Is AUKUS aimed at the PRC?

[pecksniff]

AUKUS is a military alliance recently formed by Australia, the UK and the U.S. -- two of which were already NATO allies, so it seems redundant, but its stated strategic orientation will be "the Indo-Pacific region." The recent sale of American nuclear submarines to Australia (which got public attention mainly for freezing out the French) was part of this arrangement.

Is it directed at the PRC? Portending a new Cold War? This writer thinks so.

Imagine how Biden administration officials would feel about the announcement of a "VERUCH" (VEnezuela, RUssia, and CHina) alliance. Imagine how they'd react to a buildup of Chinese military bases and thousands of Chinese troops in Venezuela. Imagine their reaction to regular deployments of all types of Chinese military aircraft, submarines, and warships in Venezuela, to increased spying, heightened cyberwarfare capabilities, and relevant space "activities," as well as military exercises involving thousands of Chinese and Russian troops not just in Venezuela but in the waters of the Atlantic within striking distance of the United States. How would Biden's team feel about the promised delivery of a fleet of nuclear-powered submarines to that country, involving the transfer of nuclear technology and nuclear-weapons-grade uranium?

None of this has happened, but these would be the Western Hemisphere equivalents of the "major force posture initiatives" U.S., Australian, and British officials have just announced for East Asia. AUKUS officials unsurprisingly portray their alliance as making parts of Asia "safer and more secure," while building "a future of peace [and] opportunity for all the people of the region." It's unlikely U.S. leaders would view a similar Chinese military buildup in Venezuela or anywhere else in the Americas as a similar recipe for safety and peace.

In reaction to VERUCH, calls for a military response and a comparable alliance would be rapid. Shouldn't we expect Chinese leaders to react to the AUKUS buildup with their own version of the same? For now, a Chinese government spokesperson suggested that the AUKUS allies "should shake off their Cold War mentality" and "not build exclusionary blocs targeting or harming the interests of third parties." The Chinese military's recent escalation of provocative exercises near Taiwan may be, in part, an additional response.

Chinese leaders have even more reason to doubt the declared peaceful intent of AUKUS given that the U.S. military already has seven military bases in Australia and nearly 300 more spread across East Asia. By contrast, China doesn't have a single base in the Western Hemisphere or anywhere near the borders of the United States. Add in one more factor: in the last 20 years, the AUKUS allies have a track record of launching aggressive wars and participating in other conflicts from Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya to Yemen, Somalia, and the Philippines, among other places. China's last war beyond its borders was with Vietnam for one month in 1979. (Brief, deadly clashes occurred with Vietnam in 1988 and India in 2020.)

 

[bellisarius]

Poor, poor China. They haven't done a single thing to deserve any of this.

 

[Champakian]

Poor, poor China. They haven't done a single thing to deserve any of this.

Their comrades in the West, who wished their countries could be run so "efficiently,"
see them as the real victims on the world stage. They sure would like to treat the
"Red States" like Tibet and Conservatives as Uighurs...

 

[JohnnySavage]

The US didn't sell anyone nuclear submarines.

 

[CornusKousa]

Their comrades in the West, who wished their countries could be run so "efficiently,"
see them as the real victims on the world stage. They sure would like to treat the
"Red States" like Tibet and Conservatives as Uighurs...

Fantastic progress brought about by ridding society of it's old ideas, habits, customs and culture, a cultural revolution for social justice!!

But they aren't Maoist....

No no no, that's just ascription.

 

[pecksniff]

Poor, poor China. They haven't done a single thing to deserve any of this.

Beside the point. They're not a threat to us, and we don't need another Cold War, and we don't need a military presence in East Asia.

 

[Rightguide]

Beside the point. They're not a threat to us, and we don't need another Cold War, and we don't need a military presence in East Asia.

You keep saying that but "The top uniformed soldier in China, chairman of China's Central Military Commission, stated that war with the United States is inevitable"

Get that into your head. They are preparing for war right now, as are we. And to answer your original question the answer is, yes.

 

[pecksniff]

You keep saying that but "The top uniformed soldier in China, chairman of China's Central Military Commission, stated that war with the United States is inevitable"

Get that into your head. They are preparing for war right now, as are we. And to answer your original question the answer is, yes.

Doesn't mean we have to accept it. They're not going to bomb Pearl Harbor or anything, and Taiwan is not worth fighting over.

 

[pecksniff]

The US didn't sell anyone nuclear submarines.

What was it, then, a lend-lease arrangement?

 

[JohnnySavage]

What was it, then, a lend-lease arrangement?

The US and GB agreed to help Australia develop their own nuclear submarine program. Same thing the US did with GB.

 

[Rightguide]

What was it, then, a lend-lease arrangement?

Pay attention to the facts of the matter, and turn the volume down on CNN.

 

[LincolnDuncan]

Trumpturd was the nitwit who soluted a communist military officer, comrades.

 

[Rightguide]

Doesn't mean we have to accept it. They're not going to bomb Pearl Harbor or anything, and Taiwan is not worth fighting over.

Who said they were going to bomb Pearl Harbor? So, the freedom of an ally isn't worth fighting over? So, you want to turn over to the CCP the semiconductor capitol of the World? So, you want to let the CCP snuff out the light of freedom in Taiwan?

 

[Rightguide]

Trumpturd was the nitwit who soluted a communist military officer, comrades.

Bill and Hillary Clinton were the traitors who gave the CCP advanced missile technology while receiving their donations.

 

[pecksniff]

Who said they were going to bomb Pearl Harbor? So, the freedom of an ally isn't worth fighting over? So, you want to turn over to the CCP the semiconductor capitol of the World? So, you want to let the CCP snuff out the light of freedom in Taiwan?

We did have a defense treaty with Taiwan, but it expired in 1980. And yes, letting the PRC have the island is preferable to going to war over it. War might go nuclear.

 

[LincolnDuncan]

Bill and Hillary Clinton were the traitors who gave the CCP advanced missile technology while receiving their donations.

I'm not a Democrat but if I was I would advise them to take no prisoners.

One of the secrets to trump's success is that he talks in bullet points.

Both parties are fighting for the middle. Most people don't have the time or inclination to be aware of everything happening in the world. Biden needs to stop speaking in complete sentences.

 

[pecksniff]

Bill and Hillary Clinton were the traitors who gave the CCP advanced missile technology while receiving their donations.

Cite?

 

[JohnnySavage]

We did have a defense treaty with Taiwan, but it expired in 1980. And yes, letting the PRC have the island is preferable to going to war over it. War might go nuclear.

You keep saying that, but as usual, you only know half the story. The Taiwan Relations Act contains military obligations of the US .

You really are too quick to find a google hit that agrees with what you want to post.

 

[pecksniff]

You keep saying that, but as usual, you only know half the story. The Taiwan Relations Act contains military obligations of the US .

Not including defense of Taiwan from the PRC.

 

[CornusKousa]

You keep saying that, but as usual, you only know half the story. The Taiwan Relations Act contains military obligations of the US .

You really are too quick to find a google hit that agrees with what you want to post.

The guy literally ignores consensus definitions for all sorts of things.

In peck world:

Capitalism = boogeyman.

Socialism = altruistic perfection of economics.

Liberalism = centralized totalitarian government control over ALL THINGS.

Left wing= wondaful things with no consequences of any kind.

Right wing = boogeyman.

And on and on and on.....dictionaries, encyclopedias and academic references be damned.

 

[JohnnySavage]

I make allowances because he seems to be on the spectrum. But sometimes he's just so far out there, it tests my Buddhist ethos.

 

[pecksniff]

The guy literally ignores consensus definitions for all sorts of things.

In peck world:

Capitalism = boogeyman.

Socialism = altruistic perfection of economics.

Liberalism = centralized totalitarian government control over ALL THINGS.

Left wing= wondaful things with no consequences of any kind.

Right wing = boogeyman.

And on and on and on.....dictionaries, encyclopedias and academic references be damned.

See post #19.

 

[CornusKousa]

I make allowances because he seems to be on the spectrum. But sometimes he's just so far out there, it tests my Buddhist ethos.

Understandable.

See post #19.

Totally irrelevant to the fact that you don't even speak the same language and your use of the English language is objectively and demonstrably dishonest.

 

[Rightguide]

We did have a defense treaty with Taiwan, but it expired in 1980. And yes, letting the PRC have the island is preferable to going to war over it. War might go nuclear.

I'm certain you'd surrender your own country to keep from having to fight for it.

 

[Rightguide]

Not including defense of Taiwan from the PRC.

Read the act.

"the United States will make available to Taiwan such defense articles and defense "services" in such quantity as may be necessary to enable Taiwan to maintain a sufficient self-defense capabilities".

The President and Congress are to define what those terms mean. It's called Strategic Ambiguity.