fyi for those who dont know. If war breaks out America plans on putting a million men in the Northern Terriroty to fight China. Thats more than every other US ally in the region combined, and trump is really fucking that gig up rn.
fartyunicorns on
Should be noted that this is more of a ship building problem than an actual dislike of Aukus. He believes that US ships should be prioritized instead of selling them to Australia. Still concerning though
Reading the article, while his concerns seems logical (they about shipbuilding speed), some of the things he says… For example this:
>“Australia is currently well below the 3% level advocated for Nato by Nato secretary general [Mark] Rutte, and Canberra faces a far more powerful challenge in China.”
Australia is not in NATO. Regardless, they increased their spending to 2% of gdp, which is common target in NATO. Which article also talk about.
If we talk about actual situation, it largely non-issue. I don’t understand why he even touches it. First one to be delivered is in 2032. But:
>However, the agreement also mandates that before any boat can be sold to Australia, the US commander-in-chief – the president of the day – must certify that America relinquishing a submarine will not diminish the US navy’s undersea capability.
It’s so far away and can be decided based on situation. Why even talk about it? It just creating more drama between allies. Australia also very recently already paid part of the money to help boost US shipbuilding, as article pointed out.
glistening_error on
That’s like ordering a steak and then getting mad when they serve it cooked, what did y’all think was gonna happen?
6 Comments
fyi for those who dont know. If war breaks out America plans on putting a million men in the Northern Terriroty to fight China. Thats more than every other US ally in the region combined, and trump is really fucking that gig up rn.
Should be noted that this is more of a ship building problem than an actual dislike of Aukus. He believes that US ships should be prioritized instead of selling them to Australia. Still concerning though
https://preview.redd.it/90hctbw49kne1.png?width=648&format=png&auto=webp&s=b19fbb9c968594ddebc52820acc7fb48bea66c6b
Do we have a contract or not?
Reading the article, while his concerns seems logical (they about shipbuilding speed), some of the things he says… For example this:
>“Australia is currently well below the 3% level advocated for Nato by Nato secretary general [Mark] Rutte, and Canberra faces a far more powerful challenge in China.”
Australia is not in NATO. Regardless, they increased their spending to 2% of gdp, which is common target in NATO. Which article also talk about.
If we talk about actual situation, it largely non-issue. I don’t understand why he even touches it. First one to be delivered is in 2032. But:
>However, the agreement also mandates that before any boat can be sold to Australia, the US commander-in-chief – the president of the day – must certify that America relinquishing a submarine will not diminish the US navy’s undersea capability.
It’s so far away and can be decided based on situation. Why even talk about it? It just creating more drama between allies. Australia also very recently already paid part of the money to help boost US shipbuilding, as article pointed out.
That’s like ordering a steak and then getting mad when they serve it cooked, what did y’all think was gonna happen?