Hey Indians, want some no questions asked yellowcake?

[Cedz]

I think this thread and the other that Parihaka referenced are serving for some very interesting discussion that hasn't come up very often before on this board. These defense treaties and close alliances play a pretty significant part in some of our countries future national security and are largely based on mutual trust and loyalty that if one or the other was in a time of need that aid would be available in one form or another. It seems to me that there is a new attitude upon which these historic bonds forged in wars such as WW 1 & 2, Korean War, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq 1 & 2 etc no longer hold as much weight as they used to. For a country that relies on the US for defense against nuclear attack a lack of confidence in our ally's willingness to do so is cause for concern.

Payeng just because we don't have a serious threat from China in the near future does not mean we should ignore possible warning signs that our main major ally for defense may not be entirely willing to step in for us if something does happen in the future and thus factor that into our defense strategy for future generations who may be facing a communist China with the capacity to reach out and strike Australia in a significant way.

[Doktor]

I think this thread and the other that Parihaka referenced are serving for some very interesting discussion that hasn't come up very often before on this board. These defense treaties and close alliances play a pretty significant part in some of our countries future national security and are largely based on mutual trust and loyalty that if one or the other was in a time of need that aid would be available in one form or another. It seems to me that there is a new attitude upon which these historic bonds forged in wars such as WW 1 & 2, Korean War, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq 1 & 2 etc no longer hold as much weight as they used to. For a country that relies on the US for defense against nuclear attack a lack of confidence in our ally's willingness to do so is cause for concern.

Payeng just because we don't have a serious threat from China in the near future does not mean we should ignore possible warning signs that our main major ally for defense may not be entirely willing to step in for us if something does happen in the future and thus factor that into our defense strategy for future generations who may be facing a communist China with the capacity to reach out and strike Australia in a significant way.

From your own media:

PRESIDENT Barack Obama says America's future lies in the Asia-Pacific and the US will play a lead role in shaping the region through an intensified security and economic commitment.

America's future lies with Asia-Pacific region, Obama says

[Cedz]

From your own media:

PRESIDENT Barack Obama says America's future lies in the Asia-Pacific and the US will play a lead role in shaping the region through an intensified security and economic commitment.

If Obama doesn't have it in him to back British claims to their own sovereign territory against Argentina then what makes you think this is anything more than empty words? All I can do is look at what the US Government does, not what they say, as a basis for how they may act in the future. Its easy to annouce right now that America's future lies in the Asia-Pacific and that they will be in close partnership with allies when things are easy and relatively risk free at the moment. Of course Obama is going to annouce that he is maintain ties to the Asia-Pacific area when it costs him nothing to do so and the chance of actually having to follow through with his promises are very low. In my opinion its not in the easy times that you should gauge the willingness of an ally to step up and provide aid when it is needed and asked for.

[Doktor]

If Obama doesn't have it in him to back British claims to their own sovereign territory against Argentina then what makes you think this is anything more than empty words? All I can do is look at what the US Government does, not what they say, as a basis for how they may act in the future. Its easy to annouce right now that America's future lies in the Asia-Pacific and that they will be in close partnership with allies when things are easy and relatively risk free at the moment. Of course Obama is going to annouce that he is maintain ties to the Asia-Pacific area when it costs him nothing to do so and the chance of actually having to follow through with his promises are very low. In my opinion its not in the easy times that you should gauge the willingness of an ally to step up and provide aid when it is needed and asked for.

Let me remind you that USA backed UK in both big wars, with delay, tho.

As per your concerns, looking at the map, Darwin base is as close to China as it can get. It is modest, but it's time of crisis.

[Cedz]

Let me remind you that USA backed UK in both big wars, with delay, tho.

As per your concerns, looking at the map, Darwin base is as close to China as it can get. It is modest, but it's time of crisis.

The US definitely backed us all in both big wars (I assume you are refering to WW1&2?) for which we are extremely grateful for. Britain has in turn supported the US throughout the past 60 years in what has been an alliance based on proven acts of support when it has been needed by either nation. That's never been in doubt until recently when there has been talk that maybe that is no longer the case considering whats been going on lately.

As per your second sentence I'm not sure if you are saying that there is a time of crisis now or not? I don't think there is much chance of any serious threat from China in the next 25 years considering the rate of expansion of their Naval forces and what kind of sea lift they could bring to bear to reach Darwin. Obviously they could hit us with subs or other kinds of long range attacks but they wouldn't constitute a threat to our survival unless they went nuclear.

Not being a military professional however I could be off base on the level of the threat so maybe someone with experience can comment?

[JAD_333]

If Obama doesn't have it in him to back British claims to their own sovereign territory against Argentina then what makes you think this is anything more than empty words? All I can do is look at what the US Government does, not what they say, as a basis for how they may act in the future.

You may be missing the nuances here. The US has always been neutral toward both UK and Argentinian claims to the Falklands. What Obama has done differently is take Argentina's side in the dispute. Is this a serious blunder, as some believe? And if so, will he try to rectify it or will that be left up to future administrations?

Some believe his position is counter to US national security interests. If leading members of his own party agree, they are not saying so yet. The GOP is rumbling about it. The far right is being blunt. The following is from a website allied with several far right organizations, so take the bulk of the article with a grain of salt. I quote it here because, aside from not being, strident, key parts of it are accurate.

...

Before the British took military action in 1982, the Reagan administration was, to the consternation of the British foreign office, very much on the fence and, initially, wedded to the neutrality position. Reagan's Ambassador to the United Nations, Jeane Kirkpatrick, lobbied for the Argentinean cause, fearful of the power vacuum that could appear in the event of a British victory. In a letter to Thatcher, Reagan said that his government would take a neutral position on the matter — again, causing great anger — but would come out in favor of its ally if the Argentineans decided to start shooting. It is important to remember that even after hostilities commenced, Reagan was pressing the Thatcher government for a ceasefire, a decision which profoundly irritated her. While British troops advanced on Port Stanley, the two leaders spoke on the telephone, with Reagan suggesting an immediate cessation of fighting. As the Times noted in 1992, Thatcher, "with barely concealed impatience, scotched the plan with a verbal explosion."

In his memoirs, George Shultz remembers another Falklands-related fissure in the "special relationship” between the United States and the U.K. Incidentally, Thatcher also opposed America’s invasion of Grenada in 1983:

I had persuaded President Reagan that we should vote in favor of a balanced UN resolution on the Falklands. Although our consultations had let her know what was coming and our negotiations produced a resolution she could live with, Margaret Thatcher was furious. We voted with Argentina and the rest of the Western Hemisphere for a resolution that she opposed. Her ambassador, on instructions, read me off like a sergeant would a recruit in a Marine Corps boot camp. I felt Mrs. Thatcher was wrong to oppose us for taking a reasonable position on a critical issue in our neighborhood. (George Pratt Shultz, Turmoil and Triumph: My Years As Secretary of State, New York: Charles Scribner and Sons.)

Obama's Falklands Policy: a Break from the Founders

[Cedz]

JAD_333

You may be missing the nuances here. The US has always been neutral toward both UK and Argentinian claims to the Falklands. What Obama has done differently is take Argentina's side in the dispute. Is this a serious blunder, as some believe? And if so, will he try to rectify it or will that be left up to future administrations?

Some believe his position is counter to US national security interests. If leading members of his own party agree, they are not saying so yet. The GOP is rumbling about it. The far right is being blunt. The following is from a website allied with several far right organizations, so take the bulk of the article with a grain of salt. I quote it here because, aside from not being, strident, key parts of it are accurate.

I am aware that the US stance on the previous Falklands war was one of neutrality, however I'm unsure whether Reagan pushed for negotiations on Argentina's claims to the Falklands or not as Obama has done. I think the issue on these boards that has been raised recently isn't really so much about the Falklands itself so much as the reactions and opinions of various members to whether it is the right thing for the US to do by supporting Britain in some form or another with this type of situation. It's not that we think that Britain even needs aid in this particular situation but that it has been brought into question whether it should be given for various reasons by quite a few posters on this board.

However you look at it Obama's decision to back Argentina with a push for negotiations on the Falklands amounts to that of a slap in the face to a long standing ally after they have loyally provided aid for the past 10 years in US initiated wars. If the US was so worried about alienating relations with Argentina then they should have made no statement either way but provided assurances that they would back Britain if Argentina started a shooting war as they did when Reagan was in office. Instead Britain was undermined on the world stage and the chances of Argentina invading have increased by however much because of this. Thats no way to treat an ally of Britain's caliber.

[JAD_333]

JAD_333
I am aware that the US stance on the previous Falklands war was one of neutrality,

Pardon me for missing that.

....however I'm unsure whether Reagan pushed for negotiations on Argentina's claims to the Falklands or not as Obama has done. I think the issue on these boards that has been raised recently isn't really so much about the Falklands itself so much as the reactions and opinions of various members to whether it is the right thing for the US to do by supporting Britain in some form or another with this type of situation. It's not that we think that Britain even needs aid in this particular situation but that it has been brought into question whether it should be given for various reasons by quite a few posters on this board.

I have no reason to doubt that Reagan urged negotiations in 1982, but as you and I agree, he was prepared to back Britain if Argentina invaded.

However you look at it Obama's decision to back Argentina with a push for negotiations on the Falklands amounts to that of a slap in the face to a long standing ally after they have loyally provided aid for the past 10 years in US initiated wars. If the US was so worried about alienating relations with Argentina then they should have made no statement either way but provided assurances that they would back Britain if Argentina started a shooting war as they did when Reagan was in office. Instead they were undermined on the world stage and the chances of Argentina invading have increased by however much because of this. Thats no way to treat an ally of Britain's caliber.

I completely agree with you. For what it's worth, Britain can count on considerable public support here.

[Aussiegunner]

General Response

Thanks for the replies everybody, I'll make a general response.

Firstly I should clarify that I do not consider that what I am suggesting is likely to happen in the short term. Our strategic circumstances do not currently justify us getting nuclear weapons as we have no immediate threat to Australian sovereignty beyond illegal immigrantion. Moreover our current Government is quite active in promoting nuclear disarmament and the NPT. Our Foreign Minister Kevin Rudd loves prancing around the World feeling important telling others what to do and this is another of his causes, which I suspect Julia Gillard lets him pursue to keep him out of her hair at home. I'm not convinced that anybody listens to him, but he does generally reflect the Government's position on nuclear weapons.

The type of scenario that I am thinking about is in 40 or 50 years time if China's rise has continued and the US has become more isolationist and insular. China may have made some gains in Taiwan and the South China sea but may be short of the basing and naval capacity to dominate all claims against the military capacities of the ASEAN nations. The logical step would be to ally itself to others in the region who don't have claims but who can provide those bases. The big nation that qualifies in that regard is Indonesia.

I don't want to be seen to be picking on our Indonesian friends because they are doing a great job promoting peace and democracy in their country and have good relations with Australia and others in the region at present. However, even they would have to admit that it hasn't always been the case. I don't see it as beyond the realms of possibility that under pressure to access sufficient energy resources to drive economic development in such a vast country, that they might want to "aggressively renegotiate" some of the sea bed treaties agreed with Australia in the 1970s. Or perhaps they might want to bring East Timor back into their area of influence, or perhaps Papua New Guinea. This might especially be the case if the need for energy resources was combined with domestic political trouble, with Australia making an obvious scapegoat.

So for Australia we might face an resurgently aggressive Indonesia backed by nuclear China (or even Russia for that matter, it has happened before), with the America being disinterested in foreign entanglements. Without nuclear weapons under that circumstance I would delicately describe our prospects of protecting our sovereignty as .... fucked.

So what if we decide to acquire nuclear weapons. We have 23% of the Worlds known uranium reserves but very little nuclear expertise as we only have one reactor for scientific and medical research. Being a light water reactor we can't even produce plutonium with it. Whats more the prospect of a nuclear power industry in Australia is remote, even though it was seriously considered a few years ago, is remote and even more so after Fukushima.

Whats more we are subject to NPT inspections and with such a small cadre of nuclear qualified personal, I'm pretty sure they would be missed if more than a couple were whisked off to develop nuclear weaponry.

So, that leaves us with two options. One is to thumb our noses at the NPT while we are developing the capacity to produce nuclear weapons and delivery systems, making us a rogue state with all the associated sanctions for a very long time. The second is to acquire expertise from elsewhere in secret and then present our weaponary to the World as a foregone conclusion like India did. Or indeed just don't officially announce it like Israel has. Nuclear weapons have been traded in the past, China to Pakistan springs to mind, and Israel, South Africa and Taiwan allegedly used to cooperate on their development, so I don't find the prospect far fetched. The reason that I suggest trading uranium rather than money is that we have heaps of it and it wouldn't show up as easily on an auditors review of the Government books, happy to consider other options though.

Also, the partner nation doesn't need to be India, I just put that as a conversation starter. I don't see why Israel or Pakistan wouldn't do equally as well. Or perhaps we could do a deal with Japan, as they have enrichment facilities and rocket technology and under these circumstances they would probably want nukes as well.

[Cedz]

Thanks for the replies everybody, I'll make a general response.

Firstly I should clarify that I do not consider that what I am suggesting is likely to happen in the short term. Our strategic circumstances do not currently justify us getting nuclear weapons as we have no immediate threat to Australian sovereignty beyond illegal immigrantion. Moreover our current Government is quite active in promoting nuclear disarmament and the NPT. Our Foreign Minister Kevin Rudd loves prancing around the World feeling important telling others what to do and this is another of his causes, which I suspect Julia Gillard lets him pursue to keep him out of her hair at home. I'm not convinced that anybody listens to him, but he does generally reflect the Government's position on nuclear weapons.

The type of scenario that I am thinking about is in 40 or 50 years time if China's rise has continued and the US has become more isolationist and insular. China may have made some gains in Taiwan and the South China sea but may be short of the basing and naval capacity to dominate all claims against the military capacities of the ASEAN nations. The logical step would be to ally itself to others in the region who don't have claims but who can provide those bases. The big nation that qualifies in that regard is Indonesia.

I don't want to be seen to be picking on our Indonesian friends because they are doing a great job promoting peace and democracy in their country and have good relations with Australia and others in the region at present. However, even they would have to admit that it hasn't always been the case. I don't see it as beyond the realms of possibility that under pressure to access sufficient energy resources to drive economic development in such a vast country, that they might want to "aggressively renegotiate" some of the sea bed treaties agreed with Australia in the 1970s. Or perhaps they might want to bring East Timor back into their area of influence, or perhaps Papua New Guinea. This might especially be the case if the need for energy resources was combined with domestic political trouble, with Australia making an obvious scapegoat.

So for Australia we might face an resurgently aggressive Indonesia backed by nuclear China (or even Russia for that matter, it has happened before), with the America being disinterested in foreign entanglements. Without nuclear weapons under that circumstance I would delicately describe our prospects of protecting our sovereignty as .... fucked.

So what if we decide to acquire nuclear weapons. We have 23% of the Worlds known uranium reserves but tvery little nuclear expertise as we only have one reactor for scientific and medical research. Being a light water reactor we can't even produce plutonium with it. Whats more the prospect of a nuclear power industry in Australia is remote, even though it was seriously considered a few years ago, is remote and even more so after Fukushima.

Whats more we are subject to NPT inspections and with such a small cadre of nuclear qualified personal, I'm pretty sure they would be missed if more than a couple were whisked off to develop nuclear weaponry.

So, that leaves us with two options. One is to thumb our noses at the NPT while we are developing the capacity to produce nuclear weapons and delivery systems, making us a rogue state with all the associated sanctions for a very long time. The second is to acquire expertise from elsewhere in secret and then present our weaponary to the World as a foregone conclusion like India did. Or indeed just don't officially announce it like Israel has. Nuclear weapons have been traded in the past, China to Pakistan springs to mind, and Israel, South Africa and Taiwan allegedly used to cooperate on their development, so I don't find the prospect far fetched. The reason that I suggest trading uranium rather than money is that we have heaps of it and it wouldn't show up as easily on an auditors review of the Government books, happy to consider other options though.

Also, the partner nation doesn't need to be India, I just put that as a conversation starter. I don't see why Israel or Pakistan wouldn't do equally as well. Or perhaps we could do a deal with Japan, as they have enrichment facilities and rocket technology and under these circumstances they would probably want nukes as well.

Nice post Aussie! That's basically the general strategic concern I have for Australia going into the future as well so its nice to have someone put it into words. I agree that Indonesia by themselves will probably never be a serious threat to Australian survival, but backed by a emergent super power (or just a nation with strong enough power projection) they could definitely become a significant threat.

A deal with Japan is an interesting idea as well considering that a globally powerful China is probably not going to be too friendly with them at all.

[Cedz]

JAD_333

I completely agree with you. For what it's worth, Britain can count on considerable public support here.

It is definitely worth quite a lot to those of us that are concerned about this issue that there is public support for Britain in the US. I was beginning to wonder if my idea of what the American public view on something like this would be was just completely wrong.

[lemontree]

@Pari

So why didn't Britain and the US assist India in the Sino-Indian War?

They did send immediate aid in the form of weapons.

[lemontree]

That is a good read. Thanks for posting it.

[Aussiegunner]

A deal with Japan is an interesting idea as well considering that a globally powerful China is probably not going to be too friendly with them at all.

Yeah, on reflection the Japan option is probably a more realistic than the Indian one, as we share more mutual interests and have a closer and less complicated relationship.

[Deltacamelately]

Yeah, on reflection the Japan option is probably a more realistic than the Indian one, as we share more mutual interests and have a closer and less complicated relationship.

As far as mutual interest is concerned and if I am rightly reading it in context to PRC, then I think the same applies to Indo-Oz relations as well. The second part about your relationship with Japan being less complicated is interesting. Can you please elaborate a little bit more on how you perceive the Indo-Oz relationship to be more complicated vis-a-vis Japan-Oz relationship?