bikerthai wrote:

bajs11 wrote:

r people keep buying cheap crap from Walmart and AliExpress.
It will be interesting to see how or if anything will be done to those large companies owned by Chinese companies like Volvo and the Waldorf Astoria in NYC.
It's funny that the West is acting like their economies were not prospering at all before the early 2000s and it is impossible to reverse what has been done during the past 15 years.

Well on the other hand the intertwine economy may force the Chinese to think hard before starting a war.

That argument was used in 1914. "We are so economically dependent war would be uneconomic".

Kiwirob wrote:

kitplane01 wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

It's interesting in Norway for the last conscription call up 70% of the conscripts were female.

Can you explain how that works? How does a nation conscript so few people, and then target them by gender? And how do the Norwegian people feel .. this seems unfair.

All the kids are sent a questionnaire, the answers they give determines if they are accepted or rejected. A friend of mines daughter really wanted to go, she's very fit and active but has some food allergies so she was rejected. It's also become trendy for the girls to do military service, so more of them make an effort to get accepted.

Conscription is when you *force* someone to join the military. It sounds like your discussion voluntary recruitment????

Also, 70% of the people who joined the Norwegian military last year were female?

kitplane01 wrote:

That argument was used in 1914. "We are so economically dependent war would be uneconomic".

No one is saying economics has a final say in whether to go to wars. We are not a Ferengi Empire. It is only a factor.

However, the quest for resources seems to be the root of many past war. And it seems the quest for resources is the driving factor in China's friction with its neighbor.

bt

bikerthai wrote:

kitplane01 wrote:

That argument was used in 1914. "We are so economically dependent war would be uneconomic".

No one is saying economics has a final say in whether to go to wars. We are not a Ferengi Empire. It is only a factor.

However, the quest for resources seems to be the root of many past war. And it seems the quest for resources is the driving factor in China's friction with its neighbor.

bt

total agreement

I believe the driving reason for China's push to create an independent, internally consumer driven economy is precisely so they can have a freer hand to do what they will without the risk of ruining their economy and prosperity. Right now they are dependent on outside consumption and exports and require outside resources to meet that.

Any real external military action would risk that.

(And side note, I still am POSITIVE that the real reason North Korea got nukes was to prevent China from just pushing the Kim's out and coming in and taking over. The west just doesn't care that much and wouldn't take military action so ain't a threat like that. But China... )

Tugg

Tugger wrote:

Right now they are dependent on outside consumption and exports and require outside resources to meet that.

Outside resources are required for internal consumption as well. Not sure if when they will be independent from coal and oil.

bt

bikerthai wrote:

Tugger wrote:

Right now they are dependent on outside consumption and exports and require outside resources to meet that.

Outside resources are required for internal consumption as well. Not sure if when they will be independent from coal and oil.

bt

Not just coal and oil. Iron ore and other raw metals, soy beans, meat, and various other products that are essential for a modern and comfortable life.

To be fair, any country in this globalized economy would be hit hard by sanctions. The US probably has the greatest ability to limit the hardships to a minimum in the case of a complete import ban (not reliant on energy or food imports), but even they lack certain resources that are only found in other countries. You can look at countries like Venezuela or North Korea if you want to see what life is like without imports. Hence why control of the seas as well as free and balanced trade is so important - and I can 100% understand why Australia wants the military power to protect their shipping lanes.

mxaxai wrote:

I can 100% understand why Australia wants the military power to protect their shipping lanes.

What is Korean barbecue without beef. Emerging economy like Vietnam will rely on import of beef and chicken from the US and Austrailia.

I was surprised to find that the US export a lot of drumstics to Asia. Apparently American consume mostly white meat (nuggets and patties), and winglets (buffaloe wings) while Asians prefer the taste of the thighs and drumstics.

bt

AUUKUS pact. RR selected as the winner in the B-52 re-engining program.

Tugger wrote:

I believe the driving reason for China's push to create an independent, internally consumer driven economy is precisely so they can have a freer hand to do what they will without the risk of ruining their economy and prosperity. Right now they are dependent on outside consumption and exports and require outside resources to meet that.

Any real external military action would risk that.

(And side note, I still am POSITIVE that the real reason North Korea got nukes was to prevent China from just pushing the Kim's out and coming in and taking over. The west just doesn't care that much and wouldn't take military action so ain't a threat like that. But China... )

Tugg

This is correct Tugger. What the US did to China, China is doing to Africa. They want to leverage Africa as the third world cheap labor source to fuel the Chinese consumer market.

There was an interesting interview with the former French ambassador to the US, Gérard Araud, in German print media (Zeit) this week. Online link behind a paywall: https://www.zeit.de/2021/39/gerard-arau ... gle.com%2F
A translated summary:

Q: How much did the financial aspect hurt you?
A: France would have contributed only the hulls and the integration of US weapons. This aspect of the contract was worth approx. 8 bn. €.
...
The contract was so complicated because of Australian demands for conventional powerplants, for US weapon systems when the boats weren't designed for that. They don't have the necessary infrastructure to produce submarines in Australia either.
...
The French and Australian militaries have had close ties in the past, they've always been a valuable partner for our strategy in the indo-pacific region. That makes their lies and secret negotiations hurt even more.
Q: How angry is France at the UK?
A: Not much. The UK is highly dependent on the US when it comes to nuclear technologies, we know this because we've cooperated closely.
Q: What consequences are likely for the future?
A: Difficult to tell. France would like to remain part of strategic alliances (like the new AUUKUS defence pact) but the US clearly don't care about Europe anymore. ... Many other European nations are afraid of a US withdrawal. They'll run to the government in Washington D.C. and complain about the insufferable French. ... The other Europeans don't want to spend money on their own defence, or take any risks. They cling to the US for protection without realising that the US won't protect them from the threats at their doorstep anymore.

mxaxai wrote:

There was an interesting interview with the former French ambassador to the US, Gérard Araud, in German print media (Zeit) this week. Online link behind a paywall: https://www.zeit.de/2021/39/gerard-arau ... gle.com%2F
A translated summary:

Q: How much did the financial aspect hurt you?
A: France would have contributed only the hulls and the integration of US weapons. This aspect of the contract was worth approx. 8 bn. €.
...
The contract was so complicated because of Australian demands for conventional powerplants, for US weapon systems when the boats weren't designed for that. They don't have the necessary infrastructure to produce submarines in Australia either.
...
The French and Australian militaries have had close ties in the past, they've always been a valuable partner for our strategy in the indo-pacific region. That makes their lies and secret negotiations hurt even more.
Q: How angry is France at the UK?
A: Not much. The UK is highly dependent on the US when it comes to nuclear technologies, we know this because we've cooperated closely.
Q: What consequences are likely for the future?
A: Difficult to tell. France would like to remain part of strategic alliances (like the new AUUKUS defence pact) but the US clearly don't care about Europe anymore. ... Many other European nations are afraid of a US withdrawal. They'll run to the government in Washington D.C. and complain about the insufferable French. ... The other Europeans don't want to spend money on their own defence, or take any risks. They cling to the US for protection without realising that the US won't protect them from the threats at their doorstep anymore.

1. So the UK can't be blamed because they're just the US's "lackey". That's a nice way to insult your next door neighbor.
2. So European nations are concerned about a nearby threat that they won't acknowledge is a threat because then they would have to spend money to counter it?

johns624 wrote:

. So European nations are concerned about a nearby threat that they won't acknowledge is a threat because then they would have to spend money to counter it?

What near by threat? I wonder if the Russian has enough conventional forces to defeat Nato even without US forces.

The countries of most concern is Poland and the new front line states. I have not heard them talking about US disengagement.

bt

bikerthai wrote:

What near by threat? I wonder if the Russian has enough conventional forces to defeat Nato even without US forces.

The countries of most concern is Poland and the new front line states. I have not heard them talking about US disengagement.

bt

France is looking slightly beyond their own borders - Araud mentions Syria, Ukraine, Lybia and the Sahel.

Given that this interview was published in Germany (who has has been very silent about this entire affair), I think the intended message is "Germany, please invest more in your own defense and please cooperate more with us instead of buying US equipment".

In the case of Poland, they signed an agreement with the US last year, asking for closer cooperation and the continued presence of US army elements; Poland has also strengthened their ties within Eastern Europe, to Germany and to Turkey but not to the EU as a whole or to France in particular. Given that he talks about Syria, Lybia and other African conflict zones, an ongoing criticism of the southern and western EU members is that Poland - and most of the eastern EU - refuses to care about it (except building even higher fences if poor black people do show up at the borders).

bikerthai wrote:

johns624 wrote:

. So European nations are concerned about a nearby threat that they won't acknowledge is a threat because then they would have to spend money to counter it?

What near by threat? I wonder if the Russian has enough conventional forces to defeat Nato even without US forces.

The countries of most concern is Poland and the new front line states. I have not heard them talking about US disengagement.

bt

You'd have to ask the French ambassador what the nearby threat is. If you're most concerned with a fellow NATO and EU member, something is wrong.

Yes, so the near by threat for the French is not Russia and massive military build up. For North Africa, Ukraine, a more limited approach can be handled by the Europians with limited US involvement. But of course the US will be involved anyway.

bt

johns624 wrote:

bikerthai wrote:

johns624 wrote:

. So European nations are concerned about a nearby threat that they won't acknowledge is a threat because then they would have to spend money to counter it?

What near by threat? I wonder if the Russian has enough conventional forces to defeat Nato even without US forces.

The countries of most concern is Poland and the new front line states. I have not heard them talking about US disengagement.

bt

You'd have to ask the French ambassador what the nearby threat is. If you're most concerned with a fellow NATO and EU member, something is wrong.

Well they did build two assault ships for Russia of all people, later pressure forced them to sell them to Egypt though hard to see what they need them for aside from another toy, after all that's a not a state with armed forces, it's the other way round.
Wonder what nations who thought France as a Western democracy therefore an ally against an authoritarian bully constantly threatening them?
Is there a French word for 'humbug'?'

bikerthai wrote:

Tugger wrote:

Right now they are dependent on outside consumption and exports and require outside resources to meet that.

Outside resources are required for internal consumption as well. Not sure if when they will be independent from coal and oil.

bt

Isn't that why China (along with South Korea and Japan) is spending billions on hydrogen research, to wean themselves off imported oil and coal??

mxaxai wrote:

bikerthai wrote:

Tugger wrote:

Right now they are dependent on outside consumption and exports and require outside resources to meet that.

Outside resources are required for internal consumption as well. Not sure if when they will be independent from coal and oil.

bt

Not just coal and oil. Iron ore and other raw metals, soy beans, meat, and various other products that are essential for a modern and comfortable life.

To be fair, any country in this globalized economy would be hit hard by sanctions. The US probably has the greatest ability to limit the hardships to a minimum in the case of a complete import ban (not reliant on energy or food imports), but even they lack certain resources that are only found in other countries. You can look at countries like Venezuela or North Korea if you want to see what life is like without imports. Hence why control of the seas as well as free and balanced trade is so important - and I can 100% understand why Australia wants the military power to protect their shipping lanes.

Which is quite hilarious when you consider that 43% of Australia's trade is with China. If China stopped trading with Australia, Australia having SSN's isn't going to be of much use at all.

LTEN11 wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

mxaxai wrote:

Not just coal and oil. Iron ore and other raw metals, soy beans, meat, and various other products that are essential for a modern and comfortable life.

To be fair, any country in this globalized economy would be hit hard by sanctions. The US probably has the greatest ability to limit the hardships to a minimum in the case of a complete import ban (not reliant on energy or food imports), but even they lack certain resources that are only found in other countries. You can look at countries like Venezuela or North Korea if you want to see what life is like without imports. Hence why control of the seas as well as free and balanced trade is so important - and I can 100% understand why Australia wants the military power to protect their shipping lanes.

Which is quite hilarious when you consider that 43% of Australia's trade is with China. If China stopped trading with Australia, Australia having SSN's isn't going to be of much use at all.

As has been shown with other goods Australia used to sell to China before China spat the dummy, there are other markets willing to buy Australian goods. China has kicked itself several times whilst trying to damage Australia, especially with coal and many areas in China having to resort to rationing their power usage, as they don't have enough coal for their power needs. If anything, they've done us a huge favour and woken people up as to how we tied ourselves overly to China. May we never go back to that again.

Australia isn't going to find a home for everything they sell to China, Australia could easily find itself cut off from it's primary market just like NZ was when the UK joined the EU and we were screwed, it took many years to find new markets for our products.

LTEN11 wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

mxaxai wrote:

Not just coal and oil. Iron ore and other raw metals, soy beans, meat, and various other products that are essential for a modern and comfortable life.

To be fair, any country in this globalized economy would be hit hard by sanctions. The US probably has the greatest ability to limit the hardships to a minimum in the case of a complete import ban (not reliant on energy or food imports), but even they lack certain resources that are only found in other countries. You can look at countries like Venezuela or North Korea if you want to see what life is like without imports. Hence why control of the seas as well as free and balanced trade is so important - and I can 100% understand why Australia wants the military power to protect their shipping lanes.

Which is quite hilarious when you consider that 43% of Australia's trade is with China. If China stopped trading with Australia, Australia having SSN's isn't going to be of much use at all.

As has been shown with other goods Australia used to sell to China before China spat the dummy, there are other markets willing to buy Australian goods. China has kicked itself several times whilst trying to damage Australia, especially with coal and many areas in China having to resort to rationing their power usage, as they don't have enough coal for their power needs. If anything, they've done us a huge favour and woken people up as to how we tied ourselves overly to China. May we never go back to that again.

If the Aussies had a government with any type of long term vision they would see Australia has everything it needs to dominate world steel production. Why ship the dirt overseas when they have the right dirt, the right coal and enough land to have almost limitless solar power generation. Just ship the manufactured steel globally and especially from the north where the Asian market is literally at the doorstep.

That screws china and gives them a use for the millions of pounds of dirt being carted overseas every year.

Kiwirob wrote:

If China stopped trading with Australia, Australia having SSN's isn't going to be of much use at all.

Trade with China is not in a vacuum. China population growth is slowing down but not yet reversed. India's population is still growing. There is still limited land resources in the world. If China stop trading with Austrailia, where would they get the food to feed their people? Austrailia's allies, the US, Canada? Will Argentina or Brazil be able to fill the void? Ukraine, a major food producer for the former Soviet Union is now a US ally, so would the Russian be able to step up?

bt

SeamanBeaumont wrote:

If the Aussies had a government with any type of long term vision they would see Australia has everything it needs to dominate world steel production. Why ship the dirt overseas when they have the right dirt, the right coal and enough land to have almost limitless solar power generation. Just ship the manufactured steel globally and especially from the north where the Asian market is literally at the doorstep.

That screws china and gives them a use for the millions of pounds of dirt being carted overseas every year.

Great idea.

Yeah, it's not like the US has put tariffs on steel.

Aesma wrote:

Yeah, it's not like the US has put tariffs on steel.

You comparing the US tariffs for "potential dumping" to China ceasing some imports from Australia because they had the nerve to criticize China in public?
How does that compare to all the bashing the USA receives on a daily basis with no retaliation, or the Chinese taking offense to a draft EU report on Covid?
Somehow the equivalence does not work for me, but if it does for you, that's fine.

The US tariffs were because Trump was in a mood. And affected all producers worldwide, including Europe were there is no dumping, and in fact better working conditions for employees than in the US, more investment in modern technologies, etc.

johns624 wrote:

1. So the UK can't be blamed because they're just the US's "lackey". That's a nice way to insult your next door neighbor.
2. So European nations are concerned about a nearby threat that they won't acknowledge is a threat because then they would have to spend money to counter it?

Not to disparage the Brits too much, but I’d say the general sense from the last few decades is absolutely that they’ll follow the US wherever it may go. I mean just look at this case-what actual interest do they have in the pacific? But all their buddies are getting together, so they’re coming too.

The second part I agree with you to an extent. Reminds me of a Robin Williams bit about Cheney circa 2002. “We don’t know where, we don’t know when, we don’t know how…but something bad is going to happen”

But what I do find interesting is that it’s a popular talking point in the US that the EU needs to fend for itself a bit more. Here you have the French saying the EU needs to stand up for itself more…and somehow it’s a bad thing now. I get it, you don’t want to be the country that relies on one ally for your equipment to make war. One thing the French seem to be heavily pushing is that if something were to change with the US (regardless of how unlikely that is) they don’t want to find themselves suddenly cut off from where their equipment comes from.

And if we’re being honest, it really just comes down to money. The US, France, Russia, China…they don’t care who their equipment is blowing up as long as it’s not them, and the money is deposited.

My main interest is that I’d like France to be brought in so they could call it FRAUKUS

Aesma wrote:

The US tariffs were because Trump was in a mood. And affected all producers worldwide, including Europe were there is no dumping, and in fact better working conditions for employees than in the US, more investment in modern technologies, etc.

...and the world retaliated, remind me again what retaliation is going on against China when they throw a fit? I still do not think it is equivalent but fine, at least the world has a chance of blowing hard enough to cause the American citizens to elect someone else every 4 years, imagine if they could some how pressure China or Russia in the same way.....
As for the better working conditions and more modern technology, that may be the reason why so many migrants are flocking to the EU, no idea why France is letting them go to the UK who now outside the EU will have terrible worker conditions, but maybe the French know something the rest of us do not...but for another thread.

FGITD wrote:

johns624 wrote:

1. So the UK can't be blamed because they're just the US's "lackey". That's a nice way to insult your next door neighbor.
2. So European nations are concerned about a nearby threat that they won't acknowledge is a threat because then they would have to spend money to counter it?

Not to disparage the Brits too much, but I’d say the general sense from the last few decades is absolutely that they’ll follow the US wherever it may go. I mean just look at this case-what actual interest do they have in the pacific? But all their buddies are getting together, so they’re coming too.

The UK previously had colonial / commonwealth links to the far east, but to be fully engaged in the EU they "abandoned" the majority of their links, its why there is so much fun in the Brexit threads talking about the old empire.

FGITD wrote:

[
Not to disparage the Brits too much, but I’d say the general sense from the last few decades is absolutely that they’ll follow the US wherever it may go. I mean just look at this case-what actual interest do they have in the pacific? But all their buddies are getting together, so they’re coming too.

But what I do find interesting is that it’s a popular talking point in the US that the EU needs to fend for itself a bit more. Here you have the French saying the EU needs to stand up for itself more…and somehow it’s a bad thing now. I get it, you don’t want to be the country that relies on one ally for your equipment to make war. One thing the French seem to be heavily pushing is that if something were to change with the US (regardless of how unlikely that is) they don’t want to find themselves suddenly cut off from where their equipment comes from.

EVERY country has an interest in what China is doing, most just refuse to recognize it.
That whole "the US wants Europe to rearm just so the US can sell them weapons" is mostly BS.
Most European nations buy European weapons, with a few exceptions. The smaller countries buy US planes and AAW systems for their naval platforms. Everyone loves the C130. But after that, it's mainly European. The best selling tank was the German Leopard 2. Nobody bought the Abrams or Bradley. The Eurofighter and Rafale equip all the larger air forces. Almost all the helicopters are from Eurocopter. The A400 is selling relatively well. All the ships are built in the EU. Some of the smaller navies have Mk41 VLS with SM/ESSM. France/Italy/UK have the Sylver/Aster system. They all build their own subs. So, other than the F35 (mostly B's) and the Aegis system, what are all these arms that US makers are supposedly selling to the EU?

johns624 wrote:

what are all these arms that US makers are supposedly selling to the EU?

My favorite the P-8A. But that's because Europe doesn't offer anything in the same price and time frame.



bt

Kiwirob wrote:

Isn't that why China (along with South Korea and Japan) is spending billions on hydrogen research, to wean themselves off imported oil and coal??

I don't understand who really thinks hydrogen is a good solution a fuel. Sure it may be the most abundant element in the universe, but it sur isn't here on earth. And here it is also hard to store and transport. It's good for fusion but not really as a mobile fuel.

Tugg

SeamanBeaumont wrote:

If the Aussies had a government with any type of long term vision they would see Australia has everything it needs to dominate world steel production. Why ship the dirt overseas when they have the right dirt, the right coal and enough land to have almost limitless solar power generation.

In the words of an old copypasta:

"While you were researching renewable energy, I studied the dirt.
While you built an industry, I mastered the dirt.
While you spent months crafting a sustainable and indepentent economy, I used the dirt.
And now that China is here you are all unprepared. Except for me.
For I studied the dirt."

For real, with the exception of their defence department, 'long term vision' is the wrong term to use when talking about a country that has had 5 prime ministers in the past 14 years. Dirt exports finance the defence imports, and dealing with multiple forms of dirt has produced numerous wealthy individuals that have no interest in change.

LTEN11 wrote:

While your sentiments are honorable SeamanBeaumont, they unfortunately do not fit the political landscape that exists in Australia.

Dang. For that first whole paragraph I thought you were talking about the good ol US of A.


bt

par13del wrote:

FGITD wrote:

johns624 wrote:

1. So the UK can't be blamed because they're just the US's "lackey". That's a nice way to insult your next door neighbor.
2. So European nations are concerned about a nearby threat that they won't acknowledge is a threat because then they would have to spend money to counter it?

Not to disparage the Brits too much, but I’d say the general sense from the last few decades is absolutely that they’ll follow the US wherever it may go. I mean just look at this case-what actual interest do they have in the pacific? But all their buddies are getting together, so they’re coming too.

The UK previously had colonial / commonwealth links to the far east, but to be fully engaged in the EU they "abandoned" the majority of their links, its why there is so much fun in the Brexit threads talking about the old empire.

Not so, India independent in 1947, which made what followed inevitable.
Most others were independent by the start of the 60's, before the UK even applied to join the EEC, deGaulle being the Anglophobe hypocrite he was, might have used that excuse to veto UK entry, a bit rich considering France has systemically interfered with their 'former' colonies since, at least the not so powerful ones.
One motivation for UK policy, under a admittedly sensible and moderate Conservative Party, light years from the destructive morons now, was the French experience in Indo China and Algeria.

Jonathan Meades is a somewhat eccentric writer/broadcaster, a Francophile who visited from childhood and has lived there for years;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Meades

His films for the BBC, on a range of his interests done in his own style, include a 2011 series 'On France', here are some segments where he looks at French 'post colonial' policy;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bc1IaL69Gsc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2WTtNTB2AmA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W9bSMnszQJA

Tugger wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

Isn't that why China (along with South Korea and Japan) is spending billions on hydrogen research, to wean themselves off imported oil and coal??

I don't understand who really thinks hydrogen is a good solution a fuel. Sure it may be the most abundant element in the universe, but it sur isn't here on earth. And here it is also hard to store and transport. It's good for fusion but not really as a mobile fuel.

Tugg

You need to do some reading tugg, its about fueling everything not just your car.

Kiwirob wrote:

Tugger wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

Isn't that why China (along with South Korea and Japan) is spending billions on hydrogen research, to wean themselves off imported oil and coal??

I don't understand who really thinks hydrogen is a good solution a fuel. Sure it may be the most abundant element in the universe, but it sur isn't here on earth. And here it is also hard to store and transport. It's good for fusion but not really as a mobile fuel.

Tugg

You need to do some reading tugg, its about fueling everything not just your car.

I have done reading. A lot of it. The whole issue is with the production of the hydrogen. It just is not abundant here on earth and to make needed amounts of usable fuels you have to split if from other elements on a mass scale. I wish it were but it is not. It can be made/created but only with significant energy and the costs to store and transport are equally high (and consume energy). It simply is not energy positive to use. Now when Fusion comes online and we have "unlimited clean energy" to be able to split off hydrogen from other elements THEN it may be usable.

It's a wonderful idea but please show me where there are people/articles/efforts that it is energy positive in net energy.

Tugg

Kiwirob wrote:

You need to do some reading tugg, its about fueling everything not just your car.

I think you need to do the reading.

Hydrogen is extremely inefficient. For heating the electrical energy generated can go straight to electric heaters. To use the electric energy to make hydrogen and then use the hydrogen to produce heat requires 2-3 times the initial energy input for the same heat energy output.

If everything went hydrogen powered we'd have to have more than double the number of solar panels on the Earth to be carbon neutral. It makes no sense as it would take a decade or two to install the extra renewables to "wean themselves off imported oil and coal"

Really whats all this talk on renewable energy have to do with AUKUS?

A101 wrote:

Really whats all this talk on renewable energy have to do with AUKUS?

As long as the Australian economy remains reliant on the export of unrefined resources like coal, iron ore and alumina, and vice versa China remains a major consumer of such commodities, the two economies are so tightly coupled that any major conflict would mean economic suicide for either or both of them. Australia has abundant opportunities to use renewable energy but chooses not to. Instead, they are spending large amounts of money to build a defence force against the very country that's (directly or indirectly) responsible for much of their current income.

Military opposition to China must go hand in hand with increased economical independence, and renewable energy is one element to achieve that.

mxaxai wrote:

A101 wrote:

Really whats all this talk on renewable energy have to do with AUKUS?

As long as the Australian economy remains reliant on the export of unrefined resources like coal, iron ore and alumina, and vice versa China remains a major consumer of such commodities, the two economies are so tightly coupled that any major conflict would mean economic suicide for either or both of them. Australia has abundant opportunities to use renewable energy but chooses not to. Instead, they are spending large amounts of money to build a defence force against the very country that's (directly or indirectly) responsible for much of their current income.

Military opposition to China must go hand in hand with increased economical independence, and renewable energy is one element to achieve that.

I get what you are saying about economic resilience with regards to exports but that comes with as we have seen economic coercion as we have seen with the trade sanctions placed on Australia by China if they feel even the most insignificant slight against them.

Moving to renewable's is not going alter that equation. those very same minerals can be extracted to make Australia comparative advantage in low cost energy with abundant supply whether it be coal, gas, nuclear or future solar. at the moment Australia have high energy prices because the multi national want to exploit and export that energy overseas over the use of the domestic market

But really this is all off topic when it comes to AUKUS

De Gaulle thought the UK would be a US mole in the EU. He was proven right many times over.

Aesma wrote:

De Gaulle thought the UK would be a US mole in the EU. He was proven right many times over.

Good try, the Canadian's PM's riposte to the ungrateful creep's attempt at causing trouble in Canada was perfect, the truth is really West Germany as was, was growing economically stronger and faster than expected, not least by France, DeGaulle the bad European could just stomach that threat to HIS view of the EEC, French domination, kind of a local Algeria recently given up him (his few right moves only possible by him ascending to power partly on promising the fractious and hostile expats and their sympathetic and often powerful supporters in France itself, that he would not do that, remember that terror group they formed, not least to kill him?)
The rise of the latter day Vichy LePen's had their origins right there.

So he would not have relished another major economy that was not France also joining the EEC, another diminishing of French domination, you could see why for instance the Benelux nations wanted the UK in, not just them either. West Germany too.
Just not France, not very unifying for Europe was it?
Guess what, they did not tend to see the UK as a US 'mole', just the paranoid Anglophobes in the court of CdG.

Besides, France was not too proud to take that US Marshall cash, then Military Aid cash, then the bankrolling of the doomed attempt to hang on to Indo China.
Was France a 'US Mole' then? Certainly relied on them, including in Algeria for some material support, though many in the US were unhappy about that.

Aesma wrote:

De Gaulle thought the UK would be a US mole in the EU. He was proven right many times over.

LOL.

Opposition to French control in the EU isn't a function US foreign policy. There are plenty of declassified memos from the 1960s discussing multi-Administration US support for the various initiatives that eventually coalesced into the EU.

It is only really within certain Franco-German policy circles that the article of faith that the US has wanted to derail the EU has any currency. With the benefit of hindsight, all of the French concerns about American "Hyperpower" in the 1990s have proven to be incorrect, and frankly the US has never had any policy or grand design to displace the Francophonie, despite the fever dreams of certain types of politicians within France.

The reality is the French, and to a lessor extent, the Germans have tried to used EU processes like PESCO to push a blatantly Franco-centric designs, like the exclusion of non-European based defense contractors from industry competition.

It is fine, in my estimation, that the French push Franco-centric designs and policies for French strategic motives. Frankly, from my experience, France is often an outstanding ally (often the best) if your strategic goals are in alignment.

FlapOperator wrote:

Aesma wrote:

De Gaulle thought the UK would be a US mole in the EU. He was proven right many times over.

LOL.

Opposition to French control in the EU isn't a function US foreign policy. There are plenty of declassified memos from the 1960s discussing multi-Administration US support for the various initiatives that eventually coalesced into the EU.

It is only really within certain Franco-German policy circles that the article of faith that the US has wanted to derail the EU has any currency. With the benefit of hindsight, all of the French concerns about American "Hyperpower" in the 1990s have proven to be incorrect, and frankly the US has never had any policy or grand design to displace the Francophonie, despite the fever dreams of certain types of politicians within France.

The reality is the French, and to a lessor extent, the Germans have tried to used EU processes like PESCO to push a blatantly Franco-centric designs, like the exclusion of non-European based defense contractors from industry competition.

It is fine, in my estimation, that the French push Franco-centric designs and policies for French strategic motives. Frankly, from my experience, France is often an outstanding ally (often the best) if your strategic goals are in alignment.

It’s both obvious and logical from a US standpoint to have a strong and as much as can be expected, United EU, the more United the better, hence the dismay at how a bunch of charlatans forced a skittish and shallow UK PM via his party members, into that damned referendum, easily the most dishonest campaign I have ever seen.

It’s an illusion too many British politicians have of a ‘Special Relationship’ with the US which understandably can annoy some in Europe and fuel those tired old Gaullist fantasies but there IS a unique one, centered around nuclear and intelligence cooperation, while there are US manned intelligence facilities in the UK and elsewhere in NATO, there is also a substantial GCHQ presence within their US counterparts, the NSA, or as one source put it, they occupy a whole floor of the NSA HQ.
The former, via the 1958 agreement has made this submarine saga a tri national thing.

Still, like our brexiteer’s fantasies, which events right now connected to them are finally being exposed to a lot of people, the old ‘Yanks are out to do the Francophonie down’ are very similar.
So more from Jonathan Meades, on the whole idea, where it comes from, it’s effects, done again in his own witty, sometimes caustic style;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3rc_vHYk7jY

(You just wait until the end and the grand old man of France, threatened by a pop song)!