|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On September 18 2021 21:51 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2021 21:29 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 18 2021 21:04 farvacola wrote:
If the military-industrial complex spigot were suddenly turned off with no replacement, then sure, there would be a big economic hit. Luckily for us, there are tons of things we need to spend money on that do not involve killing people throughout the world, so much so that it's really only a matter of swapping things out. The limiting factor is political will rather than economic structure. "The limiting factor is political will..." strikes me as quite the euphemism. Identifying what’s actually at stake in questions of political economy is not euphemistic, especially not when so many people still mistake economy for the natural world.
I don't really disagree with your points (beyond their potential fidelity to capitalism?), just noting that the implications are devastatingly damning while the phrasing is jarringly nonchalant.
Even politicians like Bernie Sanders are impossibly entangled in boondoggles like the F-35.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On September 19 2021 00:08 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2021 23:59 LegalLord wrote:
France cancelled one big military deal due to US pressure, then later had a customer cancel another big military deal on them also due to US pressure. What goes around comes around, I guess. I now recognize you need to keep in mind what else as happened recently when evaluating how France is reacting to the recent news. Regarding the bolded part of your statement though, are you sure that's true? Did the U.S. somehow strong-arm Australia here?
Probably not strong-arming in the more traditional sense of "do what we ask or else we will bring ruin to your economy" but yes, I'm quite sure that the US exerted its political influence to get Australia to specifically deal with the US-UK partnership and not with France, and that it wasn't just about the money (though $40-60 billion is certainly a pretty princely expenditure as well). This article for example touches on at least a few of the strategic considerations relevant to the two deals:
The United States acknowledged on Thursday that it only gave France a few hours’ notice of its deal to provide Australia with nuclear-powered submarines, a move that French officials have denounced as a major betrayal by one of its closest allies.
...
French officials described the exclusion of France, a NATO member, from the new British-Australian-U.S. military partnership as a moment that will deepen an already widening rift between longstanding allies. President Emmanuel Macron has already said he intends to pursue French “strategic autonomy” from the United States.
...
Asked what Mr. Biden thinks about being compared to Mr. Trump, Ms. Psaki shot back: “The president doesn’t think about it much.”
...
“A knife in the back,” Mr. Le Drian said of the Australian decision, noting that Australia was rejecting a deal for a strategic partnership that involved “a lot of technological transfers and a contract for a 50-year period.”
French officials in Washington accused top American officials of hiding information about the deal despite repeated attempts by French diplomats, who suspected that something was in the works, to learn more.
Mr. Étienne, one of France’s most experienced diplomats, acknowledged in an interview on Thursday that there had been discussions with the Australians over the rising price tag of the submarines that France was supposed to deliver to Australia — which were not nuclear-powered, even though France has its own fleet of nuclear-powered submarines.
In early summer, the French government had declined to sign documents committing to the next phase of the deal — apparently because of the pricing disputes. But Mr. Étienne said the deal was about more than just a defense contract.
“We have assets in this region,” he said of France, noting that it has conducted missions in the Pacific, and strategic plans to increase France’s presence. “We take it very seriously.” He added: “It was not only a commercial contract.” He called it “an essential part of our overall Indo-Pacific strategy.”
Very much looks like the US wanted in and wanted to push France out, and do so in a way that didn't leave the door open to France perhaps making a nuclear-equipped counteroffer. I suppose it's short of direct incontrovertible proof of political pressure, but this course of events definitely makes it heavily implied that that was at play.
But again, given France's previous willingness to torpedo large agreements under US pressure, I offer little sympathy to them here. Maybe they need to be better allies or pick better allies, but evidently they did neither and completely deserve the situation they're in now.
|
United States24579 Posts
I'm less sure than you are that the US and/or UK pressured Australia into this (at least, for the nuclear submarines portion of the agreement). The technology in question is not something that is shared lightly. If Australia wasn't fully committed the other nations wouldn't agree to the sharing.
|
On September 18 2021 22:30 raga4ka wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2021 22:19 farvacola wrote:On September 18 2021 22:08 raga4ka wrote:On September 18 2021 22:05 farvacola wrote:On September 18 2021 21:59 raga4ka wrote:I didn't see anyone posting, about this but I thought it was a big deal. Newly announced Aukus pact between US, UK and AUS made AUS cancel a 40+ billion contract submarine deal with France. The French are furious about this and have called it a blatant backstab by the US. Also I think for the first time ever they've recalled their ambassadors to both the US and AUS... With the coming of French and German elections and after the poor bailout from Afghanistan by the US, the sanctions on North Stream 2 and now this and other questionable behavior by the US like the Aukus pact and all of them done without consulting the EU... I think that France, Germany and the EU in general would seriously entertain the thought of forming an EU defense pact the would supersede NATO, not to mention embracing more trade with Russia and China... https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/17/world/europe/france-ambassador-recall-us-australia.html You think the EU is going to increase economic ties with China when it’s on the precipice of perhaps the most significant insolvency crisis in its history, one that will undermine practically it’s entire credit regime? Hokay. They've already made a comprehensive trade deal with China, but because of tit for tat sanctions on human rights they've delayed the signing. If mutual relations improve and they go ahead with the signing of the deal the trade will surely improve. Indeed, which is why it’s important to recognize that EU holders of Chinese debt quaking in their boots at the sight of the Evergrande crisis present a big, possibly insurmountable obstacle in the way of relations improving. What does Evergrande have to do with the China-EU deal? The deal was stopped because of counter sanctions by China on EU politicians that sanctioned China on Xinjiang's human rights violation. And what does this have to do with US - EU relations that my post was about?
Evergrande is a real estate bank that has 300 billion in debt and has publicly said they will default if they can't find a buyer.
It's not that big of a deal when it's only half of lemon Brothers and the government can swallow the debt pretty easily.
People are scared that it will trigger a 2008 style housing crash in China with how leveraged all the towns and regional governments are into real estate but china has shown even less regard for economics than the west and would probably just say "the economy doesn't collapse because we say it won't" and move on.
|
On September 19 2021 02:37 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2021 22:30 raga4ka wrote:On September 18 2021 22:19 farvacola wrote:On September 18 2021 22:08 raga4ka wrote:On September 18 2021 22:05 farvacola wrote:On September 18 2021 21:59 raga4ka wrote:I didn't see anyone posting, about this but I thought it was a big deal. Newly announced Aukus pact between US, UK and AUS made AUS cancel a 40+ billion contract submarine deal with France. The French are furious about this and have called it a blatant backstab by the US. Also I think for the first time ever they've recalled their ambassadors to both the US and AUS... With the coming of French and German elections and after the poor bailout from Afghanistan by the US, the sanctions on North Stream 2 and now this and other questionable behavior by the US like the Aukus pact and all of them done without consulting the EU... I think that France, Germany and the EU in general would seriously entertain the thought of forming an EU defense pact the would supersede NATO, not to mention embracing more trade with Russia and China... https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/17/world/europe/france-ambassador-recall-us-australia.html You think the EU is going to increase economic ties with China when it’s on the precipice of perhaps the most significant insolvency crisis in its history, one that will undermine practically it’s entire credit regime? Hokay. They've already made a comprehensive trade deal with China, but because of tit for tat sanctions on human rights they've delayed the signing. If mutual relations improve and they go ahead with the signing of the deal the trade will surely improve. Indeed, which is why it’s important to recognize that EU holders of Chinese debt quaking in their boots at the sight of the Evergrande crisis present a big, possibly insurmountable obstacle in the way of relations improving. What does Evergrande have to do with the China-EU deal? The deal was stopped because of counter sanctions by China on EU politicians that sanctioned China on Xinjiang's human rights violation. And what does this have to do with US - EU relations that my post was about? Evergrande is a real estate bank that has 300 billion in debt and has publicly said they will default if they can't find a buyer. It's not that big of a deal when it's only half of lemon Brothers and the government can swallow the debt pretty easily. People are scared that it will trigger a 2008 style housing crash in China with how leveraged all the towns and regional governments are into real estate but china has shown even less regard for economics than the west and would probably just say "the economy doesn't collapse because we say it won't" and move on.
What does the bold mean in actual terms? Specifically, what do those acts look like and how would they actually work in practice?
|
Good riddance for my pretty dumb leaders.
Still, it's not anytime soon that the french will get that usa is the number 1 ennemy in the world, that their economic and society will consume this whole planet until it becomes uninhabitable and their way of leading thebworld is by making themselves ally with corrupted regimes, the far right or religious fanatics in order to crush any anti imperialist policies. From south america to oceania to middle east, their policies have been horrible.
At least, though the ccp, china retains a hold on their economics, while the ethos of usa is litteraly dying for their freaking free market ideology.
|
Personally, I am strongly in support of the sub deal. It binds us irrevocably to the US, but there is no alternative. We've spent 20 years trying to thread the needle between our history and our geography with respect to the PRC, and it's clear now that they are an expansionist superpower that threatens us directly.
It's possible to criticise the adventurism in the middle east while recognising that, at least for those of us in Xi's shadow, our military is no longer a luxury but a necessity. Our defense force has spent two decades as an expeditionary force instead, but it's becoming increasingly likely that it might now be called to fulfil its original, terrifying role. We have no choice but to try to shore it up.
At the same time, it's clear the relationship with France has been managed very badly. I am not sure why we only told them at the last minute, but it came with a cost. For myself, I can't see the blindside having been driven by Australia. What do we gain by pissing off the French? We are a minnow with a really big fish in our tank, and we need all the friends we can get. The only reason to cut France out would be to avoid them counter-offering a nuclear deal of their own to keep the contract, and that really only benefits the US.
Also, this should be obvious, but nuclear was not on the table when the previous deal was signed. Ironically, the French project has been plagued by delays and blowouts precisely because it is trying to stick a diesel engine in France's nuclear sub. We would have just bought the nuclear version at the time if we could.
|
Northern Ireland23923 Posts
On September 19 2021 07:05 Belisarius wrote:
Personally, I am strongly in support of the sub deal. It binds us irrevocably to the US, but there is no alternative. We've spent 20 years trying to thread the needle between our history and our geography with respect to the PRC, and it's clear now that they are an expansionist superpower that threatens us directly.
It's possible to criticise the adventurism in the middle east while recognising that, at least for those of us in Xi's shadow, our military is no longer a luxury but a necessity. Our defense force has spent two decades as an expeditionary force instead, but it's becoming increasingly likely that it might now be called to fulfil its original, terrifying role. We have no choice but to try to shore it up.
At the same time, it's clear the relationship with France has been managed very badly. I am not sure why we only told them at the last minute, but it came with a cost. For myself, I can't see the blindside having been driven by Australia. What do we gain by pissing them off? We are a minnow with a really big fish in our tank, and we need all the friends we can get. The only reason to cut the French out would be to avoid them counter-offering a nuclear deal of their own to keep the contract, and that really only benefits the US.
Also, this should be obvious, but nuclear was not on the table when the previous deal was signed. Ironically, the French project has been plagued by delays and blowouts precisely because it is trying to stick a diesel engine in France's nuclear sub. We would have just bought the nuclear version at the time if we could.
What does it give you that you didn’t have before?
You have subs you didn’t have before, what does that actually grant?
|
Just so everyone has some basic context of what happened, France had essentially "won" a competition to suppy Australia with submarines including possibly nuclear submarines (though for whatever reason diesel-electric seems to be the main qualifier) for quite some time now. They must have been in the final negotiations. The Australian government was looking to spend about $50 billion, and that amount has not changed whether it is US/British tech or not. Seems out of the blue that after winning a competition and after long negotiations, USA/UK suddenly appears and have won the contract, seemingly without any sort of oversight or negotiations or indeed partaking in the competition at all. Which curiously is exactly what happened in the case of Canadas frigate replacement as well, in which one can only but wonder what is occuring behind closed doors. But to be honest choosing a foreign military supplier and technology transfer is often a result of politics than a true benefit analysis of possible choices.
As for what exactly submarines grant, well that's a question like asking what does aircraft carriers grant or what do frigate grant. Is that a serious question on the value of an arm of military technology and hardware or an anti-military rhetorical question?
|
United States24579 Posts
On September 19 2021 08:29 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
USA/UK suddenly appears and have won the contract,
Not disagreeing with other parts of your post, but are you sure this is effectively what happened? I don't think the US or UK are going to provide subs to Australia the way France was planning to.
|
I don't understand your question. Could you rephrase it so I can understand what you are asking?
|
United States24579 Posts
To put it simply... was the original contract for Australia to buy submarines from France, whereas the new arrangement is for Australia to build new submarines themselves, by using technology gained from the US/UK agreement?
Obviously it's a bit more nuanced than all or nothing, but I think that clears up what I'm asking.
|
The submarine competition ended with Australia to build submarines in Australia itself but with technological transfer from France. Just to confuse matters of this decade long debacle, Japan had won first, then the government changed and France won partially because France said they will allow the Australians to build the subs in Australia.
Currently I have no real idea what the US/UK deal actually is, but is likely the same in one respect; to build a US/UK submarine in Australia, with full or partial technology transfer.
|
United States24579 Posts
Okay so the subs would be built in Australia either way (once the contract switched from Japan to France). Still, is it fair to say that "USA/UK suddenly appears to have won the contract,"? Is Australia paying US/UK for the technology the way they were going to pay France? I'm not sure that the type of arrangement is the same.
|
I say suddenly appears because this "competition" has been running for something like a decade now. First Japan won. Then government changed and France won in a competition alongside Germany and Japan. Now USA/UK won, but there was no competition. It just appeared out of nowhere. Top secret talks. Not the same "open" competiton that France won, where they were competing alongside Germany and Japan.
USA/UK didn't win a competition, there was no competition in the first place. France won the competition. But such is the nature of foreign military weapon procurement. Winning the competition, as Japan found out, doesn't neccessarily mean that you've won the contract. If you are asking if it is the same competition, then no it's not the same competition, because there was no competition. US/UK didn't compete at all.
If you are asking if it is the exact same deal as France, then no of course not. Not only are the details of technology different and the way it will be transfered different, it sounds like this AUKUS deal encompasses more than just submarines.
|
United States24579 Posts
My contention is not with the "suddenly appears" part but the "won the contract" part. What contract did USA/UK win?
|
They didn't "win" anything. UK/US didn't compete in the competition. Anyways going off now.
|
United States24579 Posts
My point is, France was asking for money, the USA/UK is not. Therefore, the USA/UK didn't win any contract. I'm not 100% sure this is accurate which is why I'm asking.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On September 19 2021 08:52 micronesia wrote:
To put it simply... was the original contract for Australia to buy submarines from France, whereas the new arrangement is for Australia to build new submarines themselves, by using technology gained from the US/UK agreement?
Obviously it's a bit more nuanced than all or nothing, but I think that clears up what I'm asking.
The French deal was pretty clearly for France to build the submarines, with a significant component of technology sharing and strategic cooperation. Looks like the French agreement also had at least one major facility being built in Australia proper as well, it seems like for submarine construction? (Source 1)
On September 19 2021 09:10 micronesia wrote:
Okay so the subs would be built in Australia either way (once the contract switched from Japan to France). Still, is it fair to say that "USA/UK suddenly appears to have won the contract,"? Is Australia paying US/UK for the technology the way they were going to pay France? I'm not sure that the type of arrangement is the same.
Seems fairly similar in that the UK/US deal also has a component of technology sharing and AU production. Less clear how much of it is going to be produced outside of Australia though, because the project is more preliminary and it's not clear which specific submarines AU will use. They're increasing their military budget to accommodate this, which implies a price increase and not just that the US is gifting them this technology or something. (Source 2)
On September 19 2021 09:24 micronesia wrote:
My point is, France was asking for money, the USA/UK is not. Therefore, the USA/UK didn't win any contract. I'm not 100% sure this is accurate which is why I'm asking.
The only thing that seems firmed up is that 1. the French contract has been cancelled, and 2. the terms of a AU/UK/US strategic alliance that will in some form involve nuclear submarines for Australia have been agreed upon. I don't see a contract, probably because there isn't one yet; just a general agreement to replace France with an AUKUS alliance. (Source 2 above)
On September 19 2021 07:22 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2021 07:05 Belisarius wrote:
Personally, I am strongly in support of the sub deal. It binds us irrevocably to the US, but there is no alternative. We've spent 20 years trying to thread the needle between our history and our geography with respect to the PRC, and it's clear now that they are an expansionist superpower that threatens us directly.
It's possible to criticise the adventurism in the middle east while recognising that, at least for those of us in Xi's shadow, our military is no longer a luxury but a necessity. Our defense force has spent two decades as an expeditionary force instead, but it's becoming increasingly likely that it might now be called to fulfil its original, terrifying role. We have no choice but to try to shore it up.
At the same time, it's clear the relationship with France has been managed very badly. I am not sure why we only told them at the last minute, but it came with a cost. For myself, I can't see the blindside having been driven by Australia. What do we gain by pissing them off? We are a minnow with a really big fish in our tank, and we need all the friends we can get. The only reason to cut the French out would be to avoid them counter-offering a nuclear deal of their own to keep the contract, and that really only benefits the US.
Also, this should be obvious, but nuclear was not on the table when the previous deal was signed. Ironically, the French project has been plagued by delays and blowouts precisely because it is trying to stick a diesel engine in France's nuclear sub. We would have just bought the nuclear version at the time if we could. What does it give you that you didn’t have before? You have subs you didn’t have before, what does that actually grant?
Nuclear subs have better longevity and as such can spend more time underwater without having to come to the surface. The downside is that they come with some ugly logistical constraints of their own in that the kind of nuclear reactors that work on submarines are generally of the high-yield variety and are a mess to deal with. Probably a permanent supply dependency on the US since not a lot of countries are allowed to produce that kind of stuff. Whether or not the tradeoff is worth it depends on the use case; nuclear seems nice at first to be sure but ratchets up complexity really fast so there better be a damn good reason to use it. (Source 2 as above)
|
United States24579 Posts
On September 19 2021 10:33 LegalLord wrote:They're increasing their military budget to accommodate this, which implies a price increase and not just that the US is gifting them this technology or something. ( Source 2)
The price increase would likely be because nuclear is more expensive than diesel electric, regardless of whether the US and UK request any reimbursement or not.
I appreciate you putting some of that information in your post together.
On September 19 2021 10:33 LegalLord wrote:
Probably a permanent supply dependency on the US since not a lot of countries are allowed to produce that kind of stuff.
I find this problem extremely interesting right now and I might possibly have the ability to influence what happens.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
