The possibility for Australia involing in TaiwanStrait Conflict

[Ozzy Blizzard]

lol, got caught up in the propoganda, huh? I suspect you have very little idea of what really happened in TianAnMen Square. Do you want me to explain?.

Yes please. Oh and um, dont get caught up in communist propaganda when you do, because everything i'v ever heard states that the PLA used armed force to disperse peacefull protesters, including tanks. Or were those pictures of tanks rolling through the streets of Bejing and crowds of people running for thier lives, or wounded civilians just CGI?

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

Please.................Australia wouldn't evne last as long as Taiwan.

lol, smart one here! nfloorl:

First would you care to explain how long taiwan would last IYO and please do it in a logical maner? Second, and heres the kicker, please explain how exactly china is going to defeat Australia quicker than Taiwan or at all? What with a naval task force with no air cover? Or perhaps a BM attack? Will in the first instance we would see just how long a PLAN task force would last against the collins class boat, long range maritime strike with stand off weapons such as Harpoon Block II and JASSM with no air cover. A US Nimitz class air wing couldnt stop our maritime strike, but a chinese task force would? In the second instance you would see that we are protectud under the US's nuclear umbrella. So good luck to you on that one.

 

[gf0012-aust]

A couple of things from personal exp.

Or were those pictures of tanks rolling through the streets of Bejing and crowds of people running for thier lives, or wounded civilians just CGI?

The photos that were taken by AustGovt staffers in Beijing at the time certainly counter the argument that it was nothing more than responding to "riotous assembly".

Our own evidence was so compelling that even the pro-chinese executive staff (and the Lab Govt was very much pro-chinese at the time) were forced to acknowledge what had happened.

Anyway, the reality is that AustGov would have no interest in participating in any counter event unless it was apparent that China was the belligerent.

As for Singaporeans:

the fact that Singapore is mostly ethnically Chinese do not matter?

Has little to do with it. Over various projects I've dealt with people from DSTA in Singapore. If they are to be considered a representative slice of the military and govt community, then their view was very much one of distrust of mainland chinas intentions and presence in the region. China is seen as a commercial threat to their wellbeing, and proposals made such as cutting a channel through Thailand (with chinese assistance) to bypass the Malacca Straits is seen as a commercial and politically hostile act.

In fact, I'd go as far as to say that there is clear mistrust of political issues.

The biological connection only travels so far.

Please.................Australia wouldn't evne last as long as Taiwan.

Please explain to me how the PLAN is going to be able to project and maintain a maritime "force majeur" on extended lines? China is not yet a blue water navy (as in fulltime persistence). She does not have the capability to extend her lines and protect her mainland at the same time.

Bluewater capability is based on a navy being able to deploy and fight at fleet level in a trans-oceanic sense without compromising protection of the mainland. She cannot. and she does not have the (persistent) aircover which is critical to support the fleet (any fleet) out side the land based defensive domicile.

The defender (in this sense) has absolute advantage over a variety of areas.

 

[tphuang]

Yes please. Oh and um, dont get caught up in communist propaganda when you do, because everything i'v ever heard states that the PLA used armed force to disperse peacefull protesters, including tanks. Or were those pictures of tanks rolling through the streets of Bejing and crowds of people running for thier lives, or wounded civilians just CGI?

I got first hand account from one of the participants of the protest, who happened to be in my Christian fellowship. Were there tanks and such? yes. Was what happened far more brutal than what the communist government said? yes. But it wasn't as bad as many people in the Western world would let you believe. Let's put it this way, anytime you are trying to disperse a mass crowd (I mean like 1/10 of Australia's population to let you understand the situation) without well trained people, there is bound to be huge problems.

The saddest thing that happened what the supposed leaders of the movement did. Out of all of them, only one person has my respect for actually continuing to fight for human rights in China afterward. The rest used their fame to get political asylum, built a career in talking about their experiences. If they are really brave, go back to China and fight for the plight of the farmers and workers like Wang Dan did.

Singapore had its share of comfort women and mass killing incidents. What Singapore lacks is the sort of government sanctioned brainwashing with the aim of fostering anti-Japanese feelings that China practices.

the hatred comes from your ancestors telling you what happened to them. You can always find someone you know that got raped, severely beaten or killed. But enough of that, since it seems like you are from Singapore, and Japan's refusal to admit the wrongdoing to your country is not bothersome to you, I will take back my doubts that Singapore and Japan can become allies.

 

[Schumacher]

A couple of things from personal exp.
.......
As for Singaporeans:

Has little to do with it. Over various projects I've dealt with people from DSTA in Singapore. If they are to be considered a representative slice of the military and govt community, then their view was very much one of distrust of mainland chinas intentions and presence in the region. China is seen as a commercial threat to their wellbeing, and proposals made such as cutting a channel through Thailand (with chinese assistance) to bypass the Malacca Straits is seen as a commercial and politically hostile act.

In fact, I'd go as far as to say that there is clear mistrust of political issues.

The biological connection only travels so far.
..............

That may not be an entirely accurate view of the future because of the past with the fear of communist influence and the fact that S'pore forces still enjoy strong ties with US, not to mention their desire of of keeping arms length from the PLA, for now, for fear of jeopardizing their access to US techs.
To truely appreciate the direction of the future of its ties with China, you have to look at the wider commercial, cultural & political ties that are going on.

But as I said, it's unwise to judge which side S'pore will take sometime in the future just on the cultural factors, just as it is incorrect to base that on the likes of the 5-power agreement or its current ties with US forces.

 

[gf0012-aust]

That may not be an entirely accurate view of the future because of the past with the fear of communist influence and the fact that S'pore forces still enjoy strong ties with US, not to mention their desire of of keeping arms length from the PLA, for now, for fear of jeopardizing their access to US techs.

Actually. they are not dependant on the US for miltech at all - thats a falsehood. Singapore long ago made the decision to take the israeli approach to weapons development. The US would have less than 30% influence at the miltech level

To truely appreciate the direction of the future of its ties with China, you have to look at the wider commercial, cultural & political ties that are going on.

I'm part chinese, I'm well aware of the cultural issues. I served in Fed Govt and was specifically involved with the Tiananmen Sq issues. I'm more than aware of the political, and commercial issues.

But as I said, it's unwise to judge which side S'pore will take sometime in the future just on the cultural factors, just as it is incorrect to base that on the likes of the 5-power agreement or its current ties with US forces.

I've not made any conclusions based on 5PDA or its US relationships - I've deliberately factored them out.

Mine are based on actual involvement, not some academic assessment.

 

[Schumacher]

Actually. they are not dependant on the US for miltech at all - thats a falsehood. Singapore long ago made the decision to take the israeli approach to weapons development. The US would have less than 30% influence at the miltech level

I'm part chinese, I'm well aware of the cultural issues. I served in Fed Govt and was specifically involved with the Tiananmen Sq issues. I'm more than aware of the political, and commercial issues.

I've not made any conclusions based on 5PDA or its US relationships - I've deliberately factored them out.

Mine are based on actual involvement, not some academic assessment.

Suffice to say they're much more dependent on US military tech now than any immediate need for close ties with PLA.
I respect your position & the fact that you witnessed the Tiananmen incident.
I'll stay far away from debating Tiananmen, I'm sure you're professional enough not to let that experience affect your judgement on China issues, because most nations, S'pore included, don't. Definitely not to the extent as some would like them to.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Suffice to say they're much more dependent on US military tech now than any immediate need for close ties with PLA.

I'd disagree. Recent US purchases haven't made them any more dependant on the US, than their other purchasing outcomes with the French, UK, Israel and Australia for that matter. (we provide them with UDT technology)

I respect your position & the fact that you witnessed the Tiananmen incident.

I didn't witness Tiananmen. I was involved at the Govt handling end in an offshore fashion. Needless to say, that involved interviewing students seeking refugee status, in country students who did not want to go back, and talking to family elders who did not want their children to come back. That means that we reviewed documents, photos, transcripts etc...

Some of the photos we saw are an order of magnitude more indicative of the power of the state than any reuters photos of students being clubbed or pursued down a main street.

I'll stay far away from debating Tiananmen, I'm sure you're professional enough not to let that experience affect your judgement on China issues, because most nations, S'pore included, don't. Definitely not to the extent as some would like them to.

Tinananmen doesn't dominate my analysis of mainland china. It obviously has input.

On the other hand, I had over a dozen relatives murdered by Red Guards in the mid 60's, and at the turn of the century had relatives murdered by Imperial Guards. Indeed my own family history has been governed by the fact that in a move to escape hardship and get away from corrupt officials, my family sought success by chasing "the gold mountain" in australia.

The common denominator for my family history has been the abuse of power by the Govt of the day.

Countries that kill their own citizens to protect the sanctity of the state are low on the merit curve - and are not worthy of defence of their actions.

 

[Schumacher]

I'd disagree. Recent US purchases haven't made them any more dependant on the US, than their other purchasing outcomes with the French, UK, Israel and Australia for that matter. (we provide them with UDT technology)



I didn't witness Tiananmen. I was involved at the Govt handling end in an offshore fashion. Needless to say, that involved interviewing students seeking refugee status, in country students who did not want to go back, and talking to family elders who did not want their children to come back. That means that we reviewed documents, photos, transcripts etc...

Some of the photos we saw are an order of magnitude more indicative of the power of the state than any reuters photos of students being clubbed or pursued down a main street.



Tinananmen doesn't dominate my analysis of mainland china. It obviously has input.

On the other hand, I had over a dozen relatives murdered by Red Guards in the mid 60's, and at the turn of the century had relatives murdered by Imperial Guards. Indeed my own family history has been governed by the fact that in a move to escape hardship and get away from corrupt officials, my family sought success by chasing "the gold mountain" in australia.

The common denominator for my family history has been the abuse of power by the Govt of the day.

Countries that kill their own citizens to protect the sanctity of the state are low on the merit curve - and are not worthy of defence of their actions.

Don't you think US can affect the purchases of UK, Aust, Israelis tech by S'pore ?
I apologize for leading this into your family history. If it's true your family history doesn't significantly affect your China analysis, not so much as in weapon systems analysis but rather in various China policies analysis, then you are a much better person than me. I know how I would've felt in such a situation.

I won't defend China's policies with regard to Tiananmen or the Cultural Revolution etc, not here, not today.
But you do know what others might say about your adopted country's history right ? The part about the indigenous population ? I'll leave it at that & won't say anymore about this.

 

[gf0012-aust]

But you do know what others might say about your adopted country's history right ? The part about the indigenous population ? I'll leave it at that & won't say anymore about this.

As could the US, Canada, France, Belgium etc....

btw, Australia became a federation in 1901. That small detail tends to be overlooked when other people from other countries want to balance the ledger when talking about the plight of the aboriginals with white settlers 200+ years ago

And you're right to not say anymore about it - its a non sequitor when dealing with a country who's actions and responses happened in 1989, way way down the learning curve of what is determined as civilised bevaviour.

Funnily enough, and in a dark humour fashion, aboriginals in australia in 1967 had far more rights than are available in the mainland today.

Time is such a poor yardstick, it needs to be used carefully.

anyway, back to the topic.

 

[Schumacher]

As could the US, Canada, France, Belgium etc....

btw, Australia became a federation in 1901. That small detail tends to be overlooked when other people from other countries want to balance the ledger when talking about the plight of the aboriginals with white settlers 200+ years ago

And you're right to not say anymore about it - its a non sequitor when dealing with a country who's actions and responses happened in 1989, way way down the learning curve of what is determined as civilised bevaviour.

Funnily enough, and in a dark humour fashion, aboriginals in australia in 1967 had far more rights than are available in the mainland today.

Time is such a poor yardstick, it needs to be used carefully.

anyway, back to the topic.

And you seem sure your defence using timeline etc, regardless if it's factually correct, can convince those making the criticisms.
And of course, there're more contemporary instances of Aust policies some might want to point out.

That's why it is rarely a good idea to bring up the good vs bad thing when it comes to international policies, it'll only open one's analysis to questioning.

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

Actualy manfred brought it up citing it as evidence that the PROC didn't think like the west, and thupang attempted to defend it. And australian police using battons and beating protesters, while unaceptable, is nothing in comparison to unisng tanks and infantry to disperse peacefull protesters who are demanding political rights. The chinese communitst party did not act in order to protect society, commerce or property, but thier hold on power. There is a very very big defference between the two.

The world has come a long way in the last 150 years dont you think? So comparing the treatment of aboriginals in the 1800's by the british colonies that would eventually become Australia, to Tianamien isn't really that relevant. Your talking about a current goverment in china, which has changed nothing in terms of political freedom. Australia has become a liberalistic democracy, china is still rulled by the same olligarchical politburo that ordered in the tanks (some of the faces might have changed but the system is still the same). You could accuse the british of brutality at the siege of acre too if you wanted, it would be about as relevant.

Also ones political views are irrelevant to one's anyalisis if it is logical, factual and baced in reality. Simply discounting someones argument because of a stated political position, if that argument is reasonable, is not the basis for an informed debate. The focus should be on the arguments themselves which are usualy beced on capabilities, and views of a moral nature that are not realted to the topic at hand but may be connected to one of the combattants, such as the invasion of Tibet or tainamien and PROCs ability to invade taiwan, should not mean that siad persons anylisis is worthless. Attempting to discount a logical anylisis that has factual evidence cited by pointing out someones political views is usually the sign of a weak argument. If someone is driven by their political views then their argument will usually be heavy on emotional rhetoric and light in factual anylisis, so dont be too quick to dismiss people schumacher.

 

[Manfred]

Yeah, mea culpa, I am the one who brought it up, and maybe I should have used more than one word

I was trying to remind a person here that the Chinese have used extreem methods before, and can be expected to do so again in the future.

If Argentina's government invaded the Falklands to maintian thier power, how far-fetched is it that the CCP would do the same to Taiwan?

How many surface ships could be sent to Taiwan? Where would the Aircraft sent to cover them be based?

 

[gf0012-aust]

And you seem sure your defence using timeline etc, regardless if it's factually correct, can convince those making the criticisms.

But those who promote such views when they are without fact engage in either malicious debate - or are being intellectually indolent.

Bending history to fit an argument is the sword of the educationally weak.

And of course, there're more contemporary instances of Aust policies some might want to point out.

I'd be fascinated to hear of these instances. Feel free to start another thread away from this where it can be debated unfettered from this one.

That's why it is rarely a good idea to bring up the good vs bad thing when it comes to international policies, it'll only open one's analysis to questioning.

It doesn't mean squat if the analysis is based on preferred opinion rather than fact and actual historical timelines.

Those who promote data that is flawed or unsupported to support their own idealogies and prejudices only serve to weaken their own side of the debate.

ipso facto, robust debate that is based on a vehicle of factually flawed data is just noise. It might fool the easily swayed, but it won't fool the educated or informed.

 

[Schumacher]

Actualy manfred brought it up citing it as evidence that the PROC didn't think like the west, and thupang attempted to defend it. And australian police using battons and beating protesters, while unaceptable, is nothing in comparison to unisng tanks and infantry to disperse peacefull protesters who are demanding political rights. The chinese communitst party did not act in order to protect society, commerce or property, but thier hold on power. There is a very very big defference between the two.

The world has come a long way in the last 150 years dont you think? So comparing the treatment of aboriginals in the 1800's by the british colonies that would eventually become Australia, to Tianamien isn't really that relevant. Your talking about a current goverment in china, which has changed nothing in terms of political freedom. Australia has become a liberalistic democracy, china is still rulled by the same olligarchical politburo that ordered in the tanks (some of the faces might have changed but the system is still the same). You could accuse the british of brutality at the siege of acre too if you wanted, it would be about as relevant.

Some might say the 'mistreatment' of the indigenous did not stop 150 yrs ago.
But as I said it's far from useful, and absolutely no need at all, to talk about that or Tiananmen in China issues.
Tiananmen & Aborigines count for very little in major international policies.
Sure some governments may use it once in a while to gain some leverage, just as I said China use WW2 sometimes against Japan, but the key is to look at their core interests behind their decisions.

 

[Schumacher]

But those who promote such views when they are without fact engage in either malicious debate - or are being intellectually indolent.
........

I think the Chinese will use almost the same words against those criticizing Tiananmen. There was no full body count in the incident & they say the numbers are much lower.
So who do you believe ? That's why it's not necessary to add this to the argument in the first place.

 

[gf0012-aust]

I think the Chinese will use almost the same words against those criticizing Tiananmen. There was no full body count in the incident & they say the numbers are much lower.
So who do you believe ? That's why it's not necessary to add this to the argument in the first place.

The chinese can say what they like, they weren't pressing the shutters on the cameras used by DFAT staff - or for that matter by a broad variety of international press ...

Thats the beauty of basing reports on information gathered by your own people - the host govt can't interfere with the data. Its clean. So, who do I believe? - Our people every time, as they're trained to gather data in a meaningfull unemotional sense.

If you move beyond harvesting, then you're part of a manufacturing process, thats why cameras and on ground reports by your own people are critical.

We can now return to the thread subject as this has been done enough.

Basically, Australia under the current Govt has no desire to get involved with anything unless there is a clear path of belligerence by the mainland.

An australian Govt led by the current head of the opposition would be different. He is pro-mainland chinese, speaks manadarin fluently and was in the diplomatic corp. he does however still want to maintain strong US links.

My concern would be that he would be less interested in a closer relationship with Japan - and that I regard as short sighted in the extreme.

Japan (and India) are critical to australia for balance, and for any possible event where china might want to exercise economic blackmail on our foreign policy and thus elect to use uranium, iron ore, or LNG as a bargaining chip.

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

Personally i'd be inclined to believe GF, beceause unlike the rest of us in the forum, he has seen primary and secondary evidence, heard eye witness accounts, and been part of a federal level investigation.

 

[Schumacher]

The chinese can say what they like, they weren't pressing the shutters on the cameras used by DFAT staff - or for that matter by a broad variety of international press ...

.........

And Aust government & press decided to keep those photos secret because they don't want to embarrass the Chinese ?
The photos in the press I saw had some bloodshed etc but hard to judge the magnitude of it.
Sometimes it's ok to just say there's not enough evidence to say one way or the other.

 

[gf0012-aust]

And Aust government & press decided to keep those photos secret because they don't want to embarrass the Chinese ?

I guess you've never been involved with Govt at a tier 1 level then?

Yes, sometimes those things are buried because other govts will try and work their way through the issues without publicly humiliating the host country.

A good example is when the chinese embassy was being built in canberra. The embassy was so "radio'd up" that staff in the british high commission and NZ High commission were becoming sick. They were so sick that the british decided to evacuate all their staff and relocate them into the old parliament house complex.

at that point the brit high commission was gutted and rebuilt with tempest rated shielding.

was it in the chinese press? No. was it common knowledge on the embassy circuit? you betcha. the emission count was high, directional and obviously purposeful. It was actually hilighted in the Canberra Times but de-emphasised in subsequent releases as an international incident was to be avoided at all costs. the answer was that every western embassy within the emission range was tempest uprated or at a minimum "emission treated". UK, NZ and Canada were targetted. The US embassy was so shielded that it hardly made any difference.

people who use public press announcements as evidence to support their own arguments have no idea how it works in the real world. Politics in the real world is far different from google searches.

The australian reports however, will make interesting reading in 2019 when they become public access.

The Chinese Embassy is knicknamed "Radio Shack" - thats because it has more electronics under those pagoda rooves than all of Radio Shack.

See, the difference between anecdotal evidence and primary evidence is that the latter involves first hand presence. I've been involved.

I'll pick my involvement over anecdotal evidence any day of the week.
In an oblique sense, anyone in CCP intelligence can easily validate what I've said as there are key points in my statements that have never been in the public domain.