Australia: US/China war (3 Viewers)

[Vahl]

In the unlikely event that a war broke out between the US and China over Taiwan, should Australia honour the ANZUS alliance or stay neutral and safe.

This is because Downer has again raised the issue unnecessarily. Is it realistic that a nation such as ours should be involved, and to what benefit? Would we be of any benefit in a conflict between two nuclear powers.

Is it in Australia's interests to remain strapped to the US or should we now consider changing our alliegance to the more rational EU or the growing market of China.

 

[Korn]

In the unlikely event that a war broke out between the US and China over Taiwan, should Australia honour the ANZUS alliance or stay neutral and safe.

This is because Downer has again raised the issue unnecessarily. Is it realistic that a nation such as ours should be involved, and to what benefit? Would we be of any benefit in a conflict between two nuclear powers.

Is it in Australia's interests to remain strapped to the US or should we now consider changing our alliegance to the more rational EU or the growing market of China.

I wouldnt push shit at the moment, but if it came to a war between the two, i think we should remain neutral.
It is unlikely that a war would break out, cause the US isnt stupid, they arnt going to go in a war that on face value they mightnt be able to win. And at the moment Australai and the US are friendly with China

 

[Rorix]

This thread is ridiculous. It seems you do not even know what you are asking? Are you asking about military ties? Are you asking about trade agreements?

International relations are not just black/white. Just because ANZUS exists doesn't mean that Australia can't trade with China/ the EU. In fact, Australia already has strong market ties with China.

 

[Vahl]

I wouldnt push shit at the moment, but if it came to a war between the two, i think we should remain neutral.
It is unlikely that a war would break out, cause the US isnt stupid, they arnt going to go in a war that on face value they mightnt be able to win. And at the moment Australai and the US are friendly with China

The US may not be stupid. But it has a radical ideological nutcase as its head, and given the previous speech in congress about 'standing up for democracy in the world' and supporting any revolutions aimed at attaining democracy the US might actively push for a conflict over Taiwan.

Whilst it is doubtfull that Chen Shui-bian would push for Taiwanese independence and therefore war, the US may attempt to find a justification for a war with China to defeat/ set back China as it progresses to global dominance by the end of this century. The US has far more sophisticated weaponry etc and so could prevent Chinese forces from assaulting its mainland whilst assaulting China itself. This concerns me because the US has previously and recently used ideology to justify outrages(Hiroshima, Vietnam, Iraq etc) and what heavy bombers would do in a nation with China's population density bothers me greatly. In the cold war technology was reasonably evenly matched so the US avoided conflict with the USSR, but with rival China so (relatively) weak at this critical stage an increadingly imperial US may lash out and attempt to prevent China from reaching her maturity.

Who knows.

 

[Korn]

The US may not be stupid. But it has a radical ideological nutcase as its head, and given the previous speech in congress about 'standing up for democracy in the world' and supporting any revolutions aimed at attaining democracy the US might actively push for a conflict over Taiwan.

Whilst it is doubtfull that Chen Shui-bian would push for Taiwanese independence and therefore war, the US may attempt to find a justification for a war with China to defeat/ set back China as it progresses to global dominance by the end of this century. The US has far more sophisticated weaponry etc and so could prevent Chinese forces from assaulting its mainland whilst assaulting China itself. This concerns me because the US has previously and recently used ideology to justify outrages(Hiroshima, Vietnam, Iraq etc) and what heavy bombers would do in a nation with China's population density bothers me greatly. In the cold war technology was reasonably evenly matched so the US avoided conflict with the USSR, but with rival China so (relatively) weak at this critical stage an increadingly imperial US may lash out and attempt to prevent China from reaching her maturity.

Who knows.

Very unlikely that even Bush would be dumb enough to do such a thing, his cabinet would never let him, its too risky, if anything they might become strong allies to cement their power and interests, cause there is no country or group of which that could take on the US and China and their allies

 

[Vahl]

This thread is ridiculous. It seems you do not even know what you are asking? Are you asking about military ties? Are you asking about trade agreements?

International relations are not just black/white. Just because ANZUS exists doesn't mean that Australia can't trade with China/ the EU. In fact, Australia already has strong market ties with China.

The reference to China's growing market refered to the increasing industrial capacity of China and its rapid increase in defence spending( I believe that they have averaged 14% a year increase for several years now - at least according to the ASPI)

International relations aren't black and white. You don't say.
I am asking about military alliances etc. Reference to being tied ti the US is clearly not a referance to trade as we are have most of our trade with Japan and as Japan has also pledged to protect Taiwan they too would be involved in a war and as such if I was refering to trade ties I would have posed the question as to whether Australia should reduce our economic integration with Japan.

_

 

[Iron]

Both sides have lots and lots of nuclear weapons...lovely little deterants.

 

[Vahl]

Both sides have lots and lots of nuclear weapons...lovely little deterants.

Yes, but china does not have the means of delivering the weapons. China has no aircraft carriers, their bombers are based on 1950's Russian designs, their fighters are 3rd and 4th generation and have little/no stealth capability or long range attack capability and therefore they may have difficulty defending themselves.

China has several nuclear submarines but they are obsolete by western standards and would have little chance of reaching range of the US coast.

 

[Korn]

Yes, but china does not have the means of delivering the weapons. China has no aircraft carriers, their bombers are based on 1950's Russian designs, their fighters are 3rd and 4th generation and have little/no stealth capability or long range attack capability and therefore they may have difficulty defending themselves.

China has several nuclear submarines but they are obsolete by western standards and would have little chance of reaching range of the US coast.

They could still fuck shit up

 

[waterfowl]

In the very, very unlikely event: it would be stupid to not declare neutrality.
Both the US and China out-gun us by far, and we are geographically closer to China and therefore are even more under threat.
Parliament would be insane to declare war.
But it will most likely never happen so nothing to worry about.

 

[Templar]

Yes, but china does not have the means of delivering the weapons. China has no aircraft carriers, their bombers are based on 1950's Russian designs, their fighters are 3rd and 4th generation and have little/no stealth capability or long range attack capability and therefore they may have difficulty defending themselves.

No need for fancy deliveries when they attack you...Not hard to drop a bomb when somebody invades you.

 

[Rorix]

The reference to China's growing market refered to the increasing industrial capacity of China and its rapid increase in defence spending( I believe that they have averaged 14% a year increase for several years now - at least according to the ASPI)

International relations aren't black and white. You don't say.
I am asking about military alliances etc. Reference to being tied ti the US is clearly not a referance to trade as we are have most of our trade with Japan and as Japan has also pledged to protect Taiwan they too would be involved in a war and as such if I was refering to trade ties I would have posed the question as to whether Australia should reduce our economic integration with Japan.

_

You referred to the 'growing market' of China. It's a horrible metaphor, and I assumed that you weren't horrible, so I thus assumed it related to the economy.

Regardless, you're forgetting a key part of the alliances with these nations - that they need to let Australia in.

 

[Vahl]

They could still fuck shit up

I don't think so. India poses a second threat to China both as it has an army of similar size to China, better navy & airforce and is a nuclear power. Furthermore due to the Kashmir region the Indian military has valuble experience.

China could not assault Russia without massive retaliation and assaulting South Korea would be dangerous due to South Korea's high tech army that is similar in size to China's. China could not assault Japan either due to Japan's high tech forces, and it would be against China's interests to attack any of the other Asian nations or original ASEAN nations, as they are generally opposed to the west as well.

 

[Rorix]

Dear God this thread has turned into fan fiction.

 

[neo o]

It's dumb enough

 

[Templar]

I don't think so. India poses a second threat to China both as it has an army of similar size to China, better navy & airforce and is a nuclear power. Furthermore due to the Kashmir region the Indian military has valuble experience.

China could not assault Russia without massive retaliation and assaulting South Korea would be dangerous due to South Korea's high tech army that is similar in size to China's. China could not assault Japan either due to Japan's high tech forces, and it would be against China's interests to attack any of the other Asian nations or original ASEAN nations, as they are generally opposed to the west as well.

Similarly the US is not stupid or powerful enough to start a war either. The casualty rate would be too high for the US public to accept.

 

[Korn]

I don't think so. India poses a second threat to China both as it has an army of similar size to China, better navy & airforce and is a nuclear power. Furthermore due to the Kashmir region the Indian military has valuble experience.

China could not assault Russia without massive retaliation and assaulting South Korea would be dangerous due to South Korea's high tech army that is similar in size to China's. China could not assault Japan either due to Japan's high tech forces, and it would be against China's interests to attack any of the other Asian nations or original ASEAN nations, as they are generally opposed to the west as well.

Lets take a look at that shall we
Military Expediture
Population
Armed Forces personal
Military manpower
Military Manpower
Tanks
Bio weapons
Chemical Weapons

 

[Vahl]

Lets take a look at that shall we
Military Expediture
Population
Armed Forces personal
Military manpower
Military Manpower
Tanks
Bio weapons
Chemical Weapons

These figures are useless. They do not reflect the actual military capability. ie population figures for military manpower are somewhat irrelevant due to the level of industrialisation and % of population in agriculture etc. These graphs do not reflect the numbers of military personel but rather the number of people of age to serve.

 

[Korn]

These figures are useless. They do not reflect the actual military capability. ie population figures for military manpower are somewhat irrelevant due to the level of industrialisation and % of population in agriculture etc. These graphs do not reflect the numbers of military personel but rather the number of people of age to serve.

What about Armed Forces Personel, it refers to all soldiers

 

[Vahl]

What about Armed Forces Personel, it refers to all soldiers

Yes 683,000 is South Korea's standing army which is high tech wheras the Chinese figure of 2,810,000 is incorrect because it includes the Peoples Armed Police. The PLA itself is only about a million personal I believe, and it includes air and naval personel.