Australia’s strategic answer to China.

Discussion in 'East Asia & The Pacific' started by Jutland, Dec 6, 2017.

Share This Page

  1. YarS

    YarS Lieutenant Colonel

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2016
    Messages:
    1,403
    Likes Received:
    1,077
    Location:
    Russian-Federation
    Hobby:
    Wh40k, Battletech
    That means, that you can not use solar and wind plants to build more solar and wind plants. Coal and gas is better (in this meaning), but oil and nuclear power is much better.

    Actually China have Russia as a good neighbour, and there are enough of tellurium here. Yes, there are cold in Altai or Krasnoyarsjiy region, it add some additional percent to price, but if there will be no competitors - why not?

    DPRK coal sources are limited mostly by UN sanctions. Actually there enough of coal for selling both to China and Japan (through Russian intermediators, of course).

    New pipelines are in construction, there are also railroads and river trade, say nothing about airlines (for REMs)

    There are such things as railroad - they are fast (faster then seaships) and cheap (not so cheap as seaships) and river ships.

    They are members of SCO and they don't like Brits. For many of them Aussies are just another Brits.

    Pakistan have very tight relations with China.
    Yes.
    Nothing offensive, but for Russians Aussies are just another kind of "Podpindosniki" (USA vassals) - we shall be happy to help anybody, fighting against USA, and we shall be happy to help China with any their enemy.

    With Russians and Korean engineers it will be not difficult.

    Excluding oil and nuclear energy.


    There are already have their first carrier, Laolin (born as 1143.6 "Riga"), and they are build others. But as for me with DF-21G they have a little need in carriers.

    Ha! Man, Yanks build their first nukes with the middle XX-centure technologies, in war economic. Only problem to build nukes is Uranium and Plutonium isotopes. Separation of Plutonium isotopes is more difficult and need more energy then separation of Uranium isotopes (that's why all sides preffer to make it in reactors), but there is nothing impossible, and with this tech, all used nuclear fuel became a source for a nuclear warheads. According Japan's have called their "destroyer/light carrier" as Kaga (split in Yank's faces), there are chances, that they already have nukes.

    You can not win a war with a defensive strategy.

    More ships wont get mo

    Can I just say if we are going to have a discussion about such an unlikely event we be at least partially realistic? Not trying to sound rude but
     
  2. YarS

    YarS Lieutenant Colonel

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2016
    Messages:
    1,403
    Likes Received:
    1,077
    Location:
    Russian-Federation
    Hobby:
    Wh40k, Battletech
    Ok. Let's play "partially realistic" scenario of China-Australia war. It can be only result of somekind of a "Perfect storm".
    2020. In attempt to intesificate oil production, Saudies just kill their oil field. Oil crisis in the world.
    2021 Fall of dollars Ponzi scheme. US dollar repeat fate of Zimbabvian one, cost near nothing. Same time there are deadly Epidemia had been started in Africa (there are suspicious on artificial origins of it). Africa is quarantined and almost depopulated. No economical work in Africa. Almost peaceful reunion of China (with Taiwan) and Korea.
    2022 Start of the civil war in USA with limited usage of tactical nuklear weapon, first of all, against military targets. Big cities are almost intact. Different state support different sides in this war. Canada and Russia help to Alaskian separatists, China and Bolivarian union help to the Free Army of California, EU, even struggling from hunger - helps to Washington's Hegemony and send volonteers/refugees in America.
    Australia accept one of a "True US-governments in exile", big part of USPACFLT, seriouse amount of refugees from EU and USA (especially with tech education) and ready to join war.

    Primary objective to both sides - be able to send more forces, fuel, equipment, ammo etc.. to the North American continent and to win civil war.
    Secondary objective for China - capture Australia.
    Secondary objective for Australia - capture China.
     
  3. YarS

    YarS Lieutenant Colonel

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2016
    Messages:
    1,403
    Likes Received:
    1,077
    Location:
    Russian-Federation
    Hobby:
    Wh40k, Battletech
    It's depend from what do you really want to control - all continent with population, all continent without population, or just to protect most important sites with resourses and allow locals to play "Mad Max" on the rest of territory.

    Sure. It's a good question. Let's imagine, that Africa is unavailable for economic activity because of The Plague.
     
  4. Matthew East

    Matthew East Officer Candidate

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2018
    Messages:
    11
    Likes Received:
    15
    Location:
    Melbourne, Australia
    Hobby:
    Cars and Military
    You dont need solar and wind power to build more solar and wind power. Solar panels and wind turbines and produced in factories that are normally supplied in power from coal, nuclear or natural gas in any case it means little as Australia doesnt lack in base load power and can reactivate dormant coal power stations if extra is needed while also rationing more from unnecessary sources. Nuclear power only comes into play for nations that lack the local supply of coal and gas, Australia doesnt lack that but is one of the worlds biggest producers so the entire nuclear, solar and wind argument has zero merit.


    China or Russia could theoritcally produce Tellurium however at present they dont and have made no steps to set up such facilities. As for costs well that is neither here nore there as the bulk are exported and in conflict sea trade tends to stop leaving China with no one to export them to.


    True it is but currently the industry is only set up to supply x amount of coal, It takes time to increase capacity and in such a conflict that is something the Chinese economy could not afford.

    New, Existing and upgraded pipelines come from 3 main sources. Myanmar, Central Asia and Russia. The bpd of each of them is 240,000, 400,000 and 600,000 once all work is done. In a conflict Myanmar would be shut off due to risk of oil tankers from RAN submarines. So the oil supply from pipe lines would already fall almost 20%. Local oil production for China stands Just under 4.2 million barrels a day. So they have 5.2 million barrels a day to reliable count on, There daily consumption is just under 12 million and climbing. That is a massive drop that will crash the economy alone.

    As for natural gas, There are two lines existing/being built that combined have a capacity of 80 billion cubic meters while local production is around 113 billion cubic meters. There annual consumption is over 200 billion cubic meters.

    International rail trade and even internal is low for China. International trade is actually under 60 million tonnes per an annum and would require extensive infrastructure upgrades to increase the capacity which is time consuming.

    As for River trade that is almost exclusively all in China so would make zero difference on acquiring and exporting goods.

    All in all oil loss will heavily effect the internal economy with severe reduction in vehicles able to be used on roads, natural gas supply will only be marginally affected and the rail and river trade will remain negligible.


    Yes and railroads are limited to the capacity they are built for, The weight each car can carry, the length of the train, the speed of the train. These factors all affect how much they can shift in any given period of time. At present they are doing less then 60 million tonnes a year. When See trade is over 4 billion tonnes a year even if the international rail lines where running at only 10% capacity (THey arent even running near that low) then China would still have a trade shortfall of 85%. And again river trade doesnt make a difference as China's main trade rivers dont link onto other nations.

    Not even close. India and Australia/Britain have there issues but it is China that India has border skirmishes with not Australia. That being said SCO means as much as being a member of the Commonwealth. You cant in reality put down India being in the SCO to India being all chummy with China, India still views China as one of there two greatest threats (other being Pakistan). India has much closer ties with Australia not counting the larger Indian expat populace in Australia being over 10 times the size of that in China.

    They have close relations yes but not iron clad as of yet, They are not at the point that they will throw all there eggs in with China and risk conflict with others.

    Nope, Vietnam quite literally hates China. Between the Chinese invasion post Vietnam war, The SCS issues etc China is not trusted by the Vietnamese and are actually very heavily hated. If you think a nation that hates China will side with them to go on a fools errand your sadly mistaken.

    Oh no offence taken im sure thats how Russians view it just as we view Belarus being a Russian puppet. Happens both sides the views. That being said I'm not so sure Russia would get involved. There would have to be something in it for them to make the reward worth the risk. As it is if Russia jumps in then you guarantee the US jumping in. With Russian forces on the Pacific being what they are they arent all that at present or into the near future.The best Russia could do with out risking to much is sell none offensive weapons along with food and natural resources but thats it. Anything more and the risk out weighs the reward and Putin never does anything for free.

    Actually Russia them selves imported most of there engines from Ukraine so no Russian engineers would be no use and as for the Koreans your making a leap into fantasy land as they dont trust China either and wouldnt be caught dead aiding there military in getting more powerful. In reality any future war with Australia vs China would have South Korea siding with Australia.

    Nuclear doesnt matter, We have enough coal and natural gas for base load power while oil is our one single weak point, Yes there are ways around it (Convoys with heavy ASW escort) but that is still risky and not guaranteed.


    Yes they have one carrier, With others in various stages of planning and construction.. But it takes years from start to finish for each one and if conflict breaks out there economy wouldn't have years. Economics is a *******, Put there sea trade at risk and there economy collapses, There economy collapses and they cant even afford to build the carriers never mind have the time to do so.

    As for the DF-21 that is a land based AShM, When Australia and China at there closest points are around 4,000km apart it is well outside of its range all the while ignoring the fact it is useless again RAAF jets which is the main assets that would be tearing apart any approaching fleet.

    That is a dirty bomb not a nuke.Two very different weapons with very different levels of effectiveness. Also ignores the fact Japan and South Korea dont trust China and are more likely to side with Australia then China if any one at all.

    Actually you can given the right set of circumstances. If your opposition has a long supply line (Which China would have), If your opposition could be cut off from the bulk of its trade (Which China would be) and if your location is defensible enough to hold out for a time (Which Australia is) then the oppistion will fall apart given time. For China to win they would need a quick victory, For a quick victory they would need 6 or more carriers, Enough amphibious ships to land 2+ divisions and a gaurantee that no other nation would step in.

    It is quiet literally impossible for China to invade Australia with out getting Indonesia on there side.

    -----------------------------------------

    Perfect Storm?
    Wouldnt happen, Saudis love there money too much and doing that would weaken them and just make Iran stronger.

    Makes no sense what so ever and relies on a whole heap of fantasy land thinking.

    How does civil war even start? Cant just make one up with out giving a credible reason for it starting.

    Does Alaska even want independence? No they dont

    Would Canada even get involved in a war that has involved nukes? No they wouldnt.

    Would Russia get involved? Only to annex Alaska

    Bolivarian union - Does that even exist?

    EU is starving now.. How?

    Honestly just a hole heap of made up fantasy idea's with no basis in reality sorry to say mate.

    Why actually? You mention China helping California yet California is one of the closest states to Australia in ideological views.

    Why would Australia want to capture China? Its an impossible task, Australia has never even considered it and only a moron would think a nation of 25 million could control 1.3 billion.
     
  5. YarS

    YarS Lieutenant Colonel

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2016
    Messages:
    1,403
    Likes Received:
    1,077
    Location:
    Russian-Federation
    Hobby:
    Wh40k, Battletech
    Say nothing about China, but Russia actually produce Tellurium as sideline production in copper production. Something near 34 tons/year. Near ten tons/year we use for own production, something is export, something goes in Rosreserv.
    Chines economy could afford much.
    Actually, when we talk about war between China and Australia only, we mean, that all other countries are neutral - they do business as usual.

    As I said, we try to model scenario of one-against-one war between China and Australia. I can not imagine realistic scenario where USA will not try to help Australia. Only possible condition is war in USA. I can not imagine realistic scenario where Russia will not try to help China. Potential scenarios are civil war in Russia or Russian war somewhere else - for example in Europe or America.

    Actually Ukraine stop to sell us any engines in 2014 ("annexion" of Crymea, and "invasion" in Donbass, you know), and in 2015 we start to produce our own, may be even better engines.

    Thread is about China vs Australia. Let's imagine - Russia fight USA and rest of NATO, DPRK fight RK, Japan is already eliminated by China and Russia, and after half-peaceful reunion with Taiwan, Africa is unavailable, China choose Australia as next victim - because of her resourses and potential help to anti-Chines forces in the former USA.

    In the war time building of ships is much faster.

    There are absolutely no any problem to build many cheap cargo ships as drone-carriers.

    No. I mean real nuklear bomb. For it you need Pu-239 and don't need Pu-240. In ordinary civilian reactors less than half of Plutonium is Pu-240, and you can not use this mix for nukes. But if you have technology of Plutonium isotopes separation - you can separate enought of Pu-239 and build real nuclear bomb.

    Depends of situation.

    Let's imagine Indonesia is neutral.

    A perfect storm is an event in which a rare combination of circumstances drastically aggravates the event. The term is used by analogy to an unusually severe storm that results from a rare combination of meteorological phenomena.
    Sure. They love money, and they can make a mistake.

    Does not matter. If resourses are very limited, if there are no way to buy everything for virtual "money", people in any civilisation start to play the old game:


    Alaska want real money for their gold, oil and gas. If US-dollar will cost less then Zimbabvian one, if TAPS will be blasted many of them will be ready to rent icebreakers in Russia and sell oil to China for real goods. "Money talks - bullshit walks."

    And who will ask them?
    Who knows?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ALBA

    No oil - no food.

    You can suggest another scenario for one-vs-one war between Australia and China.
    Everybody could control Chines. They are very peaceful nation, and they were captured many times in their history by the foreign barbarians.
     
Loading...