Budget Night 2012.

[HMS Conqueror]

Aus wants a French/British minimal effective deterrent. 3-4 submarines with a few hundred warheads. France and Britain aren't that much richer than Australia, and only a small fraction of their spending goes on nuclear weapons.

It doesn't matter if you won't press the button or if the threat is large etc. etc. Even a small risk of it happening will deter any adversary unless there is something of vital national importance at stake, and Australia is never going to put China or India in that sort of position.

[Questor]

I'm pretty sure Aus, except in your rather feeble mind, wants nothing of the sort.

My understanding of what they want are long range, deep water, patrol/area denial subs, possibly with special operations capability. Something closer to the Virginia than anything else.

* I'm not hugely well read on this subject, so if Australia is actively running a nuclear weapons program (aren't they NNPT signatory), I'll concede this point.

[Stark]

Don't interrupt him, it's hilarious! I want it hear more about Tom Clancy's Australia Rearmed.

[Questor]

But Staaaaasrk!

I wanna make fun of him for believing that anything other than pride is involved in "minimal deterrent".

I also wann hear his plans for getting Australia to be the next Global Military Superpower(TM USA, Inc.). Especially with a population smaller than some American Metropolitan Areas.

[weemadando]

Dontcha know we have the world's biggest Uranium deposits?

Shouldn't we be using these for something?

And then, once we have the bomb, we can stick our fingers up at all of Asia, cut off our supply of mineral exports to cripple their military growth and then use the following magical money to fund our defence forces further as the horde of yellow peril will certainly be coming at us then and won't this all have been worthwhile?

[Stark]

The sharks are circling, Ando, CIRCLING! What's re you gonna do about it?

[Questor]

Isn't this the plot of some Australian children's book?

[weemadando]

Hey, the movie clearly shows that the bad guys in that must use because they wear sunglasses at night.

[Questor]

Vampires invade Australia? Why? Why would anyone do that? You'd have more wildlife casualties than casualties from enemy action. Zombies might be reasonable.

[JointStrikeFighter]

If we really wanted or needed nukes (ps we dont) the sensible thing would just be to arrange a dual-key system with America using some of their nukes.

[mr friendly guy]

So explain for the class please why China and India would want to stop giving Australia(via fucking Palmer and Rinehart) a lot of money in favour of attempting an invasion

Because these aren't states with their own goals, they are evilTM I tell you. Not just evil, but comic book evilTM. Its not a matter of cost vs benefit, its a dick waving contest.

Oh, lets not forget Andrew Forrest and Fortescue metals, who also have a very pro Chinese relationship. At one stage (not sure if still now) Fortescue just sold to China, and Forrest donated money to the victims of the Sichuan earthquake.

[Stofsk]

Not to add more fuel to the fire here, as this thread appears to have diverged significantly (I suppose it's my fault, since I asked thejester about something that was more or less off-topic and probably should have been relegated to a PM or asking him on NT instead), but there was an article about who should be Australia's big brother or 'godfather' - China or Australia.

AUSTRALIA cannot juggle its relationships with the United States and China indefinitely and must choose a ''godfather'' to protect it, according to a prominent Chinese defence strategist.

The warning by Song Xiaojun, a former senior officer of the People's Liberation Army, comes after Foreign Minister Bob Carr was told by his Chinese counterpart that Australia's close military alliance with the US was a throwback to the Cold War era.

Senator Carr yesterday met the man expected to become China's next premier, Li Keqiang, in Beijing. Discussions centred on more comfortable matters including furthering trade and investment and the 40th anniversary of diplomatic relations between the two nations.

But Australia's strategic position in the Asia-Pacific region remains contentious. "Australia has to find a godfather sooner or later," Mr Song told The Age.

"Australia always has to depend on somebody else, whether it is to be the 'son' of the US or 'son' of China," he said. "[It] depends on who is more powerful, and based on the strategic environment."

Mr Song said Australia depended on exporting iron ore to China "to feed itself", but had not done enough to engage. "Frankly, it has not done well politically," he said.

With sensitivity in the Asia-Pacific over Australia allowing the US a permanent troop presence in Darwin, Senator Carr has been keen to emphasise its strong record of military co-operation with China.

Speaking on Monday, he said Australia was one of just two countries with a strategic defence dialogue with China at the chief-of-defence level.

He said Australia was last year the first Western nation to co-operate with China on a joint humanitarian assistance and disaster relief exercise and in 2010 the first to hold a joint live-fire exercise with China's navy.

The HMAS Ballarat will moor in Shanghai tomorrow to mark the 40th anniversary of diplomatic relations.

Both Mr Li and Senator Carr were keen to highlight the positives. The senator told Mr Li the 40th anniversary of diplomatic relations was "an opportunity to renew and refresh and recommit to the relationship".

Mr Li said: "Forty years ago the two countries decided to establish diplomatic relations. This was a decision made with strategic perspective and laid the foundation for the furtherance of this bilateral relationship."

Leaving aside that the official in question is possibly presenting a false dilemma (I for one can't see why we shouldn't strive to maintain good relations with both), it does seem relevant in light of this new discussion relating to budget cuts for defence and what we need defence for and what priorities we want to address or even identify which seems to be necessary, given the endemic problems defence has.

[Chris OFarrell]

I find that hillarious given that China has a very long history of playing various powers off against each other, right up to the modern day, for their own strategic interest.

[Alkaloid]

it's more trouble than it's worth.

It is already more trouble than its worth. That is the basis of the entire defence policy, such as there is of it.

Leaving aside that the official in question is possibly presenting a false dilemma (I for one can't see why we shouldn't strive to maintain good relations with both), it does seem relevant in light of this new discussion relating to budget cuts for defence and what we need defence for and what priorities we want to address or even identify which seems to be necessary, given the endemic problems defence has.

Well, if we hadn't let the US base marines here and Obama make some nice warry speeches in Darwin then China probably wouldn't have felt the need to start chest thumping. Good relations with both is the way to at least try to go.

[mr friendly guy]

I can't remember who it was, but I think an Australian intellectual suggested that China and the US should come to some sort of arrangement, which sounded like each side has their own sphere of influence, but with certain unspoken rules - that is if one side breached the arrangement, the other side (and middle powers) join the fray to offset the first party. This was so as to allow us to continue trading with China without the risk of a large conflict breaking out between the PRC and the US.

[weemadando]

I doubt that we'll see the US and China actually come to blows unless both get someone absolutely boneheaded and obsessively violent in the leader's chair, the gains from any such war are far outweighed by the costs.

And without there being irreconcilable philosophies, there's no rational reason for the war to occur if both sides are better serviced by continuing to co-exist peacefully.

People can talk all day about "building up capability" and "growing forces" but the fact is, that a serious shooting war between modern powers is going to destroy that capability and shrink those forces in a matter of hours and days, rendering void years and decades of spending. Which makes people VERY hesitant.

[Winston Blake]

I find that hillarious given that China has a very long history of playing various powers off against each other, right up to the modern day, for their own strategic interest.

But it makes sense considering the historical importance of hierarchy and subordination in Chinese culture, and probably in the current political culture. Chinese politicians may genuinely feel annoyed at Australia being 'below' them, and benefiting from relations, yet disrespectfully refusing to take its natural place. I'm not saying China wants to build a Co-Prosperity Sphere run by the Führerprinzip. It's just not hard for me to see how Chinese leaders could quite naturally think 'Australia will need to choose a godfather (i.e. us)'.