Forum needs to be active so let's talk political.
- Thread starter CapnClunks
- Start date
Help Support Australia & New Zealand Homebrewing Forum:
DucatiBoyStu
Active Member
And a nice pipe with some Dutch tobacco
Dave70
Le roi est mort..
- Joined
- 29/9/08
- Messages
- 5,602
- Reaction score
- 3,278
You mean the Dutch have other products besides tulips, hallucinogenic truffles and tallness? Well there you go.
Anyway, how ya doin boy?
The Dutch breed homebrewers. Ask me how I know. And yes, I am tall.
Dave70
Le roi est mort..
- Joined
- 29/9/08
- Messages
- 5,602
- Reaction score
- 3,278
And as they say, what goes up..
https://www.dutchnews.nl/news/2021/09/tall-tails-dutch-are-getting-shorter/
DucatiBoyStu
Active Member
Well Dave, having a neighbour that has a 4 tap fridge that always has home brew in it does make life bearable
I thought I would drop in and stir the ants nest after my sabbatical herding stray cats
- Joined
- 10/12/17
- Messages
- 237
- Reaction score
- 85
Farage has taken a similar historical view of UK's global prominence. Though he sees Brexit and AUKUS as positive outcomes while Keating takes the negative view.
I'm kinda disappointed. When Obama first announced the pivot towards Asia most commentators talked about Aus playing a kind of mediation role between the two countries. One our major trading partner and the other our long-standing military ally. I looked forward to us providing statesmen of the calibre required to pull that off.
Instead we have just gone and thrown our lot in with the US warmongers. Dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb. Aus only keeps about 4 weeks worth of petrol (thanks John Howard), relying on regular supply from Singapore. If the US is able to provoke a maritime war with China we will all be riding bicycles in a month.
I'm kinda disappointed. When Obama first announced the pivot towards Asia most commentators talked about Aus playing a kind of mediation role between the two countries. One our major trading partner and the other our long-standing military ally. I looked forward to us providing statesmen of the calibre required to pull that off.
Instead we have just gone and thrown our lot in with the US warmongers. Dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb. Aus only keeps about 4 weeks worth of petrol (thanks John Howard), relying on regular supply from Singapore. If the US is able to provoke a maritime war with China we will all be riding bicycles in a month.
Feldon
caveat brasiator
- Joined
- 13/1/09
- Messages
- 1,725
- Reaction score
- 1,010
Some of Farage’s talking points are good, but many are based on false perceptions or misinterpretations, or just factually wrong.
He says that the UK turned its back on Australia as a result of the Suez Crisis of 1956 and the UK’s ‘East of Suez’ foreign policy since 1961. But that was just the end game. The UK had sought to off-load us onto the Yanks since the early 1900s.
He also says “Australia was the first country to realise the serious threat that China posed”. No. That was the US. Whitlam visited China in the early 1970s to initiate the great trading relationship we still enjoy (but perhaps not for much longer). It was the US under Obama and his ‘Pivot to Asia’ that has made China an enemy, and therefore ours too. The US is setting Australia as its proxy in a war with China, just as it has done with the Ukraine (and perhaps soon the US’s NATO allies too) in its engineered war with Russia.
Then he goes on to say that Australia is using French-made diesel submarines to protect ourselves from an aggressive China. Crap. Our Collins class subs were made here to protect our maritime trade routes with China (from potential future enemies including India (perhaps in alliance with South Africa), the French (at New Caledonia), and indeed even the Kiwis as potential proxies for the US).
He also says our Collins class subs have a submerged endurance of just a few days which is also crap. They are quieter than nuclear powered subs and that’s exactly what we need - subs that can lurk quietly close inshore on key navigation bottlenecks in the islands to our north, and be undetected to torpedo enemy warships that threaten our trading ships enroute to China (= 40% of our trade revenue).
I’m all for cultural unity in the Anglosphere. It created the modern world for all the world to enjoy; and we should celebrate what our forefathers have achieved as well as what other cultures have achieved and we can learn from. But it doesn’t need to be a return to imperialism for anyone. A multi-polar world is the future.
Here’s Farage’s four minute take on the AKUS submarine announcement I refer to above:
And here’s Hugh White’s take (evidently the mainstream newspapers wouldn’t print it - but I expect him to pop up on ABC or SBS soon). Hugh White is the go-to guy on these things:
The AUKUS submarines will never happen
He says that the UK turned its back on Australia as a result of the Suez Crisis of 1956 and the UK’s ‘East of Suez’ foreign policy since 1961. But that was just the end game. The UK had sought to off-load us onto the Yanks since the early 1900s.
He also says “Australia was the first country to realise the serious threat that China posed”. No. That was the US. Whitlam visited China in the early 1970s to initiate the great trading relationship we still enjoy (but perhaps not for much longer). It was the US under Obama and his ‘Pivot to Asia’ that has made China an enemy, and therefore ours too. The US is setting Australia as its proxy in a war with China, just as it has done with the Ukraine (and perhaps soon the US’s NATO allies too) in its engineered war with Russia.
Then he goes on to say that Australia is using French-made diesel submarines to protect ourselves from an aggressive China. Crap. Our Collins class subs were made here to protect our maritime trade routes with China (from potential future enemies including India (perhaps in alliance with South Africa), the French (at New Caledonia), and indeed even the Kiwis as potential proxies for the US).
He also says our Collins class subs have a submerged endurance of just a few days which is also crap. They are quieter than nuclear powered subs and that’s exactly what we need - subs that can lurk quietly close inshore on key navigation bottlenecks in the islands to our north, and be undetected to torpedo enemy warships that threaten our trading ships enroute to China (= 40% of our trade revenue).
I’m all for cultural unity in the Anglosphere. It created the modern world for all the world to enjoy; and we should celebrate what our forefathers have achieved as well as what other cultures have achieved and we can learn from. But it doesn’t need to be a return to imperialism for anyone. A multi-polar world is the future.
Here’s Farage’s four minute take on the AKUS submarine announcement I refer to above:
And here’s Hugh White’s take (evidently the mainstream newspapers wouldn’t print it - but I expect him to pop up on ABC or SBS soon). Hugh White is the go-to guy on these things:
The AUKUS submarines will never happen
- Joined
- 10/12/17
- Messages
- 237
- Reaction score
- 85
Thanks, Feldon. I like your research.
I don't mean to say that Hugh White's opinions are all over the place but sometimes his views align with the mainstream media and he is everywhere doing interviews with everyone. And sometimes, like now, he gets shunned.
I don't mean to say that Hugh White's opinions are all over the place but sometimes his views align with the mainstream media and he is everywhere doing interviews with everyone. And sometimes, like now, he gets shunned.
Feldon
caveat brasiator
- Joined
- 13/1/09
- Messages
- 1,725
- Reaction score
- 1,010
Short and simple by Hugh White:
And now we hear that Anthony the Albanian is going to buy 220 US Tomahawk cruise missiles that will fit neatly into the Virginia class subs we're buying (Tomahawks are designed to carry nuclear warheads).
One negative result for Australia will be a regional arms race with Malaysia, Indonesia etc. going shopping in Russia and China for similar strike capabilities against Australia. Worse still is that Australian capital cities have now been assured of being a first strike nuclear target of China if war breaks out with the US.
Utter madness.
And now we hear that Anthony the Albanian is going to buy 220 US Tomahawk cruise missiles that will fit neatly into the Virginia class subs we're buying (Tomahawks are designed to carry nuclear warheads).
One negative result for Australia will be a regional arms race with Malaysia, Indonesia etc. going shopping in Russia and China for similar strike capabilities against Australia. Worse still is that Australian capital cities have now been assured of being a first strike nuclear target of China if war breaks out with the US.
Utter madness.
If Australia stopped selling the PRC iron ore, coal etc etc there would be trouble, unless and until that day they can beat their chest all they like and leave it at that. If they thought for an instant they could just wander in and take it they would have done so years ago, but that may well be said of some other neighbours we have and these new military “assets” may well be to guard against them. Disclaimer, I am not a diploma.
Feldon
caveat brasiator
- Joined
- 13/1/09
- Messages
- 1,725
- Reaction score
- 1,010
You don't need a "diploma", but need the honest common sense to disabuse yourself of misconceptions, such as: "If they thought for an instant they could just wander in and take it they would have done so years ago".
How the blazes could China then, or now, come in and take over Austalia's mineral resources? Tell me how? China does not have the military capability to effect a long haul amphibious invasion of Australia. No country on Earth has, not even the US. It would need hundreds, if not thousands' of non-existent troopships and landing craft, just to transport them here - all jammed together in vessels that make them highly vulnerable as cheap kills by even low capability aircraft. Then there is the need for China to establish and defend a long supply line of thousands of miles through SE Asian waters for ammunition, medivac etc. (listen to Keating above, he makes this same point). Australia's Defence Dept's planning makes no consideration for the spooky 'Chinese invasion' because the very notion is nonsense. But Defence PR happily feeds the story to the media (and thus to you) to support the ANZUS alliance agenda.
China buys our minerals because they are high grade but also because they know that an economic partnership cultivates peaceful relations. Just as the EU was formed after the devastation of two world wars to make the former combatants dependent on each other through trade. China doesn't need our minerals. Those who tell you that are bullshiting you to make you compliant to their agenda. There's plenty or iron ore around in the world. And while we are happy to sell them ours, China has plenty of their own that they prefer to keep as a strategic reserve. It doesn't go bad left in the ground.
How the blazes could China then, or now, come in and take over Austalia's mineral resources? Tell me how? China does not have the military capability to effect a long haul amphibious invasion of Australia. No country on Earth has, not even the US. It would need hundreds, if not thousands' of non-existent troopships and landing craft, just to transport them here - all jammed together in vessels that make them highly vulnerable as cheap kills by even low capability aircraft. Then there is the need for China to establish and defend a long supply line of thousands of miles through SE Asian waters for ammunition, medivac etc. (listen to Keating above, he makes this same point). Australia's Defence Dept's planning makes no consideration for the spooky 'Chinese invasion' because the very notion is nonsense. But Defence PR happily feeds the story to the media (and thus to you) to support the ANZUS alliance agenda.
China buys our minerals because they are high grade but also because they know that an economic partnership cultivates peaceful relations. Just as the EU was formed after the devastation of two world wars to make the former combatants dependent on each other through trade. China doesn't need our minerals. Those who tell you that are bullshiting you to make you compliant to their agenda. There's plenty or iron ore around in the world. And while we are happy to sell them ours, China has plenty of their own that they prefer to keep as a strategic reserve. It doesn't go bad left in the ground.
Nick the Knife
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 23/10/15
- Messages
- 138
- Reaction score
- 70
In no particular order:
- Tomahawk cruise missiles are designed to carry multiple varients of warheads, so it's misleading to say they're designed to carry nuclear warheads. e.g the M777 howitzer Australia has had for decades can fire nuclear shells. In contrast Tomahawks have been used since the 1980's tens of thousands of times for conventional munitions strikes - and not once for nukes.
- Scomo announced in SEP21 that Australia would be acquiring Tomahawks for our Hobart class destroyers - so yes they can be used in the Virginia class subs but seeing as these are a LONG way off ever being delivered they are going to be deployed in the surface fleet first.
- Prof. White is speculating regarding there being any formal agreement that any sub sold to Australia could be 'forced' to follow US directives etc or this being a condition of sale. The US is Australia's ally on defence matters but anything beyond this is simply speculation.
- China buys Australia's Iron Ore as it's general grade is higher than brazilian/african & the transport costs are under HALF the price of it's competitors. There's a reason why even when China was at the peak of it's tantrum about Australia calling for a COVID origin enquiry (placing huge tariffs on Australian barley, wine, seafood and many others) that it continued to buy our Iron Ore as it required. So relationships have nothing to do with it and you have to know they WISH they could have gone elsewhere but they realised given their immense demand for it they'd be 'cutting off their nose despite their face' & only hurting themselves.
- Not sure why folks feel there has to be a 'boots on the ground' invasion & occupation - which is incredibly unlikely due to a myriad of factors - vs a far more likely scenarios e.g long range standoff weapons used against critical infrastructure from sub or carrier launched aircraft.
You flatter us far too much thinking that China, who has a relatively small and basic Nuclear arsenal would in a nuclear war with the USA - even consider using them against Australian capital cities. To what end? Just to kill people? Makes no sense as you'd be trying to destroy your primary threat and ideally his facilities before he used them on you. And beyond this again this is baseless speculation with zero support for it.
At worst, in a conflict China e.g in the early days of an invasion of Taiwan - China might consider trying to destroy the US Surveillance facilities at Pine Gap - but I do not believe they would have the means to achieve this and the negatives of such a distant strike vs the very marginal benefit of even full success would be tiny i.e the USA has a LOT of such facilities.
FWIW I think this sub deal is an epic disaster for us as a nation. Lets be frank we've shown nothing but complete incompetence in sub procurement in our modern history. The Collins were a hybrid design custom made for our requests that was SO BAD part way through construction of them experts were actually saying they should be stopped and sold for scrap metal. They had cost overruns, major issues and massive delays - in all they were terrible. And we started looking for a replacement quite early on in their lifecycle.
Abbott wanted to buy $20B worth of Japanese subs. That was scupered. We sat on our thumbs and Turnbull signed up to buy $40B worth of French subs (the design again was a *******ised version as these were low grade uranium powered subs, which the French were happy to sell us but we INSISTED the design be completely changed so they can on Diesel/Electric - which they advised against but agreed to do for us).
The US then badmouthed the heck out of this choice and advised they would not allow their combat systems to be installed into French subs, the gist of which seems to be they had security concerns about doing this - which reeks of BS to me........as they instead convinced us to cop a 555 million EURO break fee and renege on this deal to instead buy from them. Which we did, like the poor kid at school who blows his entire household budget to buy a fancy pair of trainers like his Rich Mate has a whole cupboard full of.
The irony is the diesel/electric subs are said by experts to compliment nuclear boats (which make up 100% of the US fleet) - as when on their electric cycle they are quieter than the nuke powered. Each has their pro's and cons but the nuc subs are massively more expensive and now we also have all kinds of ancillary costs and headaches e.g will be operating 3 completely different sub models at the same time.
It's already been flagged that the Army and AF will lose funding to cover this - so that estimated $368B (which will only go up, not down) could have given a lot more bang for buck if we'd bought off the shelf subs in proven models and a bunch of other conventional deterent weapons to suit our needs.
The cherry on top is that many experts feel that its quite possible that given the extended delivery timeline that by the time we get these subs, technology changes in underwater drones and intelligent sea mines etc will make them highly vulnerable and too risky to use in anything other than safe home waters. Its a complete cluster__k IMHO.
It's worth remembering as well that a Chinese embassy official provided a list of 14 grievances (which are incredibly petty and childish) China has with Australia - then tried to walk this back when it backfired on them. They've shown increasing aggression on multiple levels when things don't go the way they want them to - so it's always good to know others tendencies.
- Tomahawk cruise missiles are designed to carry multiple varients of warheads, so it's misleading to say they're designed to carry nuclear warheads. e.g the M777 howitzer Australia has had for decades can fire nuclear shells. In contrast Tomahawks have been used since the 1980's tens of thousands of times for conventional munitions strikes - and not once for nukes.
- Scomo announced in SEP21 that Australia would be acquiring Tomahawks for our Hobart class destroyers - so yes they can be used in the Virginia class subs but seeing as these are a LONG way off ever being delivered they are going to be deployed in the surface fleet first.
- Prof. White is speculating regarding there being any formal agreement that any sub sold to Australia could be 'forced' to follow US directives etc or this being a condition of sale. The US is Australia's ally on defence matters but anything beyond this is simply speculation.
- China buys Australia's Iron Ore as it's general grade is higher than brazilian/african & the transport costs are under HALF the price of it's competitors. There's a reason why even when China was at the peak of it's tantrum about Australia calling for a COVID origin enquiry (placing huge tariffs on Australian barley, wine, seafood and many others) that it continued to buy our Iron Ore as it required. So relationships have nothing to do with it and you have to know they WISH they could have gone elsewhere but they realised given their immense demand for it they'd be 'cutting off their nose despite their face' & only hurting themselves.
- Not sure why folks feel there has to be a 'boots on the ground' invasion & occupation - which is incredibly unlikely due to a myriad of factors - vs a far more likely scenarios e.g long range standoff weapons used against critical infrastructure from sub or carrier launched aircraft.
Respectfully this is utter baseless nonsense and the definition of scaremongering. In a full scale nuclear war - we're all screwed anyway - even if the war was between Russia and the UK for example (and strikes limited to Europe) the fall out from this would almost certainly kill most of the planet. And in reality it'd go far beyond this.
You flatter us far too much thinking that China, who has a relatively small and basic Nuclear arsenal would in a nuclear war with the USA - even consider using them against Australian capital cities. To what end? Just to kill people? Makes no sense as you'd be trying to destroy your primary threat and ideally his facilities before he used them on you. And beyond this again this is baseless speculation with zero support for it.
At worst, in a conflict China e.g in the early days of an invasion of Taiwan - China might consider trying to destroy the US Surveillance facilities at Pine Gap - but I do not believe they would have the means to achieve this and the negatives of such a distant strike vs the very marginal benefit of even full success would be tiny i.e the USA has a LOT of such facilities.
FWIW I think this sub deal is an epic disaster for us as a nation. Lets be frank we've shown nothing but complete incompetence in sub procurement in our modern history. The Collins were a hybrid design custom made for our requests that was SO BAD part way through construction of them experts were actually saying they should be stopped and sold for scrap metal. They had cost overruns, major issues and massive delays - in all they were terrible. And we started looking for a replacement quite early on in their lifecycle.
Abbott wanted to buy $20B worth of Japanese subs. That was scupered. We sat on our thumbs and Turnbull signed up to buy $40B worth of French subs (the design again was a *******ised version as these were low grade uranium powered subs, which the French were happy to sell us but we INSISTED the design be completely changed so they can on Diesel/Electric - which they advised against but agreed to do for us).
The US then badmouthed the heck out of this choice and advised they would not allow their combat systems to be installed into French subs, the gist of which seems to be they had security concerns about doing this - which reeks of BS to me........as they instead convinced us to cop a 555 million EURO break fee and renege on this deal to instead buy from them. Which we did, like the poor kid at school who blows his entire household budget to buy a fancy pair of trainers like his Rich Mate has a whole cupboard full of.
The irony is the diesel/electric subs are said by experts to compliment nuclear boats (which make up 100% of the US fleet) - as when on their electric cycle they are quieter than the nuke powered. Each has their pro's and cons but the nuc subs are massively more expensive and now we also have all kinds of ancillary costs and headaches e.g will be operating 3 completely different sub models at the same time.
It's already been flagged that the Army and AF will lose funding to cover this - so that estimated $368B (which will only go up, not down) could have given a lot more bang for buck if we'd bought off the shelf subs in proven models and a bunch of other conventional deterent weapons to suit our needs.
The cherry on top is that many experts feel that its quite possible that given the extended delivery timeline that by the time we get these subs, technology changes in underwater drones and intelligent sea mines etc will make them highly vulnerable and too risky to use in anything other than safe home waters. Its a complete cluster__k IMHO.
It's worth remembering as well that a Chinese embassy official provided a list of 14 grievances (which are incredibly petty and childish) China has with Australia - then tried to walk this back when it backfired on them. They've shown increasing aggression on multiple levels when things don't go the way they want them to - so it's always good to know others tendencies.
Last edited:
My knowledge in this area is limited, but reading this forum is certainly giving me more fodder for thought. My concern is not the strategic possibilities countries have against each other but rather the possibilities created by the Characters that lead them (bedlamites). I'm not sure that one of these leaders will not just start pushing buttons with a "FU" attitude. Putin and Jong-un for example have me concerned because of their (my perceived) instability.
How can the world counter a madman with nuclear capabilities?
How can the world counter a madman with nuclear capabilities?
Nick the Knife
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 23/10/15
- Messages
- 138
- Reaction score
- 70
Well you can't. Its really a case of relying on their underlings on refusing to do something that is irrational not only for them but for mankind.
Once a country has nukes they're not giving them up either - just go and ask Ukraine if they'd like a do-over on their post-USSR breakup agreement to give up all of the Soviet nuclear weapons that they had on their territory (I believe at the time they had the world 3rd largest Nuclear arsenal behind only Russia and America) - and also a fleet of strategic bombers, that were specifically made for launching nuclear(or conventional) cruise missiles - which in a sad irony are nearly identical to the same planes Russia uses now for a good portion of their cruise missiles strikes on Ukrainian infrastructure.
They're the only country in history to willingly give up nukes - and will likely be the last.
Kim Jong-Un having them is far from ideal as his family has viewed running that country like it's their own family business since it's formation post Korean war - and he's a certified nutter, grooming his tubby daughter to continue running his people into the ground.
Sheez compare the two Koreas, were near identical pre-war - ever since the South is a major global player in near everything in manufacturing - whereas the North has it's people eating bark off trees to survive & exports teams of workers abroad to generate much needed hard currency to compliment their hacking enterprises.
Thankfully their nuclear program is likely on par with the US in the 1950;s and they lack the delivery systems that would stand much of a chance vs anti-missile systems etc - but they're an irritation to the global community, I'm sure even China would prefer to have a more rational leader in place than Jong-Un.
And don't sleep on nuclear armed Pakistan and India eyeballing each other - and Iran's perpetual goal to get one. Pretty amazed the Saudi's haven't thrown enough $$$ at folks to make one for them too - as Iran are their arch nemesis. And the one folks won't mention who has them is Israel - just incase their coalition of neighbouring enemies wanted a 3rd group try at taking them out.
I rest my case.....we're F....ked.
Dave70
Le roi est mort..
- Joined
- 29/9/08
- Messages
- 5,602
- Reaction score
- 3,278
And what countries is old Vlad likely to visit that are signatories to the ICC?
- Joined
- 10/12/17
- Messages
- 237
- Reaction score
- 85
I'm just glad that Keating has got a lot of people talking about the issues in front of us.
