Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Australia Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: China's rise raises Australia war fears (Alarmism or statement of fact?)
Zhang Fei    11/9/2008 9:56:54 PM
(Quote) Australia would need to significantly boost defence spending and expand its armed forces to ensure its security against the likelihood of a rising China challenging the United States, a leading strategic thinker warned yesterday. Speaking to an audience of senior Government officials, defence contractors and lawyers at a forum sponsored by the law firm Deacons, Australian National University strategic studies professor Hugh White said the Rudd Government's forthcoming Defence white paper needed to address fundamental strategic challenges. Professor White said the deep question was how China's economic rise would change the strategic balance in the Asia-Pacific region and it was hard to escape the conclusion that the United States would lose primacy, or that primacy would be contested. ''This has immense implications for Australia,'' Professor White said. ''The eclipse of Western maritime primacy in Asia [will be] a very big event in our national history. ''If United States primacy fades, we will face higher risks of conflict with a major Asian power either in the company of the United States or alone.'' Professor White believes the future strategic environment will require much larger air and naval forces to achieve Australia's maritime denial strategy. Specifically the proposed acquisition of 100 Joint Strike Fighters would not necessarily preserve Australia's ''traditional margin of technological superiority'' over regional airforces. ''Confidence that the Joint Strike Fighters will provide a decisive technological edge is not going to happen,'' he said. Professor White warned Australian air superiority may prove fragile unless significantly more fifth-generation fighters were acquired. He argued the navy could need larger, more capable and expensive surface warships and as many as 12 next-generation submarines would be required to replace the six Collins-class submarines. The problem was larger numbers of expensive weapons platforms would require much higher levels of defence expenditure than Australian Governments had previously authorised. ''There is a deep risk of misalignment between middle power ambitions and expenditure,'' Professor White said. Professor White suggested the global financial crisis would not necessarily have a great effect on long-term defence expenditure, but defence cuts in the United States could pose problems for Australia's acquisition of American defence technology. Moreover, the financial crisis did ''look like another milestone in the loss of US primacy''. Speaking at a land warfare conference in Brisbane yesterday, Defence Minister Joel Fitzgibbon acknowledged that Australia's future strategic environment would sound a constant call for more defence spending. ''This is why I have ordered a savings drive which will hopefully free up $10billion over the next decade for reinvestment in higher priorities'', Mr Fitzgibbon said. ''Of course, the global financial crisis has made this efficiency drive all the more important.'' (Unquote)
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: 1 2 3   NEXT
In-the-can       11/9/2008 10:47:19 PM
A little too strong to say "war fears" .... the likely concurrent trends are 1) possible future regional instability, and 2) the need to be more self-sufficient in our defence.
Cheers
 
Quote    Reply

Aussiegunneragain       11/10/2008 7:06:48 AM
I don't see how an increasingly powerful and assertive authoratarian China (assuming that it stays that way) can mean anything but an increased risk of conflict for Australia. Initially I think the risks would involve it promoting instability in Asian or Pacific countries which are traditionally aligned to the Western democracies or aligning itself to authoratarian rulers in those countries. In the longer term I can see that China might project a significant strategic military presence into the region and that this could lead to conflict with Australia and its regional allies.
I do think they are a long way off challanging US miltiary primacy in the region. However I think Australia and other democratic allies have to be prepared to make a greater contribution irrespective, of this as there is no guarentee that a future US government will want to be heavily involved in fighting other peoples wars.
 
Quote    Reply

the British Lion       11/11/2008 12:35:32 AM
At risk of rubbing someone the wrong way, I have to ask; if China does develop a military presence in the Pacific that eclipses that of the US, even with a massive increase in military spending, what could Australia possibly do to challenge them at a conventional level? 

Would it be more viable (economically and politically) for Australia to:
 
A: Develop a military based purely around a sort of intricate regional Alliance based on the NATO model. (And yes, I realize such a thing already exists, but I'm talking about taking to Cold War level heights.) 
 
or B: Develop it's own nuclear deterrent?
 
B.L. 
 
Quote    Reply

Aussiegunneragain    British Lion   11/11/2008 5:09:43 AM

At risk of rubbing someone the wrong way, I have to ask; if China does develop a military presence in the Pacific that eclipses that of the US, even with a massive increase in military spending, what could Australia possibly do to challenge them at a conventional level? 

Would it be more viable (economically and politically) for Australia to:

A: Develop a military based purely around a sort of intricate regional Alliance based on the NATO model. (And yes, I realize such a thing already exists, but I'm talking about taking to Cold War level heights.) 

 

or B: Develop it's own nuclear deterrent?

B.L. 


I don't think you'll put any noses out of joint as that question has been raised before. If we were in a situation where China's capability completely eclipsed the US's or if the US completely withdrew (including the nuclear umbrella assurances) from the region then I agree that we would have a hard time opposing Chinese aggression without nuclear weapons or without a big alliance. However, that would mean that the US would have given up on trying to prevent nuclear proliferation and become isolationist. The only way that I can see how that would have happenned is if they achieved energy self sufficiency and probably an effective missile defence as well. Not impossible but not forseeable within our planning horizon and we would probably get a fair bit of warning to "nuke up" if it was about to happen.
 
What is more likely is that the US's relative capability is reduced enough compared to China's or that they withdraw enough support from allies (it has happenned before, i.e. the Nixon doctrine, Clinton with us in East Timor and the Europeans in the Balkens) that our own capability starts to matter, rather than being token like it is in the presence of the current complete US dominance and willingness to do it. In this more much more likely circumstance more spending on Defence to improve our odds in any confrontration might make or break us.
 
Quote    Reply

stingray1003       11/12/2008 2:39:54 PM
It does not mean Australia will end up in a single handed stand off against the might of a global power with fleets of hundreads of ships heading towards Darwin.
 
 What is at risk is smaller states and terrorities being pushed around by China in a simular manner that Russia and the US meddled in governments, funded rebels etc during the cold war.
 
 Being able to conduct an amphibious assult is a key capability. Having regional airsuperiority is another.
 
 As for a NATO type pac in the pacific? I don't see that happening as such. There aren't enough key players, who agree enough, with enough capability. It never really formed during the coldwar and it won't form now.  Australia has agreements with several nations in the region, most of these nations have much bigger backyard threats (eg Japan).
 
  Australia will certainly need to be able to stand on its own or with smaller regional allies. I can forsee a East Timor style operation being the more frequent norm. A mash of many different nations with maybe a single asset from the US. If Australia doesn't have the ability and the assets to lead that trainsmash of equipment then Australia won't be very relevant in the region.
 
 Hence why we need strong medium power and greater assets. Things like large amphibious ships, aircraft carriers, attack helicopters, long endurance submarines, missile shields, sealift, airlift, general logisitics etc. We have made some steps in the right direction, but our numbers are lacking.
 
Quote    Reply

Nanheyangrouchuan       11/16/2008 11:13:12 PM
A joint basing option with the Indians?  The Japanese?  Joint land fighting exercises between the 3?  China would most certainly move to cut off US naval support for Oz probably by dumping a couple of nukes on Guam while the fleet steams for Oz.
 
Quote    Reply

In-the-can       11/16/2008 11:47:21 PM
... not forgetting Singapore, Malaysia, Thailand and Indonesia ....  and France and New Zealand. 
 
Quote    Reply

Aussiegunneragain    Nan   11/17/2008 4:30:53 AM

A joint basing option with the Indians?  The Japanese?  Joint land fighting exercises between the 3?  China would most certainly move to cut off US naval support for Oz probably by dumping a couple of nukes on Guam while the fleet steams for Oz.



That little puddle called the "Pacific Ocean" is a somewhat challenging bit of geography for any nation to cover with one fleet.
 
Quote    Reply

Aussiegunneragain    Nan   11/17/2008 4:37:05 AM

... not forgetting Singapore, Malaysia, Thailand and Indonesia ....  and France and New Zealand. 

France? Are you sure that they wouldn't be looking for opportunities to sell the Chinese weapons?
As for Indonesia, I reckon with a rejuventated military government they would be natural allies for the Chinese. Without the US in the picture the two of them have the basing to control the South China Sea (with it's oil) along with its entry points. The Indo's might have to trade off some maritime claims but they would have Chinese military support to take resource rich Papua New Guniea, East Timor and push back the Australian/Indonesia seabed boarder (which has loads of oil and gas).
 
Quote    Reply

Nanheyangrouchuan       11/17/2008 2:03:49 PM



A joint basing option with the Indians?  The Japanese?  Joint land fighting exercises between the 3?  China would most certainly move to cut off US naval support for Oz probably by dumping a couple of nukes on Guam while the fleet steams for Oz.





That little puddle called the "Pacific Ocean" is a somewhat challenging bit of geography for any nation to cover with one fleet.

The Indian Ocean?  That should offer a back door sea lane between India and Oz.  The PLAN would have really stretch itself out to make its presence known and I doubt the US is going to move off of Diego.
 
 
And Oz, Japan, SK and NZ have alot to lose by not building their own system to deal with the PLAN nemesis.
 
Quote    Reply
1 2 3   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics