MegaSack DRAW - This year's winner is user - rgwb
We will be in touch
It's Pauline Hanson. Imagine the love child of Nigel Farage and Sarah Palin, but with neither's intellect or guile.
I did rather laugh at the clip of Hansen. a really nasty mix of racist and dimwitted
Good God, Pauline Hanson is a bit of a thicko isn't she.
Hanson: "Is it true that pumpjets can only stay under water for 20 minutes?"
Admiral: No Senator, I do not know what you're referring to about pumpjet submarines only remaining underwater for 20 minutes. (rolls eyes)
So Aus decide the security in the Pacific is going to need a Better deterrent than the one they thought they needed. They go off shopping again as the parameters have changed since they last looked about. Look at an offer from two existing allies with a tried and tested offering and decide that’s a goer. The french option was probably overlooked from the start as they didn’t like the deal they had with the previous offer. They did this quietly as it’s never a great way to do a national security / arms deal in public.
Now I’m sure they were met with open arms from the US / UK delegation but that is hardly surprising. What were they supposed to do? say sorry not talking to you Bruce you’ve got to speak to the French.
I thing it’s in all of our interests that Aus have a good deterrent.
The deterioration that has us operating in the Sahel providing critical capabilities to the French, putting UK lives risk every day……
Yes. HTH
Really cant see why you'd view that as binary tbh, working relationships can improve and degrade frequently without resorting to on/off. Bit of a weird way of viewing the world if you ask me.
Do I think itll have a major long term impact, no, but only because I view it as one thing among many. I'm fully expecting a general drift away from Europe for a while now.
Let me be clear, Australia is not seeking to acquire newkiller weapons, or establish a civil newkiller capability and we will continue to meet all our newkiller non-proliferation obligations
So much for newkiller war. But the big Anglo Alliance is also a great media vehicle to ‘stick it to the Chinese and the French/EU’, all in one feel swoop.
What did Andrew Neil say? To paraphrase: ‘Big Chinese check books were/are funding our ‘remainer’ universities, trying to get us to see through Chinese eyes…’
thols2 - that was obvious - its a calculated snub. " we don't care enough about you to take action"
thols2 – that was obvious – its a calculated snub. ” we don’t care enough about you to take action”
This is like Schrödinger's relationship, it's massive damage to a key alliance and close working on strategic issues, and at the same time they don't really care about the UK
Yes its further serious damage to a strained relationship and yes its a deliberate snub to Johnson - probably too subtle for him as it seems to be to you
The UK is now seen as a minor annoyance to be ignored not a useful partner
So when the UK next asks for favours from france as they have been doing for years do you think the French will be more or less likely to be co operative after this?
tjagain
Full Member
So when the UK next asks for favours from france as they have been doing for years do you think the French will be more or less likely to be co operative after this?
You'll have to tell me what favours we've asked for or will require, from my understanding, we import more from France than they do from us, especially in defence, we have many good relationships with the French, some i've witnessed with my job and trips to France.
The French government just now are struggling to gain support with an upcoming election next year, this decision by Australia undermines them in the press and gives the opposition more ammunition to hit them with in the run up to the election, i'd say it's more political as usual.
The UK would not be getting anything from Macron anyway with an election next year. he knows that the French would vote for Frexit given the opportunity, look how Barnier is positioning himself for a run at the Elysee.
The Australians have been questioing the deal since 2017, probably met with a gallic shrug.
The deal also includes Tomahawk cruise missiles.
The French yards have 20 years of orders from other countries so unemployment is not an issue apart from the Australians alredy working there.
Oh dear
Patel was just a week or two ago asking them to do more on the boat migrants.
Thats just one example
AS France are one of the major influences on the EU and we keep on wanting to "renegotiate" tbhe brexit treaty we need their good will
Most of our EU trade comes thru France - both ways. We keep asking them for help with our own created eff ups
Thats just 3 examples off the top of my head
Do you really think the french government will be more likely to co operate now? they have bent over backwards to accomodate us. No longer
Its clear from the snub they have altered their attitude from trying to be co operative and helpful to " sod 'em, not worth worrying about
BTW - they do NOT need us more than we need them
Living in France, I can assure you that the French have absalutly no interest in stopping the boat migrants.
You think the UK is racist? they are on a completely different level.
Can you give an example of the French bending over backwards to accomodate the UK?
But the snub was the Australians not the uk! We’re we supposed to turn them down! Jobs, investment, security. If it turned out Boris had said jog in Australia get your subs elsewhere he would have been thanked by the unions for his strong moral compass and thoughtful insight in EU politics?
Can you give an example of the French bending over backwards to accomodate the UK?
spending huge sums on all the infrastructure to allow cross channel trade to continue. they have all the stuff in place, we have none. they worked really hard to streamline trade across the channel.
The DTs - we will not get significant jobs out of this - we have very little to contribute. Reactors are US, etc etc and its going to be built in Aus
Where is that, I haven't seen it whilst crossing at calais?
Where is that, I haven’t seen it whilst crossing at calais?
https://www.portboulognecalais.fr/en/brexit-the-port-of-calais-will-be-ready-will-you
Jeepers you guys have really bought the brexit / tory lies on all this
Or just a different view to you TJ.
To say that the french have not worked hard and got all the facilities in place for cross channel trade while we have not is simply wrong. We cannot put the checks in place because we do not have the facilities. they have them all in place
to say we are not asking for french co operation over migrants is again - simply wrong
Patel was just a week or two ago asking them to do more on the boat migrants.
Yep, Patels requests for help will be laughed off
The French are pissed off that this deal was set up behind their backs, I'm sure they'll calm down and relations will be reset, but they'll be wondering what else we're (& usa, aus) not telling them.
UK is also desperate to get NIP rewritten, with years of delicate brexit negotiations still to go on services, finance, energy markets, fishing....
AUSUK is the absolute right move, no ifs or buts.
For those of you that objects you live in a fantasy world. You will find no amount of media from that region about Chinese involvement (influence in regional politics in a commies way and massive bribery) as the information are generally kept secret by corrupted politicians. Guess why forest the size of Belgium is being destroy to cultivate oil palm? Who are consuming them?
The way Chinese commies are going sooner or later there will be no more forest in Asia. Yes, you lot talking big about carbon emission etc or going green, you can talk green until your face turn blue it makes little impact if there is no more forest left in Asia. In the far east the race is to deforest as fast as they can to feed Chinese commies demand in palm oil. China will then boost about their green credentials of using environmental friendly oil and the you lot in the west will lap it up in an instant.
As a person coming from that region France's influence in Asia is negligible or even laughable, but the respect for UK is there even when UK just a tiny island by comparison to France or EU.
As for France and EU, their action is rather predictable acting like the U-boat wolf pack trying to encircle UK or to create as much troubles as they could etc ...
I think you'll find brexit Britain has done a brilliant job of isolating itself from its neighbours
acting like the U-boat wolf pack
I might get a ban for making this personal, but you are stain on this forum that drives people away.
Guess why forest the size of Belgium is being destroy to cultivate oil palm? Who are consuming them?
You tell me? In order of consumption in metric tonnes: Indonesia, India, China, EU27, the World…? That doesn’t change the fact that up to 50% of all products in UK and US supermarkets contain palm oil. I can only assume it’s a global issue and related to pricing and population, ignorance and couldn’t-care-less rather than to some peculiarly Indonesian nationalistic fervour for burning rain forests and orang-utans?
So answer me this, is maths your strong point?
Palm oil consumption in the countries of the EU-27 amounted to approximately 7.1 million metric tons in 2020. 447.7 million people.
Palm oil imports to China amounted to approximately 6.2 million metric tons in 2020. 1.4 billion people.
(Source: Statista)
Can you tell me how much palm oil China consumed per head vs the EU?
So the Nutella in my cupboard contains palm oil, coz...... communist China? 😳
At least palm free peanut butter is easy to get now. And it’s tastier. Not the big USA brands though. Is that because of China?
I might get a ban for making this personal, but you are stain on this forum that drives people away.
Seconded.
So the Nutella in my cupboard contains palm oil
Switch…
Sorry for joining in the irrelevant side step. Someone please get the thread back on track if they can…
Good God, Pauline Hanson is a bit of a thicko isn’t she.
Indeed she is, being seen on a high profile committee is more important to Hanson's career than bothering to read her brief properly, even after eight minutes of having the difference between propulsion and power generation being carefully explained, she still doesn't know what a pump-jet is.
Hanson makes Nadine Dorries look intellectually competent. Xenophobia and weapons grade stupidity seems to go hand in glove.
At least palm free peanut butter is easy to get now. And it’s tastier.
And I thought the argument was Crunchy ?, or Smooth ?.
How naive I have been 🙁
Can you tell me how much palm oil China consumed per head vs the EU?
Careful, when confronted with fact based questioning that might throw light on this particular forumite's selective opinion, the usual response is some form of non-sequitur.
the usual response is some form of non-sequitur.
I’m quite happy for anyone else to do the maths should chewkw not show honour. Mine was not a rhetorical question.
These are the figures I got? Would be pleased for someone to check them (and, if so pleased, also convert to a more legible weight 😎)
Palm oil consumption per capita (in million metric tonnes) in 2020 was:
China: 0.00442857142
EU27: 0.01585883404
Can you tell me how much palm oil China consumed per head vs the EU?
This one has graph ... https://www.indexmundi.com/agriculture/?commodity=palm-oil&graph=domestic-consumption
LOL! I knew you lot were going to use that line of argument.
Let's look at the statistic as you wish ... not sure whose statistic is right but here you go.
Look at the increase in consumption of palm oil ...
Notice the steady increase of palm oil consumption?
Plenty of other information here so read until your heart content
https://ourworldindata.org/palm-oil
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2019/feb/19/palm-oil-ingredient-biscuits-shampoo-environmental
Delete (was trying to insert link but did not work)
LOL! I knew you lot were going to use that line of argument.
Please don’t be rude. So far only I responded to/addressed your claim. I’m me. Not a ‘you lot’. I’m not part of a collective.
Let’s look at the statistic as you wish
But you’re not looking at statistics ‘as I wish’. You’re avoiding my argument. I won’t guess why, maybe you can tell me?
I ‘wished’ that you would tell me the per capita palm oil consumption of China in 2020 vs EU27 in 2020?
So please tell me
I think we (Aus) have been told we need nuclear powered subs.
Which will take years to complete.
At great cost.
For the "China War"
We currently have no nuclear weapons, and no military nuclear program.
So we need silent nuclear subs with no nuclear capability. Sounds legit.
I think we (Aus) have been told
I think that's exactly what happened as well.
... not that the whole French deal wasn't a merde-show since the get-go apparently.
I think we (Aus) have been told we need nuclear powered subs.
Which will take years to complete.
At great cost.
For the “China War”
We currently have no nuclear weapons, and no military nuclear program.
I don't think that's what happened at all. As I understand it, Australia already has a fleet of diesel subs that are aging and need replacement. Projects like this take 10 to 20 years and are always expensive. At the time, they decided to stick with non-nuclear propulsion and the contract was awarded to France. The French contractor was behind schedule and not meeting specifications and the RAN was unhappy. They decided to cancel the French contract. Things have moved on since the original tender and the U.S. agreed to technology sharing for nuclear propulsion (which is required for British or American built nuclear subs). The advantage of nuclear propulsion is that the sub has effectively unlimited range and can cruise at high speed submerged, whereas a diesel sub has to cruise at lower speed at snorkel depth, which makes it much easier to track. The Pacific Ocean is enormous so having subs that can easily reach the South China sea and Northern Pacific without surfacing was seen as important given how badly most countries in the region are getting on with China. Australia wasn't pressured into this, the French ****ed it up and the U.S. came in with an offer that is more suited to the current situation.
The nuclear propulsion issue is completely unrelated to nuclear weapons. A conventionally powered sub can fire nuclear weapons and a nuclear powered sub can fire conventional weapons. The Argentinian cruiser that was sunk during the Falklands conflict was hit by a conventional torpedo fired by a nuclear powered submarine. Nuclear propulsion gives higher sustained underwater speed and unlimited range, that's a huge benefit for a conventionally armed sub, it has no relationship to what weapons the sub carries.
If that was indeed what happened then why didn't the Australians inform the French of their new requirements and launch a new tender exercise? Instead of sneaking around behind the French backs.
So we need silent nuclear subs with no nuclear capability. Sounds legit.
The ones being discussed are hunter killer subs not ballistic missile subs
The purpose is to sneak up on naval task forces and sink the carriers and other key ships rather than wipe out cities although with tomahawks they would have limited anti ground force capability as well.
A good example of the usage was the Falklands war when after the Belgrano was sunk the Argentinians withdrew their aircraft carrier for fear it was next on the release which reduced their ability to launch air raids.
Of course the Chinese will have been working hard to get rather better anti sub warfare equipment.
I think that is the biggest issue, someone massively dropped a bollock on comms there
The discussion I've seen is that the Australians specifically asked for diesel-powered rather than nuclear-powered subs from the French.
I think that is the biggest issue, someone massively dropped a bollock on comms there
Yeah. Comms issue. That's what I told my wife when she found me shagging the au pair.
If that was indeed what happened then why didn’t the Australians inform the French of their new requirements and launch a new tender exercise? Instead of sneaking around behind the French backs.
Breaking a contract like this could end up quite expensive, the French will be seeking damages. So it's not a decision lightly entered into.
The likely scenario is that the assessment of the RAN is that the French would delay any retender process, any process would add more years to the program even if smooth, the French might not be able to meet performance requirements and Aus build %, etc
As for the secrecy it would have been absolute, you can't make the decision to terminate until you have your ducks in a line and the French finding out early would have disrupted this. Contingency planning like this is perfectly normal in the commercial world.
You mean shafting partners is normal? I am glad I do not have your ethics
If that was indeed what happened then why didn’t the Australians inform the French of their new requirements and launch a new tender exercise?
I gather that they had been unhappy with the progress for some time. I don't know why they didn't give a bit more warning that the contract was being cancelled. They haven't actually signed a new contract, just cancelled the existing one. I assume they will ask for tenders before signing a new contract, with the subs being built in Oz and the reactors and weapons systems supplied by U.S. or U.K. suppliers.
Yeah comms is a mild way of putting it, but ultimately the aussies should have been clearer with the French team rather than pulling the carpet out from under their feet.
I assume they will ask for tenders before signing a new contract, with the subs being built in Oz and the reactors and weapons systems supplied by U.S. or U.K. suppliers.
A tender where you've pre-selected one applicant is not very good procurement practice. The admiral in the video describes the criteria used in selecting the French sub. Those criteria are now out of the window because what is now being chosen is a new strategic partnership, not just a new piece of kit. The French believed the Australians to be long term partners not a short term transactional relationship.
Just like my wife. For some reason she was upset when I told her I had new requirements for someone with longer legs and firmer tits.
It's more like you telling your wife you like long hair, her spending ages growing it down to her waist, just for you, and then you sneaking off with a women with cropped hair.
tjagain
Full MemberYou mean shafting partners is normal? I am glad I do not have your ethics
If the boatyard was behind schedule and failing to meet requirements - then who is shafting who?
kelvin
Full MemberIt’s more like you telling your wife you like long hair, her spending ages growing it down to her waist, just for you, and then you sneaking off with a women with cropped hair.
...and massively increased 'endurance'
The discussion I’ve seen is that the Australians specifically asked for diesel-powered rather than nuclear-powered subs from the French.
Yes, they did. The French design was a nuclear powered sub modified to run conventional propulsion. I think that decision was mostly political - nuclear power was seen as politically untenable. Whether France or anyone else was willing to sell nuclear powered subs was probably a big consideration too, the U.K. and U.S.A. probably wouldn't have back then (when Obama was president).
I think two things happened. The first was that the RAN was unhappy with the French progress and decided to cancel the contract. The second was that international relations in the region have deteriorated and most countries are very concerned about the direction China is heading in. The RAN decided that they prefer nuclear propulsion and apparently the government decided that the better performance justified the political and economic cost.
I suspect that the RAN would *always* have preferred nuclear propulsion. Now the politicians have made a choice to prioritise a partnership with US (with UK tagging along like an annoying little brother) over France.
Interesting to see how the sub build goes - it's not like Trident ever kept within budget.
But you’re not looking at statistics ‘as I wish’. You’re avoiding my argument.
That's part of his schtick - to bomb threads with completely made up assertions and when challenged either go off on a tangent about something with a tenuous connection to the thread, to respond with alphabet soup or to insult and patronise the person who sets the facts straight. The individual concerned is long overdue a permaban IMHO.
Back on track to the thread subject.
Projects like this take 10 to 20 years and are always expensive. At the time, they decided to stick with non-nuclear propulsion and the contract was awarded to France. The French contractor was behind schedule and not meeting specifications and the RAN was unhappy.
Australia's submarine procurement has been fraught with difficulties for decades. With diesel subs being the only option for them to patrol a massive coastline (16,000 miles!) they need a lot of hunter killer subs with respectable endurance. Contrary to popular opinion, a diesel sub running on battery power is exceptionally stealthy - Sweden, Germany and Israel have diesel subs with a fearsome reputation for stealth, but the three countries mentioned have much smaller coastlines to patrol.
The cost of France's own Barracuda class of nuclear attack sub programme is mooted to be approx €10.42bn for six boats, against the cost of approx €55bn for twelve boats for Australia with reduced capability. It's no wonder that Australia's sub procurement programme has been controversial.
Interesting to see how the sub build goes – it’s not like Trident ever kept within budget.
Especially since it seems like it will be done mostly in Australia and so they will need to get all the kit in place and then train up all the local staff.
a diesel sub running on battery power is exceptionally stealthy
True, but they are noisy as **** when they have to snorkel to recharge.
Especially since it seems like it will be done mostly in Australia and so they will need to get all the kit in place and then train up all the local staff.
Dont worry, American will be picking up that bill.
If part of the delay was with the shipyards being built in Aus, im not sure the americans building their shipyards there wont encounter similar problems
Seems about right.
You mean shafting partners is normal? I am glad I do not have your ethics
The world of black and white is very simple isn't it. Unfortunately the real world has lots of shades of grey.
If the French weren't delivering (the French were busy renegotiating reduced Aus build, delays, increased costs etc ) then the duty of the team is to find a way out. They would have been negotiating with the French who would have been squeezing the Australian side thinking they were the only game in town.
In the real world it works both ways it's not uncommon for performance to drop in a contractor/subcontractor who is taking pain in a contract so as to get thrown off and claim penalties. Where is the ethics there?
Or the NHS forcing care homes to take transfers as specified in their contracts at the height of the Covid crisis. Where are the ethics there?
The duties of the RAN/Australian government aren't prioritizing French jobs. Contracts have termination clauses for a lot of very good reasons.
I know there's a lot of discussions, and costs and so on being raised, but has anyone actually seen what the agreement is, and what the costs cover, from what i have read, it's an agreement by the three nations to assist Australia in procuring nuclear submarines, armaments and other equipment to achieve other requirements, it isn't 'buying' any submarines, there is no talk of 12 subs or whatever, just an agreement to assist in the technology required, so Australia will still have to tender for the actual submarines.
The whole quote fo 90 billion or whatever is just a number, the A$90 billion was the original contract with the French, it almost appears as if folk are just making up facts where there are none to just have an argument.
From what i understand, the UK are being brought in due to Rolls Royce and their nuclear propulsion for submarines being mooted as a solution, same with the US and their ITAR, the UK have a similar position with the propulsion, hence why we're in the agreement, but they still need a company to build them!
If that was indeed what happened then why didn’t the Australians inform the French of their new requirements and launch a new tender exercise? Instead of sneaking around behind the French backs.
Why should they? And the French are masters at sneaking around people backs anyway. Thats not how things necessarily work. This is not an emotionally driven thing. Also why were the French unable to fulfil the needs of the Australian Navy? Maybe they couldn't fulfil all the requirement and it was a case of over promising and under delivering, so a re-tender with the French would be useless. We deal with French companies all the time and they don't think twice about throwing us under the bus and going back on previously agreed positions and contracts so don't be trying to hold the French up as some global beacon of ethical behaviour. I think the 1 billion euro fine dished out to Airbus by the Serious Fraud Office highlights that.
It's not unusual for negotiations with other parties to be going on at the time when a previous deal has been signed. Happens all the time and its about managing risk...there is always risk when entering into a partnership/deal with another party...risk around delivery, cost, meeting spec and the contractual obligtions...and of course spec's and requirements change. Any sensible and well run organisations will always keep their options open until the very last minute as much as anything to cover their own backsides and not being left high and dry should things not be delivered on time, or at all or be delivered and not meeting the original specificaion.
It's clear that whatever went on ultimately it was a case of either the French couldn't deliver what the Aussies needed or the brits and yanks rocked up with an alternative offer that was superior. Or maybe it got to a point where the Aussies just couldn't trust the French and they didn't want to proceed with such an important contract where there wasn't a basis of trust there. Who knows? But the last thing on peoples minds are 'hurting the other parties feelings'. It's not even a consideration.
Not much to add that hasn't already been said.
We were talking to a guy in the shipyard in Adelaide a year ago who was moaning about how difficult the French had been to work with, and how thought these subs would never get built.
Things worth pointing out -
BAE Systems have leased the ship-build yard in Adelaide from the Aussie Government, predominantly to build the Hunter Class frigates.
I cannot see them being too happy about sharing the facility with anyone else.
The AWD (Hobart Class) and future Hunter Class surface ships have the American Aegis combat system on board - i'd have thought they'd want their new subs to be able to fully integrate with this.
To me Diesel/Electric subs made no sense for Australia if they want to do more than patrol their own coastline - they can only stay submerged for days rather than the 3+ months that nuclear powered subs can stay submerged. (food for the crew is the limiting factor)
The UK and the Americans have a number of submarine designs which could be adapted to meet the Aussie project brief - A budget version of Astute for a start, along with the LA, Seawolf and Virginia Class subs.
The AWD (Hobart Class) and future Hunter Class surface ships have the American Aegis combat system on board – i’d have thought they’d want their new subs to be able to fully integrate with this.
My assumption was that they would want everything to integrate with U.S. systems. Taiwan and Japan use U.S. hardware and so do a lot of other countries in the region. Let's face it, these subs are to counter China and Australia isn't going to go to war with China unless the U.S. is in there with them.
UK subs are made from french steel 😬
The duties of the RAN/Australian government aren’t prioritizing French jobs.
the job losses are australian as thats where they were being built, the french lost face rather than jobs
I don't think anyone's going to war, tbh. I can't even see how it'd be used as a threat. Western economies depend on the stuff China makes - they know it, we know it, it's not happening. If there are significant moves to bring manufacturing back to the West that might be a bad omen.
I know there’s a lot of discussions, and costs and so on being raised, but has anyone actually seen what the agreement is, and what the costs cover, from what i have read, it’s an agreement by the three nations to assist Australia in procuring nuclear submarines,
australian ministers have said that they dont know what the costs of the new deal will be
french are annoyed because they had ask aussies several times if they wanted to switch to nuclear subs and they said no
consequences will take a while to shake out
https://edition.cnn.com/2021/09/20/business/france-australia-europe-trade-deal/index.html
I don’t think anyone’s going to war, tbh. I can’t even see how it’d be used as a threat. Western economies depend on the stuff China makes – they know it, we know it, it’s not happening. If there are significant moves to bring manufacturing back to the West that might be a bad omen.
yeah its a weird situation, a potential cold war with china when the ROW is dependent on chinese goods & china wants us to buy them! - Australia framsers were already suffering from chinese trade disputes, which is why they were so keen on EU trade deal, yet China want in on CPTPP
meanwhile imminent Chinese homebuilder collapse has potential to screw up global finacial markets again
the job losses are Australian as thats where they were being built, the french lost face rather than jobs
There will be a lot of jobs lost in France as a result of this - primarily within Naval Group who had the head contract but also at the subcontractors who would be building/supplying components.
Australia might have been assembling the subs, but a good percentage of the parts/sub-assemblies would have come from France.
Long term there will be very few (if any) job losses in Australia as they'll be assembling a submarine to someone else's design using bits sent from a different country.
The AWD (Hobart Class) and future Hunter Class surface ships have the American Aegis combat system on board – i’d have thought they’d want their new subs to be able to fully integrate with this.
Aegis is for air defence and can see a very long way. If the Sub wants this data (why, I do not know), then it would have to be a snorkel depth to get it, probably over satellite.
Also, if integrating with this system for surface craft is a good idea, why did the UK not put this on the [vastly more expensive] air defence destroyers that the Royal Navy bought? You know, the ones that cost half a billion UKP each and that stopped working in warm conditions.
I don’t think anyone’s going to war, tbh.
The purpose of this alliance and Australia's arms purchases is to send a message to China that the democratic countries are prepared to confront it if it continues on its current course. It's possible that China will moderate its policies and this will blow over, but it's also quite possible that they won't. The problem for China is that it is very insecure and has huge domestic problems so cracking down on Hong Kong and threatening Taiwan are ways to fend off domestic unrest. That makes it difficult for Chinese leaders to back off from their confrontational policies. The idea behind deterrence is that you don't want to use it, but it's only effective if you are actually prepared to use it. Armed conflict isn't out of the question over the next few decades. Not saying it's probable, but it would be a mistake to believe it can't happen.
Today I learned that Brazil is currently building a nuclear powered attack sub. Here.
That put's Australia's precedent in a slightly different light.
Please don’t be rude. So far only I responded to/addressed your claim. I’m me. Not a ‘you lot’. I’m not part of a collective.
Okay, you are not part of the collective. (Note: I thought "you lot" or "you guys" are the normal reference? I used "you lot" because if I were to address "you guys" some gender might get offended. Hence I used the term "you lot". Fair enough you are not part of the collective and perhaps should addressed you individually. The quote may come from you but I was answering the usual people that questions me ... can't be arsed to keep quoting the rest of them one by one. Anyhoo ... chill man, chill ... we are not going to live forever.
I ‘wished’ that you would tell me the per capita palm oil consumption of China in 2020 vs EU27 in 2020?
Sorry but I don't frame the question that way. Whatever statistic you see is in the past. I am referring to the future, hence it is the increase in the consumption level. Look at the statistic where most countries have more or less reduced their consumption but China's is steadily increasing.
Now you may argue that they are still way below the Western consumption per capita but my concern is the increasing consumption. In a generation or two China's consumption will definitely be the top overtaking the world going by their growth in consumption. You may say that it's impossible because future (the crystal ball says noooo ...) does not say so according to the statistical increment ... yes, but you have forgotten about recent Chinese policy of population expansion. The current consumption is based on 1.4 billion people something like that with one child policy. But China has now changed that policy to allow for 3 children per family. Therefore, if having a larger family is the norm (it is), then the demand will naturally increase together with their living standard. China population expansion is also in anticipation for future regional expansion as they are already charting their territories. They might not admit it but that's what they are doing. In a generation or two Asia will be under their influence. Yes, you might say that's not a bad thing but you should live under their system to understand them. We are under their indirect influence politically and life is certainly not pleasant put it that way ...
I don’t think anyone’s going to war, tbh. I can’t even see how it’d be used as a threat. Western economies depend on the stuff China makes – they know it, we know it, it’s not happening. If there are significant moves to bring manufacturing back to the West that might be a bad omen.
In Asia, especially SE Asia, many are already talking or anticipating war in the coming generation or two. The war might or might not happen with the Western power but definitely with some in SE Asia. Not all SE Asia people welcome Chinese (mainland commies) or their descendants (more than 5 generations) in that region. However, the corrupted politicians love the Chinese (commies) "investment" but their actions normally resulted in tension between the local natives and the "immigrant" Chinese (even after 5 generations). They see Chinese (commies) money influence as corrupting their politicians but they take it out on "immigrant" Chinese ...
Comes to something when chewkw is much more rational and coherent than tj.