• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Australia just wasted ANOTHER $800 million paying USA for subs we'll probably NEVER see!

eclipsenow

Scripture is God's word, Science is God's works
Dec 17, 2010
9,804
2,489
Sydney, Australia
Visit site
✟199,275.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
(I'm starting again - my last AUKUS thread got de-railed.)

Australia just dumbly doubled our spending on this ridiculous program when America cannot meet their OWN demand for subs!

Washington: The incoming chief of US Navy operations has warned the US will not be able to fulfil its AUKUS obligations without doubling its submarine-building capacity, in a fresh sign of the doubts over whether the agreement can be honoured.​
Meanwhile, this masthead can confirm Australia’s second $800 million payment to help the US build nuclear-powered submarines was made in June, when the Australian government was already aware of the Pentagon’s review of AUKUS.



AUKUS & nuclear subs?​

I am against AUKUS: Nuclear subs are the wrong technology, and America is the wrong security partner!

1. NUCLEAR THE WRONG TECHNOLOGY
I do not think Australia needs nuclear subs - as unlike America - we are not trying to defend a GLOBAL empire!

If Australia wants to build a defence force, not an attack force, we should build new tech biodiesel subs. Instead of old diesel subs that must surface every few days to burn fuel and charge the batteries - there is a new design of biodiesel sub that converts the biodiesel into hydrogen and uses that to run fuel cells. End result? It can stay underwater for a month! That’s not as good as a nuclear sub - but it’s vastly cheaper - meaning you can have more - and it’s stealthier in close range! Nuclear subs are GLOBALLY invisible - as they stay underwater for many months. But they are LOCALLY MORE VISIBLE - their nuclear engines run so hot they leave a detectable thermal wake in close quarters tactical situations. Spain’s biodiesel subs do not! Submarine powered by hydrogen | The Australian Naval Institute

2. AMERICA THE WRONG SECURITY PARTNER
Even after Trump - it will be decades before we know whether “Trumpism” has gone. The alt-right seems to be growing online. Their 'white replacement' fears and hatred of immigrants through to fear of science and climate and vaccines are all weaponised in this horrible movement - from MAGA to MAHA. As the saying goes, "To the entitled - equality feels like persecution." MAGA is not going away. The America we used to be able to trust is gone. Abraham Lincoln himself could turn up to run for the White House and it would be a generation before we could trust America again.

Australia could be investing a third of a TRILLION dollars into a national defence force that says “Actually - we used your money scaling up our sub building - but right now we need them more.” If we talk about loyalty, honouring contracts, long term alliances - someone will just yell MAGA at us and that’s that. Oh well.

This Australian National University podcast discusses the advantages and disadvantages of the technology - but then also asks - why are we still buying the myth that Australia cannot consider our security situations from our own unique position? Why are we always siding with America on questionable military ventures from Vietnam to the unfounded second invasion of Iraq? On a smaller note: they ask whether it is good for ANY nation to see their leader ‘bend the knee’ to daddy (Trump in his Oval throne room - acting like the world is his oyster and everyone has come to kiss the ring!)
Democracy Sausage Episode: Bending the knee
 
  • Like
Reactions: GoldenBoy89

Oompa Loompa

Well-Known Member
Jun 4, 2020
9,357
4,927
Louisiana
✟295,543.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
(I'm starting again - my last AUKUS thread got de-railed.)

Australia just dumbly doubled our spending on this ridiculous program when America cannot meet their OWN demand for subs!

Washington: The incoming chief of US Navy operations has warned the US will not be able to fulfil its AUKUS obligations without doubling its submarine-building capacity, in a fresh sign of the doubts over whether the agreement can be honoured.​
Meanwhile, this masthead can confirm Australia’s second $800 million payment to help the US build nuclear-powered submarines was made in June, when the Australian government was already aware of the Pentagon’s review of AUKUS.​



AUKUS & nuclear subs?​

I am against AUKUS: Nuclear subs are the wrong technology, and America is the wrong security partner!

1. NUCLEAR THE WRONG TECHNOLOGY
I do not think Australia needs nuclear subs - as unlike America - we are not trying to defend a GLOBAL empire!

If Australia wants to build a defence force, not an attack force, we should build new tech biodiesel subs. Instead of old diesel subs that must surface every few days to burn fuel and charge the batteries - there is a new design of biodiesel sub that converts the biodiesel into hydrogen and uses that to run fuel cells. End result? It can stay underwater for a month! That’s not as good as a nuclear sub - but it’s vastly cheaper - meaning you can have more - and it’s stealthier in close range! Nuclear subs are GLOBALLY invisible - as they stay underwater for many months. But they are LOCALLY MORE VISIBLE - their nuclear engines run so hot they leave a detectable thermal wake in close quarters tactical situations. Spain’s biodiesel subs do not! Submarine powered by hydrogen | The Australian Naval Institute

2. AMERICA THE WRONG SECURITY PARTNER
Even after Trump - it will be decades before we know whether “Trumpism” has gone. The alt-right seems to be growing online. Their 'white replacement' fears and hatred of immigrants through to fear of science and climate and vaccines are all weaponised in this horrible movement - from MAGA to MAHA. As the saying goes, "To the entitled - equality feels like persecution." MAGA is not going away. The America we used to be able to trust is gone. Abraham Lincoln himself could turn up to run for the White House and it would be a generation before we could trust America again.

Australia could be investing a third of a TRILLION dollars into a national defence force that says “Actually - we used your money scaling up our sub building - but right now we need them more.” If we talk about loyalty, honouring contracts, long term alliances - someone will just yell MAGA at us and that’s that. Oh well.

This Australian National University podcast discusses the advantages and disadvantages of the technology - but then also asks - why are we still buying the myth that Australia cannot consider our security situations from our own unique position? Why are we always siding with America on questionable military ventures from Vietnam to the unfounded second invasion of Iraq? On a smaller note: they ask whether it is good for ANY nation to see their leader ‘bend the knee’ to daddy (Trump in his Oval throne room - acting like the world is his oyster and everyone has come to kiss the ring!)
Democracy Sausage Episode: Bending the knee
I stopped reading after "biodiesel subs."
 
Upvote 0

chevyontheriver

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Sep 29, 2015
22,807
19,824
Flyoverland
✟1,369,566.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-American-Solidarity
Upvote 0

ThatRobGuy

Part of the IT crowd
Site Supporter
Sep 4, 2005
28,355
17,093
Here
✟1,475,411.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
This Australian National University podcast discusses the advantages and disadvantages of the technology - but then also asks - why are we still buying the myth that Australia cannot consider our security situations from our own unique position?
Yes, let's consider that unique position...

That unique position being:

You have 15,000 miles of coastline and your entire naval fleet consists of 3 destroyers, 6 subs, and a few dozen patrol boats
(and currently relies heavily on the deterring factor of US Navy's presence in the Indo-Pacific maritime region)


So the people on that podcast are more than welcome to consider whatever they'd like, for as long as they'd like, but if any of those considerations lead them to the conclusion that "Australia doesn't need anyone else to assist with maritime interests for security or commerce, we can do it on our own", they're sorely mistaken. (Unless they're factoring in the additional $40B in spending in their defense budgets)


All that side chatter about the "White replacement fears"/"vaccines"/"alt-right online" stuff is just unrelated fodder with regards to a serious conversation about defense/military matters.


That'd be like saying
"Gee, I'm looking for a nation to do business with in terms gaining access to some low-cost IT Outsourcing partnerships...but I don't think India and the Philippines would be good partners because they have some non-IT-related beliefs I don't agree with"
 
Upvote 0

BCP1928

Well-Known Member
Jan 30, 2024
8,921
4,521
82
Goldsboro NC
✟266,439.00
Country
United States
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
Yes, let's consider that unique position...

That unique position being:

You have 15,000 miles of coastline and your entire naval fleet consists of 3 destroyers, 6 subs, and a few dozen patrol boats
(and currently relies heavily on the deterring factor of US Navy's presence in the Indo-Pacific maritime region)


So the people on that podcast are more than welcome to consider whatever they'd like, for as long as they'd like, but if any of those considerations lead them to the conclusion that "Australia doesn't need anyone else to assist with maritime interests for security or commerce, we can do it on our own", they're sorely mistaken. (Unless they're factoring in the additional $40B in spending in their defense budgets)


All that side chatter about the "White replacement fears"/"vaccines"/"alt-right online" stuff is just unrelated fodder with regards to a serious conversation about defense/military matters.


That'd be like saying
"Gee, I'm looking for a nation to do business with in terms gaining access to some low-cost IT Outsourcing partnerships...but I don't think India and the Philippines would be good partners because they have some non-IT-related beliefs I don't agree with"
The non-nuclear subs Australia was considering buying from France would have been entirely satisfactory for their own strategic needs. They were talked into the nukes by the US as part of a tripartite security pact. The security pact can no longer be depended on and the US can't deliver the subs.
 
Upvote 0

rjs330

Well-Known Member
May 22, 2015
28,409
9,125
65
✟434,560.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Pentecostal
. NUCLEAR THE WRONG TECHNOLOGY
I do not think Australia needs nuclear subs - as unlike America - we are not trying to defend a GLOBAL empire!

Funny, neither are we.
AMERICA THE WRONG SECURITY PARTNER

I don't know why you need a security partner anyway. No one is interested in invading Australia.
The alt-right seems to be growing online. Their 'white replacement' fears and hatred of immigrants through to fear of science and climate and vaccines are all weaponised in this horrible movement - from MAGA to MAHA.

Hystrionics aside, well nevermind.
As the saying goes, "To the entitled - equality feels like persecution."

You are describing the left to a T. Nice work.
This Australian National University podcast discusses the advantages and disadvantages of the technology - but then also asks - why are we still buying the myth that Australia cannot consider our security situations from our own unique position?

I totally agree with them. You'll have to spend the money on the infrastructure of course which won't be cheap. The thing is with such a small inconsequential navy the question would need to be asked, is it worth it. I'm not so sure it would be. Who is Australia worried about attacking them that they would have to have a significant navy for protection? And how large would it need to be?
Why are we always siding with America on questionable military ventures from Vietnam to the unfounded second invasion of Iraq? On a smaller note: they ask whether it is good for ANY nation to see their leader ‘bend the knee’ to daddy (Trump in his Oval throne room - acting like the world is his oyster and everyone has come to kiss the ring!)

What is Trump demanding of you that is so horrible? I mean has he demanded an end to your social programs or something? No more DEI or transing the kids? What is it?
 
Upvote 0

ThatRobGuy

Part of the IT crowd
Site Supporter
Sep 4, 2005
28,355
17,093
Here
✟1,475,411.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
The non-nuclear subs Australia was considering buying from France would have been entirely satisfactory for their own strategic needs. They were talked into the nukes by the US as part of a tripartite security pact. The security pact can no longer be depended on and the US can't deliver the subs.


Is this the submarine deal with the French you were referring to?

- DCNS got hacked shortly after the penciled agreement (never a good sign for the company you've just contracted to build military equipment)
- Budgetary concerns (they originally said it was going to cost $50B, then came back to the Australians and said "nope, turns it'll be 90B")
- The six subs they have are set to be retired in 2026, the French company then came back to tell them the first one couldn't be delivered until 2035, and the last one not getting done until the late 2050's.
- Australia originally wanted a large portion of construction (90%) to be done there for jobs, that number dropped to 60%, and then the French started pushing back on that figure as well


So it's not exactly as if London and DC had to do a lot of arm twisting to get them to bail on the French company in favor of a different deal.

But I guess it's all where the priorities lie.

If the priority is maritime defense and regional strategic alignment amid rising Indo-Pacific tensions, and being able to do a lot of the building domestically to create jobs in their own economy, AUKUS is the superior deal...

If the priority is signaling some sort of commitment to cleaner energy or "sticking it to the US by going with literally anyone but them to prove a point", then I guess they could've waited around until 2058 for the French subs to be done and hope their current fleet can hold out until then (as France wasn't offering any sort of interim measure...whereas, the US offered to provide Virginia-class subs as a stop gap) while dealing the French move the goalposts in terms of how many of the building jobs would be there vs. in Australia.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

eclipsenow

Scripture is God's word, Science is God's works
Dec 17, 2010
9,804
2,489
Sydney, Australia
Visit site
✟199,275.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Does anyone actually think America's manufacturing sector is going to come ROARING back as Trump's tariffs increase the cost of cheap supplies from overseas? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?

Personally I think Australia should not get caught up in the sunk cost fallacy - and just give America the $1.3 billion we've sunk into AUKUS and run!


The review comes as the Trump administration works to rebalance its global security concerns while struggling with a hollowed-out industrial base that has hamstrung U.S. capabilities to build enough warships. The review is being led by Elbridge Colby, the No. 3 Pentagon official, who has expressed skepticism about the partnership.​
“If we can produce the attack submarines in sufficient number and sufficient speed, then great. But if we can’t, that becomes a very difficult problem,” Colby said during his confirmation hearing in March. “This is getting back to restoring our defense industrial capacity so that we don’t have to face these awful choices but rather can be in a position where we can produce not only for ourselves, but for our allies.”​

I'm not sure I want to follow Trump into any war he starts. I don't want our nation decimated because of his NPD! I'm not sure the last few wars we've followed America into have been legal and in Australia's interests. I'm not sure I want to be a part of the American Empire any more. Might is not always right. Friends, yes. Allies even. But a locked-in vassal state? No thanks.

The Pentagon is having trouble scaling up their industry to build their own subs - let alone ours. With Trump's tariffs, and much higher import costs - their industry might even contract - let alone expand to meet their own orders! (FORGET ours. Face it - we've lost that $1.3 billion.)

Australia needs a Parliamentary enquiry into AUKUS. Rather than diplomats deciding defence deals behind closed doors - how about a little democracy? How about opening it up for some debate? I did not know about the other options until I heard some discussions on the "Democracy Sausage" podcast. I don't think the average Aussie politician knows what else is possible.

If we decide we're in the American Empire - we need nuclear subs. They just go the distance.

If - on the other hand - we decide we're an AUSTRALIAN DEFENCE force - how about we buy DEFENCE SUBS?
They could be about half the price - like the Spanish S-80. In fact - we might be able to buy the plans off the Spanish - or even develop and build our own. These Bioethanol Fuel Cell subs can stay underwater for a month. They're also a bit stealthier than the American nuclear sub - as they do not leave the same thermal wake in the water.

And we could put Adelaide and other ports back to work!
S-80 Plus-class submarine - Wikipedia
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: BCP1928
Upvote 0

eclipsenow

Scripture is God's word, Science is God's works
Dec 17, 2010
9,804
2,489
Sydney, Australia
Visit site
✟199,275.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
While I never voted for him, there are things I really admire about former PM Malcolm Turnbull.

I wish he had run for Labor.

He calls Trump a narcissistic bully, and says the only way to deal with bullies is you have to stand up to them.
He discusses how Trump whined and complained at Malcolm and Malcolm stood up to him, reminded Trump of the USA's commitment in a certain matter - and Trump had an absolute tantrum. (Trump is such a wonderfully inspiring Stoic figure - always trying to do what's right - always a gentleman. No - it's more than that! He's a Statesman! ;) :sick: )

Newscorp and the extended alt-right media promote Trump as "the central sort of avatar of that universe".

He then comments on NOT letting Trump choose who our ambassador to the USA should be, and chats about his former rival in Labor's Kevin Rudd.

(I did not bother to listen to the YouTuber's commentary at the end)

 
Upvote 0

ThatRobGuy

Part of the IT crowd
Site Supporter
Sep 4, 2005
28,355
17,093
Here
✟1,475,411.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
While I never voted for him, there are things I really admire about former PM Malcolm Turnbull.

I wish he had run for Labor.

He calls Trump a narcissistic bully, and says the only way to deal with bullies is you have to stand up to them.
He discusses how Trump whined and complained at Malcolm and Malcolm stood up to him, reminded Trump of the USA's commitment in a certain matter - and Trump had an absolute tantrum. (Trump is such a wonderfully inspiring Stoic figure - always trying to do what's right - always a gentleman. No - it's more than that! He's a Statesman! ;) :sick: )

Newscorp and the extended alt-right media promote Trump as "the central sort of avatar of that universe".

He then comments on NOT letting Trump choose who our ambassador to the USA should be, and chats about his former rival in Labor's Kevin Rudd.

(I did not bother to listen to the YouTuber's commentary at the end)



I think Australia would be making a tactical error by making this purely about Trump.

The reality, whoever the US president is (regardless of it's a narcissistic man-child like Trump, or a reasonable level-headed person), it doesn't matter... Whoever Australia's PM is is no position to "stand up to" a US president. That would be like the "leader" of a low level regional street gang saying they were going to stand up to El Chapo.

Don't get me wrong, there's nothing wrong with a country foregoing conquest and empire ambitions, and purely choosing to focus on domestic matters... I wish we did more of that.

If it were up to me, I'd pull 75% of US naval ships home, sell them to the highest Western bidder, and protect our own shipping routes, and tell everyone else "sink or swim, you're on your own, if you'd like us to protect a particular shipment, we'll do so for $3 per $100 of the cargo getting shipped", but the reality is, the US is the "bouncer" for 80% of the global shipping routes at the current juncture, and we largely do it pro-bono.

Trump, for all his flaws, can rope the Aussies into a foreign conflict (that they maybe have no sincere interest in) the same way that Obama (a level-headed guy) demanded "coalition support" in Afghanistan & Syria...as well as "strongly encouraging" Aussies into doing Indian Ocean counter-piracy patrols.


The reality is, the rest of western society designated us as the "shot callers" when it came to international military force (so that they could spend less on military, and more on their own domestic welfare programs), so they can't be too surprised that whoever the US president is, is doing some "shot calling" in that regard.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: BPPLEE
Upvote 0

eclipsenow

Scripture is God's word, Science is God's works
Dec 17, 2010
9,804
2,489
Sydney, Australia
Visit site
✟199,275.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
I think Australia would be making a tactical error by making this purely about Trump.

The reality, whoever the US president is (regardless of it's a narcissistic man-child like Trump, or a reasonable level-headed person), it doesn't matter... Whoever Australia's PM is is no position to "stand up to" a US president. That would be like the "leader" of a low level regional street gang saying they were going to stand up to El Chapo.
Trump wanted to back out of a prior agreement made with the USA over a few refugees - a tiny fraction of what you're dealing with annually - yet decided to have an end-of-the-world scale tantrum over it. We were going to send 1250 refugees to the USA - and Trump went bananas.

In August 2017, The Washington Post released the full transcript of the meeting. In it, President Trump described the refugee deal as "ridiculous", "rotten", and "stupid". The President, angered by the discussion about refugees, said "I have had it. I have been making these calls all day and this is the most unpleasant call all day. Putin was a pleasant call".​

Malcolm wasn't threatening to break our military alliance over it - but he stood up to the bullying - the fact that Trump wanted to drop 100% of the prior commitment. Malcolm compromised - saying he could lower the amount - but America would honour the deal. Trump blustered and yelled and insulted - but Malcolm stood firm.

In the end Australia has transferred 1106 as of 2024.


Don't get me wrong, there's nothing wrong with a country foregoing conquest and empire ambitions, and purely choosing to focus on domestic matters... I wish we did more of that.
I wish you did less of the empire thing, but continued to back NATO without threatening it.
America won significant economic advantages under the various post-WW2 agreements.
America's dollar became the global default dollar, creating an enormous economic advantage.
America agreed to police the world's oceans to step in and prevent the need for many other nations - especially European nations - to have to rebuild their navies while trying to rebuild their countries! (In many cases from the ground up.)

And - while a bit off topic from the Australian and American relationship - then America got economically addicted to leading NATO and pouring $567 million into bases across Europe and other NATO kit. How does pumping money out of America help America?

America has always argued against a European army. Previous American administrations were smart enough to realise that keeping Europe divided into dozens of smaller, divided militaries prevented them building a competing Military Industrial Complex. America marketed this as providing 'leadership and logistics' to NATO, filling the gaps in heavy airlift, satellite targeting, and other services. In reality - it was to keep Europe from achieving economies of scale and benefitting from all the civilian spin-off technologies that come with having a Military Industrial Complex (with agencies like DARPA etc.) Apparently every million dollars spent into American aerospace military kit ALSO generates 4 full time jobs in the civilian supply chain as well. The spin offs are enormous!

The bottom line? The EU remained dependant on America for the best hardware - and buys American arms.

The result? The punchline?

The EU pays America 105 TIMES more than America invests in NATO!

And Trump and Vance whine about 'bailing out the Europeans again!' any time America fires a missile. Who are they KIDDING? What scares me is that Signalgate leak shows Vance genuinely feels the unfairness of this down in his bones.

These guys just don't actually seem to understand how the world works - and what a racket this is for America!
Thing is - the EU have taken their first baby steps to unifying military spending. It was tiny - only $300 million from memory - but about 6 nations pooled some money and let the EU actually organise a hardware tender - to be spend across EUROPE building their own kit! (I even forget what it was - some fighter jets? Not the point!)

That could be the first cracks in an enormous geopolitical earthquake! The EU leadership have finally woken up to what a con all this is.

So if America could at least try and execute this con without WHINING about it - that would be great!

If it were up to me, I'd pull 75% of US naval ships home, sell them to the highest Western bidder, and protect our own shipping routes, and tell everyone else "sink or swim, you're on your own, if you'd like us to protect a particular shipment, we'll do so for $3 per $100 of the cargo getting shipped", but the reality is, the US is the "bouncer" for 80% of the global shipping routes at the current juncture, and we largely do it pro-bono.
Yup - you've drunk the Coolaid.
See above.

PRO-BONO! That's the best thing I've seen all week - and I've been watching Trump at work! :oldthumbsup:
Trump, for all his flaws, can rope the Aussies into a foreign conflict (that they maybe have no sincere interest in) the same way that Obama (a level-headed guy) demanded "coalition support" in Afghanistan & Syria...as well as "strongly encouraging" Aussies into doing Indian Ocean counter-piracy patrols.
Yes - we have followed America into a bunch of unnecessary and sometimes even illegal or unjustified wars. (IRAQ! Where were the WMDs?)

The reality is, the rest of western society designated us as the "shot callers" when it came to international military force (so that they could spend less on military, and more on their own domestic welfare programs), so they can't be too surprised that whoever the US president is, is doing some "shot calling" in that regard.
Read a book. IF the EU had been able to form their own European Army (and the USA is not the only villain in the failure of that project as I've already mentioned France) then NATO might have had SOME duplication - but Europe would be vastly stronger, and get vastly more literal bang for their buck from every military dollar spent. As it is, their manufacturing runs are on tiny, bespoke, enormous cost-per unit kit. They are weaker as a result, and less likely to take the pointy end of certain military operations.

Opposition​

According to NATO officials, the alliance has discouraged independent European defence capabilities, both as an attempt to avoid duplication and as a moral hazard effect from US defence subsidies prompting less military spending by European countries. The United States ambassador to NATO also expressed opposition to any European protectionism in developing its own defence industry.​

America EARNS 105 times MORE from Europe than they put into NATO.​

Deal with it.​

 
Upvote 0

ThatRobGuy

Part of the IT crowd
Site Supporter
Sep 4, 2005
28,355
17,093
Here
✟1,475,411.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Trump wanted to back out of a prior agreement made with the USA over a few refugees - a tiny fraction of what you're dealing with annually - yet decided to have an end-of-the-world scale tantrum over it. We were going to send 1250 refugees to the USA - and Trump went bananas.

In August 2017, The Washington Post released the full transcript of the meeting. In it, President Trump described the refugee deal as "ridiculous", "rotten", and "stupid". The President, angered by the discussion about refugees, said "I have had it. I have been making these calls all day and this is the most unpleasant call all day. Putin was a pleasant call".​

Malcolm wasn't threatening to break our military alliance over it - but he stood up to the bullying - the fact that Trump wanted to drop 100% of the prior commitment. Malcolm compromised - saying he could lower the amount - but America would honour the deal. Trump blustered and yelled and insulted - but Malcolm stood firm.

In the end Australia has transferred 1106 as of 2024.



I wish you did less of the empire thing, but continued to back NATO without threatening it.
America won significant economic advantages under the various post-WW2 agreements.
America's dollar became the global default dollar, creating an enormous economic advantage.
America agreed to police the world's oceans to step in and prevent the need for many other nations - especially European nations - to have to rebuild their navies while trying to rebuild their countries! (In many cases from the ground up.)

And - while a bit off topic from the Australian and American relationship - then America got economically addicted to leading NATO and pouring $567 million into bases across Europe and other NATO kit. How does pumping money out of America help America?

America has always argued against a European army. Previous American administrations were smart enough to realise that keeping Europe divided into dozens of smaller, divided militaries prevented them building a competing Military Industrial Complex. America marketed this as providing 'leadership and logistics' to NATO, filling the gaps in heavy airlift, satellite targeting, and other services. In reality - it was to keep Europe from achieving economies of scale and benefitting from all the civilian spin-off technologies that come with having a Military Industrial Complex (with agencies like DARPA etc.) Apparently every million dollars spent into American aerospace military kit ALSO generates 4 full time jobs in the civilian supply chain as well. The spin offs are enormous!

The bottom line? The EU remained dependant on America for the best hardware - and buys American arms.

The result? The punchline?

The EU pays America 105 TIMES more than America invests in NATO!

And Trump and Vance whine about 'bailing out the Europeans again!' any time America fires a missile. Who are they KIDDING? What scares me is that Signalgate leak shows Vance genuinely feels the unfairness of this down in his bones.

These guys just don't actually seem to understand how the world works - and what a racket this is for America!
Thing is - the EU have taken their first baby steps to unifying military spending. It was tiny - only $300 million from memory - but about 6 nations pooled some money and let the EU actually organise a hardware tender - to be spend across EUROPE building their own kit! (I even forget what it was - some fighter jets? Not the point!)

That could be the first cracks in an enormous geopolitical earthquake! The EU leadership have finally woken up to what a con all this is.

So if America could at least try and execute this con without WHINING about it - that would be great!


Yup - you've drunk the Coolaid.
See above.

PRO-BONO! That's the best thing I've seen all week - and I've been watching Trump at work! :oldthumbsup:

Yes - we have followed America into a bunch of unnecessary and sometimes even illegal or unjustified wars. (IRAQ! Where were the WMDs?)


Read a book. IF the EU had been able to form their own European Army (and the USA is not the only villain in the failure of that project as I've already mentioned France) then NATO might have had SOME duplication - but Europe would be vastly stronger, and get vastly more literal bang for their buck from every military dollar spent. As it is, their manufacturing runs are on tiny, bespoke, enormous cost-per unit kit. They are weaker as a result, and less likely to take the pointy end of certain military operations.

Opposition​

According to NATO officials, the alliance has discouraged independent European defence capabilities, both as an attempt to avoid duplication and as a moral hazard effect from US defence subsidies prompting less military spending by European countries. The United States ambassador to NATO also expressed opposition to any European protectionism in developing its own defence industry.​

America EARNS 105 times MORE from Europe than they put into NATO.​

Deal with it.​


It seems as if you're conflating "putting into NATO" with entirety of the security services the US provides to the rest of the globe.

Weapons sales figures are irrelevant for that. That's money for products.



Your statement of
"
I wish you did less of the empire thing, but continued to back NATO without threatening it.
"

If framed as a dinner analogy, that's basically saying "we still want you to cover the biggest share of the dinner check, but we no longer want your outsized contribution to entitle you to decide which appetizers to get for the table".

That's not how financial reliance on other people works.
 
Upvote 0

eclipsenow

Scripture is God's word, Science is God's works
Dec 17, 2010
9,804
2,489
Sydney, Australia
Visit site
✟199,275.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
It seems as if you're conflating "putting into NATO" with entirety of the security services the US provides to the rest of the globe.

Weapons sales figures are irrelevant for that. That's money for products.



Your statement of
"
I wish you did less of the empire thing, but continued to back NATO without threatening it.
"

If framed as a dinner analogy, that's basically saying "we still want you to cover the biggest share of the dinner check, but we no longer want your outsized contribution to entitle you to decide which appetizers to get for the table".

That's not how financial reliance on other people works.
Sure - there could be other global ocean policing actions the USA takes.

I'm highlighting the European theatre because that's the most revolting example of Vance and Trump's petty grievances and complete misunderstanding of the deal that ALL previous, smarter, more experienced Presidents and administrations actually understood! Rather than appointing Yes Men - they appointed experts in their field - and the President's received the wisdom of that team.

Signalgate was a very disturbing experience for me, given I knew had just read the financial facts - which you have not disproved.
America earns over 100 TIMES what it invests into European bases etc. And you're trying to call this appetizers?

But even downunder, with the AUKUS 'deal' struck under Biden, the same thing seems to be playing out.
We agreed to spend a third of a TRILLION dollars for Australia to get a handful of nuclear powered subs. For logistical reasons, most would be in dry dock most of the time. We'd average 2 in the water (Democracy Sausage).

Exactly how much deterrence is that for a third of a TRILLION?

Also - America inherited the role sort of as part of Bretton-Woods - where America became the world's default currency, giving seigniorage + cheaper borrowing (“exorbitant privilege”) and powerful sanctions/payment-plumbing leverage.

IRONY: TRUMP REGIME DOESN'T EVEN UNDERSTAND THIS!
Trump's tariffs seem designed to undermine the advantages that came from Bretton-Woods and remained with America having established the default currency even after Bretton-Woods ended. This default currency advantage lets the U.S. run persistent trade deficits — importing more than it exports — without suffering the balance-of-payments crises that most countries would face. The rest of the world recycles its surplus dollars back into Treasuries and U.S. assets.

BUT of course - Trump sees deficits as "unfair - the world has never seen anything like it". But most economists realised America gets to specialise in cutting edge services and IT tech - and buy all the cheap stuff made overseas with an advantage no other modern economy enjoys in this regard!

COLONIALISM ELSEWHERE
Also - a lot of the Middle-Eastern engagement is part of American investment in backing Militant Zionism as it expands illegally across Palestinian territories. It seems having a 'democracy' in the Middle East is so important to the American Empire that it will turn a blind eye to Israel's descent into classic NAZI tactics against the local Arabs.

Also - American Neo-Colonialism under various multinational 'deals' with corrupt African dictators and suspicious regimes has meant they need a local or floating base of power that can move in and provide some menacing muscle to convince or coerce economic imperialism. These are huge subjects - and I'm not pretending to be an expert in them. Just aware that they exist.

It serves AMERICA to have the world's largest military.
You get the Military Industrial Complex, DARPA, and international arms to sell - and all the DARPA tech advances surging through the rest of your economy - let alone the extra supply chain boost to civilian jobs.
 
Upvote 0