Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Hey Indians, want some no questions asked yellowcake?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    I guess it has to do with the NPT sham and the different positions held by both of us historically, and actions taken thereof notwithstanding, the final turnaround and rapprochement that is largely seen through different lenses by both sides.

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by Cedz View Post
      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.
      He's already announced that whatever defence cuts are made those cuts will exclude the Pacific region. Money talks.
      In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility.

      Leibniz

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by Cedz View Post
        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.
        Suez, Grenada. But you've already had those pointed out to you. You seem to believe repeating the same incorrect statements somehow validates them?
        In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility.

        Leibniz

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by vsdoc View Post
          Doktor, no one here doubts the US's technological capability to protect an ally should they want to.

          I think the Australians are now worried about what happens if the next US President finds China to be a close friend and an important non-NATO ally.

          And should the Australians not want to negotiate with the Chinese at that point in time.

          If the enemy of an enemy is a friend, what does that make the friend of an enemy?
          I think you don't have a clue what you are talking about. What do we have to 'negotiate' with China about & what could it possibly matter if the US decides they are an important non-NATO ally? (which seems wildly unlikely anyway). The only important things we have to talk about are minerals prices, and having the US as an ally is not & should not be of the slightest relevance to us in that instance.

          China is really quite a long way from Australia. We don't have territorial disputes. The only instance in which we might find ourselves in a military conflict in the forseeable future is if Australia (once again) sent military forces a long way from home to fight somebodly else's war. Given that the most likely current scenario involving China would be us backing up the US over Taiwan (something about which we are ambivalent), your scenario would seem to end that prospect.

          If the next US President decides that China is America's new best friend that probably sucks for a bunch of countries on China's immediate perihpery. As we have good relations wiht both the US and China it is perfectly fine for us.

          Just as I don't necessarily take the opinions of certain Indian posters as a representitive sample of sane/informed opinion on any given subject, you would do well to take care how you assess the character of Australian opinion based on WAB.
          sigpic

          Win nervously lose tragically - Reds C C

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by Cedz View Post
            Have to agree with this. My opinion is that sometimes as a nation you have to get involved in things you may not otherwise because it means backing up an ally in their time of need. It might not align with your present day foreign interests but in terms of future national security it sure as hell is more important.
            Originally posted by Cedz View Post
            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.

            Originally posted by Cedz View Post
            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.
            Seriously man, where do you get this stuff? Do you have the slightest idea of the impact on Britain's intended role in the world that the Suez Crisis had? That little bitchslap from Eisenhower - a man who had served in war alongside the British - pretty much doomed any pretensions that Britain would remain a global power. Additionally, having just fought one war alongside France, bankrolled the French in Indochina, sent US advisors in & seriously contemplated going to war alongside them again the US bitchslapped France too. Both of them key NATO allies into the bargain. Personally I think the British & French got what they deserved, but it was hardly history as you appear to percieve it.

            Oh, and if you want to see what our WW2 alliance & 300 dead Australians in Korea got us, do a bit of digging into what the Americans told Menzies when he sounded them out on US support for an Australo-Dutch bid to keep West New Guinea out of Sukarno's hands. Not quite Suez, but evidence that banked favours aren't worth the paper they are printed on. Sadly it appears that Menzies takeaway from that was that we needed to get even more Australians killed to prove just what a valuable ally we were. Then came the Nixon Doctrine. So much for alliances forged in blood & all that.

            If we ever call for American help it will be provided because America sees that as being in its interests. That didn't just become the case when the current incumbent took office in the White House. it has been that way for generations & under Presidents who were warriors & warmongers. Defence planners have known about it since the 70s (at least), don't know why this is even news. All this teenaged girl-like hysteria over the Falklands is so far beyond bizarre that even someone well acquainted with the flights of fancy Australians are prone to when it comes to our threat perceptions is struggling with it. Go read some history & get a grip. This too shall pass.
            Last edited by Bigfella; 16 Dec 11,, 14:07.
            sigpic

            Win nervously lose tragically - Reds C C

            Comment


            • #66
              One of the things that make me shudder about this is the notion that country A will send troops to assist country B, no matter what country B is actually doing. "Oh we've got a treaty and we've fought side by side before so we have to do it now'. Uggh....
              In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility.

              Leibniz

              Comment


              • #67
                pari,

                One of the things that make me shudder about this is the notion that country A will send troops to assist country B, no matter what country B is actually doing. "Oh we've got a treaty and we've fought side by side before so we have to do it now'. Uggh....
                frankly speaking this type of thinking has a VERY bad way of boomeranging.

                not only is this the type of support that is first to disappear when body bags start showing up back home, it also leads to heated accusations of betrayal (see above for instance) when interests inevitably diverge elsewhere.

                i fully believe the US-UK and US-AUS alliances to be more than just "transactional" alliances-- these are alliances bound by shared language, tradition, history, culture, and a broad understanding of the world. we'll assist each other when we can. but when assistance may mean fighting and dying together, i would hope that it is a clear-eyed view of national interest that drives it, not starry-eyed beliefs in loyalty at all costs.
                There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

                Comment


                • #68
                  You see, I'm hoping that one day befor it is too late that Australia will wake up to the fact that we can't rely on the US to be willing to lose a city over us by holding true on the 'nuclear umbrella', if ever we had a conflict with China. By shipping you yellowcake from say a secret source on defence land acqured for 'training', we could keep it outside the NPT inspection treaty process so you can build bombs with it. We ould even fly in vetted Indian miners (with training) to avoid the secret getting out here. It would benefit us by allowing payments to be made outside our budget approprations process, which is transparent.
                  +
                  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.
                  Crazier then the Falklands thread.

                  Australia is unlikely to have an issue serious enough to get attacked by China that doesn't involve the US.

                  Indonesia far from being a future Chinese client state has an actual island dispute (Natuna) with the Reds.

                  India is even less likely to mobilize if Australia got attacked by China then even a US run by Carter would be.

                  Australia has no planes/missiles which could carry a nuke further then Jakarta and won't even drop bombs on bridges civilians use...
                  Last edited by troung; 17 Dec 11,, 04:55.
                  To sit down with these men and deal with them as the representatives of an enlightened and civilized people is to deride ones own dignity and to invite the disaster of their treachery - General Matthew Ridgway

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    "Crazier then the Falklands thread..."

                    Too true. Should you be surprised? Personally I say we drop ten nukes off via Fed Ex at Canberra's door step tomorrow as a "gift from the American people" and leave a thank you card for Aussiegunner.

                    "You want nukes? You've GOT nukes. Good luck..."
                    "This aggression will not stand, man!" Jeff Lebowski
                    "The only true currency in this bankrupt world is what you share with someone else when you're uncool." Lester Bangs

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by troung View Post
                      +

                      Crazier then the Falklands thread.

                      Australia is unlikely to have an issue serious enough to get attacked by China that doesn't involve the US.

                      Indonesia far from being a future Chinese client state has an actual island dispute (Natuna) with the Reds.

                      India is even less likely to mobilize if Australia got attacked by China then even a US run by Carter would be.

                      Australia has no planes/missiles which could carry a nuke further then Jakarta and won't even drop bombs on bridges civilians use...
                      Well, given the basis for the thread that was always on the cards. Welcome to the wonderful world of Australian defence discussions & threat perceptions. Check your rationality at the door. We have spent 200+ years convincing ourselves that the world wants to invade us. I live in a city with fortifications built in the C19th to stop Tsarist Russia. Once got into a knock down drag out internet brawl on another site when I dared to suggest that Sth Vietnam going communist did not represent some existential to Australia.

                      Imagining that we'd dispatch a sizeable chunk of the functional ships in our Navy to fight the Argentinians or that we are going to need out own nukes any time in the lives of anyone on this forum (or their kiddies) actually passes for rational in these discussions. You think its odd on the internet, try growing up with it.
                      sigpic

                      Win nervously lose tragically - Reds C C

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Originally posted by Bigfella View Post
                        Imagining that we'd dispatch a sizeable chunk of the functional ships in our Navy to fight the Argentinians.
                        Aight that's it. Would instead of Could -my mistake at a late night, seemingly bantered around by two senior members with a like for fetish.

                        I actually wanted some sort of discussion on what was militarily possible, a-la what if thread. Nothing more, nothing less. Get over it.

                        Fanboi my bloody arse. If Tarek said stop it there, it should be stopped elsewhere as well Then and there.

                        Baiting posters and transgressions over multiple threads (seemingly repeatedly) that like to contribute. I expect this from drunk idiots that I'll be putting up with in approximately 1 hour.

                        Move on.

                        Wayfarer saw the point (I think) when he articulated a Chinese vision, that was somewhat strange, perhaps it would be worthwhile reffering Ceds to that thread, since I wasted an hour and a bit there trying to get some sence into some explanations for him.

                        It's not that I don't either see your POV, I do, I don't disagree with it either. But it's just flat disrespectful to the intention it was based upon.
                        Regards.
                        Last edited by Chunder; 17 Dec 11,, 11:00.
                        Ego Numquam

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by Chunder View Post
                          Aight that's it. Would instead of Could -my mistake at a late night, seemingly bantered around like two senior members with a fetish.

                          I actually wanted some sort of discussion on what was militarily possible, a-la what if thread. Nothing more, nothing less. Get over it.

                          Fanboi my bloody arse. If Tarek said stop it there, it should be stopped elsewhere as well Then and there.

                          Flame baiting and transgressions over multiple threads. I expect this from drunk idiots that I'll be putting up with in approximately 1 hour.

                          Move on.

                          Wayfarer saw the point when he articulated a Chinese vision, that was somewhat strange, perhaps it would be worthwhile reffering Ceds to that thread, since I wasted an hour and a bit there trying to get some sence into it.

                          It's not that I don't either see your POV, I do, I don't disagree with it either. But it's just flat disrespectful to the intention it was based upon.
                          Regards.
                          Chunder,

                          You appear to have lost it ever so slightly. I don't even understand half of what is here, though I'm assuming it is directed at me. Because I'm not really sure what you are on about I'm not going to get into an argument. Suffice to say that you weren't the one in my sights, but if you truly do believe we would be sending a taskforce (as opposed to starting a 'what if' that probably needed a separate thread) then cop it sweet. To be honest, after some of the tripe thats been spouted by our fellow countrymen over the past week I'm more than a bit amazed that it is me you are directing your ire at.

                          Chill.
                          sigpic

                          Win nervously lose tragically - Reds C C

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Originally posted by Deltacamelately View Post
                            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?
                            Because the Indian posters here have made it sound so. Who am I to argue.
                            "There is no such thing as society" - Margaret Thatcher

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Originally posted by Aussiegunner View Post
                              Because the Indian posters here have made it sound so. Who am I to argue.
                              A few of us who participate in this forum do not necessarily represents our government, GoI would not require to take our advice to make a decision. According to the subject as you started this thread, I opposed a few of your idea, not that I opposed the probability of a future partnership, the media now-a-days are making all the theories of a possible US-Aus-India Partnership, what I was not comfortable with was proliferation of missile technology, acquiring uranium in a controversial way and the meaning of NAM as per your description in post #1. Reason: Such an act can ignite a preferably not required development. Proliferation of missile technology is for what PRC, Pakistan, North Korea got the fame for, and is definitely not required. Regarding Nuclear fuel, is the reason for the all time low partnership between India and Australia, and what you are advocating is a total opposite of the ground reality. Australia won't perform such an act, and if India performs such an act Australia would be among the first to criticise it. Regarding PRC, the fact is India have more an immediate threat then an unforeseeable future threat for Australia. To my worry Indian PM have to assure the House that PRC will not attack India, the point is the threat perception have reached the parliament for a debate, and my perception is, if the PM have to assure it, then it is some serious military build up in the scarcely militarised Indo-PRC boarder. India gave political asylum to the Tibetans, PRC giving safe havens to Separatist groups, latest news on that is a separatist group have been phone tracked in Yunnan province bordering Myanmar. Maoist ideology is being fostered upon public population whenever they find a prospect, what more is needed for India to make a counter Alliance? But I thought the way you believe is not the way things are going to happen or take a shape. Japan for instance also will oppose the nuke idea, and are treaty bound not to project offensive force. But we share a common cause that is strive for Democracy and Freedom, lets hope for the best.

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                I don't think australia will be threatened by china in the near future. It won't touch australia even if it acquires the capacity to reach the shores.

                                You should be more concerned about the way chinese diplomacy handles foreign policy. It is buying out whatever it can; influence, consensus etc. Militarily, it is behind and unlikely to catch up.

                                The point is, china has something to loose.
                                Power Respects Power
                                --- Dr. APJ Kalam

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X