Weekend Links, 18-19 September, 2021

Awaiting for approval
 right now

Interesting, Gunnamatta just confirmed that he frequents this place.
Hi Gunnamatta,
As per popular request, here’s the reponse Bleat Van Onslaught’em or Lewdo deleted.

http://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2021/09/china-lackies-spew-over-aukus/

PeterMEMBER

Folllow the money…

I wonder what money these useful idiots are being pains to be traitors?

Australia having nuclear attack subs is a powerful defence against war with China.

And what’s the alternative they are suggesting? Raise the white flag and join the tibetans and Uyghurs as Chinese slaves and abandon everything our forebears built and did. Paul Keating can go screw himself. Arse…

ram

Absolutely spot on. And as the article says this is beyond just the subs themselves.

Djenka

Except subs are not meant for “defence”. They never were.

LSWCHPMEMBER

Yeah, but armies are never for defence. It’s all linguistic bullsh1t.

Before 1947, the US Defence Department was known as the War Department, and it was run by the Secretary of War.

If you have guns and men to wield them, it’s not about defence. It’s about using the threat of death to make people do what you want.

How many wars has Australia been involved in, and how many have been about defending Australia?

Alex Q

The government of the day always has a monopoly on violence…

Djenka

@ LSDCHP

That strawman is dead for good… kudos

however…

As much as armies are indeed violence on display, a critical difference exists in its use as an offensive force and for defence. If someone attacked and invaded your country, then the use of the violence is defensive. If you sent your army half way across the world to fight a perceived threat on their own soil or their doorstep, that act has nothing to do with defence.

“How many wars has Australia been involved in, and how many have been about defending Australia?”

WW1, WW2… that’s about it.

The rest is about tax in blood we had to pay our overlords and resident bully

C’est de la folie

MEMBER

Hey wow, its Djenka the Russia troll. I thought you’d gone over to some other site…..

My thinking on the China response to the AUKUS announcement.

There are an awful lot of questions to ask – and I would be starting with Australia’s ability to afford and sustain the commitment it seems to be buying into – but there is a lot of complete baloney in the Chinese angle too…..

New Aukus alliance yet another threat to peace and stability

American, British and Australian security defence pact aims to counter Beijing’s growing regional influence and strength, but is more likely to trigger an arms race

https://www.scmp.com/comment/opinion/article/3149212/new-aukus-alliance-yet-another-threat-peace-and-stability

The mutual trust and cooperation essential for Australia to have good diplomatic relations with China have been all but dashed by its prime minister, Scott Morrison. There is little chance of President Xi Jinping taking up his offer of talks after his joining with American and British leaders Joe Biden and Boris Johnson to form a new security alliance aimed at countering Beijing’s growing regional influence and strength.

The deal means a sharing of technology that will enable Canberra to have its first nuclear-powered submarines and long-range Tomahawk cruise missiles and formally acknowledges a perceived Chinese military threat.

OK. I can buy much of that. Whatever trust there was is gone and there is something more formal in terms of acknowledging Chinese ‘threat’……

But lets be a touch realistic. It isn’t as though the threat didn’t exist, and it isn’t as though China doesn’t amplify that threat at whatever point of irritation comes – lets start with:-

– expressions of concern about the treatment of Uyghurs and the peoples of East Turkestan (Xinjiang)

– any form of engagement with the Dalai Llama or expression of concern about the treatment of the peoples of Tibet.

– expressions of support for democracy demonstrators in Hong Kong,

– acknowledgement that there is a very large island off the coast of China called Taiwan which has seemingly created a relatively prosperous plausibly ‘democratic’ society of the type the Americans (and us) keep banging on about which they (and we) would prefer was not subjected to a military invasion of the type China sees as a ‘right’

– questioning about China’s approach to militarising and laying claim to areas of the South China Sea which other nations have claims to, and though which large amounts of global trade flow

and of course that is prior to considering the state of human rights inside China for the Chinese people, concerns about very very obvious corruption in China which is also obviously flowing to places like Australia, the UK and the United States, and rising questions in those locations and jurisdictions about whether that type of ‘investment’ [particularly into residential real estate] is unquestionably a good thing. It is also before any look at whether Chinese security types walk the streets of other countries looking for military and technological information which they can use, often ‘policing’ and maintaining pressure on the Chinese populations in those nations, and reasonably regularly ensuring a security presence at demonstrations either by these peoples (notably students) or about issues China espouses are China’s alone to consider.

Ensuring peace, safety and stability in the Indo-Pacific were cited as the reason for the pact, although it could have the opposite effect; it is more likely to trigger an arms race and perturb some neighbouring countries.

Biden stressed the submarines would be nuclear-powered, not armed.

Note the use of the word ‘could’ rather than ‘would’ or ‘should’ or ‘will’. It could also have lots of effects ranging from providing some sort of support for nations which feel they have issues with Chinese territorial claims and military threats – that would start with Taiwan, Philippines, Vietnam, Thailand, Indonesia and Malaysia, in the Southern regions, and Korea and Japan to the North.

Presumably it will make the Chinese at least consider the implications of their regularly bellicose behaviour towards all of these. Countries believing the word ‘perturb’ could encapsulate their thoughts about the strategic environment are probably already ‘perturbed’ by quite a lot, and the discomfiture of the AUKUS announcement is going to be a reflection of acknowledgement that 30 years after we thought the last cold war was over, we fairly obviously have a new one – meaning they need to make strategic calculations they had got used to not worrying about.

The use of nuclear power actually has a logic for Australia – not the only logic, but a logic . Nuclear submarines actually remain operational longer, go deeper, and have a greater range. The importance of these attributes stems from Australia’s use of submarines – which revolves around the concept of ‘Strategic Strike’.

Once upon a time Australia’s ‘strategic strike’ capacity was carried aloft in F111’s which could fly to wherever was plausibly required, deliver a payload, and make any potential adversary think ‘we would rather they didn’t do that’. That capacity disappeared as the nations of SE Asia became technologically advanced and developed capacity to blow F111s out of the sky. The Hawke government, recognising this, opted for future strategic strike capability to come from Australia’s submarines, which were converted from the Otway Class – essentially subs designed and built to go and shoot at other subs or ships – to the Collins class – which were more designed to remain at sea for long periods and have scope to launch something unpleasant at places a long way away. The Collins class are now old, and the new replacement will presumably mean Australia goes longer the subs are the strategic strike weapon of choice – anyone noting the difficulties in locating the wreckage of MH 370 and the interest of a whole load of countries in sending search capacity to the waters off West Australia would not be an idiot if they concluded ‘you could park a lot of things out there and nobody would find it’ They would also be on solid conceptual ground if they thought there was a lot of interest in seeing what other countries capacity to find things in deep water was.

The partnership is momentous for Australia, amounting to the country’s most significant shift in defence and strategic direction for decades. Known as “Aukus”, the grouping seeks to strengthen the military capabilities of the three nations in the Indian and Pacific oceans region in the face of growing rivalry with Beijing.

The deal comes ahead of the first in-person White House meeting of the leaders of the Quad countries, an informal alliance that on Friday will bring the United States, Australia, India and Japan together for what they contend are common regional challenges – again, with Beijing at the centre.

Nothing much to disagree with there. It is a momentous decision for Australia and one which overturns a generations worth of ‘engagement’ with China which was the basis for much of Australia’s economic policy over the period from mid 1990s to now.

Not surprisingly, Beijing’s response to the announcement was harsh. As with the Quad, it accused the three nations of having a cold war mentality and ideological prejudice.

There is good reason for such a reaction; military alliances throughout history have caused more instability than safety. That will be especially so should Australia acquire nuclear-powered submarines, which are stealthier and faster than conventional ones and will boost the strength of its security alliance with the US.

In turn, China and Russia could perceive a greater threat and boost their military capabilities and perhaps even form their own bloc.

Of course the Chinese response is entirely predictable, and for good reason. Its views and actions in the world – which it tends to see as its ‘right’ and which it tends to see as entirely reasonable from a Chinese perspective, and in which it reaches ‘agreements’ with other nations with these factoring in Chinese military power – are now likely to be, at least at the margins, more questionable or more contestable. And those nations who have questions about Chinese actions or propositions, or would like to somehow contest them, are likely to have a more supportive reception, and may change their behaviours simply because of this. That doesn’t necessarily mean the other nations are right or the Chinese always wrong, but simply that there is an avenue for questioning and contesting what the Chinese do or say – and in this it may offer more support for those nations and their views than the processes China has engaged them with.

China and Russia have been boosting their militaries for a generation now – often with good reason – and have already formed what the rest of the world sees as a bloc. Would the writers of this editorial suggest that if AUKUS didn’t go ahead then Russia and China would cease their militarisations? Part of the US reengagement with the UK and Australia surely rests on the idea that the US (having had its Trump moment) doesn’t think going it alone is a viable strategy, and that if it is to rejuvenate its alliances then nations with whom it shares a common language and broadly similar cultural and legislative approaches is as good a place as any to start. The real, and mounting risk for China is that other nations – notably Japan and the EU, but also likely Mexico, Canada, and India – will come to some form of agreement with AUKUS on strategic matters. And it is this ‘threat’ China is most concerned about

The US and its allies claim China is being more aggressive and assertive. Chinese are increasingly nationalistic, but their military is modernising to protect sovereignty and interests.

Beijing prefers to use diplomacy to resolve problems with other countries. State Councillor and Foreign Minister Wang Yi made that clear during his latest trip to the region, saying during his stop in Singapore that the US needed to view China’s development “in an objective and rational way”.

Countries need to cooperate with China, not see it as a danger. Aukus, the Quad and similar alliances pose a threat to stability.

I read this paragraph as acknowledgement of China being more nationalistic and assertive, which does often come across as aggression. How do they expect the rest of the world to respond? Simply roll over and buckle? Would they respect those nations that did roll over and buckle? And what forms would that respect take?

Of course Beijing prefers diplomacy – all nations prefer diplomacy until the point where they don’t, and it is generally their capacity at that point which determines their positioning and cut out points within the diplomacy. While Wang Yi is no doubt right that the Americans should view the Chinese development – much of which they have openly facilitated and which they have, like the UK and Australia, subordinated domestic interests and capacity (notably in manufacturing) to facilitate – “in an objective and rational way” would it also be true to say the Chinese should view the rest of the world in the same manner? And at that point would global dispute settling and consultative fora, of the type China disparages when these come to conclusions China disagrees with, where everyone can set out what their objective and rational interests are and how they can come to agreement with them?

The answer to this ultimately comes in the last sentence, AUKUS and the Quad may well pose a threat to stability, but they pose no threat to stability that the Chinese haven’t been posing for a long time. And while countries may we need to cooperate with China, it is no less true that China could bring itself to cooperate with them as well.

……and presumably now that everyone around those strategic tables is unwrapping their rejuvenated hardware, the first thing they will all be able to agree upon is ‘we would all rather not use any of this’…..

Djenka

Oh noes!

Gunnamatta Ritualised Forms C’est de la folie

Resident TLDR is here!

I’ll respond in drsmity’s PMS dissection form, but measured.

I thought you’d gone over to some other site…..

You mean Eazy-FKA?

True, I went to Ee-Zed-Ef-Kay-Aye but I never left this pond. The lure of un-redacted comments over there is mesmerising. it actually balances itself nicely without a DEL button. OTOH, the nourished echo chamber here is quite appealing and a nice test sample for cognitive dissonance injections, the very thing you call the trolling

Hey, but it is good that you yourself frequent there incognito, as obvious from your observation.

TL;DR

TL;DR

TL;DR

TL;DR

The answer to this ultimately comes in the last sentence, AUKUS and the Quad may well pose a threat to stability, but they pose no threat to stability that the Chinese haven’t been posing for a long time. And while countries may we need to cooperate with China, it is no less true that China could bring itself to cooperate with them as well.

See this is a nice observation and it is quit indicative of double standards and a confirmation bias.

For it to be accurate, to bear some resemblance to facts, it requires presence of non-US ships just off the coast of US, say in Gulf of Mexico, coercion of Central American states into submission to cooperate, constant threat of (nuke) arming of Cuba and msm push into syndicated narrative.

You’re right, none of that has happened, neither any power intents to do such silly escalation of hostilities, (apart from one).

So to sum it up, yes China is a threat, every rising power is, it allays will be. We just have to assess that threat and measure it.

1. If we measure it by the US(SR)’s response, it is an existential threat. But that is the tail wagging the dog (for those of you with cheaper seats this is equivalent to to the proverbial ‘cart before the horses’).

2. If we measure it by the exerted threat, this has to be divided in 2 ways: a) soft power and b) military

2a. Soft power exerted by all non-US powers combined and summed up is trivial in comparison to the US soft power exertion (see the fine print of the AUKUS for the most recent). If more than this is needed for evidence, well, use DuckDuckGo to research further, there is an ocean of info there hidden behind goggle algorithms.

2b. LOL, just a mention that China is exerting its military power half way across the globe to “protect” its way of life and that it is a military threat outside its immediate neighbourhood is silly and ridiculous.

I can go on, but then i’d risk being one more TL;DR

If one cannot concise thoughts in several sentences to format them for the blog or forum size that can be comprehensible even by reading on a small screen smartphone, then one may not actually have any ideas and needs 1000 words to fluff it up.

Scoot on champ, I cherish your work. I also like Mike Em-Bee’s articles in the identical fashion.

If you see my comment disappearing here, sometimes you may find it on “that other side”

And now this comment will self destruct in 3, 2, 1…

A bit of fear porn:
Image below shows the numbers of plebs in ICU and it is meant to invoke fear (it was used as such, the title of the blog entry is such).
If we focus on numbers, the obvious is that ICU’d patients are plateauing and are quite high. Now if we focus on trends, the picture is grim, for those that are waxed because waxed participation is rising extremely (1.67x) whilst unwaxed are reducing.
Neither metric is a full picture, however, when one quite valid metric (trending) is suppressed one has to start digging and questioning.
My view is that we may be very well be quite deep into trouble because when waxed falsely believe they are sterile and immune to infections and turn into super-mega-spreaders, a new form of virus will emerge that survives the existing semi-wax and it may go the way of HIV…