression in the South China Sea and political interference campaigns. "
The Aussies consider this partnership "existential", and may lead to the three nations essentially merging their militaries, industries, science
This is the new NATO, but perhaps even more integrated. It is arguably like the foundation of the EU. Aukus will become the backbone of the attempt to contain China. Others will associate with it, or not. but Aukus will be the core. As the founding Six are still the core of the EU
I do not expect a further lockdown unless the virus escapes the vaccines
Life seems to be back to near normal and of course the booster jabs are on their way
On the French strop has any EU country come out in support of them
I have heard it said that in any security crisis the US would be their first call for help
It is unfortunate that France has fallen out with AUKUS but ultimately this is not about France or Europe, but the defence of the Trans Pacific and just as EU countries would if under threat, Australia has turned to the US
The submarines are some decade or two off service. The more immediate effect is more US forces based in Australia. This is quite an interesting piece from Australia on what it all means:
"Hugh White : what SM has done this week. He has tied Australia to a deal that undermines our sovereign capabilities,overspends on hardware we can barely be confident of operating,& drags us closer to front line of a war we may have no interest in fighting."
I did wonder if the US or even the UK may allocate a nuclear sub to Australia to smooth the process of integration
It's not like borrowing a Ford Focus to nip to Aldi. Insurmountable (for the US) security concerns aside; how would they command, crew and maintain it?
If they want boats before 2035 the only option is to buy the two Astutes under construction at Barrow. The tories, who never saw a defence cut they didn't like, would love this but it might not be politically sustainable in Australia - I don't know.
If I were Oz, I'd be looking at guests on both types (Astute/Virginia) over the next 18 months to help select, then to familiarise / train up staff on the chosen systems. Then perhaps to lease a boat or two whilst the chosen mods are sorted, and production/tech transfer starts over 1-2 decades (?), gradually shifting to Oz, and sorting out porting capability asap.
Not sure how needing to build another couple of hulls would impact on plans at Barrow.
IMO the logical choice would be Astute fitted with some American systems. Astute because the crew is 90ish vs 140 (ie 30% cheaper to run on personnel), and about 20% cheaper to buy, and because US building capacity is at full stretch until 2029/30.
And I think building the crew service may be the biggest challenge.
AUKUS can also be read as a sign that the Biden administration has given up hope that the EU, namely France and Germany, will become key partners in a joint strategy to push back against China. By pushing CAI with Beijing, Berlin and Paris have sent an early signal to Biden.
Dr. Foxy, New Zealand is isolated and has been far chummier with the Communists than they might wish to be.
As for Australia, the rising threat of China is something that must be accounted for. Sure, you can feed a crocodile, but appeasement does not work. Australia must be able to defend itself.
New Zealand is and has been a non-nuclear state for three decades - that's why ANZUS was suspended as NZ didn't want American nuclear submarines in its waters which is, I think, the main reason Auckland has been excluded from the AUKUS discussions.
NZ, like Australia, has significant trading links with China worth a lot to the NZ economy. Tourism from the mainland was growing strongly pre-pandemic as well.
In any case, are we seriously arguing China is a significant military threat to Australia and New Zealand? It may be more significant if, for instance, China did a deal with Fiji and established a military base at Suva or Nadi or some other island.
China shares a border with many other countries - Russia, India, Afghanistan and Vietnam to name but four. Are we offering them any kind of guarantee or support against Chinese military expansionism? I doubt it but again that's missing the point - China is achieving economically what the PLA couldn't do militarily. It effectively controls parts of Africa - Chinese funded infrastructure may be about getting access to resources but the local Governments aren't going to say no to improved road and rail links and the economic benefits they bring.
How has the West responded to China's economic imperialism (that's what it is)? Answer it hasn't. The thinking and the rhetoric remains trapped in the Cold War - a couple of nuclear submarines versus providing jobs and a better standard of living for thousands of impoverished people. I think we know what works.
My understanding is that it doesn’t really provide jobs for the locals - they fly in Chinese workers who live in a separate compound and build. (Based on an article I read about Tuvalu).
The “gift” is also structured as a loan - it’s all about intergovernmental power and influence
At least one European country (Slovenia? Slovakia?) has had a loan from EuCo to get off the Chinese hook iirc.
Covid has shown up quite how sparse our weapons against disease are. The vaccines were later then we needed, even fat a brilliantly accelerated development. Therapeutic developments have been very disappointing.
I would like to see a Manhattan Project on therapeutics. The world needs to throw billions into development of drugs and strategies that will help keep people out of hospital from even 'normal' illnesses such as flu.
An issue is that vaccines have been seen to work and, in a couple of cases, vastly profitable. The sector will throw lots of money into vaccines. But vaccines are inevitable delayed; they need to be developed for each individual illness. Therapeutic drugs and techniques can help with many different illnesses that attack in similar ways.
The Manhattan Project is a really bad analogy. Apart from the huge sums spent on research every year in any event, the problem is not a singular one amenable to a brute force approach like that. While it's true that some agents will prove useful in multiple diseases, defining what those might be and why is still as much as hoc as it is systemic.
Fundamentally we just need a lot more knowledge - a project which industry, government and academia are already spending hundreds of billions on.
The Manhattan project is frequently used as shorthand for a "Crash Program to do X"
The interesting bit about the Manhattan project was that the basic answers - "We need need kilos of U235 and Pu239" - were already known. As were the list of possible ways to get there. There was surprisingly little abstract science innovation in the project. It was an engineering competition to see which methods worked the best, by trying them all in competition with each other.
The COVID treatment issue equivalent would be if we had micro grams of various treatments that probably work in the labs, but need tons. And don't have the methods to make tons.
We don't have that. What we need (and is happening) is alot of primary science to find the treatment methods and ideas. Once we have the treatments, the pharma industry will give us the tons in fairly short order.
Point taken from both NigelB and yourself. I did indeed mean it as the sense of a crash project.
One thing that surprised me is that the Manhattan Project wasn't even the most expensive single US project of the war. The B-29 Superfortress project cost $3 billion to develop and build; the Manhattan Project only cost $1.9 billion.
I'd argue the Manhattan Project was also much more effective: the B-29 didn't end the war. The nukes did - and probably with much less loss of life than if the war had continued.
(And before anyone says 'Enola Gay'! - problems with the B-29 meant there were plans to use modified Lancaster bombers to drop the nuclear bombs. - although the Lancaster was less well-suited to the task - https://www.atomicheritage.org/history/project-silverplate )
The B29s shut down what was left of Japanese maritime trade - see the forgotten aerial mining campaign.
The Lancaster nuke thing is one of those bits of history that don't make sense when you examine the reality. The Lancaster didn't have the range. The B29 was a vastly bigger plane, all round - for equivalent projects look at the the British 75 and 100 ton bomber projects (cancelled) ....
A Lancaster could have carried Little Boy. Fat Man would have been a problem (width). But it would have had very little range while doing so, and would have been flying very low, and very slow compare to the B29.
The RAF demanded and got B29s after the war, because of the performance issues.
Indeed, the Lancaster wasn't perfect for the job. But the US had massive problems getting the B-29 flying, yet alone the modified versions for carrying nukes. For every B-29 lost to enemy action, two more were lost due to engine, technical or other failures. They were far from sure in 1944 whether the bird could do it. The Lancaster was about the only other alternative they had.
The other, real alternative was different engines for the B29. See the XB39 & B29D (aka B50).
There was serious consideration given to the XB-39 for Silverplate, IIRC.
EDIT: without aerial refuelling (multiple times), the Lancaster (or Lincoln) couldn't get from the islands to Japan.
The XB-39 first flew in December 1944. Far too late to become reliable enough to trust, and to be modified for such an important mission. The XB-44 first flew in May 1945, so was right out of the question.
The XB-44 was prototype to the B-29D, which was redesignated B-50 in December 1945.
The other "family member" was the Tu-4, the Soviet-built "copy".
IIRC the PRC had some - [edit] own-build derivatives (they had different engines I think) or ex-US machines?
Gérard Araud seems to think France should pull out of NATO.
The new reality of the world rivalry of great and middle powers should lead France to a 2.0 Gaullist stance. Allied but not aligned. Some confrontations are not ours.
And that for the benefit of @kinabalu is why AUKUS and not FR/GER are the "chaps we can trust."
French anger is directed at the US and Oz and the reason for this is we have little to do with what’s happening, which is all about the submarine deal. Australia was offered the nuclear option by America, said yes to that, therefore cancelled their order of lower tech ones from France. That's the essence of it.
According to The Times (posted up thread) Australia approached the UK first over submarines because the French contract was well over budget and very late - it was the UK that suggested expanding it into a broader scope project and not just “a submarine deal”. The UK and Australia then worked through the US system to get it agreed.
The funny thing is that while Macron was strutting his stuff at the G7 in Cornwall with stories of “isolated Britain” the biggest strategic alliance in decades was being cooked up behind his back.
France doesn’t want any narrative to get out about post-Brexit Britain being other than isolated which is why they are pretending it had little to do with us.
That sounds unlikely to me, that we were the driver. But I get the Times today so I'll check out the story.
Hmm. This kind of has Boris written all over it - indulging in his usual fantasy by trying to be Churchill to Biden's FDR. Biden's going senile and is advised by idiots, so it's easy to see how they'd be persuaded. Quite why the Fella Down Under thought it would be a good approach remains mysterious.
The whole Aukus thing, you mean, or the nuclear subs?
The sub thing would have gone ahead anyway, though I suspect more would have been done to soothe French indignation. The AUUKUS branding element however is pure Boris: heavy on slogans and wishful thinking but poorly conceived and riddled with hidden dangers.
The French are indignant because they've lost billions of Aussie dollars.
Its pure mercantile greed that is the only reason they're upset. There's no way to soothe that over. That's their problem.
To be fair to the French it's not just greed. It is injured pride (consider the way Biden embraced Macron in Cornwall, even as Biden plotted to fuck Macron up). It is also shock at the suddenness and scale of the betrayal, and also panic - it throws French foreign policy into disarray
If our close allies did this to us we would also be bitter and angry. However they'd do better to rein in the petulant ambassador-recalling stuff, as it is always ends with sullen acceptance and the embarrassing moment when you send the ambassador back. Unless France is determined to break off all relations with Canberra and Washington forever?
Gérard Araud seems to think France should pull out of NATO.
The new reality of the world rivalry of great and middle powers should lead France to a 2.0 Gaullist stance. Allied but not aligned. Some confrontations are not ours.
And that for the benefit of @kinabalu is why AUKUS and not FR/GER are the "chaps we can trust."
French anger is directed at the US and Oz and the reason for this is we have little to do with what’s happening, which is all about the submarine deal. Australia was offered the nuclear option by America, said yes to that, therefore cancelled their order of lower tech ones from France. That's the essence of it.
According to The Times (posted up thread) Australia approached the UK first over submarines because the French contract was well over budget and very late - it was the UK that suggested expanding it into a broader scope project and not just “a submarine deal”. The UK and Australia then worked through the US system to get it agreed.
The funny thing is that while Macron was strutting his stuff at the G7 in Cornwall with stories of “isolated Britain” the biggest strategic alliance in decades was being cooked up behind his back.
France doesn’t want any narrative to get out about post-Brexit Britain being other than isolated which is why they are pretending it had little to do with us.
That sounds unlikely to me, that we were the driver. But I get the Times today so I'll check out the story.
Hmm. This kind of has Boris written all over it - indulging in his usual fantasy by trying to be Churchill to Biden's FDR. Biden's going senile and is advised by idiots, so it's easy to see how they'd be persuaded. Quite why the Fella Down Under thought it would be a good approach remains mysterious.
The whole Aukus thing, you mean, or the nuclear subs?
The sub thing would have gone ahead anyway, though I suspect more would have been done to soothe French indignation. The AUUKUS branding element however is pure Boris: heavy on slogans and wishful thinking but poorly conceived and riddled with hidden dangers.
Except, maybe you're just talking out your ass?
Here's an Australian defence expert writing in The New Statesman
"What does the new AUKUS alliance mean for global relations?
"The new pact between the UK, US and Australia could lead to nothing less than a merger of military, industrial and scientific capabilities."
"AUKUS’s initial priority will be to pool US and British expertise and technology to develop a nuclear-powered submarine fleet for Australia over the decades ahead. This has cascading significance for Australia and the Indo-Pacific; for China – the power this is largely about keeping at bay; and for Britain, the United States and Europe.
"For Australia, it’s a huge deal, and in a military sense almost existential. Anxieties about Chinese power have intensified with Beijing’s totalitarian turn, aggression in the South China Sea and political interference campaigns. "
The Aussies consider this partnership "existential", and may lead to the three nations essentially merging their militaries, industries, science
This is the new NATO, but perhaps even more integrated. It is arguably like the foundation of the EU. Aukus will become the backbone of the attempt to contain China. Others will associate with it, or not. but Aukus will be the core. As the founding Six are still the core of the EU
I do not expect a further lockdown unless the virus escapes the vaccines
Life seems to be back to near normal and of course the booster jabs are on their way
On the French strop has any EU country come out in support of them
I have heard it said that in any security crisis the US would be their first call for help
It is unfortunate that France has fallen out with AUKUS but ultimately this is not about France or Europe, but the defence of the Trans Pacific and just as EU countries would if under threat, Australia has turned to the US
The submarines are some decade or two off service. The more immediate effect is more US forces based in Australia. This is quite an interesting piece from Australia on what it all means:
"Hugh White : what SM has done this week. He has tied Australia to a deal that undermines our sovereign capabilities,overspends on hardware we can barely be confident of operating,& drags us closer to front line of a war we may have no interest in fighting."
I did wonder if the US or even the UK may allocate a nuclear sub to Australia to smooth the process of integration
It's not like borrowing a Ford Focus to nip to Aldi. Insurmountable (for the US) security concerns aside; how would they command, crew and maintain it?
If they want boats before 2035 the only option is to buy the two Astutes under construction at Barrow. The tories, who never saw a defence cut they didn't like, would love this but it might not be politically sustainable in Australia - I don't know.
If I were Oz, I'd be looking at guests on both types (Astute/Virginia) over the next 18 months to help select, then to familiarise / train up staff on the chosen systems. Then perhaps to lease a boat or two whilst the chosen mods are sorted, and production/tech transfer starts over 1-2 decades (?), gradually shifting to Oz, and sorting out porting capability asap.
Not sure how needing to build another couple of hulls would impact on plans at Barrow.
IMO the logical choice would be Astute fitted with some American systems. Astute because the crew is 90ish vs 140 (ie 30% cheaper to run on personnel), and about 20% cheaper to buy, and because US building capacity is at full stretch until 2029/30.
And I think building the crew service may be the biggest challenge.
AIUI the idea might well be NOT to build two more subs at Barrow - ie the last two go to Oz rather than the RN which thereby partly solves its crewing problems by having fewer subs.
What is depressing, but not surprising, is the attitude expressed by some environmental protestors that it is racist to question whether China should be doing more to cut emissions.
It also runs the risk of being counter productive. Let’s say that protestors tell Western nations they have to be responsible for reducing all global emissions. That gives a powerful incentive to China to become more dirty, knowing that Western nations would then have to cut faster and harder to satisfy the global commitments.
You almost think that the main priority of some is not global climate change but having the opportunity to swing against western governments.
Quite right. This bit from Roger Harrabin gives the game away:
But when I initially asked the radical green group Extinction Rebellion (XR) if they had considered demonstrating against China, it triggered a furious response.
An XR member tweeted accusing me of perpetuating anti-Chinese racist stereotypes and failing to report climate change properly.
Why so vitriolic?
Well, there are two reasons. The first is practical: climate campaigning groups like Greenpeace and WWF have offices in Beijing and if they rattle China too hard, they could be swiftly closed down.
Ie the subject touches on two critical matters: their totalitarian anti liberal friends and jobs for the boys and girls in the international NGO industry.
Likewise the environmental frothers in the 1980s were always fanatically opposed to any criticism of the Soviet Union's activities such as draining the Aral Sea.
Gérard Araud seems to think France should pull out of NATO.
The new reality of the world rivalry of great and middle powers should lead France to a 2.0 Gaullist stance. Allied but not aligned. Some confrontations are not ours.
And that for the benefit of @kinabalu is why AUKUS and not FR/GER are the "chaps we can trust."
French anger is directed at the US and Oz and the reason for this is we have little to do with what’s happening, which is all about the submarine deal. Australia was offered the nuclear option by America, said yes to that, therefore cancelled their order of lower tech ones from France. That's the essence of it.
According to The Times (posted up thread) Australia approached the UK first over submarines because the French contract was well over budget and very late - it was the UK that suggested expanding it into a broader scope project and not just “a submarine deal”. The UK and Australia then worked through the US system to get it agreed.
The funny thing is that while Macron was strutting his stuff at the G7 in Cornwall with stories of “isolated Britain” the biggest strategic alliance in decades was being cooked up behind his back.
France doesn’t want any narrative to get out about post-Brexit Britain being other than isolated which is why they are pretending it had little to do with us.
That sounds unlikely to me, that we were the driver. But I get the Times today so I'll check out the story.
Hmm. This kind of has Boris written all over it - indulging in his usual fantasy by trying to be Churchill to Biden's FDR. Biden's going senile and is advised by idiots, so it's easy to see how they'd be persuaded. Quite why the Fella Down Under thought it would be a good approach remains mysterious.
The whole Aukus thing, you mean, or the nuclear subs?
The sub thing would have gone ahead anyway, though I suspect more would have been done to soothe French indignation. The AUUKUS branding element however is pure Boris: heavy on slogans and wishful thinking but poorly conceived and riddled with hidden dangers.
The French are indignant because they've lost billions of Aussie dollars.
Its pure mercantile greed that is the only reason they're upset. There's no way to soothe that over. That's their problem.
Didn't the French and Aussies have some kind of contract between them?
Gérard Araud seems to think France should pull out of NATO.
The new reality of the world rivalry of great and middle powers should lead France to a 2.0 Gaullist stance. Allied but not aligned. Some confrontations are not ours.
And that for the benefit of @kinabalu is why AUKUS and not FR/GER are the "chaps we can trust."
French anger is directed at the US and Oz and the reason for this is we have little to do with what’s happening, which is all about the submarine deal. Australia was offered the nuclear option by America, said yes to that, therefore cancelled their order of lower tech ones from France. That's the essence of it.
According to The Times (posted up thread) Australia approached the UK first over submarines because the French contract was well over budget and very late - it was the UK that suggested expanding it into a broader scope project and not just “a submarine deal”. The UK and Australia then worked through the US system to get it agreed.
The funny thing is that while Macron was strutting his stuff at the G7 in Cornwall with stories of “isolated Britain” the biggest strategic alliance in decades was being cooked up behind his back.
France doesn’t want any narrative to get out about post-Brexit Britain being other than isolated which is why they are pretending it had little to do with us.
That sounds unlikely to me, that we were the driver. But I get the Times today so I'll check out the story.
Hmm. This kind of has Boris written all over it - indulging in his usual fantasy by trying to be Churchill to Biden's FDR. Biden's going senile and is advised by idiots, so it's easy to see how they'd be persuaded. Quite why the Fella Down Under thought it would be a good approach remains mysterious.
The whole Aukus thing, you mean, or the nuclear subs?
The sub thing would have gone ahead anyway, though I suspect more would have been done to soothe French indignation. The AUUKUS branding element however is pure Boris: heavy on slogans and wishful thinking but poorly conceived and riddled with hidden dangers.
Except, maybe you're just talking out your ass?
Here's an Australian defence expert writing in The New Statesman
"What does the new AUKUS alliance mean for global relations?
"The new pact between the UK, US and Australia could lead to nothing less than a merger of military, industrial and scientific capabilities."
"AUKUS’s initial priority will be to pool US and British expertise and technology to develop a nuclear-powered submarine fleet for Australia over the decades ahead. This has cascading significance for Australia and the Indo-Pacific; for China – the power this is largely about keeping at bay; and for Britain, the United States and Europe.
"For Australia, it’s a huge deal, and in a military sense almost existential. Anxieties about Chinese power have intensified with Beijing’s totalitarian turn, aggression in the South China Sea and political interference campaigns. "
The Aussies consider this partnership "existential", and may lead to the three nations essentially merging their militaries, industries, science
This is the new NATO, but perhaps even more integrated. It is arguably like the foundation of the EU. Aukus will become the backbone of the attempt to contain China. Others will associate with it, or not. but Aukus will be the core. As the founding Six are still the core of the EU
What is being missed in all this talk of France having a strop, what it means for UK / USA / EU relations... Australia are really the ones taking a very brave path here.
They are signalling to China they aren't going to play patter-cake like NZ, despite their economy having become very interconnected with China and much more important than NZ.
They could easily just tow the line, play nice with China and life would be much simpler.
Point of (very) Pedantic Order.
Toe the Line not tow.
The origin is around lining up. I always think of the oche in darts.
Gérard Araud seems to think France should pull out of NATO.
The new reality of the world rivalry of great and middle powers should lead France to a 2.0 Gaullist stance. Allied but not aligned. Some confrontations are not ours.
And that for the benefit of @kinabalu is why AUKUS and not FR/GER are the "chaps we can trust."
French anger is directed at the US and Oz and the reason for this is we have little to do with what’s happening, which is all about the submarine deal. Australia was offered the nuclear option by America, said yes to that, therefore cancelled their order of lower tech ones from France. That's the essence of it.
According to The Times (posted up thread) Australia approached the UK first over submarines because the French contract was well over budget and very late - it was the UK that suggested expanding it into a broader scope project and not just “a submarine deal”. The UK and Australia then worked through the US system to get it agreed.
The funny thing is that while Macron was strutting his stuff at the G7 in Cornwall with stories of “isolated Britain” the biggest strategic alliance in decades was being cooked up behind his back.
France doesn’t want any narrative to get out about post-Brexit Britain being other than isolated which is why they are pretending it had little to do with us.
That sounds unlikely to me, that we were the driver. But I get the Times today so I'll check out the story.
Hmm. This kind of has Boris written all over it - indulging in his usual fantasy by trying to be Churchill to Biden's FDR. Biden's going senile and is advised by idiots, so it's easy to see how they'd be persuaded. Quite why the Fella Down Under thought it would be a good approach remains mysterious.
The whole Aukus thing, you mean, or the nuclear subs?
The sub thing would have gone ahead anyway, though I suspect more would have been done to soothe French indignation. The AUUKUS branding element however is pure Boris: heavy on slogans and wishful thinking but poorly conceived and riddled with hidden dangers.
The French are indignant because they've lost billions of Aussie dollars.
Its pure mercantile greed that is the only reason they're upset. There's no way to soothe that over. That's their problem.
Didn't the French and Aussies have some kind of contract between them?
A contract the Aussies were capable of cancelling it seems.
Gérard Araud seems to think France should pull out of NATO.
The new reality of the world rivalry of great and middle powers should lead France to a 2.0 Gaullist stance. Allied but not aligned. Some confrontations are not ours.
And that for the benefit of @kinabalu is why AUKUS and not FR/GER are the "chaps we can trust."
French anger is directed at the US and Oz and the reason for this is we have little to do with what’s happening, which is all about the submarine deal. Australia was offered the nuclear option by America, said yes to that, therefore cancelled their order of lower tech ones from France. That's the essence of it.
According to The Times (posted up thread) Australia approached the UK first over submarines because the French contract was well over budget and very late - it was the UK that suggested expanding it into a broader scope project and not just “a submarine deal”. The UK and Australia then worked through the US system to get it agreed.
The funny thing is that while Macron was strutting his stuff at the G7 in Cornwall with stories of “isolated Britain” the biggest strategic alliance in decades was being cooked up behind his back.
France doesn’t want any narrative to get out about post-Brexit Britain being other than isolated which is why they are pretending it had little to do with us.
That sounds unlikely to me, that we were the driver. But I get the Times today so I'll check out the story.
Hmm. This kind of has Boris written all over it - indulging in his usual fantasy by trying to be Churchill to Biden's FDR. Biden's going senile and is advised by idiots, so it's easy to see how they'd be persuaded. Quite why the Fella Down Under thought it would be a good approach remains mysterious.
The whole Aukus thing, you mean, or the nuclear subs?
The sub thing would have gone ahead anyway, though I suspect more would have been done to soothe French indignation. The AUUKUS branding element however is pure Boris: heavy on slogans and wishful thinking but poorly conceived and riddled with hidden dangers.
The French are indignant because they've lost billions of Aussie dollars.
Its pure mercantile greed that is the only reason they're upset. There's no way to soothe that over. That's their problem.
To be fair to the French it's not just greed. It is injured pride (consider the way Biden embraced Macron in Cornwall, even as Biden plotted to fuck Macron up). It is also shock at the suddenness and scale of the betrayal, and also panic - it throws French foreign policy into disarray
If our close allies did this to us we would also be bitter and angry. However they'd do better to rein in the petulant ambassador-recalling stuff, as it is always ends with sullen acceptance and the embarrassing moment when you send the ambassador back. Unless France is determined to break off all relations with Canberra and Washington forever?
French foreign policy has been in crisis ever since Brexit. The stupid prats should have seen they needed the UK still in to have an ally to stand up to Germany. Instead they strutted around like the cock of the walk making infantile announcements. With the UK gone, they are now by themselves and effectively a sub branch of the German Foreign Minstry
I do not expect a further lockdown unless the virus escapes the vaccines
Life seems to be back to near normal and of course the booster jabs are on their way
On the French strop has any EU country come out in support of them
I have heard it said that in any security crisis the US would be their first call for help
It is unfortunate that France has fallen out with AUKUS but ultimately this is not about France or Europe, but the defence of the Trans Pacific and just as EU countries would if under threat, Australia has turned to the US
The submarines are some decade or two off service. The more immediate effect is more US forces based in Australia. This is quite an interesting piece from Australia on what it all means:
"Hugh White : what SM has done this week. He has tied Australia to a deal that undermines our sovereign capabilities,overspends on hardware we can barely be confident of operating,& drags us closer to front line of a war we may have no interest in fighting."
I did wonder if the US or even the UK may allocate a nuclear sub to Australia to smooth the process of integration
It's not like borrowing a Ford Focus to nip to Aldi. Insurmountable (for the US) security concerns aside; how would they command, crew and maintain it?
If they want boats before 2035 the only option is to buy the two Astutes under construction at Barrow. The tories, who never saw a defence cut they didn't like, would love this but it might not be politically sustainable in Australia - I don't know.
If I were Oz, I'd be looking at guests on both types (Astute/Virginia) over the next 18 months to help select, then to familiarise / train up staff on the chosen systems. Then perhaps to lease a boat or two whilst the chosen mods are sorted, and production/tech transfer starts over 1-2 decades (?), gradually shifting to Oz, and sorting out porting capability asap.
Not sure how needing to build another couple of hulls would impact on plans at Barrow.
IMO the logical choice would be Astute fitted with some American systems. Astute because the crew is 90ish vs 140 (ie 30% cheaper to run on personnel), and about 20% cheaper to buy, and because US building capacity is at full stretch until 2029/30.
And I think building the crew service may be the biggest challenge.
AIUI the idea might well be NOT to build two more subs at Barrow - ie the last two go to Oz rather than the RN which thereby partly solves its crewing problems by having fewer subs.
Possible. But that would leave Oz with a non-matching set if they identify updates.
Though it's also exactly the sort of thing the MOD boneheads would do.
There seems to be a lot of people who seem to think they know what this deal means, who did what in forming etc....when until a few days ago nobody had any idea it was even in the works as the parties involved kept it very hush hush...i remember all those people saying boris was sidelined at his own gig in cornwall, Biden doesn't want anything to do with him or the UK etc, when in fact 3 major world powers were doing a deal.
I think it might be wise to wait and see, rather than look foolish making bold uninformed claims one way or another.
Must be hard for the Guardian to write this about Aukus
"From the British perspective, this is a triumph. Many diplomats had predicted the UK would become less important to the US once it had left the EU, since it had acted as the bridge between Washington and Brussels. That looks less true now. The Australian right is delighted because it has always seen Brexit as a path to a closer relationship with the British."
It is good optics, that's exactly the point I'm making, it's a sub deal + optics, but being a bridge between Washington and Canberra as opposed to between Washington and Brussels (AND Canberra) doesn't represent a great leap forward in practice. It's going backwards in terms of influence. And the reference to the Australian 'right' is apposite. What happens to this when they get kicked out of power? That'll be quite interesting.
Er, the Aussie Opposition has already expressed support for Aukus, as long as it doesn't mean Aussie nuke missiles or civil nuclear power stations
This is a strategic shift by all three countries which will be quasi-permanent, it is endorsed across the board, politically, in Washington, London, and Canberra. Because it makes total sense for all three nations
As for Britain-in-the-EU being a bridge for DC into Brussels, that was always a nice idea than doing anything significant. But it made europhiles feel better about the slow destruction of British sovereignty
The AU/US benefits are clear enough but for us I don't see much other than good optics for Johnson and buttons pushed for "Anglosphere v the Bad Guys" ... I was going to say "fantasists" but on reflection that's harsh. Need a softer, less hostile word to mean people with a romantic view of the power and beneficence of Britain in 2021. Do you have the word? You will have, I'm sure, with your vocab. So, I need to steal it.
And btw this isn't a "Remoaner" anti-Brexit point. It wasn't much of a factor in my Remain vote to what extent we were a "bridge" between Brussels and Washington. I'm not too bothered about all of that stuff.
AUKUS has seen an extraordinary, though predictable, outpouring of dismay, disbelief, dismissal, anger and contempt from those who hold the EU dear and just cannot come to terms with this 'bolt out of the blue ' that has shaken their belief that the UK was marooned in international irrelevance post brexit and that the US would cleave to the EU
Overnight the narrative has changed and AUKUS will be the dominant organisation that will seek to deter Chinese aggression and will associate with most countries opposed to China but membership of AUKUS will be to the three who are sharing the nuclear sub technology but also embracing cyber warfare, space and development of AI and quantum computing for defence and security
France now finds itself outside this and will be offered the opportunity to cooperate but not be part of AUKUS
Despite the comments of remain supporters it must be remembered this has been welcomed across the HOC and throughout the countries under threat from China
This also does put UK back as part of the international community with our membership of CPTPP in due course expanding our trade worldwide
Gérard Araud seems to think France should pull out of NATO.
The new reality of the world rivalry of great and middle powers should lead France to a 2.0 Gaullist stance. Allied but not aligned. Some confrontations are not ours.
And that for the benefit of @kinabalu is why AUKUS and not FR/GER are the "chaps we can trust."
French anger is directed at the US and Oz and the reason for this is we have little to do with what’s happening, which is all about the submarine deal. Australia was offered the nuclear option by America, said yes to that, therefore cancelled their order of lower tech ones from France. That's the essence of it.
According to The Times (posted up thread) Australia approached the UK first over submarines because the French contract was well over budget and very late - it was the UK that suggested expanding it into a broader scope project and not just “a submarine deal”. The UK and Australia then worked through the US system to get it agreed.
The funny thing is that while Macron was strutting his stuff at the G7 in Cornwall with stories of “isolated Britain” the biggest strategic alliance in decades was being cooked up behind his back.
France doesn’t want any narrative to get out about post-Brexit Britain being other than isolated which is why they are pretending it had little to do with us.
That sounds unlikely to me, that we were the driver. But I get the Times today so I'll check out the story.
Hmm. This kind of has Boris written all over it - indulging in his usual fantasy by trying to be Churchill to Biden's FDR. Biden's going senile and is advised by idiots, so it's easy to see how they'd be persuaded. Quite why the Fella Down Under thought it would be a good approach remains mysterious.
The whole Aukus thing, you mean, or the nuclear subs?
The sub thing would have gone ahead anyway, though I suspect more would have been done to soothe French indignation. The AUUKUS branding element however is pure Boris: heavy on slogans and wishful thinking but poorly conceived and riddled with hidden dangers.
The French are indignant because they've lost billions of Aussie dollars.
Its pure mercantile greed that is the only reason they're upset. There's no way to soothe that over. That's their problem.
To be fair to the French it's not just greed. It is injured pride (consider the way Biden embraced Macron in Cornwall, even as Biden plotted to fuck Macron up). It is also shock at the suddenness and scale of the betrayal, and also panic - it throws French foreign policy into disarray
If our close allies did this to us we would also be bitter and angry. However they'd do better to rein in the petulant ambassador-recalling stuff, as it is always ends with sullen acceptance and the embarrassing moment when you send the ambassador back. Unless France is determined to break off all relations with Canberra and Washington forever?
Gérard Araud seems to think France should pull out of NATO.
The new reality of the world rivalry of great and middle powers should lead France to a 2.0 Gaullist stance. Allied but not aligned. Some confrontations are not ours.
And that for the benefit of @kinabalu is why AUKUS and not FR/GER are the "chaps we can trust."
French anger is directed at the US and Oz and the reason for this is we have little to do with what’s happening, which is all about the submarine deal. Australia was offered the nuclear option by America, said yes to that, therefore cancelled their order of lower tech ones from France. That's the essence of it.
According to The Times (posted up thread) Australia approached the UK first over submarines because the French contract was well over budget and very late - it was the UK that suggested expanding it into a broader scope project and not just “a submarine deal”. The UK and Australia then worked through the US system to get it agreed.
The funny thing is that while Macron was strutting his stuff at the G7 in Cornwall with stories of “isolated Britain” the biggest strategic alliance in decades was being cooked up behind his back.
France doesn’t want any narrative to get out about post-Brexit Britain being other than isolated which is why they are pretending it had little to do with us.
That sounds unlikely to me, that we were the driver. But I get the Times today so I'll check out the story.
Hmm. This kind of has Boris written all over it - indulging in his usual fantasy by trying to be Churchill to Biden's FDR. Biden's going senile and is advised by idiots, so it's easy to see how they'd be persuaded. Quite why the Fella Down Under thought it would be a good approach remains mysterious.
The whole Aukus thing, you mean, or the nuclear subs?
The sub thing would have gone ahead anyway, though I suspect more would have been done to soothe French indignation. The AUUKUS branding element however is pure Boris: heavy on slogans and wishful thinking but poorly conceived and riddled with hidden dangers.
The French are indignant because they've lost billions of Aussie dollars.
Its pure mercantile greed that is the only reason they're upset. There's no way to soothe that over. That's their problem.
Didn't the French and Aussies have some kind of contract between them?
A contract the Aussies were capable of cancelling it seems.
There seems to be a lot of people who seem to think they know what this deal means, who did what in forming etc....when until a few days ago nobody had any idea it was even in the works as the parties involved kept it very hush hush...i remember all those people saying boris was sidelined at his own gig in cornwall, Biden doesn't want anything to do with him or the UK etc, when in fact 3 major world powers were doing a deal.
I think it might be wise to wait and see, rather than look foolish making bold uninformed claims one way or another.
I should add one of the things we probably never know about if / until it matters. Cooperation over AI tech. China wins this race, its wins the world. Nobody will know how much cooperation will be going on among western powers over this until crunch time.
Gérard Araud seems to think France should pull out of NATO.
The new reality of the world rivalry of great and middle powers should lead France to a 2.0 Gaullist stance. Allied but not aligned. Some confrontations are not ours.
And that for the benefit of @kinabalu is why AUKUS and not FR/GER are the "chaps we can trust."
French anger is directed at the US and Oz and the reason for this is we have little to do with what’s happening, which is all about the submarine deal. Australia was offered the nuclear option by America, said yes to that, therefore cancelled their order of lower tech ones from France. That's the essence of it.
According to The Times (posted up thread) Australia approached the UK first over submarines because the French contract was well over budget and very late - it was the UK that suggested expanding it into a broader scope project and not just “a submarine deal”. The UK and Australia then worked through the US system to get it agreed.
The funny thing is that while Macron was strutting his stuff at the G7 in Cornwall with stories of “isolated Britain” the biggest strategic alliance in decades was being cooked up behind his back.
France doesn’t want any narrative to get out about post-Brexit Britain being other than isolated which is why they are pretending it had little to do with us.
That sounds unlikely to me, that we were the driver. But I get the Times today so I'll check out the story.
Hmm. This kind of has Boris written all over it - indulging in his usual fantasy by trying to be Churchill to Biden's FDR. Biden's going senile and is advised by idiots, so it's easy to see how they'd be persuaded. Quite why the Fella Down Under thought it would be a good approach remains mysterious.
The whole Aukus thing, you mean, or the nuclear subs?
The sub thing would have gone ahead anyway, though I suspect more would have been done to soothe French indignation. The AUUKUS branding element however is pure Boris: heavy on slogans and wishful thinking but poorly conceived and riddled with hidden dangers.
The French are indignant because they've lost billions of Aussie dollars.
Its pure mercantile greed that is the only reason they're upset. There's no way to soothe that over. That's their problem.
Didn't the French and Aussies have some kind of contract between them?
A contract the Aussies were capable of cancelling it seems.
Yes - lots of detail in that Sub Brief vid linked above.
The Oz procurement was quite badly f*cked up, though. Starting with one of their top people being hired by Naval Group to head up the French bid, then moving NG to "preferred provider" status very earlier.
Dr. Foxy, New Zealand is isolated and has been far chummier with the Communists than they might wish to be.
As for Australia, the rising threat of China is something that must be accounted for. Sure, you can feed a crocodile, but appeasement does not work. Australia must be able to defend itself.
New Zealand is and has been a non-nuclear state for three decades - that's why ANZUS was suspended as NZ didn't want American nuclear submarines in its waters which is, I think, the main reason Auckland has been excluded from the AUKUS discussions.
NZ, like Australia, has significant trading links with China worth a lot to the NZ economy. Tourism from the mainland was growing strongly pre-pandemic as well.
In any case, are we seriously arguing China is a significant military threat to Australia and New Zealand? It may be more significant if, for instance, China did a deal with Fiji and established a military base at Suva or Nadi or some other island.
China shares a border with many other countries - Russia, India, Afghanistan and Vietnam to name but four. Are we offering them any kind of guarantee or support against Chinese military expansionism? I doubt it but again that's missing the point - China is achieving economically what the PLA couldn't do militarily. It effectively controls parts of Africa - Chinese funded infrastructure may be about getting access to resources but the local Governments aren't going to say no to improved road and rail links and the economic benefits they bring.
How has the West responded to China's economic imperialism (that's what it is)? Answer it hasn't. The thinking and the rhetoric remains trapped in the Cold War - a couple of nuclear submarines versus providing jobs and a better standard of living for thousands of impoverished people. I think we know what works.
My understanding is that it doesn’t really provide jobs for the locals - they fly in Chinese workers who live in a separate compound and build. (Based on an article I read about Tuvalu).
The “gift” is also structured as a loan - it’s all about intergovernmental power and influence
Sure. China learned a lot from the "unequal treaties" of the 19th century, foreign concessions and extraterritorality. They are holding the whip now.
That's their propaganda nonsense, I don't know why we spout it. China never knew anything about unequal treatment before us? I'm sure you don't believe it would be an excuse even if it was, so I don't know why we should pretend their actions now are actually related to them, except for their bullcrap justifications.
I think the experience of the unequal treaties, with privileged trade concessions and self governing foreign enclaves is part of how China is operating now. I didn't express an opinion about whether this is good or bad, or justified or not.
Indeed, considering how it impacted on China, it is clearly not a good long term option, it only breeds resentment and ultimately rejection in the country imposed upon.
Gérard Araud seems to think France should pull out of NATO.
The new reality of the world rivalry of great and middle powers should lead France to a 2.0 Gaullist stance. Allied but not aligned. Some confrontations are not ours.
And that for the benefit of @kinabalu is why AUKUS and not FR/GER are the "chaps we can trust."
French anger is directed at the US and Oz and the reason for this is we have little to do with what’s happening, which is all about the submarine deal. Australia was offered the nuclear option by America, said yes to that, therefore cancelled their order of lower tech ones from France. That's the essence of it.
According to The Times (posted up thread) Australia approached the UK first over submarines because the French contract was well over budget and very late - it was the UK that suggested expanding it into a broader scope project and not just “a submarine deal”. The UK and Australia then worked through the US system to get it agreed.
The funny thing is that while Macron was strutting his stuff at the G7 in Cornwall with stories of “isolated Britain” the biggest strategic alliance in decades was being cooked up behind his back.
France doesn’t want any narrative to get out about post-Brexit Britain being other than isolated which is why they are pretending it had little to do with us.
That sounds unlikely to me, that we were the driver. But I get the Times today so I'll check out the story.
Hmm. This kind of has Boris written all over it - indulging in his usual fantasy by trying to be Churchill to Biden's FDR. Biden's going senile and is advised by idiots, so it's easy to see how they'd be persuaded. Quite why the Fella Down Under thought it would be a good approach remains mysterious.
The whole Aukus thing, you mean, or the nuclear subs?
The sub thing would have gone ahead anyway, though I suspect more would have been done to soothe French indignation. The AUUKUS branding element however is pure Boris: heavy on slogans and wishful thinking but poorly conceived and riddled with hidden dangers.
The French are indignant because they've lost billions of Aussie dollars.
Its pure mercantile greed that is the only reason they're upset. There's no way to soothe that over. That's their problem.
Didn't the French and Aussies have some kind of contract between them?
A contract the Aussies were capable of cancelling it seems.
so much for honour.
Most contacts have cancellation clauses
I understand this contract has been negotiated since 2016 and I read somewhere the cancellation will cost $400 million
AUKUS has seen an extraordinary, though predictable, outpouring of dismay, disbelief, dismissal, anger and contempt from those who hold the EU dear and just cannot come to terms with this 'bolt out of the blue ' that has shaken their belief that the UK was marooned in international irrelevance post brexit and that the US would cleave to the EU
Overnight the narrative has changed and AUKUS will be the dominant organisation that will seek to deter Chinese aggression and will associate with most countries opposed to China but membership of AUKUS will be to the three who are sharing the nuclear sub technology but also embracing cyber warfare, space and development of AI and quantum computing for defence and security
France now finds itself outside this and will be offered the opportunity to cooperate but not be part of AUKUS
Despite the comments of remain supporters it must be remembered this has been welcomed across the HOC and throughout the countries under threat from China
This also does put UK back as part of the international community with our membership of CPTPP in due course expanding our trade worldwide
It has nothing to do with the EU which has always been completely dickless from a military POV. This would all have unfolded exactly as it did of Brexit had never happened.
Gérard Araud seems to think France should pull out of NATO.
The new reality of the world rivalry of great and middle powers should lead France to a 2.0 Gaullist stance. Allied but not aligned. Some confrontations are not ours.
And that for the benefit of @kinabalu is why AUKUS and not FR/GER are the "chaps we can trust."
French anger is directed at the US and Oz and the reason for this is we have little to do with what’s happening, which is all about the submarine deal. Australia was offered the nuclear option by America, said yes to that, therefore cancelled their order of lower tech ones from France. That's the essence of it.
According to The Times (posted up thread) Australia approached the UK first over submarines because the French contract was well over budget and very late - it was the UK that suggested expanding it into a broader scope project and not just “a submarine deal”. The UK and Australia then worked through the US system to get it agreed.
The funny thing is that while Macron was strutting his stuff at the G7 in Cornwall with stories of “isolated Britain” the biggest strategic alliance in decades was being cooked up behind his back.
France doesn’t want any narrative to get out about post-Brexit Britain being other than isolated which is why they are pretending it had little to do with us.
That sounds unlikely to me, that we were the driver. But I get the Times today so I'll check out the story.
Hmm. This kind of has Boris written all over it - indulging in his usual fantasy by trying to be Churchill to Biden's FDR. Biden's going senile and is advised by idiots, so it's easy to see how they'd be persuaded. Quite why the Fella Down Under thought it would be a good approach remains mysterious.
The whole Aukus thing, you mean, or the nuclear subs?
The sub thing would have gone ahead anyway, though I suspect more would have been done to soothe French indignation. The AUUKUS branding element however is pure Boris: heavy on slogans and wishful thinking but poorly conceived and riddled with hidden dangers.
The French are indignant because they've lost billions of Aussie dollars.
Its pure mercantile greed that is the only reason they're upset. There's no way to soothe that over. That's their problem.
Didn't the French and Aussies have some kind of contract between them?
A contract the Aussies were capable of cancelling it seems.
so much for honour.
Why should the Aussies honour a contract with the French that is over budget, years late and doesn't meet their needs?
Maybe if they'd been on time and on budget the contract would have been honoured. Just a thought.
Gérard Araud seems to think France should pull out of NATO.
The new reality of the world rivalry of great and middle powers should lead France to a 2.0 Gaullist stance. Allied but not aligned. Some confrontations are not ours.
And that for the benefit of @kinabalu is why AUKUS and not FR/GER are the "chaps we can trust."
French anger is directed at the US and Oz and the reason for this is we have little to do with what’s happening, which is all about the submarine deal. Australia was offered the nuclear option by America, said yes to that, therefore cancelled their order of lower tech ones from France. That's the essence of it.
According to The Times (posted up thread) Australia approached the UK first over submarines because the French contract was well over budget and very late - it was the UK that suggested expanding it into a broader scope project and not just “a submarine deal”. The UK and Australia then worked through the US system to get it agreed.
The funny thing is that while Macron was strutting his stuff at the G7 in Cornwall with stories of “isolated Britain” the biggest strategic alliance in decades was being cooked up behind his back.
France doesn’t want any narrative to get out about post-Brexit Britain being other than isolated which is why they are pretending it had little to do with us.
That sounds unlikely to me, that we were the driver. But I get the Times today so I'll check out the story.
Hmm. This kind of has Boris written all over it - indulging in his usual fantasy by trying to be Churchill to Biden's FDR. Biden's going senile and is advised by idiots, so it's easy to see how they'd be persuaded. Quite why the Fella Down Under thought it would be a good approach remains mysterious.
The whole Aukus thing, you mean, or the nuclear subs?
The sub thing would have gone ahead anyway, though I suspect more would have been done to soothe French indignation. The AUUKUS branding element however is pure Boris: heavy on slogans and wishful thinking but poorly conceived and riddled with hidden dangers.
The French are indignant because they've lost billions of Aussie dollars.
Its pure mercantile greed that is the only reason they're upset. There's no way to soothe that over. That's their problem.
Didn't the French and Aussies have some kind of contract between them?
Yes which was late, over budget and had had the Australian build dropped from 90% to 60% maybe.
An emboldened Trump will now focus his energy and attention on purging the remaining Republicans he views as disloyal, backing primary challengers to those on his impeachment hit list such as Reps. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.), Adam Kinzinger (R-Ill.) and Jamie Herrera Beutler (R-Wash.).
“1 down, 9 to go!” Trump said in a statement Friday.
He followed up with a second statement: “RINO Congressman Anthony Gonzalez, who has poorly represented his district in the Great State of Ohio, has decided to quit after enduring a tremendous loss of popularity, of which he had little, since his ill-informed and otherwise very stupid impeachment vote against the sitting President of the United States, me.”
The stunning move by Gonzalez, a 36-year-old Cuban American former NFL player, underscores two obvious truths about today’s GOP politics: Those who want to rise in the Republican party must pledge absolute fealty to Trump, and Trump’s power and influence over the party is only growing as he and his staunch loyalists take their revenge on political enemies one by one. …
Has a defeated American president ever had such control over his party? It's remarkable.
If he’s still semi sentient in 2024 it seems very likely he’ll run again. Certainly no Republican will be able to stop him if chooses to do so.
Still? Surely semi-sentient implies a dramatic improvement?
There seems to be a lot of people who seem to think they know what this deal means, who did what in forming etc....when until a few days ago nobody had any idea it was even in the works as the parties involved kept it very hush hush...i remember all those people saying boris was sidelined at his own gig in cornwall, Biden doesn't want anything to do with him or the UK etc, when in fact 3 major world powers were doing a deal.
I think it might be wise to wait and see, rather than look foolish making bold uninformed claims one way or another.
I should add one of the things we probably never know about if / until it matters. Cooperation over AI tech. China wins this race, its wins the world. Nobody will know how much cooperation will be going on among western powers over this until crunch time.
Yes, the mention of AI is crucial.
It's one reason this treaty it more than it looks. If America is really looking to militarise AI (and it must, because China is) then it is excellent news for the UK that we will be party to this. And of course we bring our own expertise to the game. Deepmind, and so on. This is why people who just focus on the conventional aspects of Aukus, and say "Britain is a billion miles from China, this is all gestural" really don't understand what is going down
AI is the ultimate future of war (or, more hopefully, deterrence, and the avoidance of war). Aukus will be as much about that as about weaponry
Gérard Araud seems to think France should pull out of NATO.
The new reality of the world rivalry of great and middle powers should lead France to a 2.0 Gaullist stance. Allied but not aligned. Some confrontations are not ours.
And that for the benefit of @kinabalu is why AUKUS and not FR/GER are the "chaps we can trust."
French anger is directed at the US and Oz and the reason for this is we have little to do with what’s happening, which is all about the submarine deal. Australia was offered the nuclear option by America, said yes to that, therefore cancelled their order of lower tech ones from France. That's the essence of it.
According to The Times (posted up thread) Australia approached the UK first over submarines because the French contract was well over budget and very late - it was the UK that suggested expanding it into a broader scope project and not just “a submarine deal”. The UK and Australia then worked through the US system to get it agreed.
The funny thing is that while Macron was strutting his stuff at the G7 in Cornwall with stories of “isolated Britain” the biggest strategic alliance in decades was being cooked up behind his back.
France doesn’t want any narrative to get out about post-Brexit Britain being other than isolated which is why they are pretending it had little to do with us.
That sounds unlikely to me, that we were the driver. But I get the Times today so I'll check out the story.
Hmm. This kind of has Boris written all over it - indulging in his usual fantasy by trying to be Churchill to Biden's FDR. Biden's going senile and is advised by idiots, so it's easy to see how they'd be persuaded. Quite why the Fella Down Under thought it would be a good approach remains mysterious.
The whole Aukus thing, you mean, or the nuclear subs?
The sub thing would have gone ahead anyway, though I suspect more would have been done to soothe French indignation. The AUUKUS branding element however is pure Boris: heavy on slogans and wishful thinking but poorly conceived and riddled with hidden dangers.
The French are indignant because they've lost billions of Aussie dollars.
Its pure mercantile greed that is the only reason they're upset. There's no way to soothe that over. That's their problem.
Didn't the French and Aussies have some kind of contract between them?
A contract the Aussies were capable of cancelling it seems.
so much for honour.
Why should the Aussies honour a contract with the French that is over budget, years late and doesn't meet their needs?
Maybe if they'd been on time and on budget the contract would have been honoured. Just a thought.
In that case there would be penalty clauses and withdrawal clauses. If the contract was cancelled properly then I would understand it.
Gérard Araud seems to think France should pull out of NATO.
The new reality of the world rivalry of great and middle powers should lead France to a 2.0 Gaullist stance. Allied but not aligned. Some confrontations are not ours.
And that for the benefit of @kinabalu is why AUKUS and not FR/GER are the "chaps we can trust."
French anger is directed at the US and Oz and the reason for this is we have little to do with what’s happening, which is all about the submarine deal. Australia was offered the nuclear option by America, said yes to that, therefore cancelled their order of lower tech ones from France. That's the essence of it.
According to The Times (posted up thread) Australia approached the UK first over submarines because the French contract was well over budget and very late - it was the UK that suggested expanding it into a broader scope project and not just “a submarine deal”. The UK and Australia then worked through the US system to get it agreed.
The funny thing is that while Macron was strutting his stuff at the G7 in Cornwall with stories of “isolated Britain” the biggest strategic alliance in decades was being cooked up behind his back.
France doesn’t want any narrative to get out about post-Brexit Britain being other than isolated which is why they are pretending it had little to do with us.
That sounds unlikely to me, that we were the driver. But I get the Times today so I'll check out the story.
Hmm. This kind of has Boris written all over it - indulging in his usual fantasy by trying to be Churchill to Biden's FDR. Biden's going senile and is advised by idiots, so it's easy to see how they'd be persuaded. Quite why the Fella Down Under thought it would be a good approach remains mysterious.
The whole Aukus thing, you mean, or the nuclear subs?
The sub thing would have gone ahead anyway, though I suspect more would have been done to soothe French indignation. The AUUKUS branding element however is pure Boris: heavy on slogans and wishful thinking but poorly conceived and riddled with hidden dangers.
The French are indignant because they've lost billions of Aussie dollars.
Its pure mercantile greed that is the only reason they're upset. There's no way to soothe that over. That's their problem.
Didn't the French and Aussies have some kind of contract between them?
A contract the Aussies were capable of cancelling it seems.
so much for honour.
Why should the Aussies honour a contract with the French that is over budget, years late and doesn't meet their needs?
Maybe if they'd been on time and on budget the contract would have been honoured. Just a thought.
In that case there would be penalty clauses and withdrawal clauses. If the contract was cancelled properly then I would understand it.
One assumes the Aussies are indeed invoking a withdrawal clause.
AUKUS has seen an extraordinary, though predictable, outpouring of dismay, disbelief, dismissal, anger and contempt from those who hold the EU dear and just cannot come to terms with this 'bolt out of the blue ' that has shaken their belief that the UK was marooned in international irrelevance post brexit and that the US would cleave to the EU
Overnight the narrative has changed and AUKUS will be the dominant organisation that will seek to deter Chinese aggression and will associate with most countries opposed to China but membership of AUKUS will be to the three who are sharing the nuclear sub technology but also embracing cyber warfare, space and development of AI and quantum computing for defence and security
France now finds itself outside this and will be offered the opportunity to cooperate but not be part of AUKUS
Despite the comments of remain supporters it must be remembered this has been welcomed across the HOC and throughout the countries under threat from China
This also does put UK back as part of the international community with our membership of CPTPP in due course expanding our trade worldwide
It has nothing to do with the EU which has always been completely dickless from a military POV. This would all have unfolded exactly as it did of Brexit had never happened.
No. There is no way Britain could have shafted an EU ally like this, esp France, if we were still in the EU. Unthinkable. I'm not even sure it would be legally feasible, under Lisbon and the CFSP.
Gérard Araud seems to think France should pull out of NATO.
The new reality of the world rivalry of great and middle powers should lead France to a 2.0 Gaullist stance. Allied but not aligned. Some confrontations are not ours.
And that for the benefit of @kinabalu is why AUKUS and not FR/GER are the "chaps we can trust."
French anger is directed at the US and Oz and the reason for this is we have little to do with what’s happening, which is all about the submarine deal. Australia was offered the nuclear option by America, said yes to that, therefore cancelled their order of lower tech ones from France. That's the essence of it.
According to The Times (posted up thread) Australia approached the UK first over submarines because the French contract was well over budget and very late - it was the UK that suggested expanding it into a broader scope project and not just “a submarine deal”. The UK and Australia then worked through the US system to get it agreed.
The funny thing is that while Macron was strutting his stuff at the G7 in Cornwall with stories of “isolated Britain” the biggest strategic alliance in decades was being cooked up behind his back.
France doesn’t want any narrative to get out about post-Brexit Britain being other than isolated which is why they are pretending it had little to do with us.
That sounds unlikely to me, that we were the driver. But I get the Times today so I'll check out the story.
"Britain is the driver" is something of an overstatement, here's the take of the NYT
Fact is all three countries really wanted this deal, for different but compelling reasons. So when Australia opened the talks they had a very receptive audience
The Australians, being bullied by China, were desperate to get out of a crappy French diesel sub contract, they really wanted nuke subs, and the French refused to share the tech. That really just left the US and UK as possible partners
When the Ozzies went to London, HMG realised this was a chance to build a bigger alliance - giving Britain that post-Brexit role AND pushing back against China (which is something the UKG genuinely desires)
So the two junior partners went to America, and the Americans leapt at the chance, because Biden is ruthlessly "pivoting to Asia" - (ie confronting China) what could be better than a big, strong, formal alliance spread around the world, including the entire continent of Australia, facing China across the Ocean. The Americans were happy to share precious nuke sub tech because it gives the alliance another edge over the Chinese navy. A key part of deterrence is unpredictability. China will now have to factor in a "nuclear-equipped" Australia as an adversary
Finally, this alliance was so politically and militarily beneficial to all three partners they were prepared to shaft Macron and humiliate France along the way,: it was an unavoidable and painful necessity
With one minor tweak - that the tripartite strategic alliance (Aukus) is mainly a dressing up of the bipartite submarine supply deal - that is essentially my take.
That's what you want it to be because it's less of a humiliation for the EU and France. In reality it's a technology sharing pact between three English speaking nations that will always have each other's backs. The EU was never really in the running.
No, it's my sincere take on events. And it's still humiliating for them. Very much so.
Gérard Araud seems to think France should pull out of NATO.
The new reality of the world rivalry of great and middle powers should lead France to a 2.0 Gaullist stance. Allied but not aligned. Some confrontations are not ours.
And that for the benefit of @kinabalu is why AUKUS and not FR/GER are the "chaps we can trust."
French anger is directed at the US and Oz and the reason for this is we have little to do with what’s happening, which is all about the submarine deal. Australia was offered the nuclear option by America, said yes to that, therefore cancelled their order of lower tech ones from France. That's the essence of it.
According to The Times (posted up thread) Australia approached the UK first over submarines because the French contract was well over budget and very late - it was the UK that suggested expanding it into a broader scope project and not just “a submarine deal”. The UK and Australia then worked through the US system to get it agreed.
The funny thing is that while Macron was strutting his stuff at the G7 in Cornwall with stories of “isolated Britain” the biggest strategic alliance in decades was being cooked up behind his back.
France doesn’t want any narrative to get out about post-Brexit Britain being other than isolated which is why they are pretending it had little to do with us.
That sounds unlikely to me, that we were the driver. But I get the Times today so I'll check out the story.
Hmm. This kind of has Boris written all over it - indulging in his usual fantasy by trying to be Churchill to Biden's FDR. Biden's going senile and is advised by idiots, so it's easy to see how they'd be persuaded. Quite why the Fella Down Under thought it would be a good approach remains mysterious.
The whole Aukus thing, you mean, or the nuclear subs?
The sub thing would have gone ahead anyway, though I suspect more would have been done to soothe French indignation. The AUUKUS branding element however is pure Boris: heavy on slogans and wishful thinking but poorly conceived and riddled with hidden dangers.
The French are indignant because they've lost billions of Aussie dollars.
Its pure mercantile greed that is the only reason they're upset. There's no way to soothe that over. That's their problem.
Didn't the French and Aussies have some kind of contract between them?
A contract the Aussies were capable of cancelling it seems.
so much for honour.
That's an odd way of looking at it. Don't most contracts contain provisions on how and when they can be terminated? Have the French alleged the Aussies have broken the terms by which it could be terminated, or are they just angry it has been?
I don't really see what honour has to do with a commercial matter - sure, we 'honour' agreements, but if the agreement permits its ending, there's nothing untoward about it even if the manner of termination was abrupt.
What is depressing, but not surprising, is the attitude expressed by some environmental protestors that it is racist to question whether China should be doing more to cut emissions.
It also runs the risk of being counter productive. Let’s say that protestors tell Western nations they have to be responsible for reducing all global emissions. That gives a powerful incentive to China to become more dirty, knowing that Western nations would then have to cut faster and harder to satisfy the global commitments.
You almost think that the main priority of some is not global climate change but having the opportunity to swing against western governments.
Quite right. This bit from Roger Harrabin gives the game away:
But when I initially asked the radical green group Extinction Rebellion (XR) if they had considered demonstrating against China, it triggered a furious response.
An XR member tweeted accusing me of perpetuating anti-Chinese racist stereotypes and failing to report climate change properly.
Why so vitriolic?
Well, there are two reasons. The first is practical: climate campaigning groups like Greenpeace and WWF have offices in Beijing and if they rattle China too hard, they could be swiftly closed down.
Ie the subject touches on two critical matters: their totalitarian anti liberal friends and jobs for the boys and girls in the international NGO industry.
Likewise the environmental frothers in the 1980s were always fanatically opposed to any criticism of the Soviet Union's activities such as draining the Aral Sea.
AUKUS has seen an extraordinary, though predictable, outpouring of dismay, disbelief, dismissal, anger and contempt from those who hold the EU dear and just cannot come to terms with this 'bolt out of the blue ' that has shaken their belief that the UK was marooned in international irrelevance post brexit and that the US would cleave to the EU
Overnight the narrative has changed and AUKUS will be the dominant organisation that will seek to deter Chinese aggression and will associate with most countries opposed to China but membership of AUKUS will be to the three who are sharing the nuclear sub technology but also embracing cyber warfare, space and development of AI and quantum computing for defence and security
France now finds itself outside this and will be offered the opportunity to cooperate but not be part of AUKUS
Despite the comments of remain supporters it must be remembered this has been welcomed across the HOC and throughout the countries under threat from China
This also does put UK back as part of the international community with our membership of CPTPP in due course expanding our trade worldwide
It has nothing to do with the EU which has always been completely dickless from a military POV. This would all have unfolded exactly as it did of Brexit had never happened.
No. There is no way Britain could have shafted an EU ally like this, esp France, if we were still in the EU. Unthinkable. I'm not even sure it would be legally feasible, under Lisbon and the CFSP.
Paul Keating really stressing the Cultural Cringe element of AUUKUS:
The arrangement would witness a further dramatic loss of Australian sovereignty, as materiel dependency on the United States robbed Australia of any freedom or choice in any engagement Australia may deem appropriate.
[...]
If the US military with all its might could not beat a bunch of Taliban rebels with AK-47s rifles in pick-up trucks. what chance would it have in a full-blown war with China, not only the biggest state in the world but the occupant and commander of the biggest land mass in Asia.
Keating is still highly respected by the Australian Left. Could be a opportunity for Labor if they can work out the tactics.
AUKUS has seen an extraordinary, though predictable, outpouring of dismay, disbelief, dismissal, anger and contempt from those who hold the EU dear and just cannot come to terms with this 'bolt out of the blue ' that has shaken their belief that the UK was marooned in international irrelevance post brexit and that the US would cleave to the EU
Overnight the narrative has changed and AUKUS will be the dominant organisation that will seek to deter Chinese aggression and will associate with most countries opposed to China but membership of AUKUS will be to the three who are sharing the nuclear sub technology but also embracing cyber warfare, space and development of AI and quantum computing for defence and security
France now finds itself outside this and will be offered the opportunity to cooperate but not be part of AUKUS
Despite the comments of remain supporters it must be remembered this has been welcomed across the HOC and throughout the countries under threat from China
This also does put UK back as part of the international community with our membership of CPTPP in due course expanding our trade worldwide
It has nothing to do with the EU which has always been completely dickless from a military POV. This would all have unfolded exactly as it did of Brexit had never happened.
This started in March and was conducted in strict secret at the G7 in Cornwall as the detail could not be shared with anyone not least because of worry about how the 27 EU countries would treat the top secret nuclear details
International (public) responses to Australia's nuclear submarine announcement:
France: apoplectic China: hostile Japan: happy Indonesia: very uneasy Malaysia: what Indonesia said Singapore: comfortable Philippines: at ease Germany: indifferent New Zealand: watchful
The Indonesian position may be more nuanced - officially they are “unaligned” - but their Foreign Minister just had the Chinese Ambassador in to complain about Chinese vessels in Indonesia’s EEZ…
AUKUS has seen an extraordinary, though predictable, outpouring of dismay, disbelief, dismissal, anger and contempt from those who hold the EU dear and just cannot come to terms with this 'bolt out of the blue ' that has shaken their belief that the UK was marooned in international irrelevance post brexit and that the US would cleave to the EU
Overnight the narrative has changed and AUKUS will be the dominant organisation that will seek to deter Chinese aggression and will associate with most countries opposed to China but membership of AUKUS will be to the three who are sharing the nuclear sub technology but also embracing cyber warfare, space and development of AI and quantum computing for defence and security
France now finds itself outside this and will be offered the opportunity to cooperate but not be part of AUKUS
Despite the comments of remain supporters it must be remembered this has been welcomed across the HOC and throughout the countries under threat from China
This also does put UK back as part of the international community with our membership of CPTPP in due course expanding our trade worldwide
Dr. Foxy, New Zealand is isolated and has been far chummier with the Communists than they might wish to be.
As for Australia, the rising threat of China is something that must be accounted for. Sure, you can feed a crocodile, but appeasement does not work. Australia must be able to defend itself.
New Zealand is and has been a non-nuclear state for three decades - that's why ANZUS was suspended as NZ didn't want American nuclear submarines in its waters which is, I think, the main reason Auckland has been excluded from the AUKUS discussions.
NZ, like Australia, has significant trading links with China worth a lot to the NZ economy. Tourism from the mainland was growing strongly pre-pandemic as well.
In any case, are we seriously arguing China is a significant military threat to Australia and New Zealand? It may be more significant if, for instance, China did a deal with Fiji and established a military base at Suva or Nadi or some other island.
China shares a border with many other countries - Russia, India, Afghanistan and Vietnam to name but four. Are we offering them any kind of guarantee or support against Chinese military expansionism? I doubt it but again that's missing the point - China is achieving economically what the PLA couldn't do militarily. It effectively controls parts of Africa - Chinese funded infrastructure may be about getting access to resources but the local Governments aren't going to say no to improved road and rail links and the economic benefits they bring.
How has the West responded to China's economic imperialism (that's what it is)? Answer it hasn't. The thinking and the rhetoric remains trapped in the Cold War - a couple of nuclear submarines versus providing jobs and a better standard of living for thousands of impoverished people. I think we know what works.
My understanding is that it doesn’t really provide jobs for the locals - they fly in Chinese workers who live in a separate compound and build. (Based on an article I read about Tuvalu).
The “gift” is also structured as a loan - it’s all about intergovernmental power and influence
Sure. China learned a lot from the "unequal treaties" of the 19th century, foreign concessions and extraterritorality. They are holding the whip now.
That's their propaganda nonsense, I don't know why we spout it. China never knew anything about unequal treatment before us? I'm sure you don't believe it would be an excuse even if it was, so I don't know why we should pretend their actions now are actually related to them, except for their bullcrap justifications.
I think the experience of the unequal treaties, with privileged trade concessions and self governing foreign enclaves is part of how China is operating now. I didn't express an opinion about whether this is good or bad, or justified or not.
Indeed, considering how it impacted on China, it is clearly not a good long term option, it only breeds resentment and ultimately rejection in the country imposed upon.
I did say you won't have thought it was an excuse for their actions, but peddling it so simply does have the effect of advancing their own justifications as if they have validity.
I don't believe for one second that the cold, rational minds of the CCP see the experience of that time as genuinely impacting how China is operating now, only how they justify what they are doing now. What they are doing now is just about how they currently perceive it best to advance their interests, and it makes sense in that regar. That past experience is useful as justification, but nothing whatsoever to do with why they are doing it in my opinion, and thus other than general historical context doesn't bear mentioning, given how they seek to use that context as pretext.
It's simple enough to see that - if we tried the same arguments they use using historical incidents negatively impacting us, or others mentioned it so prominently as context, our opponents would call bullcrap on it, rightly so. We should do the same with China, and accordingly there's no benefit to dwelling on it dispassionately either because it is pretty much irrelevant except for historians.
France has suggested that Australia's perfidy on submarines might threaten Australia-EU free trade negotiations. But the EU doesn't sound like it wants a bar of it. Here's the EU's top diplomat Josep Borrell- "we are not taking ad hoc action motivated by individual events"
Gérard Araud seems to think France should pull out of NATO.
The new reality of the world rivalry of great and middle powers should lead France to a 2.0 Gaullist stance. Allied but not aligned. Some confrontations are not ours.
And that for the benefit of @kinabalu is why AUKUS and not FR/GER are the "chaps we can trust."
French anger is directed at the US and Oz and the reason for this is we have little to do with what’s happening, which is all about the submarine deal. Australia was offered the nuclear option by America, said yes to that, therefore cancelled their order of lower tech ones from France. That's the essence of it.
According to The Times (posted up thread) Australia approached the UK first over submarines because the French contract was well over budget and very late - it was the UK that suggested expanding it into a broader scope project and not just “a submarine deal”. The UK and Australia then worked through the US system to get it agreed.
The funny thing is that while Macron was strutting his stuff at the G7 in Cornwall with stories of “isolated Britain” the biggest strategic alliance in decades was being cooked up behind his back.
France doesn’t want any narrative to get out about post-Brexit Britain being other than isolated which is why they are pretending it had little to do with us.
That sounds unlikely to me, that we were the driver. But I get the Times today so I'll check out the story.
Hmm. This kind of has Boris written all over it - indulging in his usual fantasy by trying to be Churchill to Biden's FDR. Biden's going senile and is advised by idiots, so it's easy to see how they'd be persuaded. Quite why the Fella Down Under thought it would be a good approach remains mysterious.
The whole Aukus thing, you mean, or the nuclear subs?
The sub thing would have gone ahead anyway, though I suspect more would have been done to soothe French indignation. The AUUKUS branding element however is pure Boris: heavy on slogans and wishful thinking but poorly conceived and riddled with hidden dangers.
The French are indignant because they've lost billions of Aussie dollars.
Its pure mercantile greed that is the only reason they're upset. There's no way to soothe that over. That's their problem.
Didn't the French and Aussies have some kind of contract between them?
A contract the Aussies were capable of cancelling it seems.
so much for honour.
That's an odd way of looking at it. Don't most contracts contain provisions on how and when they can be terminated? Have the French alleged the Aussies have broken the terms by which it could be terminated, or are they just angry it has been?
I don't really see what honour has to do with a commercial matter - sure, we 'honour' agreements, but if the agreement permits its ending, there's nothing untoward about it even if the manner of termination was abrupt.
That's what I said. If the contract was cancelled due to poor service then I would expect it to be cancelled. Honouring the contract is important surely?
What is depressing, but not surprising, is the attitude expressed by some environmental protestors that it is racist to question whether China should be doing more to cut emissions.
It also runs the risk of being counter productive. Let’s say that protestors tell Western nations they have to be responsible for reducing all global emissions. That gives a powerful incentive to China to become more dirty, knowing that Western nations would then have to cut faster and harder to satisfy the global commitments.
You almost think that the main priority of some is not global climate change but having the opportunity to swing against western governments.
Quite right. This bit from Roger Harrabin gives the game away:
But when I initially asked the radical green group Extinction Rebellion (XR) if they had considered demonstrating against China, it triggered a furious response.
An XR member tweeted accusing me of perpetuating anti-Chinese racist stereotypes and failing to report climate change properly.
Why so vitriolic?
Well, there are two reasons. The first is practical: climate campaigning groups like Greenpeace and WWF have offices in Beijing and if they rattle China too hard, they could be swiftly closed down.
Ie the subject touches on two critical matters: their totalitarian anti liberal friends and jobs for the boys and girls in the international NGO industry.
Likewise the environmental frothers in the 1980s were always fanatically opposed to any criticism of the Soviet Union's activities such as draining the Aral Sea.
No, for "environmental frothers in the 1980s were always fanatically opposed to any criticism of the Soviet Union's activities such as draining the Aral Sea"
The evidence is that they didn't criticise the Soviet Union.
Just as the XR types don't protest at Chinese embassies.
AUKUS has seen an extraordinary, though predictable, outpouring of dismay, disbelief, dismissal, anger and contempt from those who hold the EU dear and just cannot come to terms with this 'bolt out of the blue ' that has shaken their belief that the UK was marooned in international irrelevance post brexit and that the US would cleave to the EU
Overnight the narrative has changed and AUKUS will be the dominant organisation that will seek to deter Chinese aggression and will associate with most countries opposed to China but membership of AUKUS will be to the three who are sharing the nuclear sub technology but also embracing cyber warfare, space and development of AI and quantum computing for defence and security
France now finds itself outside this and will be offered the opportunity to cooperate but not be part of AUKUS
Despite the comments of remain supporters it must be remembered this has been welcomed across the HOC and throughout the countries under threat from China
This also does put UK back as part of the international community with our membership of CPTPP in due course expanding our trade worldwide
You voted remain
How many times do I have to say I respect the referendum and now I am firmly in favour of leaving and our new course internationally
What is depressing, but not surprising, is the attitude expressed by some environmental protestors that it is racist to question whether China should be doing more to cut emissions.
It also runs the risk of being counter productive. Let’s say that protestors tell Western nations they have to be responsible for reducing all global emissions. That gives a powerful incentive to China to become more dirty, knowing that Western nations would then have to cut faster and harder to satisfy the global commitments.
You almost think that the main priority of some is not global climate change but having the opportunity to swing against western governments.
Quite right. This bit from Roger Harrabin gives the game away:
But when I initially asked the radical green group Extinction Rebellion (XR) if they had considered demonstrating against China, it triggered a furious response.
An XR member tweeted accusing me of perpetuating anti-Chinese racist stereotypes and failing to report climate change properly.
Why so vitriolic?
Well, there are two reasons. The first is practical: climate campaigning groups like Greenpeace and WWF have offices in Beijing and if they rattle China too hard, they could be swiftly closed down.
Ie the subject touches on two critical matters: their totalitarian anti liberal friends and jobs for the boys and girls in the international NGO industry.
Likewise the environmental frothers in the 1980s were always fanatically opposed to any criticism of the Soviet Union's activities such as draining the Aral Sea.
No, for "environmental frothers in the 1980s were always fanatically opposed to any criticism of the Soviet Union's activities such as draining the Aral Sea"
The evidence is that they didn't criticise the Soviet Union.
Just as the XR types don't protest at Chinese embassies.
Why would they piss off their most reliable donors?
Gérard Araud seems to think France should pull out of NATO.
The new reality of the world rivalry of great and middle powers should lead France to a 2.0 Gaullist stance. Allied but not aligned. Some confrontations are not ours.
And that for the benefit of @kinabalu is why AUKUS and not FR/GER are the "chaps we can trust."
French anger is directed at the US and Oz and the reason for this is we have little to do with what’s happening, which is all about the submarine deal. Australia was offered the nuclear option by America, said yes to that, therefore cancelled their order of lower tech ones from France. That's the essence of it.
According to The Times (posted up thread) Australia approached the UK first over submarines because the French contract was well over budget and very late - it was the UK that suggested expanding it into a broader scope project and not just “a submarine deal”. The UK and Australia then worked through the US system to get it agreed.
The funny thing is that while Macron was strutting his stuff at the G7 in Cornwall with stories of “isolated Britain” the biggest strategic alliance in decades was being cooked up behind his back.
France doesn’t want any narrative to get out about post-Brexit Britain being other than isolated which is why they are pretending it had little to do with us.
That sounds unlikely to me, that we were the driver. But I get the Times today so I'll check out the story.
Hmm. This kind of has Boris written all over it - indulging in his usual fantasy by trying to be Churchill to Biden's FDR. Biden's going senile and is advised by idiots, so it's easy to see how they'd be persuaded. Quite why the Fella Down Under thought it would be a good approach remains mysterious.
The whole Aukus thing, you mean, or the nuclear subs?
The sub thing would have gone ahead anyway, though I suspect more would have been done to soothe French indignation. The AUUKUS branding element however is pure Boris: heavy on slogans and wishful thinking but poorly conceived and riddled with hidden dangers.
The French are indignant because they've lost billions of Aussie dollars.
Its pure mercantile greed that is the only reason they're upset. There's no way to soothe that over. That's their problem.
Didn't the French and Aussies have some kind of contract between them?
A contract the Aussies were capable of cancelling it seems.
so much for honour.
Why should the Aussies honour a contract with the French that is over budget, years late and doesn't meet their needs?
Maybe if they'd been on time and on budget the contract would have been honoured. Just a thought.
In that case there would be penalty clauses and withdrawal clauses. If the contract was cancelled properly then I would understand it.
One assumes the Aussies are indeed invoking a withdrawal clause.
It would help us all in this room if the French/Aussies actually published why the contract was cancelled, rather than speculation.
Australia & the EU share a commitment to strengthening the Indo-Pacific. Australia strongly supports the European Union’s new Joint Communication & looks forward to building on our shared regional priorities including COVID recovery, economic & security cooperation.
Paul Keating really stressing the Cultural Cringe element of AUUKUS:
The arrangement would witness a further dramatic loss of Australian sovereignty, as materiel dependency on the United States robbed Australia of any freedom or choice in any engagement Australia may deem appropriate.
[...]
If the US military with all its might could not beat a bunch of Taliban rebels with AK-47s rifles in pick-up trucks. what chance would it have in a full-blown war with China, not only the biggest state in the world but the occupant and commander of the biggest land mass in Asia.
Keating is still highly respected by the Australian Left. Could be a opportunity for Labor if they can work out the tactics.
If you bothered to read the thread, you'd see that the Australian Opposition has fully endorsed Aukus and the sub-deal, even if they snipe at the mishandling of diplomacy and finances
They were briefed from the start, this is bipartisan (as it has to be, as it is so momentous for Oz)
Keating is taking an extreme position, within Australian politics. He's a kind of Aussie nationalist-isolationist-republican
Paul Keating really stressing the Cultural Cringe element of AUUKUS:
The arrangement would witness a further dramatic loss of Australian sovereignty, as materiel dependency on the United States robbed Australia of any freedom or choice in any engagement Australia may deem appropriate.
[...]
If the US military with all its might could not beat a bunch of Taliban rebels with AK-47s rifles in pick-up trucks. what chance would it have in a full-blown war with China, not only the biggest state in the world but the occupant and commander of the biggest land mass in Asia.
Keating is still highly respected by the Australian Left. Could be a opportunity for Labor if they can work out the tactics.
I'm not a military expert by any means, but I'd have thought in some ways a full blown war against a state opponent might be simpler than a native low level insurgency, the same way conquering a highly centralised state was often easier than a decentralised one.
Gérard Araud seems to think France should pull out of NATO.
The new reality of the world rivalry of great and middle powers should lead France to a 2.0 Gaullist stance. Allied but not aligned. Some confrontations are not ours.
And that for the benefit of @kinabalu is why AUKUS and not FR/GER are the "chaps we can trust."
French anger is directed at the US and Oz and the reason for this is we have little to do with what’s happening, which is all about the submarine deal. Australia was offered the nuclear option by America, said yes to that, therefore cancelled their order of lower tech ones from France. That's the essence of it.
According to The Times (posted up thread) Australia approached the UK first over submarines because the French contract was well over budget and very late - it was the UK that suggested expanding it into a broader scope project and not just “a submarine deal”. The UK and Australia then worked through the US system to get it agreed.
The funny thing is that while Macron was strutting his stuff at the G7 in Cornwall with stories of “isolated Britain” the biggest strategic alliance in decades was being cooked up behind his back.
France doesn’t want any narrative to get out about post-Brexit Britain being other than isolated which is why they are pretending it had little to do with us.
That sounds unlikely to me, that we were the driver. But I get the Times today so I'll check out the story.
Hmm. This kind of has Boris written all over it - indulging in his usual fantasy by trying to be Churchill to Biden's FDR. Biden's going senile and is advised by idiots, so it's easy to see how they'd be persuaded. Quite why the Fella Down Under thought it would be a good approach remains mysterious.
The whole Aukus thing, you mean, or the nuclear subs?
The sub thing would have gone ahead anyway, though I suspect more would have been done to soothe French indignation. The AUUKUS branding element however is pure Boris: heavy on slogans and wishful thinking but poorly conceived and riddled with hidden dangers.
The French are indignant because they've lost billions of Aussie dollars.
Its pure mercantile greed that is the only reason they're upset. There's no way to soothe that over. That's their problem.
Didn't the French and Aussies have some kind of contract between them?
Yes which was late, over budget and had had the Australian build dropped from 90% to 60% maybe.
Gérard Araud seems to think France should pull out of NATO.
The new reality of the world rivalry of great and middle powers should lead France to a 2.0 Gaullist stance. Allied but not aligned. Some confrontations are not ours.
And that for the benefit of @kinabalu is why AUKUS and not FR/GER are the "chaps we can trust."
French anger is directed at the US and Oz and the reason for this is we have little to do with what’s happening, which is all about the submarine deal. Australia was offered the nuclear option by America, said yes to that, therefore cancelled their order of lower tech ones from France. That's the essence of it.
According to The Times (posted up thread) Australia approached the UK first over submarines because the French contract was well over budget and very late - it was the UK that suggested expanding it into a broader scope project and not just “a submarine deal”. The UK and Australia then worked through the US system to get it agreed.
The funny thing is that while Macron was strutting his stuff at the G7 in Cornwall with stories of “isolated Britain” the biggest strategic alliance in decades was being cooked up behind his back.
France doesn’t want any narrative to get out about post-Brexit Britain being other than isolated which is why they are pretending it had little to do with us.
That sounds unlikely to me, that we were the driver. But I get the Times today so I'll check out the story.
Hmm. This kind of has Boris written all over it - indulging in his usual fantasy by trying to be Churchill to Biden's FDR. Biden's going senile and is advised by idiots, so it's easy to see how they'd be persuaded. Quite why the Fella Down Under thought it would be a good approach remains mysterious.
The whole Aukus thing, you mean, or the nuclear subs?
The sub thing would have gone ahead anyway, though I suspect more would have been done to soothe French indignation. The AUUKUS branding element however is pure Boris: heavy on slogans and wishful thinking but poorly conceived and riddled with hidden dangers.
The French are indignant because they've lost billions of Aussie dollars.
Its pure mercantile greed that is the only reason they're upset. There's no way to soothe that over. That's their problem.
Didn't the French and Aussies have some kind of contract between them?
A contract the Aussies were capable of cancelling it seems.
so much for honour.
Why should the Aussies honour a contract with the French that is over budget, years late and doesn't meet their needs?
Maybe if they'd been on time and on budget the contract would have been honoured. Just a thought.
In that case there would be penalty clauses and withdrawal clauses. If the contract was cancelled properly then I would understand it.
One assumes the Aussies are indeed invoking a withdrawal clause.
It would help us all in this room if the French/Aussies actually published why the contract was cancelled, rather than speculation.
Gérard Araud seems to think France should pull out of NATO.
The new reality of the world rivalry of great and middle powers should lead France to a 2.0 Gaullist stance. Allied but not aligned. Some confrontations are not ours.
And that for the benefit of @kinabalu is why AUKUS and not FR/GER are the "chaps we can trust."
French anger is directed at the US and Oz and the reason for this is we have little to do with what’s happening, which is all about the submarine deal. Australia was offered the nuclear option by America, said yes to that, therefore cancelled their order of lower tech ones from France. That's the essence of it.
According to The Times (posted up thread) Australia approached the UK first over submarines because the French contract was well over budget and very late - it was the UK that suggested expanding it into a broader scope project and not just “a submarine deal”. The UK and Australia then worked through the US system to get it agreed.
The funny thing is that while Macron was strutting his stuff at the G7 in Cornwall with stories of “isolated Britain” the biggest strategic alliance in decades was being cooked up behind his back.
France doesn’t want any narrative to get out about post-Brexit Britain being other than isolated which is why they are pretending it had little to do with us.
That sounds unlikely to me, that we were the driver. But I get the Times today so I'll check out the story.
Hmm. This kind of has Boris written all over it - indulging in his usual fantasy by trying to be Churchill to Biden's FDR. Biden's going senile and is advised by idiots, so it's easy to see how they'd be persuaded. Quite why the Fella Down Under thought it would be a good approach remains mysterious.
The whole Aukus thing, you mean, or the nuclear subs?
The sub thing would have gone ahead anyway, though I suspect more would have been done to soothe French indignation. The AUUKUS branding element however is pure Boris: heavy on slogans and wishful thinking but poorly conceived and riddled with hidden dangers.
The French are indignant because they've lost billions of Aussie dollars.
Its pure mercantile greed that is the only reason they're upset. There's no way to soothe that over. That's their problem.
Didn't the French and Aussies have some kind of contract between them?
A contract the Aussies were capable of cancelling it seems.
so much for honour.
Why should the Aussies honour a contract with the French that is over budget, years late and doesn't meet their needs?
Maybe if they'd been on time and on budget the contract would have been honoured. Just a thought.
In that case there would be penalty clauses and withdrawal clauses. If the contract was cancelled properly then I would understand it.
One assumes the Aussies are indeed invoking a withdrawal clause.
It would help us all in this room if the French/Aussies actually published why the contract was cancelled, rather than speculation.
They've said. Morrison said it "it's not a change of wants, it's a change of needs"
Chinese has expanded its navy so quickly and upgraded its tech so effectively, a dozen new diesel subs - delivered in ten years - would be horribly outdated the first moment they went in the water. Entirely useless. A waste of £40bn
Australia realised it needed nuke subs that can act with endurance and stealth and which no Chinese naval technology, in the foreseeable future, will be able to nullify
They actually asked the French if they would share their nuclear sub tech, the French said no. Australia cancelled the contract and turned to the US/UK
Gérard Araud seems to think France should pull out of NATO.
The new reality of the world rivalry of great and middle powers should lead France to a 2.0 Gaullist stance. Allied but not aligned. Some confrontations are not ours.
And that for the benefit of @kinabalu is why AUKUS and not FR/GER are the "chaps we can trust."
French anger is directed at the US and Oz and the reason for this is we have little to do with what’s happening, which is all about the submarine deal. Australia was offered the nuclear option by America, said yes to that, therefore cancelled their order of lower tech ones from France. That's the essence of it.
According to The Times (posted up thread) Australia approached the UK first over submarines because the French contract was well over budget and very late - it was the UK that suggested expanding it into a broader scope project and not just “a submarine deal”. The UK and Australia then worked through the US system to get it agreed.
The funny thing is that while Macron was strutting his stuff at the G7 in Cornwall with stories of “isolated Britain” the biggest strategic alliance in decades was being cooked up behind his back.
France doesn’t want any narrative to get out about post-Brexit Britain being other than isolated which is why they are pretending it had little to do with us.
That sounds unlikely to me, that we were the driver. But I get the Times today so I'll check out the story.
Hmm. This kind of has Boris written all over it - indulging in his usual fantasy by trying to be Churchill to Biden's FDR. Biden's going senile and is advised by idiots, so it's easy to see how they'd be persuaded. Quite why the Fella Down Under thought it would be a good approach remains mysterious.
The whole Aukus thing, you mean, or the nuclear subs?
The sub thing would have gone ahead anyway, though I suspect more would have been done to soothe French indignation. The AUUKUS branding element however is pure Boris: heavy on slogans and wishful thinking but poorly conceived and riddled with hidden dangers.
The French are indignant because they've lost billions of Aussie dollars.
Its pure mercantile greed that is the only reason they're upset. There's no way to soothe that over. That's their problem.
Didn't the French and Aussies have some kind of contract between them?
A contract the Aussies were capable of cancelling it seems.
so much for honour.
That's an odd way of looking at it. Don't most contracts contain provisions on how and when they can be terminated? Have the French alleged the Aussies have broken the terms by which it could be terminated, or are they just angry it has been?
I don't really see what honour has to do with a commercial matter - sure, we 'honour' agreements, but if the agreement permits its ending, there's nothing untoward about it even if the manner of termination was abrupt.
That's what I said. If the contract was cancelled due to poor service then I would expect it to be cancelled. Honouring the contract is important surely?
Why? If the contract allows them to terminate, whatever the reason, then self evidently they are allowed to utilise the provisions to terminate and shouldn't be condemned for exercising that right. It'd annoy the other party if there was not much cause, and it might make others with contracts wary, but if you have a right I don't see why others should get offended when you exercise it.
France has suggested that Australia's perfidy on submarines might threaten Australia-EU free trade negotiations. But the EU doesn't sound like it wants a bar of it. Here's the EU's top diplomat Josep Borrell- "we are not taking ad hoc action motivated by individual events"
What is depressing, but not surprising, is the attitude expressed by some environmental protestors that it is racist to question whether China should be doing more to cut emissions.
It also runs the risk of being counter productive. Let’s say that protestors tell Western nations they have to be responsible for reducing all global emissions. That gives a powerful incentive to China to become more dirty, knowing that Western nations would then have to cut faster and harder to satisfy the global commitments.
You almost think that the main priority of some is not global climate change but having the opportunity to swing against western governments.
Quite right. This bit from Roger Harrabin gives the game away:
But when I initially asked the radical green group Extinction Rebellion (XR) if they had considered demonstrating against China, it triggered a furious response.
An XR member tweeted accusing me of perpetuating anti-Chinese racist stereotypes and failing to report climate change properly.
Why so vitriolic?
Well, there are two reasons. The first is practical: climate campaigning groups like Greenpeace and WWF have offices in Beijing and if they rattle China too hard, they could be swiftly closed down.
Ie the subject touches on two critical matters: their totalitarian anti liberal friends and jobs for the boys and girls in the international NGO industry.
Likewise the environmental frothers in the 1980s were always fanatically opposed to any criticism of the Soviet Union's activities such as draining the Aral Sea.
What have Greenpeace and WWF got to do with extremists in XR?
Comments
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/572798-emboldened-trump-takes-aim-at-gop-foes
Donald Trump claimed his first scalp of the campaign cycle this week, forcing Rep. Anthony Gonzalez (Ohio) — a rising GOP star and one of 10 Republicans who voted to impeach the former president — into an early retirement.
An emboldened Trump will now focus his energy and attention on purging the remaining Republicans he views as disloyal, backing primary challengers to those on his impeachment hit list such as Reps. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.), Adam Kinzinger (R-Ill.) and Jamie Herrera Beutler (R-Wash.).
“1 down, 9 to go!” Trump said in a statement Friday.
He followed up with a second statement: “RINO Congressman Anthony Gonzalez, who has poorly represented his district in the Great State of Ohio, has decided to quit after enduring a tremendous loss of popularity, of which he had little, since his ill-informed and otherwise very stupid impeachment vote against the sitting President of the United States, me.”
The stunning move by Gonzalez, a 36-year-old Cuban American former NFL player, underscores two obvious truths about today’s GOP politics: Those who want to rise in the Republican party must pledge absolute fealty to Trump, and Trump’s power and influence over the party is only growing as he and his staunch loyalists take their revenge on political enemies one by one. …
However the Chinese were openly bullying Australia, putting sanctions on Australian goods (wine, coal, etc) just because Australia demanded a global investigation into the origins of Covid (and that question is highly relevant to these new maneuvers).
If Australia had yielded to that, then that would have made Australia a vassal state of China. Unable to have an independent foreign policy. Always checking their positions with Beijing first
The Aussies are free-spirited, they told China to fuck off. Well done them
This is a strategic shift by all three countries which will be quasi-permanent, it is endorsed across the board, politically, in Washington, London, and Canberra. Because it makes total sense for all three nations
As for Britain-in-the-EU being a bridge for DC into Brussels, that was always a nice idea than doing anything significant. But it made europhiles feel better about the slow destruction of British sovereignty
https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/object/H_1862-0627-18
But quite appropriate to pay in a bar with a bar.
"The Opposition Leader did concede his team had been briefed on the deal and “fully endorsed” the new nuclear-powered submarines."
But of course they are playing party politics and saying the French contract was mishandled, money was wasted, and so on
https://www.skynews.com.au/australia-news/defence-and-foreign-affairs/admission-of-failure-albanese-criticises-morrison-government-over-submarine-deal/news-story/49db06b6bf187053fa685134c4507f39
The deal will endure for decades
Certainly no Republican will be able to stop him if chooses to do so.
There's no need to 'bridge' the US to Brussels when Brussels is pretty irrelevant and has no military or strategic depth.
The 21st century threats are in the Pacific more than the Atlantic and a reliable alliance with the UK and Aus is of more value than a 'bridge' to Brussels.
The irony is that the one EU partner America might want in the future..... is France. They are prepared to shed blood, they can project power, they have significant overseas territories (including in the Indo-Pac)
I bet the French will slowly get over their huff, realise that an EU army/navy of any real size ain't happening, and they will seek some formal semi-detached attachment to Aukus, as they eventually did with NATO
It leaves the pro-American eastern EU states in a bind, however. They REALLY want American power to protect them from Putin. This looks like the USA losing interest in them.
As for Germany, who knows. A mystery
That's at the current rate of hospitalisation per infection. Which, according to the REACT study, is actually about the same as it always has been. Because - as I understand it - the Delta variant's higher hospitalisation rate cancels out the effect of vaccines. But of course it's also possible that when the hospitalisation rate is relatively lower, people who aren't so severely ill can be hospitalised.
Whether we should "even consider" a lockdown in those circumstances is a political decision. But among the factors to be taken into account would be that the peak infection rate at the turn of the year was short and sharp, because there _was_ a lockdown then. If that rate of hospitalisation were allowed to continue steadily, obviously the consequences would be worse.
Its pure mercantile greed that is the only reason they're upset. There's no way to soothe that over. That's their problem.
JB: Thank you sir.
M: So you've been briefed? You know the mission?
JB: Yes sir.
M: What do you think?
JB: About time sir. We need to nip the Chinese in the bud. Getting uppity.
M: Good. And the team? Happy with them? Leiter from the Cousins and the Australian fellow?
JB: Dundee? Yes sir. Very happy.
M: Chaps we can trust eh?
JB: Sir.
France well understands close alliances can be variable. During Brexit talks French Govt was admirably clear to us it would make life as hard as possible for UK (as is their right/maybe in their interest) but they wanted rest of UK/France bilateral relationship to prosper 1/2
This isn't to say AUKUS decision/approach has anything to do with Brexit. But simply to highlight that allies don't always agree & don't even always treat each other well but it doesn't mean the whole relationship gets chucked. (2/2)
https://twitter.com/RaoulRuparel/status/1439225475868540942?s=20
https://twitter.com/trent_munro/status/1439115541013090305
Here's an Australian defence expert writing in The New Statesman
"What does the new AUKUS alliance mean for global relations?
"The new pact between the UK, US and Australia could lead to nothing less than a merger of military, industrial and scientific capabilities."
"AUKUS’s initial priority will be to pool US and British expertise and technology to develop a nuclear-powered submarine fleet for Australia over the decades ahead. This has cascading significance for Australia and the Indo-Pacific; for China – the power this is largely about keeping at bay; and for Britain, the United States and Europe.
"For Australia, it’s a huge deal, and in a military sense almost existential. Anxieties about Chinese power have intensified with Beijing’s totalitarian turn, aggression in the South China Sea and political interference campaigns. "
https://www.newstatesman.com/security/2021/09/what-is-the-aukus-alliance
The Aussies consider this partnership "existential", and may lead to the three nations essentially merging their militaries, industries, science
This is the new NATO, but perhaps even more integrated. It is arguably like the foundation of the EU. Aukus will become the backbone of the attempt to contain China. Others will associate with it, or not. but Aukus will be the core. As the founding Six are still the core of the EU
If I were Oz, I'd be looking at guests on both types (Astute/Virginia) over the next 18 months to help select, then to familiarise / train up staff on the chosen systems. Then perhaps to lease a boat or two whilst the chosen mods are sorted, and production/tech transfer starts over 1-2 decades (?), gradually shifting to Oz, and sorting out porting capability asap.
Not sure how needing to build another couple of hulls would impact on plans at Barrow.
IMO the logical choice would be Astute fitted with some American systems. Astute because the crew is 90ish vs 140 (ie 30% cheaper to run on personnel), and about 20% cheaper to buy, and because US building capacity is at full stretch until 2029/30.
And I think building the crew service may be the biggest challenge.
https://twitter.com/ulrichspeck/status/1439100166263480320?s=20
If our close allies did this to us we would also be bitter and angry. However they'd do better to rein in the petulant ambassador-recalling stuff, as it is always ends with sullen acceptance and the embarrassing moment when you send the ambassador back. Unless France is determined to break off all relations with Canberra and Washington forever?
Toe the Line not tow.
The origin is around lining up. I always think of the oche in darts.
Though it's also exactly the sort of thing the MOD boneheads would do.
I think it might be wise to wait and see, rather than look foolish making bold uninformed claims one way or another.
And btw this isn't a "Remoaner" anti-Brexit point. It wasn't much of a factor in my Remain vote to what extent we were a "bridge" between Brussels and Washington. I'm not too bothered about all of that stuff.
"Treason. Perfidy. Hypocrisy."
Did they put that bit in English so we'd REALLY understand what we've done?
Overnight the narrative has changed and AUKUS will be the dominant organisation that will seek to deter Chinese aggression and will associate with most countries opposed to China but membership of AUKUS will be to the three who are sharing the nuclear sub technology but also embracing cyber warfare, space and development of AI and quantum computing for defence and security
France now finds itself outside this and will be offered the opportunity to cooperate but not be part of AUKUS
Despite the comments of remain supporters it must be remembered this has been welcomed across the HOC and throughout the countries under threat from China
This also does put UK back as part of the international community with our membership of CPTPP in due course expanding our trade worldwide
https://www.politico.eu/article/why-australia-wanted-out-of-its-french-sub-deal/
There's a lot of electioneering happening.
The Oz procurement was quite badly f*cked up, though. Starting with one of their top people being hired by Naval Group to head up the French bid, then moving NG to "preferred provider" status very earlier.
Indeed, considering how it impacted on China, it is clearly not a good long term option, it only breeds resentment and ultimately rejection in the country imposed upon.
I understand this contract has been negotiated since 2016 and I read somewhere the cancellation will cost $400 million
‘China’s Lehman Brothers moment’: Evergrande crisis rattles economy
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/sep/17/chinas-lehman-brothers-moment-evergrande-crisis-rattles-economy
Maybe if they'd been on time and on budget the contract would have been honoured. Just a thought.
It's one reason this treaty it more than it looks. If America is really looking to militarise AI (and it must, because China is) then it is excellent news for the UK that we will be party to this. And of course we bring our own expertise to the game. Deepmind, and so on. This is why people who just focus on the conventional aspects of Aukus, and say "Britain is a billion miles from China, this is all gestural" really don't understand what is going down
AI is the ultimate future of war (or, more hopefully, deterrence, and the avoidance of war). Aukus will be as much about that as about weaponry
I don't really see what honour has to do with a commercial matter - sure, we 'honour' agreements, but if the agreement permits its ending, there's nothing untoward about it even if the manner of termination was abrupt.
That the Soviet Union drained the Aral Sea ?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aral_Sea#Irrigation_canals
https://www.bbc.com/news/58607498
Quite right, keep the riff-raff out.
??
The arrangement would witness a further dramatic loss of Australian sovereignty, as materiel dependency on the United States robbed Australia of any freedom or choice in any engagement Australia may deem appropriate.
[...]
If the US military with all its might could not beat a bunch of Taliban rebels with AK-47s rifles in pick-up trucks. what chance would it have in a full-blown war with China, not only the biggest state in the world but the occupant and commander of the biggest land mass in Asia.
Keating is still highly respected by the Australian Left. Could be a opportunity for Labor if they can work out the tactics.
Being outside the EU made it much easier
France: apoplectic
China: hostile
Japan: happy
Indonesia: very uneasy
Malaysia: what Indonesia said
Singapore: comfortable
Philippines: at ease
Germany: indifferent
New Zealand: watchful
https://twitter.com/stephendziedzic/status/1439167137797472260?s=20
The Indonesian position may be more nuanced - officially they are “unaligned” - but their Foreign Minister just had the Chinese Ambassador in to complain about Chinese vessels in Indonesia’s EEZ…
I don't believe for one second that the cold, rational minds of the CCP see the experience of that time as genuinely impacting how China is operating now, only how they justify what they are doing now. What they are doing now is just about how they currently perceive it best to advance their interests, and it makes sense in that regar. That past experience is useful as justification, but nothing whatsoever to do with why they are doing it in my opinion, and thus other than general historical context doesn't bear mentioning, given how they seek to use that context as pretext.
It's simple enough to see that - if we tried the same arguments they use using historical incidents negatively impacting us, or others mentioned it so prominently as context, our opponents would call bullcrap on it, rightly so. We should do the same with China, and accordingly there's no benefit to dwelling on it dispassionately either because it is pretty much irrelevant except for historians.
https://twitter.com/stephendziedzic/status/1439194757268271106?s=20
Just as the XR types don't protest at Chinese embassies.
Australia & the EU share a commitment to strengthening the Indo-Pacific. Australia strongly supports the European Union’s new Joint Communication & looks forward to building on our shared regional priorities including COVID recovery, economic & security cooperation.
@JosepBorrellF
@vonderleyen
https://twitter.com/MarisePayne/status/1439188118976880642?s=20
They were briefed from the start, this is bipartisan (as it has to be, as it is so momentous for Oz)
Keating is taking an extreme position, within Australian politics. He's a kind of Aussie nationalist-isolationist-republican
Nothing more, nothing less
Membership clubs are elitist? And why shouldn't they be if they want to be? I thought it was a general principle that businesses could refuse service.
My pov is that I can’t think of anything that would have less of an impact on my day to day life than this.
I guess my mate who works at BAE Systems might be happy
Chinese has expanded its navy so quickly and upgraded its tech so effectively, a dozen new diesel subs - delivered in ten years - would be horribly outdated the first moment they went in the water. Entirely useless. A waste of £40bn
Australia realised it needed nuke subs that can act with endurance and stealth and which no Chinese naval technology, in the foreseeable future, will be able to nullify
They actually asked the French if they would share their nuclear sub tech, the French said no. Australia cancelled the contract and turned to the US/UK