Would Trump defend Australia if we were attacked? We HAD a big purchase deal worked out... but....

[eclipsenow]

Remember WW2?
Remember Hitler marching on France and France begging the USA for a huge air force to fly across and defend them?
Didn't happen. Not for years.
They were occupied - and it was horrendous.
They never forgot.

That's why France has its own nukes.

They never forgot - and always considered that the isolationism until Peal Harbour would be America's default position.

Since then we've had a history of western nations buying HEAPS of military kit from the USA as a sort of 'protection payment'.

But not France. They knew this was a risk!

As I've said in the other thread - the EU's 'protection payment' to America is worth a quarter of America's military industrial complex.
A quarter. $180 to $190 billion a year.
A quarter of those high paying Aerospace jobs!
It's 65% of all EU military kit!

Trump refuses to understand all this, and still whines about the mere $800 million America puts into NATO. (Someone should whisper in his ear that it's less than 0.5% of the money the USA gets back in arms sales as part of this 'little deal' America made!)

Unlike Trump, other Presidents get it!
Going back to JFK and every President since!
They discouraged an EU army - "Trust us! We'll protect you? And in the meantime - buy our kit!"

They all KNEW they had an awesome deal.

(Oh - and there was this little matter of defending against the Soviet Union as well - in a club of democratic nations that really WOULD defend each other!)

Now to Australia. We made a huge deal (for us) with the USA in the last few years.
$368 billion over the next few decades.
That's only 2 years worth of the EU's current purchase rate - but hey - we're only little Australia!

So here's where all this stands since Trump decided to betray the entire western world.
From an Aussie point of view.

Please watch Matt Bevan - "If you're listening" - from our ABC.

Also, this ABC website article is pretty spot on about how we feel.

Get out of AUKUS and look to protect ourselves because there is no way the USA will go to war to protect Australia. — John, Melbourne, 70s

Why is Australia putting all its eggs in one basket, with the largest transfer of wealth in the country's history, to a country which is no longer a reliable ally? — John, Sydney, 60s

The USA has changed permanently and we can no longer trust them. — Phillip, Yorke Peninsula, 60s

...

Get out of AUKUS. Trump doesn't even know what it is. — Rob, Perth, 60s

What is Australia's position regarding the realignment of American support of its allies, especially when the US President is unaware of AUKUS when pressed? — Wayne, Ipswich, 60s

We've given the US millions of dollars for AUKUS and Trump didn't even know what it was. Do we really believe that we can still rely on the US?? — Joelle, Melbourne, 50s

Then the ABC went on to explain that the ADMINISTRATION knows what AUKUS is and would defend it even if Trump didn't know what it was - but really? Trump? We're going to trust 'back channels' - that those around Trump can make the COMMANDER IN CHIEF HIMSELF honour an agreement? This guy is so erratic I wouldn't put it past him to brush off some major international ally because Trump took offense at some joke from some media outlet down here!

So.... despite assurances from a nebulous group of administration officials - Trump himself is the problem. The article continues!

Even so, a number of Your Say contributors remain sceptical the submarines will ever be handed over to Australia.

WE HAVE TO LEAVE AUKUS! America will renege on the deal. — Harold, Perth, 30s

Can't depend on Trump. He will pull the plug on AUKUS. — Wayne, Busselton, 70s

The likelihood of the US selling us any submarines in the next 20 years is unlikely as the US is short of submarines. — Mark, South Coast, 70s

And the whole program is at the mercy of Trump's thought bubbles and the ability of the British to design a submarine on time. — Peter, Hobart, 40s

The U.S. will not deliver the nuclear submarines promised (witness their shortfall in the budget for their submarine building program). — Richard, Perth, 60s

OH yeah - and there's this.

​

"And there's a very important clause in the AUKUS deal that says the US doesn't actually have to sell Australia any subs if they need them for their own fleet.​

​

According to some estimates — and the US congress itself — the US might have around half the number of submarines it needs when the time it comes to sell the first one to Australia.​

​

It's one of the key concerns of critics like former prime minister Malcolm Turnbull, who calls AUKUS a "terrible deal".​

​

"We are paying US$3 billion to the Americans to support their submarine industrial base, but we have no guarantee that we will ever get any submarines," he said.​

​

The looming election has put a spotlight on AUKUS and the US alliance

Can Australia still trust the United States as an ally? Does Donald Trump even know what AUKUS is? These are your questions about the AUKUS trilateral security deal.

www.abc.net.au

But this is TRUMP we are talking about?

Maybe he's got a deal to offer us?

 

[Reluctant Theologian]

As the USA Gov has communicated recently in Europe; they're only motivated to defend countries what have similar values and goals as the USA - so free speech and no unlimited immigration with people who don't share/support Western values. If Europe is giving up on those, I can understand why the USA are not willing to defend or fund that.

Similarly for Australia - the current Labour AU Government seems aligned pretty close to the EU governments receiving criticism from the USA right now .. so yes ... Australia can choose between re-aligning with the renewed USA values/goals, or sell out to China. Australia is not able to defend itself in any way against China. Relative to China it's empty and uninhabited anyway. Australia is as empty to China now as Australia was to England in 1770.

 

[Fantine]

I don't know. How many trillions of dollars worth of minerals can you offer President Trump in return for his temporary, non-guaranteed assistance?

Only those who pony up are considered.

Along with your slavishly obsequious gratitude. It needs to be specific, highlighting his name. All the "general" thanks you may have given to us for our friendship in the past doesn't count. Not one bit.

 

[Laodicean60]

Australia is not able to defend itself in any way against China.

I hope they have a navy.

Chinese Warships Circle Australia and Leave It Feeling ‘Near Naked

Chinese Warships Circle Australia and Leave It Feeling ‘Near-Naked’

The unusual deployment by three navy ships over the past month has prompted a debate in Australia about its aging fleet and reliance on the United States.

www.nytimes.com

 

[Reluctant Theologian]

I don't know. How many trillions of dollars worth of minerals can you offer President Trump in return for his temporary, non-guaranteed assistance?

Only those who pony up are considered.

That is a Ukraine issue, not for the EU - Trump is absolutely right that the majority of EU countries have severely under-spent on defence in the last decades. Europe thought Russia was going to be a harmless democracy, those assumptions turned out to be false. Poland is an exception, they realise the danger, and they have spent quite massively ... At the moment the EU is in emergency defence planning/spending mode, and that's about time.

 

[Reluctant Theologian]

I hope they have a navy.

Chinese Warships Circle Australia and Leave It Feeling ‘Near Naked

Chinese Warships Circle Australia and Leave It Feeling ‘Near-Naked’

The unusual deployment by three navy ships over the past month has prompted a debate in Australia about its aging fleet and reliance on the United States.

www.nytimes.com

They have, but literally the Chinese Navy will run circles not just around the the country but also around the AU Navy as well .... Go figure ..

 

[eclipsenow]

As the USA Gov has communicated recently in Europe; they're only motivated to defend countries what have similar values and goals as the USA - so free speech

What on earth does this mean? Are you buying into JD Vance's take on Europe?

and no unlimited immigration with people who don't share/support Western values.

Goodness! That is a gross oversimplification. The EU tries to comply with the UN's 1951 Refugee Convention. But even this convention is misunderstood. It does not automatically grant asylum or cover economic migrants. Each country decides how to process asylum claims under its own laws.

The EU had large numbers of asylum seekers in 2015-2016 - with the Syrian civil war and all that. Germany was outstanding in this regard! They've tightened policies since then.

The EU has increased deportations for rejected asylum seekers and strengthened external border control through Frontex.

But seriously - what has ALL THIS got to do with ANYTHING?

We are discussing whether or not to defend allied democratic nations or not - and you throw racist-sounding immigration policies into the mix as some sort of bargaining chip or caveat or veto?

Since when did we veto defence alliances around something like that?

Trumpism is on the move it seems!

Perhaps Australia should pull out of our alliances and trade deals if we object to someone else's DOMESTIC policy decision?

If Europe is giving up on those, I can understand why the USA are not willing to defend or fund that.

Errr, no. You've grossly oversimplified what Europe are doing - and grossly oversimplified how military alliances work.

Similarly for Australia - the current Labour AU Government seems aligned pretty close to the EU governments receiving criticism from the USA right now .. so yes ... Australia can choose between re-aligning with the renewed USA values/goals, or sell out to China.

Like - telling Academic institutions they will not receive their funding partnerships unless they comply with strict USA definitions of manhood and womanhood, and who knows what other 1950's "MAGA" policies we need to adopt?

Sorry - but who is for free speech again?

 

[Fantine]

That is a Ukraine issue, not for the EU - Trump is absolutely right that the majority of EU countries have severely under-spent on defence in the last decades. Europe thought Russia was going to be a harmless democracy, those assumptions turned out to be false. Poland is an exception, they realise the danger, and they have spent quite massively ... At the moment the EU is in emergency defence planning/spending mode, and that's about time.

It isn't a "Ukraine issue." It's extortion, plain and simple. (TBT, I would call it an issue for the criminal courts, but of course there is immunity to consider.) Under the Biden administration, the U.S. gave Ukraine about $100 billion in assistance, much in obsolete, outdated weaponry.

Trump in his "negotiations," felt that in return for that $100 billion and proferred (but not guaranteed) future assistance, Ukraine should cede 50% of its mineral profits to the U.S. in perpetuity. Value: Many trillions.

I am embarrassed to be an American, even though I did everything possible--donating time, money, and talent--to prevent this disastrous and democracy-threatening tragedy to occur.

I find it hard to believe that anyone with a conscience could think otherwise.

 

[Laodicean60]

They have, but literally the Chinese Navy will run circles not just around the the country but also around the AU Navy as well .... Go figure ..

Time to build ships. Those countries in the south China sea may need help someday.

 

[Reluctant Theologian]

What on earth does this mean? Are you buying into JD Vance's take on Europe?



Goodness! That is a gross oversimplification. The EU tries to comply with the UN's 1951 Refugee Convention. But even this convention is misunderstood. It does not automatically grant asylum or cover economic migrants. Each country decides how to process asylum claims under its own laws.

The EU had large numbers of asylum seekers in 2015-2016 - with the Syrian civil war and all that. Germany was outstanding in this regard! They've tightened policies since then.

The EU has increased deportations for rejected asylum seekers and strengthened external border control through Frontex.

But seriously - what has ALL THIS got to do with ANYTHING?

We are discussing whether or not to defend allied democratic nations or not - and you throw racist-sounding immigration policies into the mix as some sort of bargaining chip or caveat or veto?

Since when did we veto defence alliances around something like that?

Trumpism is on the move it seems!

Perhaps Australia should pull out of our alliances and trade deals if we object to someone else's DOMESTIC policy decision?


Errr, no. You've grossly oversimplified what Europe are doing - and grossly oversimplified how military alliances work.


Like - telling Academic institutions they will not receive their funding partnerships unless they comply with strict USA definitions of manhood and womanhood, and who knows what other 1950's "MAGA" policies we need to adopt?

Sorry - but who is for free speech again?

Well .. I fully support Vance's take on the state of free speech in countries like Germany and the UK, and I also agree with him Europe is destroying it's traditional culture and Western values by allowing large scale Muslim immigration - people who in the far majority do not seem to support the very foundations upon which Western Europe was built.

 

[Reluctant Theologian]

Time to build ships. Those countries in the south China sea may need help someday.

I agree, but don't get me started on that .... Australia building its own Naval vessels? .... That's quite a saga ... and not a very good one.

 

[eclipsenow]

That is a Ukraine issue, not for the EU - Trump is absolutely right that the majority of EU countries have severely under-spent on defence in the last decades.

You know that generations of US Presidents have discouraged a coordinated EU military - or "European Army" - right? Do you know why?

Europe thought Russia was going to be a harmless democracy, those assumptions turned out to be false.

Yep. History.

Poland is an exception, they realise the danger, and they have spent quite massively

Seems so. Different mindset.

... At the moment the EU is in emergency defence planning/spending mode, and that's about time.

Yeah. You know what they've done for the first time? A bit of an EU procurement exercise. A number of countries have pooled their military purchase orders to cut a better deal. As I understand it - that's the first time that's happened. they're spending this money at home! That's the birth of a co-ordinated EU military. That's HUGE!

Note - they will not be able to whip up an alternative to high tech stuff like F35's etc. That takes decades to develop. But they've moving from 27 member states with 178 different, bespoke, duplicated weapons platforms into hopefully something much more streamlined. America only has 30 weapons platforms - allowing amazing economies of scale as they come off the production line. Much cheaper per unit!

So if the EU actually does what Trump wants - and starts to take some responsibility for their own military - it might backfire and result in A QUARTER OF AMERICA'S MILITARY INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX disappearing. After all, it was EU funded!

Trump whines about 0.5% outgoings for that massive bonus of EU dependence on American hardware.

Given Trump's absolutely disgusting betrayal of the entire western world in both destroying the image of NATO's unity and threatening tariffs on friends - I actually hope the EU goes all the way and:-

1. Federates into a country called Europe! Or at least the core 6 or 10 countries. So many efficiencies to be gained! (There could be tiered membership as there already is - with some nations not using the Euro yet, etc.)
2. Streamlines their own Military Industrial Complex - with their own civilian markets benefitting from their own DARPA like R&D facility - which has led to so many civilian products in America.
3. Beefs up the German trend of sponsoring Linux alternatives to American operating systems and software - and weans off dependence on silicon valley!
4. Expands! I hope the EU one day DOES envelope Canada - and maybe even Australia! And who knows what other countries that have the same values as us! Because we're going to need a new co-ordinated defensive pact now that NATO seems to be undermined - and America is no longer a friend we can rely on. It all depends what mood Mr Trump wakes up in as to whether or not he's big on allies or not!

 

[QvQ]

There are US warships being rotated in the area. I doubt the US Navy would state "because of China"
It seems to be a friendly co-operative joint exericise between allies with a veiled warning that the US is on the job and aiding Austraulia to acqure necessary naval capacity.

https://www.cpf.navy.mil/Newsroom/News/Article/4077424/uss-minnesota-ssn-783-advances-aukus-with-port-visit-to-hmas-stirling/

 

[eclipsenow]

Well .. I fully support Vance's take on the state of free speech in countries like Germany and the UK,

So FREE SPEECH in his view is forming a political alliance with literal neo-Nazi parties?

and I also agree with him Europe is destroying it's traditional culture and Western values by allowing large scale Muslim immigration - people who in the far majority do not seem to support the very foundations upon which Western Europe was built.

What percent of the EU is Muslim?
What percent of those Muslims have identified as wanting a theocracy under Sharia law?
What do you actually know about real Muslims in the real world in the EU?
I only ask - because my church in Sydney has a partnership with another Anglican church out Lakemba way - and they have a bridge building ministry with the local Mosque - and do things like help reserve parking for them for Friday prayers etc.

 

[Laodicean60]

I agree, but don't get me started on that .... Australia building its own Naval vessels? .... That's quite a saga ... and not a very good one.

We are not much better we pawned our shipbuilding to Asia. This whole thing about Trump not helping Australia is ridiculous. It is not in our best interest for the Chinese to overrun Australia, so we'll help.

 

[Reluctant Theologian]

So FREE SPEECH in his view is forming a political alliance with literal neo-Nazi parties?

What percent of the EU is Muslim?
What percent of those Muslims have identified as wanting a theocracy under Sharia law?
What do you actually know about real Muslims in the real world in the EU?
I only ask - because my church in Sydney has a partnership with another Anglican church out Lakemba way - and they have a bridge building ministry with the local Mosque - and do things like help reserve parking for them for Friday prayers etc.

Free speech is being able to say anything you want - as long as you do not call for physical violence to others in society. And it's certain at the moment that doesn't exist anymore in the UK, it also doesn't exist anymore in Germany - but luckily it still does in other EU countries.

Virtually ALL immigration to the EU is Muslim, the birthrate of the EU Muslim population is much larger than for the rest, so Islamisation is already happening rapidly. Muslims leaders in Germany are openly saying they that purely by immigration and (Muslim) population growth, they will crowd-out the rest and implement Sharia .. that is a reality now (you can check for yourselves).

In the capital city of my home country Mohammed is the most popular first name for boys ... I know what I'm talking about. I have Muslim friends myself, I know quite a lot about Islam, I have even lived in a strict Muslim country .. The Crusades pushed back Islam after its conquest by force of Southern (Spain/Portugal) and Eastern Europe (up to Vienna). Now Islam seems to be slowly conquering Europe again without firing a single shot. Several Muslims leaders in the EU openly state that that is the goal.

 

[QvQ]

This whole thing about Trump not helping Australia is ridiculous. It is not in our best interest for the Chinese to overrun Australia, so we'll help.

And while there are reports fo US Naval forces around Australia, the Navy does not advertise or tell the news media where or what Naval forces are cruising at any given time.
There have been internet sites where news of Naval ships being stationed in Austrailia.
I assume that is what "rotation" means. Ships that dock and port in an area, then cruise around and about then are relieved by other cruisers stationed in the area.
Australian Naval personnel are also being trained on the latest US nuclear submarines that are operating in that area.

 

[Laodicean60]

And while there are reports fo US Naval forces in the area, the Navy does not advertise or tell the news media where or what Naval forces are cruising at any given time.
There have been internet sites where news of Naval ships being stationed in Austrailia.
I assume that is what "rotation" means. Ships that has a cruise around and about then are relieved by other cruisers.

I assume we have a fleet in that area because China has been doing a lot of shenanigans with the Philippines and Vietnam.

 

[Maori Aussie]

And while there are reports fo US Naval forces around Australia, the Navy does not advertise or tell the news media where or what Naval forces are cruising at any given time.
There have been internet sites where news of Naval ships being stationed in Austrailia.
I assume that is what "rotation" means. Ships that dock and port in an area, then cruise around and about then are relieved by other cruisers stationed in the area.

Yes. IIRC warships might "visit ports", especially friendly ports; and while there the crew may spend some time ashore, and the vessel may be reprovisioned, or even repaired, all depending on the port's capacities, friendliness, prepositioned assets, consumables and capabilities. While near foreign countries, vessels may or may not exercise with the warships of those countries. Even with potentially unfriendly countries, these exercises might be as simple as an international maritime search and rescue exercise, to international standards. But visiting remoter ports does remove the warship from normal deployment areas. The USN's use of the Spanish port of Rota is featured in Pitch Perfect 2 or 3.
Edit - Specialists or replacements might join the ship in port, and medical evacuees might be flown back home.

 

[QvQ]

Yes. IIRC warships might "visit ports", especially friendly ports; and while there the crew may spend some time ashore, and the vessel may be reprovisioned, or even repaired, all depending on the port's capacities, friendliness, prepositioned assets, consumables and capabilities.

I was interested when there were Chinese ships cruising near Australia.
Australia has strategic value to the US and is a reliable ally
I doubt the US Navy would advertise whether they intended to or are patrolling that area but there is action reported on odd corners of the internet
I am reposting this here as it seems to say that the US is cruisin' Australia and in response to the Chinese presence

https://www.cpf.navy.mil/Newsroom/News/Article/4077424/uss-minnesota-ssn-783-advances-aukus-with-port-visit-to-hmas-stirling/