Japan defense chief eyes trip to Australia as China's influence grows

Australia is in a different hemisphere. China is not threatening either Japan or Australia.

Paul Keating is level-headed but they don't seem to want to listen to his message. The US and UK are getting Australia to paid for the construction of the subs and to park it in Australia for free.

In order to have a car in Tokyo, I have to buy a car and pay 45,000 yen a month for parking space. In order to have subs in Asia to counter China, the US is getting Australia to pay for the subs and provide free parking for the subs.

Why woudn't Australia let US pay for their own subs and pay Australia for putting them in Australia?

Why woudn't Australia let US pay for their own subs and pay Australia for putting them in Australia?

Because you must pay for what you acquire. Covering visiting costs for US and UK submarine vistis which are used by Australia for training sailors in all facets of crewing nuclear powered submarines is obviously not going to be free. Australians need to help the US increase its production so that it can buy three Virginia class submarines. Their construction is already stretched for their own needs.

Australia also needs to enhance its submarine construction yards in South Australia to move from constructing conventional subs to nuclear powered subs that are larger and more technical. A decade of training engineers and construction workers will happen by sending them to help boost US production and get on the job training. When they return they will have the expertise needed to produce the new Australian/British designed SSN AUKUS submarines that both nations will produce independently.

It is a long process but in the end the result is an Australian navy with SSN's and the ability to design, build and maintain future SSN's for the RAN which enhances regional security along with allies.

RodneyToday 07:13 am JST

Australia is in a different hemisphere. China is not threatening either Japan or Australia.

Japan and Australia see it differently to you. China is not being threatened by anyone yet it continues to build up its military forces. If Japan and Australia want to work more closely together then that is a matter for them alone.

@Rodney: No worries, their SSN plan is subject to fail. The price tag is 368B AuD. That just doesn't make sense and it is just the beginning, as delay and delay for technical or political problems. The cost overrun will forbid that plan to happen. Australia has almost no nuclear industry and the submarines licensed to build by Swedish the Colin class sucks.Like Canada the high cost of acquiring nuclear submarine will be labelled beyond their affording!

@quercetum: Mr.Keating does have a cool brain, when I was watching the ABC interview,he was mad and furious over the Albanese/Wong decision of acquiring the SSN. He said it was the worst decision since WW1. And he was right, Australia just cannot affording such an over expensive arms expansion!

No worries, their SSN plan is subject to fail. The price tag is 368B AuD. That just doesn't make sense and it is just the beginning, as delay and delay for technical or political problems. The cost overrun will forbid that plan to happen.

Wishful thinking on your part.

The price is only .15% of GDP per year to pay for it as priced now, so even if that doubles to .3% of GDP is it obviously affordable for a rich nation like Australia. The need for these subs will only grow as China gets even more belligerent and hostile in the coming years.

The personnel will be training alongside US and UK engineers learning everything needed to know about building the submarines and even maintaining the reactors. The only item not to be built in Australia is the reactor and perhaps the combat system, which may be manufactured under license anyway.

Some people seem to be praying for Australia to fail, but it rarely fails when it puts in maximum effort. These submarines are supported by both sides of the political spectrum as all sides see the imperative need for them. There will be bumps in the road but Australia is more than capable of dealing with all hurdles it comes across, especially with experienced partners like the UK and US.

It's funny how people always point to China building its forces and being 'expansionist' and 'hostile', whilst the US literally has them ringed by military bases that are nearly 10,000 km from the US West coast. You can see Taiwan from mainland China. Who's narrative is this really?

China is Australia's biggest trading partner and Australia would be absolutely foolish to do something to really damage that, as the Australian economy would melt down. To me, this is stupid decision making by the hawks in Oz. They should listen to Paul Keating. He is smarter than them.

China is Australia's biggest trading partner and Australia would be absolutely foolish to do something to really damage that, as the Australian economy would melt down. To me, this is stupid decision making by the hawks in Oz.

It is not Australia that will damage the trading relationship. China is the one at risk of damaging it. The simple fact is Australia provides resources to China that it can not get anywhere else in the world. There is not enough iron ore to support Chinese demands from all other sources in the world if Australia does not supply it. Other nations already contract to buy from other sources in the world so China could not acquire them them all. Without Australia, Chinese factories, shipyards and construction would come to a standstill. Add to that the LNG, coal and many other valuable resources Australia provides to China in high volume and high quality with high reliability of supply.

Yes Australia would also suffer greatly, but we are not the second largest economy in the world, it is China that has the most to lose from damaging its trading relationship with its supplier Australia. Clothes and nick knacks Australia can buy from other nations if it does not get them from China.

It's funny how people always point to China building its forces and being 'expansionist' and 'hostile', whilst the US literally has them ringed by military bases that are nearly 10,000 km from the US West coast.

Indeed, a legacy from WWII when US bases expanded to support the world, including China, when it was needed to fight for freedom and installing the rules and laws along with every other nation through the UN and other world bodies. The US has been protecting its interests and that of all democracies who value the rules and laws that have kept the world from WWIII and allowed an atmosphere of expansion, growth and prosperity for many nations including China, which has benefited greatly from past US investments in China.

China has no enemies intent on attacking it or invading it. It wants to "out muscle" the US but without defending anyone's freedoms or the rules and laws established by a majority of nations for everyone benefit. Many more nations trust the US than China. Until China changes and becomes a democracy it will remain that way. China wants to be the worlds dominant country, with all trade done in its currency rather than USD. China cant get respect through being belligerent and hostile and secretive. Nobody will simply take Beijing at its word as it lies and covers up the truth more often than being open and honest. A free press and allowing open and free discussions would be a start. Even that is too much for China to handle.

@Tama: Well you should know "The Phantom of White Australia" is still there. And the hysterical of some mad Aussies were frustrated for the Chinese sanction of their products. It seems like China has bombed port Darwin like Japanese did.

@Peter Yes right, by 2035 Australia will got her first serviceable SSN, until then the Chinese navy might have two or more nuclear Aircraft Carrier groups. Keep up your fighting spirits as the gap of naval displacement getting wider and wider until throwing your toothpicks at a mountain has exhausted!

by 2035 Australia will got her first serviceable SSN, until then the Chinese navy might have two or more nuclear Aircraft Carrier groups.

The first is expected early 2030's not mid 2030's and remind me how many carrier battle groups the US has and NATO allies as well. US has 10 nuclear aircraft carrier groups, UK has two conventional carrier groups, Italy, France and Spain have a carrier battle group with Japan getting their small carrier operational and Sth Korea looking at acquiring some also.

China alone is impressive, but does not compare to the allies and what they can mobilize.

China better not try playing with fire or it will get burnt, badly burnt.

It is not Australia that will damage the trading relationship.

In this case, you can't have it both ways. There is increasing talk of a US/China conflict and if that happens, the lines in the sand will be drawn - and Australia won't be able to say, 'Can you keep buying all of our stuff, but don't mind if we side with the US?' The decision to buy the submarines is a clear step in one direction, and Australia is taking that step, not China.

it is China that has the most to lose from damaging its trading relationship with its supplier Australia

Experts have Australia suffering catastrophic economic collapse that could 'impoverish us all', and I also disagree with your assessment.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-02-20/what-would-war-with-china-look-like-for-australia-part-1/101328632

The US has been protecting its interests and that of all democracies who value the rules and laws that have kept the world from WWIII and allowed an atmosphere of expansion, growth and prosperity for many nations

Geez, drinking the US Kool Aide much, Pete?

China has no enemies intent on attacking it or invading it.

No, but it does have an enemy with the most powerful military in the world completely containing by ringing it with Military bases, and has done for 70 odd years. Let me give you a scenario. Lets, for the sake of the argument, say that Indonesia built a series of powerful military bases around Australia. A big one in Port Morseby, a really big one in New Zealand, it supplied a stack of weapons to the separatist state of Tasmania, bases on Rottnest, the Monte Bellows, Norfolk island, etc etc. How would we feel about that? A little threatened, right? Aggrieved, right? Perhaps even outraged. Indonesia says it's simply to ensure the safety of the region and the rights of Tasmanians to live as a sovereign nation. It keeps strengthening those bases and incentivises the countries they are in with all manner of sweet deals. It calls Australia's strengthening of it's own military 'aggressive', and 'expansionist'. But according to your mindset, that's fair, right? It's OK, as long as it's in the name of democracy.

I'm no China fanboy, but neither am I blind to the global hegemony of the US dressed up in the lamb's wool coat of fluffy democracy. That's utter nonsense. Australia needs to position itself very carefully here and I would argue that Australia has no business getting involved in a conflict between these two. If the US wants to get into it with China over Taiwan, let them do it, but Australia would be dumb to follow them in, imo.

It's funny how people always point to China building its forces and being 'expansionist' and 'hostile', whilst the US literally has them ringed by military bases that are nearly 10,000 km from the US West coast. You can see Taiwan from mainland China. Who's narrative is this really?

Taiwan is democratic territory and there should not be one step back. The 24 million won't submit without giving China a really bad day.

No, but it does have an enemy with the most powerful military in the world completely containing by ringing it with Military bases, and has done for 70 odd years. Let me give you a scenario. Lets, for the sake of the argument, say that Indonesia built a series of powerful military bases around Australia. A big one in Port Morseby, a really big one in New Zealand, it supplied a stack of weapons to the separatist state of Tasmania, bases on Rottnest, the Monte Bellows, Norfolk island, etc etc. How would we feel about that? A little threatened, right? Aggrieved, right? Perhaps even outraged. Indonesia says it's simply to ensure the safety of the region and the rights of Tasmanians to live as a sovereign nation. It keeps strengthening those bases and incentivises the countries they are in with all manner of sweet deals. It calls Australia's strengthening of it's own military 'aggressive', and 'expansionist'. But according to your mindset, that's fair, right? It's OK, as long as it's in the name of democracy.

The US has no bases in North Korea, Russia, Mongolia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Pakistan, India, Nepal, Myanmar, Laos, or Vietnam. Just because your propaganda says something doesn't make it true. Nobody questions the right of China to militarize. We question the Nazi parades it puts on, the police state, and the statements that it will take Taiwan by force soon.

you can't have it both ways. There is increasing talk of a US/China conflict and if that happens, the lines in the sand will be drawn - and Australia won't be able to say, 'Can you keep buying all of our stuff, but don't mind if we side with the US?'

There will be no sales to China in the event of conflict between the US and China. It will be Australia that stops the flow of resources to China in that event. China would love to keep its critical supplies from Australia but thats not going to happen.

The decision to buy the submarines is a clear step in one direction, and Australia is taking that step, not China.

Australian defense purchases are none of China's concern, just as China's military procurement has nothing to do with Australia. Neither nations purchases do anything to alter or damage trade between them.

Experts have Australia suffering catastrophic economic collapse that could 'impoverish us all', and I also disagree with your assessment.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-02-20/what-would-war-with-china-look-like-for-australia-part-1/101328632

Yes removing all trade with China would damage our economy greatly, but wars will do that anyway. What rarely gets mentioned is how it would effect China with a cessation of all trade with Australia. China uses 75% of the worlds iron ore yearly. World production is 1.6 billion tonnes a year. So China requires 1.2 billion tonnes a year in iron ore. Australia alone produces over 900 million tonnes of iron ore per year. Assume that China could purchase all the iron ore that every other nation produces (it cant , but lets assume it can) that is 700 million tonnes of iron ore leaving it 500 million tonnes short of what it needs. In fact China would struggle to get 500 million tonnes leaving it 700 million tonnes short or having less than 50% of what it needs. How do you think that will effect China's economy? I would say a crash would happen. Add to that all the other resources Australia sends to China in bulk and you would find China have such a huge economic contraction that will effect hundreds of millions of Chinese people and their livelihoods.

The effect on both nations would be dire, not just because they are at war and killing each other, but because trade ending during conflict is going to have similar effect on the populations of both nations. China has 1.4 billion people while Australia only 25 million.

Nobody wins in war, as all suffer. The trick is to not have any wars. One thing I know for sure is it will not be Australia that fires the first shot beginning a war. China might.

Australia needs to position itself very carefully here and I would argue that Australia has no business getting involved in a conflict between these two. If the US wants to get into it with China over Taiwan, let them do it, but Australia would be dumb to follow them in, imo.

Australia is a military ally of the US. Any attack on the US will guarantee Australia joins the fight on America's side. As long as we are treaty allies there can be no other outcome. It is no secret, the world knows all about it, as does China.

No nation is going to surround Australia, and no nation is surrounding China. China has free use of all international waters and airspace for travel, transit and trade. Nobody is in any way restricting China's rights, or attempting to do so. China actually is trying to restrict the rights of others to transit, and travel in the South China sea where it has no legal rights to do so. It has constructed bases where it has no legal right to do so and attempts to call these new constructions in international waters as sovereign Chinese territory.

China simply does not like America being the preeminent nation in trade, or that it has military bases around the globe, with the full consent of all nations it operates in. and that nations are more likely to listen to the US, and go along with the US than with China. Much of that has to do with the political situation in China not being compatible with democracies and personal freedoms most democracies demand. It is not the fault of the US that China uses a political system less able to work with other nations, or that most nations choose a democratic system of government for making rules and laws to govern the people and guarantee more rights and freedoms than the CCP provides its citizens in China.

China needs to change, not fight against the majority thinking it can change everyone else to fit its mold. That is just not going to happen.

The price tag is 368B AuD. That just doesn't make sense and it is just the beginning, as delay and delay for technical or political problems. The cost overrun will forbid that plan to happen.

The Virginia Class has been in production for 20 years at two different shipyards. 21 have been commissioned. Many more are planned. It is a mature design with unit prices falling. It is not a developmental program where you see surprises that lead to delays and cost increases.