# Australia! Australia! Australia! - New Strategy for handling China.



## Kirkhill (2 Sep 2020)

Australia Is Having a Strategic Revolution, and It’s All About China

https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/07/22/australia-military-strategy-regional-policy-china/



> ...The Australian government has therefore promised additional investment into defense, greater capability to deter hostile states, and more focus on Australia’s immediate region. Morrison laid out 270 billion Australian dollars ($190 billion) in defense spending over the next 10 years, a commitment that will grow defense spending to 2 percent of Australia’s GDP by 2020-2021.
> 
> This announcement promises to reorient Australia’s strategy around enhanced deterrent capabilities, particularly longer-range striking capabilities. *This approach also acknowledges increasing risks—that might result in Australia having to go to war and fight on its own for a prolonged period (hence, a call for stockpiling more fuel and munitions)*. Other key initiatives include enhancing cybersecurity and space capabilities, fielding underwater surveillance systems, growing the military’s size, and boosting capabilities to counter hybrid warfare that combines political and military forms of coercion....
> 
> ...




Now that is strategic renewal.  When's ours?


----------



## QV (2 Sep 2020)

> Both the Obama and Trump administrations criticized “unfair burden-sharing” with U.S. allies, so Washington should be pleased that Canberra is stepping up and sharing more of the burden. Although 73 percent of Australians disapprove of U.S President Donald Trump’s criticism of allied defense spending, Australia’s leaders have committed to a major spending increase and explicitly promised to “take greater responsibility for our own security.” This has more to do with China’s increasingly aggressive behavior than with U.S. pleas. Regardless, Australia is putting resources behind its strategy.



I'd find this humorous if it wasn't so pathetic.  Despite disapproving of the obvious, but because the situation dictates and for self preservation they must do just that.  "China is a threat to us, now we have to do what America has wanted us to do for years.  Damn you Trump."



> Morrison laid out 270 billion Australian dollars ($190 billion) in defense spending over the next 10 years, a commitment that will grow defense spending to 2 percent of Australia’s GDP by 2020-2021.



But hurray for them!  It's still a win even if they have to be dragged grudgingly into it.


----------



## suffolkowner (2 Sep 2020)

QV while I'm certain the US political situation is indeed a factor I don't think the Australians are being dragged anywhere they don't want to go. We on the otherhand could use some dragging.

For example the 2009 (Rudd), 2013 (Gillard) and 2016 (Turnbull) defence white papers confirmed each government’s position to acquire 12 Future Submarines for the Royal Australian Navy (RAN).


----------



## Good2Golf (2 Sep 2020)

QV said:
			
		

> I'd find this humorous if it wasn't so pathetic.  Despite disapproving of the obvious, but because the situation dictates and for self preservation they must do just that.  "China is a threat to us, now we have to do what America has wanted us to do for years.  Damn you Trump."



Reference? Is that a real quote, or did you just make that up and decide to add quotes to legitimize your opinion?


----------



## Brad Sallows (2 Sep 2020)

A short sarcastic and/or absurd summary of a position, enclosing in quotation marks, is a common written rhetorical device.


----------



## OldSolduer (2 Sep 2020)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Australia Is Having a Strategic Revolution, and It’s All About China
> 
> https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/07/22/australia-military-strategy-regional-policy-china/
> 
> ...



 :rofl:

That will come when He(( freezes over.


----------



## MilEME09 (2 Sep 2020)

Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> :rofl:
> 
> That will come when He(( freezes over.



It would require us to have consistent defense policy that lasts more then 4 years,and to take the politics out of the department.


----------



## Weinie (2 Sep 2020)

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> It would require us to have consistent defense policy that lasts more then 4 years,and to take the politics out of the department.



It would also have us disregard some former senior political folks who have taken very cushy sinecures with Chinese boards and companies and who lobby on their behalf.


----------



## QV (2 Sep 2020)

Weinie said:
			
		

> It would also have us disregard some former senior political folks who have taken very cushy sinecures with Chinese boards and companies and who lobby on their behalf.



Makes one wonder how our allies in the 5 Eyes feel about that.


----------



## QV (2 Sep 2020)

suffolkowner said:
			
		

> QV while I'm certain the US political situation is indeed a factor I don't think the Australians are being dragged anywhere they don't want to go. We on the otherhand could use some dragging.
> 
> For example the 2009 (Rudd), 2013 (Gillard) and 2016 (Turnbull) defence white papers confirmed each government’s position to acquire 12 Future Submarines for the Royal Australian Navy (RAN).



I applaud the Aussies for taking defence seriously.  They kind of have to, they don't share our geographic advantages which allow our indifference.  I also understand they took measures to de-politized their defence budget.  

My point was, according to the article, 73% of their population oppose POTUS criticism on lackluster defence spending, yet here they are increasing defence spending.  But, that is a public poll and we know how those have been for the last few years.


----------



## Kirkhill (2 Sep 2020)

QV - They have their own problems - The Chinese have been working on making "friends" for a while now.  At least back to the days of Maurice Strong.

And the Aussies don't need any prodding.  Part of their miff is that they are one of the few countries that doesn't need prodding and they keep getting lumped in with everyone else.  Despite the fact that they (and the Kiwis) are now giving lessons to the Brits on how to conduct international affairs.  



> Boris Johnson is drafting in former Australian prime minister Tony Abbott to help lead a post-Brexit drive to boost Britain’s trade ties around the world, it has been reported.
> 
> According to The Sun, the ex-leader of Australia’s Liberal Party is set to be appointed as joint president of the UK’s revamped Board of Trade.
> 
> ...



The Board of Trade, in various guises, has been in existence since Cromwell but lost impact under the EU regime.



> Britain has hired New Zealand’s former trade head Crawford Falconer as chief trade negotiation adviser to manage the UK’s free trade deals once the country leaves the EU.
> 
> The Department for International Trade (DIT) has appointed the former ambassador to the World Trade Organisation (WTO) because the UK has little recent experience in trade talks - for the past 40 years trade deals have been managed by Brussels.
> 
> Mr Falconer will be responsible for developing and negotiating free trade deals with countries outside the EU; striking deals with a range of countries covering specific sectors and products; developing the DIT as a “centre of excellence for negotiation and British trade”; and supporting the UK as a member of the WTO.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (2 Sep 2020)

A good scenario for Canada would be to game how we would support Australia in event of a conflict just short of full scale war, with the Astreix and perhaps one JSS online can we support a convoy of ships to Australia?


----------



## suffolkowner (2 Sep 2020)

Colin P said:
			
		

> A good scenario for Canada would be to game how we would support Australia in event of a conflict just short of full scale war, with the Astreix and perhaps one JSS online can we support a convoy of ships to Australia?



I'm reading this and just imagining the destructive potential of a modern (nuclear) submarine


----------



## Colin Parkinson (2 Sep 2020)

My guess is that it will be everything short of nukes and invasion. Likely a blockade of all vessels bound from and to Australia within the waters or near them claimed by China, seizure of cargo and generally harassment. along with massive cyber attacks and generally incitement and corruption within.

Likely the response will be escorted merchant ships by western and friendly countries and tense standoffs with ship bumping, warning shots and a few aircraft/helicopters shot down. Possibly a sub sunk if it's found in certain waters with no statement on the sinking.


----------



## CBH99 (2 Sep 2020)

With Taiwan, the US Navy prowling in it's backyard, and Japan... I don't think China would want to send too many assets that far south.  Especially considering Australia could hold it's own for a while between subs & stand-off weapons, which they recently placed a pretty big order for.

I think ColinP nailed it in terms of what it would look like.  

In regards to the blockading and harassment of shipping to/from Australia, allies could do the same to China easily enough.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (2 Sep 2020)

Well we all know how well blockades and embargo's of Asian countries worked out....


----------

