So says China Development Bank advisor, Paul Keating:
“If the United States military with all its might could not beat a bunch of Taliban rebels with AK47 rifles in pick-up trucks, what chance would it have a in a full blown war against China, not only the biggest state in the world but the commander and occupant of the largest land mass in Asia.”
“When it comes to conflict, particularly among great powers, land beats water every time.”
Mr Keating said it had to be remembered that the United States was a naval power and the US supply chain to East Asia would need to span the whole Pacific from San Diego and other locations on the West Coast.
“Australia, by the announced commitments, would find itself hostage to any such commitments,” he said.
Silly old coot. Afghanistan is irrelevant in every possible way. It’s true that US war in the Western Pacific is a long way from home but only if it has no allies, which it does. We can do nuclear if we want to.
And Hugh White:
“This is a significant step forward in the amplification of American expectations of Australian support,” Professor White told The Australian. “The big question is whether that is going to work. The American strategy is to attempt to deter China from challenging the US …. and to defeat China if deterrence doesn’t work.”
“My reservation is that it won’t do either of those things. Eight Australian nuclear powered submarines will make no difference … For that reason it’s the wrong move.”
Meh, there is clearly a deeper engagement going on here than subs. It’ll be personnel, planes, boats, bases, you name it.
The simple fact is Australia is going to do its bit within the US liberal empire which is eminently preferable to doing its bit within the Chinese illiberal version.
The China lackies should never have steered us so close to it in the first place.
