Friday, September 24, 2021

The Australia-US-UK AUKUS – It’s All About Arms Sales, And China Will Spend Even More On Military To Target Aussie

The Australia-US-UK AUKUS – It’s All About Arms Sales, And China Will Spend Even More On Military To Target Aussie

Unless you really wanted to start the world’s first nuclear war, it does not make sense to splash billions of dollars in the WMD (weapon of mass destruction). Let’s forget China for a moment. Does the U.S., the world’s military superpower, even dare to attack North Korea with conventional, let alone nuclear weapons? Kim Jong-Un has only 30-40 nuclear weapons, mind you.

Despite Donald Trump’s erratic behaviour, which saw the U.S. president threatened to rain “fire and fury like the world has never seen” on North Korea, while Mr Kim threatened to turn the U.S. mainland into a “theatre of nuclear war”, both mad men eventually knew when to stop their rhetoric. And China has conservatively an arsenal of between 250 to 350 nukes.

So, what are the chances that President Joe Biden (or even a joint force of all the Western countries) would attack China in a hypothetical event the Chinese invade Taiwan? Do you really think China is still the “Sick Man of Asia” during the weak and corrupted Qing Dynasty, or the possibility of a repeat of the Eight-Nation Alliance multinational military coalition invasion of China in 1900?

Even then, the Eight-Nation allied forces, consisted of Russia, Germany, Japan, Britain, France, Italy, Austria-Hungary and the U.S. had failed to completely conquer China at a time when the invaders possessed superior weapons. Assuming everyone agrees not to use nuclear weapons this round, do you think the modern day allied forces – Group of Seven (G7) – could win a war against China?

The fact that General Mark A. Milley, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, had called – twice – his Chinese counterpart, General Li Zuocheng, assuring Beijing that the U.S. would not launch a military strike suggests that America was absolutely terrified that China could misread the situations not only in the South China Sea, but also domestically in the U.S., leading to military conflicts.

But if even the U.S. top general would second-guess their own Commander-in-Chief in an eventuality of nuclear missile strikes against China, what’s the purpose of AUKUS, the latest trilateral military alliance between Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States? It’s all about warmongering to increase the lucrative and mouth-watering sales of arms exports.

Sales of U.S. military equipment to foreign governments rose 2.8% to US$175 billion in the fiscal year 2020. Russia ranks second in the world’s arms export, follows by France, Spain and Germany. Now do you understand why France was so angry over the loss of the deal worth US$66 billion signed in 2016 with Australia to build 12 conventional diesel-electric submarines?

As the world’s third biggest arms exporter, France market share was about 8.2%, behind Russia’s 20%. Naturally, the Aussie submarine contract was a big deal, so much so that when the French won the deal in 2016, the government celebrated it as a strategic partnership – the “contract of the century” – between the two nations that will be working for the “next 50 years”.

Of course, it was not only about losing the deal, but the way it lost the deal. It was already bad that France was humiliated when its friend, Australia, was said to have had engaged in “lies and treason” for 18 months, negotiating with the U.S. and the U.K. behind its back. It becomes worse as humiliated President Emmanuel Macron is expected to seek a second term in an election due next year.

But do you think Biden cares about how Macron feel in the first place, despite the fact that France was one of the founding members of NATO and the oldest ally of the U.S.? Heck, France was not only one of the UN’s founding members in 1945, it is also one of five permanent members of the Security Council, along with the United States, United Kingdom, China and Russia.

France is also one of three NATO members who are nuclear weapon states, the other two being the U.S. and the U.K. If Australia had indeed made a mistake in procuring diesel-electric submarines in 2016, why didn’t Canberra ask Paris to change it to nuclear-powered subs? It’s much easier to convert diesel-electric subs into nuclear-powered subs than the other way round.

Actually, when the French won the project to replace the Aussie’s six Collins-class diesel subs with 12 Baraccuda-class diesel subs, it was because of the ability to switch the Baraccuda subs from diesel to nuclear power. Therefore, it’s not hard to understand why the French felt being betrayed and backstabbed by the English-speaking supposedly allies Australia-US-UK.

It was also part of Biden’s childish retaliation. On Dec 30, 2020, just weeks before his inauguration, Joe Biden asked Europe to wait for him before signing the Comprehensive Agreement on Investment (CAI) between the European Union and China. But Angela Merkel and Emmanuel Macron joined EU leaders Ursula von der Leyen and Charles Michel in a video conference with Chinese President Xi Jinping to conclude the investment deal.

Besides France, China has condemned the agreement as “extremely irresponsible”. Australia will become only the second country – after Britain in 1958 – to be given access to the American submarine technology. The fleet of subs, which will be built in Adelaide, will make Australia the seventh nation in the world to have submarines powered by nuclear reactors.

However, many analysts say it was because of the Chinese trade war with the Aussie that had forced Canberra to go nuclear. Seriously? So, Australia wanted to teach China a lesson with intimidating nuclear-powered subs just because its lobster, barley, sugar, red wine, timber, coal, copper ore have been barred, essentially burning the bridge with its major trade partner?

Still, will Australia dare to fire a single Tomahawk cruise missile, let alone nuclear missile, into mainland China? The hilarious part was that none of the AUKUS leaders – US President Joe Biden, UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson and Australia Prime Minister Scott Morrison – dare to even mention China as the justification in forming the new partnership and submarine deal.

Mr Morrison even took the trouble to clarify that the nuclear-powered submarine would not armed with nuclear weapons. Interestingly, New Zealand, one of five members of Five Eyes and a nation that has prohibited nuclear-powered vessels from its sovereign waters for more than three decades, has confirmed that Australian nuclear-powered subs would be banned from entry.

If the objective was to warn and brag – even threaten – the so-called “bully China” with at least eight American-made nuclear-powered subs, why is AUKUS so afraid of making clear its intention? Do you think China is dumb enough to believe the Australian will not be equipped with nuclear weapons and submarine-launched ballistic missiles when they have the subs?

It’s not rocket science Beijing will use AUKUS to increase the military budget to include Australia as one of its “target of interest”. Australia’s new fleet of nuclear-powered submarines will probably only be delivered during the 2030s. Between now and then, you can bet China will build more hardware, especially nuclear-powered subs with nuclear weapons, to be sent to Australia.

Already, China has the “largest navy in the world” – a battle force of approximately 360 ships, dwarfing the U.S. fleet of 297 ships. Four years from now (2025), the Chinese will have 400 battle force ships. The Pentagon plans to build a 500-ship navy by 2045. But the Chinese built more ships in one year of peace time (2019) than the US did in four of war (1941-1945).

The Chinese fleet includes two aircraft carriers, one cruiser, 32 destroyers, 49 frigates, 37 corvettes, and 86 missile-armed coastal patrol ships. In addition, its submarine fleet consists of 66 subs, including 46 diesel-powered attack subs, seven nuclear-powered attack subs, and four ballistic missile subs. By 2030, it could expand to 60 diesel-electric and at least 16 nuclear attack submarines.

In comparison, the United States boasts a fleet of 11 aircraft carriers, 92 cruisers and destroyers, and 59 small surface combatants and combat logistics ships. Its submarine fleet of 68 subs comprised 50 attack submarines, 14 ballistic missile submarines, and four cruise missile submarines. The American subs are all nuclear-powered though.

Sure, China’s huge number of ships cannot be compared to the U.S.’ experience. However, despite America’s navy power and experience, China could devote far more resources to a fight in the Pacific. Worse, only slightly more than half of American subs belong to the Pacific Fleet. Strategically, China has massive stockpiles of ballistic missiles, including hypersonic anti-ship missiles.

In truth, America’s Navy strength is stretched thin around the world. The United States Navy also serves as a stabilizing presence in shipping lanes globally, ensuring the free trade of goods over heavily trafficked waterways. Hence, it can’t actually focus the entirety of its sea-power in any one region without jeopardizing security and stability operations elsewhere in the world.

That explains why Washington has roped in Canberra, the United States’ “deputy sheriff” in the Asia-Pacific region, to join the U.S.’ “Cold War” with China. You can’t say you want to set up a McDonald’s restaurant, but insisted it won’t sell hamburgers. Beijing, and Moscow for that matter, will not treat Canberra as an innocent non-nuclear power because the subs can be armed with nuclear weapons anytime.

If the Afghanistan War is any indicator, of which the U.S. finally had withdrawn after 20 years of a losing battle, America is not a very reliable partner in its warmongering business in the Asia-Pacific and South China Sea region. Obviously, it’s Australia that would suffer casualties in an unfortunate war with China due to misreading, miscalculation or human errors.

Washington realizes that a continuous competition with China is an extremely expensive affair. The only way to do it is to spread the risk and share the cost. And the only desperate fool willing to step forward was Australia. With the “forever partnership”, the Americans and British will forever benefit financially from the cost of maintenance and other indirect military cost.

Australia cannot expect China to wait and do nothing, knowing very well that Aussie nuclear subs will be sent to South China Sea to create troubles. The People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) will definitely enhance its military capabilities to rebalance the power, building and deploying more nuclear-powered attack submarines to not only South China Sea, but also the coast of Australia.

Former Australia Prime Minister Paul Keating has condemned Morrison’s move, saying it tied Australia to any U.S. engagement against China. He said – “This arrangement would witness a further dramatic loss of Australian sovereignty, as material dependency on the US would rob Australia of any freedom or choice in any engagement it may deem appropriate.”


  1. Nor to forget that France was a lukewarm to cold member of NATO from 1966 to 2009, more than 40 years, withdrawing from NATO's military command structure.

    Mainly because of refusal to commit their military to an organisational structure under American command.

    It also ensured that if NATO ever got forced to fight a Hot war, French forces would not be under NATO HQ command. They would fight as allies but separately, bloody useless.

    Akin to "being part of NATO but not in it".

    All because they hate the Yanks guts.

    The Yanks have never really trusted the Frogs since then.

    1. Yr kind of NATO his-story!

      In 1966 due to souring relations between Washington and Paris because of the refusal to integrate France's nuclear deterrent with other North Atlantic powers, or accept any collective form of control over its armed forces, the French president Charles de Gaulle DOWNGRADED France's membership in NATO and withdrew France from the US-led military command to pursue an independent defense system.

      However, the twenty-year rule prevented France from completely leaving NATO altogether. The rule states that

      The process to WITHDRAWAL from the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) is stated in article XIII of the Treaty which states that only after the Treaty has been in force for twenty years, any Party may cease to be a Party one year after its notice of denunciation has been given to the Government of the United States of America, which will inform the Governments of the other Parties of the deposit of each notice of denunciation.

      Charles de Gaulle couldn't do it bcoz France was an initiator of NATO in 1949 & any member withdrawal could only be possible in 1969!

      One consequence of this downgrade was the movement of NATO's Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe from Rocquencourt (in France) to the city of Mons in Belgium.

      In 2009 president Nicolas Sarkozy changed course and returned France to full NATO participation, and the French Parliament backed this decision with a vote of confidence.

      cf: "NATO - Declassified: France and NATO"

  2. So Malay-sia believes the 12 diesel Frenchie subs were "peaceful subs" but Anglo-subs are not? All because the Anglo subs have a different engine? Did we protes when Oz signed contrak with Frenchie company years ago? Why are we protesting now when they switch to Anglo subs? Is it any of our business?

    Weren't Jibby's Scorpenes, purchased from the same Frenchie company DCN/Naval Group for "defence" purposes? Did Oz raise an issue when Jibby bought those tin-cans?

    If we can buy Scorpenes for defence purposes why can't Oz buy Anglo subs for "defence" purposes oso?

    Why did Malay-sia keep quiet when 5,000 yo Bullyland built 12 nuclear powered (and weaponed) submarines (so far) and based them in Southern Hainan, right on our doorstep. But we kick up a fuss when Oz decides to build conventional subs on their territory 12,000 km away?

    Oh I forgot, because they are our DaGe?

    Do we not have a Five Power Defence Arrangements (FPDA), a series of bilateral defence relationships and mutual cooperation established by a series of multi-lateral agreements between Australia, Malaysia, New Zealand, Singapore, and the United Kingdom signed in 1971, whereby the five powers are to consult each other "immediately" in the event or threat of an armed attack on any of these five countries for the purpose of deciding what measures should be taken jointly or separately in response.

    What Defence Agreement do we have with DaGe?

    Oz needs nuklear power subs because they have an entire continent to defend. Just to circumnavigate their country involves 26,000 km of coastline. Diesel subs have to keep coming up for air. Nuklear subs no need, one gulp can go round many times.

    By comparison 5,000 yo Bullyland coastline is only 14,500 km long, yet they need 12 nuklear subs (and counting). Why is that so? To sail to Hambantota or Djibouti undetected?

    And so what if foreign vessels sail between 5,000 yo Bullyland and Taiwan, as long as they stay in international waters they don't need permission from anyone.

    Does 5,000 yo Bullyland ask for Malay-sian permission (especially from Wee KHAT Siong, since he refuse cabotage exemption ha ha ha) every time their ships sail between East and West Malay-sia? No, as long as they stay in international waters no need our permission, Freedom of Navigation. So the same applies for Taiwan Straits.

    5,000 yo Bullyland keep Lecturing and Pontificating not to interfere in other country's internal affairs, eg let Telly-ban do as they please in Afghanistan, yet they poke their noses into Oz affairs on AUKUS. Nothing to do with Bullyland. They should just STFU.

    1. ...Southern Hainan, right on our doorstep ...


    2. There is so much hypocrisy in this whole affair.

      Why in the whole Eastern Pasific only 5,000 yo Bully can have nuklear powered subs armed with nuklear missiles, including SLBMs which mean Ballistic Nuklear Missiles that can hit targets 10,000 km away.

      So what gives them the right to say Oz cannot have conventional gunpowder missiles on their subs?

      And what is all this nonsense about Oz BECOMING a target because of AUKUS. 10,000 km range means they already ARE a target. All that is needed is a change in coordinates.

      5,000 yo Bully should just STFU.

      China’s new nuclear submarine missiles expand range in US: analysts

      JL-3 ballistic missile can deliver multiple warheads – including nuclear – 10,000km, navy source says

      Naval engineer Ma Weiming charged with improving the propulsion of Chinese submarines

      Minnie Chan
      2 May, 2021

      China’s newly commissioned nuclear-powered submarine is armed with the country’s most powerful submarine-launched ballistic missile (SLBM) capable of hitting the US mainland, according to a military source and analysts.

      The Type 094A, or Jin-class nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarine (SSBN), was presented last Friday as part of the celebration to mark the 72nd anniversary of the PLA Navy. It was capable of firing the JL-3, or Julang (Big Wave) SLBM with a range over 10,000km (6,200 miles), a source close to the navy said.

    3. ASEAN should declare Southern Seas as Nuclear Free Zone.

      Because everyone knows the only way 5,000 yo Bully can sail to Djibouti or Hambantota is via Southern Seas, crossing Indonesian and Malay-sian waters. Their super-quiet nuklear subs can sail undetected under our very noses, no need to come up for air, even Wee KHAT Siong cannot smell them and shout "No Cabotage Exemption" ha ha ha...

      Hambantota Port, smack in the centre of the Yindian Ocean, is on a 99-year lease, can be extended to 198 years. That is twice as long as the Yuan Dynasty or almost as long as the Tang Dynasty. Today it is the Modern Mao Dynasty ha ha ha.

      But thank goodness 500 yo Bully has Diego Garcia leased from Britannia still running, but it runs out in 2036. Need to extend otherwise 5,000 Modern Mao Dynasty will Rule the Yindian Ocean from Hambantota and Djibouti for 198 years.

      AUKUS Needs Fremantle or somewhere up the WA coast, facing Yindian Ocean, as Base...Indo Pasific ma...ha ha ha...

      China can extend Hambantota port lease to 198 years, Sri Lankan minister says

      Beijing denies the deal is being renegotiated after reports that Colombo is revisiting the agreement

      Foreign Minister Dinesh Gunawardena said the previous government had agreed to a 99-year lease with the option of another 99 years
      Catherine Wong
      25 Feb, 2021

      Sri Lanka’s foreign minister said the 99-year lease of the Hambantota port to China could be extended to 198 years, calling it a “mistake” made by the previous government, after reports that Colombo was revisiting the agreement.

      The port deal – signed in 2017 by the previous Sri Lankan government to cover its debts to China – has been the subject of intense international scrutiny amid accusations Beijing is using “debt trap diplomacy” for geopolitical clout.

      Hambantota’s location at the southern tip of Sri Lanka, overlooking South Asia’s vital sea lanes, makes it a potential key maritime hub in the Indian Ocean.

    4. Another truly f*cked know-nothingness!

      Blurred mfer, "Anglo subs with different engine"!

      An engine akind to a moving nuclear Chernobyl on a waring sub!

      What value has the Oz put pay to

      1) The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons

      2) The Treaty of Rarotonga or the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty

      3) Did Oz formally informed the signed of the Five Power Defence Arrangements (FPDA) about aukus pact?

      Ain't it's not only membership courtesy but also membership requirement (strategic armaments consultation)

      Typically Anglo behaviour of signing treaties to use as toilet papers!

      Oz needs nuclear subs to defend its long coastline!


      What happened on that defense before the proposed nuclear subs come along?

      what use for a noisy sub even it doesn't need to resurface constantly for air changes?

      China built her own. So what r u complaining about?

      If Oz built its own, nobody would fart with a sound! Instead it buys while providing fleeting facilities to other nuclear subs of the aukus members!

      Blurred mfer, Taiwan Strait falls under the internal maritime passage of China just in case u have forgotten! What Freedom of Navigation within Taiwan strait?

      Ooop… u do allow strangers to shit in yr backyard, right?

      AGAIN, lies after lies!

      Blurred mfer, any signee who breaks the NPT CAN be criticized by any other signers of NPT! It's not longer an issue of interfering of other country's internal affairs!

      Thus, truly blurred mfer, who should stfu?

      How about u, for a start!

    5. QUOTE
      The NPT is a landmark international treaty whose objective is to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons and weapons technology...

      The Treaty of Rarotonga is the common name for the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty, which formalises a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the South Pacific. The treaty bans the use, testing, and possession of nuclear weapons within the borders of the zone

      Therefore Oz complies, no nuklear weapons.

    6. QUOTE
      FPDA members reaffirm commitment to pact, its principles
      Thursday, 24 Jun 2021

      KUALA LUMPUR: The military chiefs of the Five Power Defence Arrangements (FPDA) member-nations reaffirmed their commitment to the FDPA and its founding principles.

      The member nations also emphasised the importance of the FPDA as a constructive, transparent and peaceful arrangement which is an integral part of the regional security architecture during the 20th FPDA Defence Chiefs’ Conference (FDCC) held via video conference on Wednesday (June 23).

      "The FDCC, which is hosted alternately by Malaysia and Singapore, is the highest military professional forum of the FPDA and serves as the key platform for dialogue and exchange of views among the defence chiefs.

      "The 20th FDCC, which was chaired by Malaysia's Armed Forces Chief General Tan Sri Affendi Buang was attended virtually by Australia’s Chief of Defence Force (CDF) General Angus J. Campbell; New Zealand’s CDF, Air Marshal Kevin Short; Singapore’s CDF, Lieutenant-General Melvyn Ong Su Kiat; and the United Kingdom’s Vice Chief of Defence Staff, Admiral Sir Tim Fraser," the Armed Forces said in a statement on Thursday (June 24).

      As the FPDA continues to enhance the operational value of the exercise programme in conventional areas, it will also build capacity in areas including counter-terrorism, humanitarian assistance and disaster relief and maritime security to keep pace with the evolving security challenges, it added.

      "The defence chiefs welcomed that the FPDA will continue to boost its transparency through the formalisation of its observer programme, which provides the opportunity for regional countries to understand and observe major exercises.

      "These efforts will ensure the FPDA maintains its relevance and effectiveness in supporting peace and security in this region.

      "The defence chiefs also acknowledged the need for flexibility and resilience in response to the ever-changing nature of the Covid-19 pandemic and exchanged views on how exercises could still proceed safely," it said.

      The defence chiefs also commended the successful virtual conduct of "Exercise Bersama Shield 2021".

      "This commitment to working together in the face of adversity represents the true strength of the FPDA.

      "The conference started with a briefing by the Malaysian Defence Intelligence Staff Division on the regional security environment. They were also briefed on the FPDA activities and exercises that had taken place since 2019," it added.

      During the conference, the defence chiefs issued the FPDA Exercise Concept Directive 2021 and discussed a ten-year roadmap for the FPDA’s development.

      "As this year marks the 50th Anniversary of the FPDA, the directive and roadmap will guide the development of FPDA exercises and activities, with the aim of further enhancing the FPDA’s capacity in conducting conventional and non-conventional operations and to further strengthen interoperability and interactions among the armed forces of the five-member nations of the FPDA...

    7. Apart from Aus, NZ and the Pacific Island States, France, UK and China signed and ratified the Treaty, BUT the USA won't ratify it

    8. Wakakakakaka…

      Nuclear subs ain't nuclear weapons/devices IS yr blurred understanding to imply Oz complies with the NPT & the treaty of Rarotonga!


      What would u called a hijacked moving Chernobyl hitting a strategic naval base or port?

      Chicken little-ised 911?

  3. A far more level headed analysis from an an expert at ASPI on the submarine decision.

    "Absolutely the right decision"


    1. Wakakakakaka…


      A supposedly independent Oz NGO funded by US The National Endowment for Democracy (NED)!

      BTW, care to spell how level headed is that analysis with yr old moneyed lens of biasness?