China's rise raises Australia war fears - Polidicks

No, Australia doesn't need nukes... What the fuck is with Facepunch's addiction with nukes? And if you're talking about the ANZUS treaty, the one New Zealand pulled out of, it's pretty much meaningless. It's not like NATO where an attack on a member is an attack on all, rather it allows for the US-AU, AU-NZ to decide if they will get involved.

[QUOTE=Best4bond;24515863]Australia needs a nuke program to protect ourselfs from China.... Hell... If China invades Australia China's citys would be nuked about three hours after knowing the Australian-American-New Zealand agreement were if one country goes into a war, They all have to go.[/QUOTE]And watch as you get vaporized and the rest of the world plunges into thermonuclear war.

Australia needs no protection from one of Australia's stronger allies, China. [editline]12:57AM[/editline] [QUOTE=L0LIMB0RED;24515960]And watch as you get vaporized and the rest of the world plunges into thermonuclear war.[/QUOTE] Amazing...

[QUOTE=CoolCorky;24512987]I thought we as a species were past the days of "hurr durr lets invade them for the sheer hell of it"?[/QUOTE] Its never really been for the pure hell of it. Maybe during the time of monarchs but in modern times, wars are too costly and you need a consise reason or you will lose because there is no reason to win. The only time I see "hur dur attack!" Would be in Africa, but even then its tribal hatred with eachother because of how badly the European nations fucked over Africa when they left.

[QUOTE=Mabus;24514765]I don't see what China would gain by military expansion (although in the Kashmir region they could gain some lucrative resources, they would have to wrestle India and Pakistan though.)[/quote] Right now, military epansion is not really an issue so much as economic expansion and influnce, although we are very concerned abou them recently placing troops in a Pacific island they own, in Indochina, in N. Korea, and in Mongolia. China is expanding their military presence in a way similar ot that o the US, just, so far, on a smaller scale. [quote]the way I see it China are very closed and defensive when it comes to military matters, they like to keep themselves within there own borders. The only way China tries it on with other countries is by getting a share of their resources via economic trade and tied aid, this is especially true with some Middle Eastern countries and African countries who are rich in oil.[/quote] Exactly. China is actively going for economic supremacy- status as an economic superpower, but to do that they need to maintain friendly, non militaristic relations with many nations. So they are. However, China is a mere hop skip and jump away from this status, and thy don't want anything getting in their way. Who's in their way? The United states. Who's struggling to keep open and friendly relations? China and the US. [quote]If anything it would be the United States that would kick off a global conflict, and it would probably be unintended by them. their rapid economic expansion and aggressive foreign policy (especially when it comes to acquiring resources) have made them many enemies in the international community, even cooling relations with former allies.[/quote] The US is not expanding economically all that much. And if a conflict is going to start, I think it would be China beginning it to get the constantly more defensive US out of its way, which would be the US starting it int he first place by trying to hold its ground against China's economic and political expansion. [quote]Of course they value international friendship but only from a position of superiority. they also have a knack of supporting very controversial governments and groups simply because they are adversaries of their own enemies, which harks back to the days of the cold war, if you think about it they haven't really changed an awful lot since then.[/quote] True. [quote]As many people have already said it would also be detrimental for China to expand itself militarily, most (if not all) of its exports and some imports come from the very countries that it is speculated to invade. If they did so they would suffer collapse, as their own homegrown economy would not sustain the sheer cost of it's massive military.[/QUOTE] Military expansion for China would be and has been incredibly cheap- unlike the US, the cost of maintaining the Chinese PLA is alot less per unit than the US army. The cost to transport, say, 20k troops in the PLA is probably close to the cost to transfer half that number of US troops. China maintains an active army a little less than double the size of our total armed forces for far less the price. To actually put them to use would hardly be a burden the country that has a GDP 4+ times that of ours, and who could easily maintain itself if they simple implemented a few new laws regarding foreign trade and ownership of foreign manufacturing programs. People don't understand that China [i]does not have to[/i] rely on exterior countries for trade. In a week's time, it could very easily cut off all trade, nationalize all foreign industry in the country, and manufacture enough to feed its population, arm its military, and train its reserves for active duty. Not that it would need to. Because of China's ingenious actions in the past regarding trade, if you want to do business with China, you do it [i]in[/i] China. They have the majority of our private industry's manufacturing programs in their country. Alongside that, they more or less control our economy thanks to us relying on them for cheap manufacturing as well as us owing them 12 trillion dollars in debt. They could easily expand their military into other nations and their economic influence all over the place and not risk military conflict because they simply could pull the debt card, or stop exporting to us, and tah dah, our economy is ruined. And the only nation big enough that could help get us back on our feet would be China. China is actively expanding economically. We are in a cold war with China right now. The recent military expansion and the large-scale economic expansion is in direct conflict to our military presence and economic supremacy in our Asian allies. Of the nations in south east Asia and Oceania, the only ones that, statistically based on current growth models, do not have China overtaking the US in political and economic influence and reliance are Australia and the Phillipines (I read this in a book, but I forget which. I know it wasn't [i]China, Inc.[/i], but it was about China's growth as a superpower). We're both in active espionage campaigns in each others' territory, we have received several cyber-attacks and cases of cyber-espionage against China, China is currently in a low-scale space race with India and the EU, and in one to Mars with the US, and alongside expanding military influence and the size of their military, which until recently they have been moving to make smaller, they've been actively working on projects which are directly intended to combat the superior technology of the US (aircraft carrier specific torpedos, a resurgence in their nuclear submarine program and stealth submarines, actively continuing aircraft projects meant to combat the F-35, looking for anti-satellite, anti-ICBM, and anti-UAV missiles and measure, as well as creating UAVs and UCAVs comprable to those in the US.) China could be a threat, and the governments of the would know that and are beginning to align themselves with their respective economic and military partners (NATO and SCO, primarily, lead by the US and China, respectively). China wants to be number one, and they won't let us get in the way. It's up to us if we push harder against them, hold our defenses, or if we let them go ahead with it. Also, nuclear war would not occur unless China or the US (or Russia, who is part of the SCO and China's strongest ally) were directly invaded. Neither side would risk losing their own alliances and potential economic and political slave nations for after any military conflict. The chances of an actual war are low, simply because the SCO has the west in its wallet and can simply drop us at any time and watch us go down the shithole, as I've already explained.

[QUOTE=Best4bond;24515863]Australia needs a nuke program to protect ourselfs from China.... Hell... If China invades Australia China's citys would be nuked about three hours after knowing the Australian-American-New Zealand agreement were if one country goes into a war, They all have to go.[/QUOTE] >he thinks Australia could stand a chance against china rofl

[QUOTE=alienmartian23;24516294]>he thinks Australia could stand a chance against china rofl[/QUOTE] That depends on how thin Chinese forces would be spread, and the weaponry deployed. It's quite possible the Australians would win an armed conflict, it just depends on variables.

[QUOTE=Best4bond;24515863]Australia needs a nuke program to protect ourselfs from China.... Hell... If China invades Australia China's citys would be nuked about three hours after knowing the Australian-American-New Zealand agreement were if one country goes into a war, They all have to go.[/QUOTE] You really think anyone would go to nuclear war over Australia? The US wouldn't sacrifice its whole economy over Australia, nor would either side sacrifice destruction of the entire human race over a fairly weak economic ally/prospect and fairly strong political ally. The US may, [i]may[/i] go to war over Australia, but never to nuclear war and never start WWIII over it But I can see the reasoning behind and Australian nuclear defense program. I'd be okay with that.

[QUOTE=Detective P;24516404]You really think anyone would go to nuclear war over Australia? The US wouldn't sacrifice its whole economy over Australia, nor would either side sacrifice destruction of the entire human race over a fairly weak economic ally/prospect and fairly strong political ally. The US may, [i]may[/i] go to war over Australia, but never to nuclear war and never start WWIII over it But I can see the reasoning behind and Australian nuclear defense program. I'd be okay with that.[/QUOTE] There's an American base slap bang in the middle of Australia called Pine Gap, and it's partly run by CIA personnel. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pine_Gap[/url] What's the bet there's some form of nuclear weapons stationed there, as it's technically US soil. Signs near the base: [img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a4/PineGap-sign.jpg/800px-PineGap-sign.jpg[/img]

[QUOTE=Superwafflez;24516461]There's an American base slap bang in the middle of Australia called Pine Gap, and it's partly run by CIA personnel. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pine_Gap[/url] What's the bet there's some form of nuclear weapons stationed there, as it's technically US soil. Signs near the base: [img_thumb]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a4/PineGap-sign.jpg/800px-PineGap-sign.jpg[/img_thumb][/QUOTE] Pine Gap is likely not a nuclear facility, it's probably an experimental weapons facility, or at least that's what I've heard of it last. Anyhow, we have bases in 130 countries, losing one base is not a tragedy, and the cost of going to war over Pine Gap would be far more than actually losing Pine Gap. But thanks for reminding me of the name for it, I was just talking about it last weekend and couldn't for the life of me remember what it was called. Edit: Seems to be a satellite tracking and monitoring facility for Echelon, spooky and highly valuable for the US, but hardly anything worth WWIII over.

This just in: Australia just banned China. [editline]03:38AM[/editline] Problem resolved. :buddy:

Here we go again with the military and strategic FP experts.

China's navy challenge the primacy of the US's? Hahahaha. Haha. Ha. No. A single US carrier battle group could most likely take on the entire Chinese navy. And we have ten of them.

[QUOTE=Deutschbag;24523123]China's navy challenge the primacy of the US's? Hahahaha. Haha. Ha. No. A single US carrier battle group could most likely take on the entire Chinese navy. And we have ten of them.[/QUOTE] Overconfidence is a dangerous thing, in reality it's hard to know what kind of navy the Chinese have, I certainly know next to nothing about it and I'm assuming you also know very little, if it's anything like it's massive military it could be more than a match for the US.

[QUOTE=Deutschbag;24523123]China's navy challenge the primacy of the US's? Hahahaha. Haha. Ha. No. A single US carrier battle group could most likely take on the entire Chinese navy. And we have ten of them.[/QUOTE] Their navy isn't the problem, their long-range anti-ship UAV program and unmatched anti-carrier long-range torpedo/missile program is.

30 Oct, 2008 12:00 AM So how is that going now?

[QUOTE=Mabus;24523898]Overconfidence is a dangerous thing, in reality it's hard to know what kind of navy the Chinese have, I certainly know next to nothing about it and I'm assuming you also know very little, if it's anything like it's massive military it could be more than a match for the US.[/QUOTE] Er, no, it's not hard to know. Wikipedia is not hard to access, after all. China has 58 submarines. 10 of these are nuclear-powered. The other 48 are slower, conventional-powered ones. The PLAN has 6 ballistic missile submarines, 5 nuclear, 1 conventional. The other 52 subs, 5 of which are nuclear, are attack subs. The United States has 72 submarines. All of them are nuclear-powered. 54 of them are attack submarines. 14 are nuclear ballistic missile subs. The remaining four are Tomahawk cruise missile-armed guided missile subs. China has zero active aircraft carriers, one being rebuilt from an old Soviet carrier, and a further two planned. The United States Navy has 11 nuclear-powered aircraft carriers--ten of which are the Nimitz class supercarriers, the most powerful warships ever built. In addition, it has one next-generation Ford-class supercarrier under construction, with a further two ordered. China has zero cruisers. The United States Navy has 22 Ticonderoga-class guided missile cruisers. These ships are probably the most powerful non-carrier warships ever built, with an array of capabilities making them deadly in surface combat, air-to-air combat, and anti-submarine warfare. China has 26 destroyers, with none under construction. The United States has 57 Arleigh Burke-class destroyers commissioned, plus about a dozen or so planned. Additionally, an all-new low-observability destroyer, the Zumwalt-class, has one ship under construction, with at least two further planned. China has 51 frigates in service. This is the one type of primary surface combatant where China has superior numbers. The United States has 30.

the simplest solution is obvious, you tools. Ban China. [editline]06:32AM[/editline] [QUOTE=Deutschbag;24536717]Er, no, it's not hard to know. Wikipedia is not hard to access, after all. China has 58 submarines. 10 of these are nuclear-powered. The other 48 are slower, conventional-powered ones. The PLAN has 6 ballistic missile submarines, 5 nuclear, 1 conventional. The other 52 subs, 5 of which are nuclear, are attach subs. The United States has 72 submarines. All of them are nuclear-powered. 54 of them are attack submarines. 14 are nuclear ballistic missile subs. The remaining four are Tomahawk cruise missile-armed guided missile subs. China has zero active aircraft carriers, one being rebuilt from an old Soviet carrier, and a further two planned. The United States Navy has 11 nuclear-powered aircraft carriers--ten of which are the Nimitz class supercarriers, the most powerful warships ever built. In addition, it has one next-generation Ford-class supercarrier under construction, with a further two ordered. China has zero cruisers. The United States Navy has 22 Ticonderoga-class guided missile cruisers. These ships are probably the most powerful non-carrier warships ever built, with an array of capabilities making them deadly in surface combat, air-to-air combat, and anti-submarine warfare. China has 26 destroyers, with none under construction. The United States has 57 Arleigh Burke-class destroyers commissioned, plus about a dozen or so planned. Additionally, an all-new low-observability destroyer, the Zumwalt-class, has one ship under construction, with at least two further planned. China has 51 frigates in service. This is the one type of primary surface combatant where China has superior numbers. The United States has 30.[/QUOTE] china uses Cash US Bonds The United State's economy crashes It's super effective

[quote]And if you're talking about the ANZUS treaty, the one New Zealand pulled out of, it's pretty much meaningless. It's not like NATO where an attack on a member is an attack on all, rather it allows for the US-AU, AU-NZ to decide if they will get involved.[/QUOTE] Its still valid [release]The resulting treaty was concluded at San Francisco on 1 September 1951, and entered into force on 29 April 1952. The treaty bound the signatories to recognise that an armed attack in the Pacific area on any of them would endanger the peace and safety of the others. It stated 'The Parties will consult together whenever in the opinion of any of them the territorial integrity, political independence or security of any of the Parties is threatened in the Pacific'. The three nations also pledged to maintain and develop individual and collective capabilities to resist attack.[/release] Thats from Wikipedia

Because invading one of their largest trading partners is a good idea. We rely on them for manufacturing good, they rely on us for coal/iron and uranium (not sure about uranium)

oh Australia and your paranoia

"30 Oct, 2008 12:00 AM" Fuck you OP.

[QUOTE=hehe;24537160]Because invading one of their largest trading partners is a good idea. [/QUOTE] They could just take all the resources they want. Trillions of dollars worth of Uranium in Aus.

[QUOTE=Superwafflez;24537293]They could just take all the resources they want. Trillions of dollars worth of Uranium in Aus.[/QUOTE] Far more trouble than it's worth. US-backed insurgents fighting against foreign aggressors would tend to complicate the whole "taking resources" thing.

[QUOTE=Captainbarbie;24513012]chuck em the filthy coon land (aka ALL of western aus, and 9/10ths of south and north australia) that we gave to abo's. Chinese immigrants account for more of the population than native abo's. That will solve this problem[/QUOTE] You sir, a a faggot, and need to get out

[QUOTE=Deutschbag;24537337]Far more trouble than it's worth. US-backed insurgents fighting against foreign aggressors would tend to complicate the whole "taking resources" thing.[/QUOTE] Except the resources are in the middle of the fucking desert.

china has no reason to attack australia, news article is pointless

[QUOTE=Deutschbag;24536717]Er, no, it's not hard to know. Wikipedia is not hard to access, after all. China has 58 submarines. 10 of these are nuclear-powered. The other 48 are slower, conventional-powered ones. The PLAN has 6 ballistic missile submarines, 5 nuclear, 1 conventional. The other 52 subs, 5 of which are nuclear, are attack subs. The United States has 72 submarines. All of them are nuclear-powered. 54 of them are attack submarines. 14 are nuclear ballistic missile subs. The remaining four are Tomahawk cruise missile-armed guided missile subs. China has zero active aircraft carriers, one being rebuilt from an old Soviet carrier, and a further two planned. The United States Navy has 11 nuclear-powered aircraft carriers--ten of which are the Nimitz class supercarriers, the most powerful warships ever built. In addition, it has one next-generation Ford-class supercarrier under construction, with a further two ordered. China has zero cruisers. The United States Navy has 22 Ticonderoga-class guided missile cruisers. These ships are probably the most powerful non-carrier warships ever built, with an array of capabilities making them deadly in surface combat, air-to-air combat, and anti-submarine warfare. China has 26 destroyers, with none under construction. The United States has 57 Arleigh Burke-class destroyers commissioned, plus about a dozen or so planned. Additionally, an all-new low-observability destroyer, the Zumwalt-class, has one ship under construction, with at least two further planned. China has 51 frigates in service. This is the one type of primary surface combatant where China has superior numbers. The United States has 30.[/QUOTE] Just comparing numbers is an unreliable way of measuring the capabilities of opposing military forces. You have to consider things such as doctrine, their employment and what-not. The thought of a single CVBG "wiping the floor with the PLAN" is just ridiculous, especially when PLAN doctrine, tactics and operational thinking differs from the US Navy that direct comparisons of estimated ship numbers is not authoritative. For example, look at the battle of France during World War II. The average layman would most likely say that France would easily defeat Germany with its massive numbers of men, superior firepower and mighty Maginot Line. Now, I'm not saying that the PLA has the capability right now to decisively defeat the US Navy, but you people have to stop looking at potential US adversaries like if they're Iraq or Yugoslavia. If you haven't, I recommend that you read one of Planeman's [url=http://www.sinodefenceforum.com/navy/bluffers-guide-chinese-naval-power-4865.html]Bluffer Guides[/url] for a layman's guide to the PLAN. It's secondary source, but it's free from any pro-US or pro-PRC dick waving.

[QUOTE=Tac Error;24537948]Just comparing numbers is an unreliable way of measuring the capabilities of opposing military forces. You have to consider things such as doctrine, their employment and what-not. The thought of a single CVBG "wiping the floor with the PLAN" is just ridiculous, especially when PLAN doctrine, tactics and operational thinking differs from the US Navy that direct comparisons of estimated ship numbers is not authoritative. For example, look at the battle of France during World War II. The average layman would most likely say that France would easily defeat Germany with its massive numbers of men, superior firepower and mighty Maginot Line. Now, I'm not saying that the PLA has the capability right now to decisively defeat the US Navy, but you people have to stop looking at potential US adversaries like if they're Iraq or Yugoslavia. If you haven't, I recommend that you read one of Planeman's [url=http://www.sinodefenceforum.com/navy/bluffers-guide-chinese-naval-power-4865.html]Bluffer Guides[/url] for a layman's guide to the PLAN. It's secondary source, but it's free from any pro-US or pro-PRC dick waving.[/QUOTE] Just comparing numbers, sure. But then again, when the numbers are something like 2-3 to 1, or, in the case of carriers or cruisers, 11 to 0 and 22 to 0, it paints a pretty clear picture of capabilities. Alright, perhaps saying a single battle group would be able to take on the Chinese navy is an exaggeration. However, the fact remains that the US would be capable of engaging the Chinese long before the Chinese could do likewise. The US's carrier aircraft such as the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet have effective combat radii of over 400 miles. The Ticonderoga-class cruisers' and Arleigh Burke-class destroyers' Aegis missile systems can intercept most anti-ship missiles at long range, and any that they miss can be dealt with by Phalanx CIWS. Of course, these systems aren't perfect, but they provide defense against the primary threat to US naval operations, which is long-range anti-ship missiles.

[QUOTE=Deutschbag;24538141]Just comparing numbers, sure. But then again, when the numbers are something like 2-3 to 1, or, in the case of carriers or cruisers, 11 to 0 and 22 to 0, it paints a pretty clear picture of capabilities.[/quote] So what the PLAN doesn't have any cruisers? All of the US Navy's Ticos were originally destroyers which were renamed by the US Navy into "cruisers" to give them a more imposing image to the public. You might as well group destroyers and cruisers into "surface combatants". Measuring one's capability on the number of carriers they have really depends on the context of this naval war you're talking about. I figure the PLAN would be fighting a defensive war (not trying to do something like impose naval authority on some god-forsaken land), so having carriers or not is rather moot point when power projection isn't one of their priorities. [quote]Alright, perhaps saying a single battle group would be able to take on the Chinese navy is an exaggeration. However, the fact remains that the US would be capable of engaging the Chinese long before the Chinese could do likewise. The US's carrier aircraft such as the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet have effective combat radii of over 400 miles. The Ticonderoga-class cruisers' and Arleigh Burke-class destroyers' Aegis missile systems can intercept most anti-ship missiles at long range, and any that they miss can be dealt with by Phalanx CIWS. Of course, these systems aren't perfect, but they provide defense against the primary threat to US naval operations, which is long-range anti-ship missiles.[/QUOTE] And the F/A-18Es have to go through ship-based air defenses and land-based aircraft to launch their slow Harpoons, which lack the survivability to tackle recent generations of anti-ship defense systems, even Aegis. The effectiveness of shipboard SAMs in particular really make a classic WWII-style air attack the least favorable option, and sadly, that's basically the only thing the US Navy has for conducting on-hand long-range anti-ship missions. Hell, the Flight II Burke DDGs lack Harpoon launchers. Did they really place all of their eggs into the basket called naval aviation? US CVBGs are certainly capable of engaging various anti-ship missiles, but I seriously doubt that it's effective against modern anti-ship missiles designed to penetrate American-style defensive measures such as the [url=http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2008/04/us-cant-stop-ch/]SS-N-27 Klub[/url] which many PLAN surface and subsurface combatants are capable of using.