Thursday, August 25, 2016

A double dose of bromancer get cracking action and everything's right for the year 2050 ...



The pond is in a celebratory mood today - is there a better time to understand the difference between the taxpayers and the non-taxpayers, the new divide between the taxed and the taxed-nots, which isn’t to say the decent rich and the wretched, idle, "brought it on all on themselves" poor, but is more of a re-booting, a re-branding, a clearer, cleaner and much better way of explaining the difference between lifters and leaners, the old divide that has always existed between the taxed and the damned bludging, leaning, layabout taxed-nots ...?

But rather than brood about domestic matters, the pond thought the time was right to get cracking and consider urgent action in all matters defensive, and who better than the bromancer as a guide.

Yes, Thursday is the best day of all, because it’s the day the bromancer sorts out the nation’s problems, and celebrates the way the fixer poodle fixes everything.


There's very little doubt the United States will hand over everything to the poodle and Australia, and how shocking that we have only 1250 marines in the north, when really we need 2500, or frankly all is lost and the Chinese will sweep through like a ravaging horde of locusts from the north ...

Well the Donald will have something to say about the miserly behaviour of Malware's mob ...you want protection, you pay the bill, that's the new racket.

Now let them feel the taste of the bromancer's lash urging them to action stations ...


Yes, get cracking!

We need to make sure we have those subs in place like some other masterpieces of French war construction ...


Surely that makes this headline very unfair?


With another bloated budget looming next week that could further undermine Australia's AAA credit rating, it is opportune to reflect on the integrity of the Turnbull government's bold decision to punt $50 billion on building 12 French submarine "concepts" that have yet to be designed, produced or proven in the water.
Here the Australian Strategic Policy Institute's Mark Thomson highlights that the assumed "$50 billion spend comes from the Defence White Paper and only accounts for the design and construction costs – not many other very expensive variables including ongoing maintenance, armament, crewing and the costly combat system". 
A conservative reckoning is that the subs' total lifetime costs could be 50 per cent to 100 per cent of the upfront investment, making this the biggest public works program in Australian history. 
A veritable underwater NBN.

Well we know how well the NBN worked out. 

Now get cracking, gotta have those subs by 2050, when everything will be exactly the same as it is now ...

Some might chose to brood along with that piece at the AFR here,  but the pond had the bit between the teeth and was looking for more pure, uncut essence of bromancer ... and what do you know, it was a double bromancer day and another call for action... 

Aux armes, mes amis ...



Now some might wish they'd scored this instead ...


But dammit, a wake up call is just what the pond needs ...


Granular! Transfusion of purpose and decisiveness! 

How else are we going to get our last sub by 2050, or with a bit of luck by 2060, and at absolutely no cost blowout, when the pond understands the defensive landscape will be exactly the same as it is today ... and we can have our very own Seainot Line ...


On the other hand ...

A superior risk-adjusted choice would have been to spend the $50 billion on building a fleet of autonomous and future-proofed unmanned underwater platforms while also paying America to have her world-beating Virginia Class boats patrol our waters and carry out surveillance on our behalf years in advance of the French subs entering service in the 2030s in the same way the "five eyes" nations share strategic electronic espionage assets (eg, Pine Gap). 

Oh it's all too complicated. Sssh,  don't mention the UUVs ...

Perhaps the pond should have stuck with domestic issues ... and more Fairfax cartoons here ...



Oh and while we're at it and still marvelling at the census, a sure guide to future technological superiority, has anyone missed Harry Potter and the Bureau of Statistics?



11 comments:

  1. Somewhere in a time void between the warning to the child to ;"Not play with matches"..and the visible disastrous result of that same child foolishly playing with matches, lies the enigma of incomprehensible idiocy that is the thinking of the LNP. and it's adherents.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hi Dorothy,

    You can tell when Sheridan has been talking to (being briefed) by some Defence Wonk/Lobbyist he starts throwing up all sorts of jargon. Black Box Technology, Special Stealth Surfaces and Granular for example. It all comes out as uncritical dictation by a military fan-boy.

    So whilst we have Morrison bemoaning the lack of Budget Balance, Sheridan is upset we should be quibbling about paying a few tens of millions in order for a foreign force to have a permanent base on our shores. Still when people are throwing around sums of tens of billions for fancy fighters and super submersibles it's easy for a foreign editor to become quite giddy.

    Still why the sudden desperation to spend up big?

    Back in 2010 AirSea Battle was the U.S. military doctrine for dealing with China, which basically worked at containment.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/AirSea_Battle

    Unfortunately the U.S. Army felt left out and a more forthright policy was advocated in late 2014.

    http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2015/10/01/whats-displacing-air-sea-battle-in-us-military-planning/

    This is the Third Offset Strategy. In order to know what that is, it’s worth knowing what the First and Second Offset Strategies were. Basically they were the Cold War Arms Races with the USSR and were major spend-fests for the military-industrial complex.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Offset_strategy

    The Third Offset Strategy offers to be much of the same and promises to deliver lots of new toys for the boys and not just for the USA.

    “Of particular interest to the ADF are the repeated calls from Secretaries Hagel and Carter for the involvement of allies. The call has suggested that the U.S. can no longer do it alone.  This sentiment is echoed by Deputy Secretary Work and is evident throughout the U.S. academic debate. Themes of allied collaboration in the development of operating concepts, mission-specific technologies and investments in future capabilities are common in public announcements by Work. He leaves little doubt as to his willingness to share the investment burden, encouraging allies to ‘push the boundaries of innovation’ and collaboration.”

    http://www.army.gov.au/Our-future/Blog/Articles/2016/07/Third-Offset-Strategy

    All that’s needed is for the Hawks in China to keep ramping up the aggression and their military spending and soon it will feel like the good old days when we were going toe to toe with the Roosskies and all the players make out like bandits.

    DiddyWrote

    ReplyDelete
  3. Hi Dorothy,

    You can tell when Sheridan has been talking to (being briefed) by some Defence Wonk/Lobbyist he starts throwing up all sorts of jargon. Black Box Technology, Special Stealth Surfaces and Granular for example. It all comes out as uncritical dictation by a military fan-boy.

    So whilst we have Morrison bemoaning the lack of Budget Balance, Sheridan is upset we should be quibbling about paying a few tens of millions in order for a foreign force to have a permanent base on our shores. Still when people are throwing around sums of tens of billions for fancy fighters and super submersibles it's easy for a foreign editor to become quite giddy.

    DiddyWrote

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Still why the sudden desperation to spend up big?

      Back in 2010 AirSea Battle was the U.S. military doctrine for dealing with China, which basically worked at containment.

      https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/AirSea_Battle

      Unfortunately the U.S. Army felt left out and a more forthright policy was advocated in late 2014.

      http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2015/10/01/whats-displacing-air-sea-battle-in-us-military-planning/

      This is the Third Offset Strategy. In order to know what that is, it’s worth knowing what the First and Second Offset Strategies were. Basically they were the Cold War Arms Races with the USSR and were major money earners for the military-industrial complex.

      https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Offset_strategy

      The Third Offset Strategy offers to be much of the same and promises to deliver lots of new toys for the boys and not just for the USA.

      Delete
    2. Still why the sudden desperation to spend up big?

      Back in 2010 AirSea Battle was the U.S. military doctrine for dealing with China, which basically worked at containment.

      https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/AirSea_Battle

      Unfortunately the U.S. Army felt left out and a more forthright policy was advocated in late 2014.

      http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2015/10/01/whats-displacing-air-sea-battle-in-us-military-planning/

      This is the Third Offset Strategy. In order to know what that is, it’s worth knowing what the First and Second Offset Strategies were. Basically they were the Cold War Arms Races with the USSR and were major money earners for the military-industrial complex.

      https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Offset_strategy

      The Third Offset Strategy offers to be much of the same and promises to deliver lots of new toys for the boys and not just for the USA.

      Delete
    3. Strange I had to split this up in order to publish.

      DiddyWrote

      Delete
    4. “Of particular interest to the ADF are the repeated calls from Secretaries Hagel and Carter for the involvement of allies. The call has suggested that the U.S. can no longer do it alone.  This sentiment is echoed by Deputy Secretary Work and is evident throughout the U.S. academic debate. Themes of allied collaboration in the development of operating concepts, mission-specific technologies and investments in future capabilities are common in public announcements by Work. He leaves little doubt as to his willingness to share the investment burden, encouraging allies to ‘push the boundaries of innovation’ and collaboration.”

      http://www.army.gov.au/Our-future/Blog/Articles/2016/07/Third-Offset-Strategy

      All that’s needed is for the Hawks in China to keep ramping up the aggression and their military spending and soon it will feel like the good old days when we were going toe to toe with the Roosskies.

      Delete
    5. Oh yeah.

      http://www.army.gov.au/Our-future/Blog/Articles/2016/07/Third-Offset-Strategy
      "unprecedented opportunities currently exist for collaboration at the tactical, operational and strategic levels." - Fcuken warpigs, eh? Unprecedented opportunities to die for Uncle Sam's 1%.

      Delete
    6. "Back in 2010 AirSea Battle was..." yet one more warpig offering in a long series stretching from the 60s to the present and beyond into the distant future, if there is one... Such must be the Revolution in Military Affairs.

      "Yoda" may have finally left the building last year, undead, but the Office of Net Assessment and the Andrew Marshall Acolytes / Jedi Knights young and ancient continue.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Marshall_(foreign_policy_strategist)
      http://web.archive.org/web/20040604041758/http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/11.02/marshall.html
      https://www.thenation.com/article/man-ona/
      http://theconversation.com/is-a-us-marine-base-in-darwin-really-a-good-idea-4260
      http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Office_of_Net_Assessment
      "Since the collapse of Communism, Marshall has spent much energy hunting for a suitable threat to replace Boris the Bear. He first turned his attention to North Korea, with a 1991 ONA report concluding that in the event of war, Pyongyang's troops could wipe out Seoul within ten days and US forces would be unable to do much to stop them. After it became apparent that North Korea was on the verge of mass starvation and collapse, Marshall turned his attention to China. An ONA study from the mid-nineties stated that Beijing's military was modernizing so rapidly that the People's Liberation Army would soon be able to defeat the United States in a regional conflict in Asia. A second ONA report, prepared for the agency by [the] RAND Corporation, estimated that Beijing is spending about $140 billion a year on defense. That figure is more than twice as high as other high-end estimates and seven to eight times higher than commonly accepted low-end ones. In 1997 yet another ONA-sponsored study ominously concluded that China viewed the United States as a declining superpower and was scheming to exploit America's military weakness...
      "Over the course of three decades, many promising majors, lieutenant commanders, and GS-13 civilians have done a tour through the Office of Net Assessment. These officers are now generals, admirals, and members of the Pentagon's Senior Executive Service and have considerable influence in drafting war plans and designing new weapons programs...""

      Delete
    7. Yeah well the old tried and true method that worked with the Russkis - make 'em spend and spend until they go broke - won't work with the Chinese and their much bigger economy.

      But fortunately, there's no convenient land bridhe between China and America, so it can all be kept in the realms of hi-tech. You know, like that superb technological achievement, the F-35.

      Delete
  4. But what about The Pivot? Hugh White isn't impressed. He writes:

    "The Pivot mentions China a lot, but does not plainly acknowledge the centrality of its challenge to America's predicament in Asia today, and nowhere seriously assesses the power and ambition that drive China's challenge. Nor is the book clear about America's objectives. In places it says America's aims include preventing Asia falling under someone else's hegemony, but elsewhere that the Pivot is all about preserving Asia's geopolitical 'operating system', by which it plainly means preserving the status quo based on US primacy.

    Thus the book, like the policy itself, is based on evasions about both China's and America's aims, and therefore avoids acknowledging how directly those aims conflict, and how stark and serious the resulting confrontation between them has already become.

    The Pivot mentions China a lot, but does not plainly acknowledge the centrality of its challenge to America's predicament in Asia today, and nowhere seriously assesses the power and ambition that drive China's challenge. Nor is the book clear about America's objectives. In places it says America's aims include preventing Asia falling under someone else's hegemony, but elsewhere that the Pivot is all about preserving Asia's geopolitical 'operating system', by which it plainly means preserving the status quo based on US primacy.

    Thus the book, like the policy itself, is based on evasions about both China's and America's aims, and therefore avoids acknowledging how directly those aims conflict, and how stark and serious the resulting confrontation between them has already become."

    http://www.lowyinterpreter.org/post/2016/07/04/Book-review-The-Pivot-The-Future-of-American-Statecraft-in-Asia-by-Kurt-Campbell.aspx

    Kurt Campbell has responded but may as well not have bothered.

    ReplyDelete

Comments older than two days are moderated and there will be a delay in publishing them.