On 9/03/2023 11:08 am, Daryl wrote:
> On 9/3/2023 9:02 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>> On 8/03/2023 4:08 pm, Daryl wrote:
>>> On 8/3/2023 1:40 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>> On 8/03/2023 1:02 pm, Nomen Nescio wrote:
>>>>> I bet Elon has a diesel pickup with long-range tanks to
>>>>> escape the apocalyse.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> **I've been thinking about that. Let's say the zombie apocalypse
>>>> happens. No more refined oil. Petrol lasts about 1 year in a sealed
>>>> container. I am uncertain, but I guess Diesel will last a bit
>>>> longer. Maybe 2 years.
>>>
>>> Depends on how its stored, diesel needs to be sealed without any air
>>> and then it will last a very long time, I've also used petrol that
>>> was 5yrs old without a problem but its variable.
>>>
>>>   A battery pack will last a lot longer. Prolly 20+ years.
>>>
>>> A rather wild guess, batteries can last a long time if stored
>>> correctly but 10yrs is a more realistic guess.
>>
>> **Which is WAY longer than oil.
>>
>>>
>>>> A survivalist will be able to charge his Tesle via his Solar PV
>>>> array, whilst the fossil fueled vehicles become useless.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Certainly possible to charge an EV from solar but EV's need lots and
>>> lots of power so it could take a very long time to fully charge
>>> unless you have a very big solar system.
>>> The sort of portable solar panels that a survivalist could carry in a
>>> vehicle would take weeks to charge an EV.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> **When China blockades Australian sea lanes, we will have no oil. What
>> will we run our cars on?
>>
>
> If we are forced to use electric cars most of the power will have to
> come from coal or gas since almost all solar panels are made in China
> which is rather ironic.

**Yep. And we should be stocking up on them. Quick smart. Australia
could make Solar PV cells. India makes them, as does the US and other
places. They're just more expensive though.

> If there is a positive to electric cars its that we won't need to rely
> on anyone else for fuel supplies, their overall environmental benefits
> are dubious at best and their cost is partly to blame for our inflation
> problem.

**Really? Prove the inflation claim.

> I'm starting to think that EV's are the biggest con job in history,
> Govts around the world have been conned into believing that EV's are the
> only solution to reducing emissions when there are very viable
> alternatives that are close to production ready.
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jxtxZY45RMM

**You are, as usual, looking at ONE issue only. H2 fuel cell vehicles
are also EVs. And they represent a technology that Japan is embracing.
Fast refuelling, convenient and low emissions (if energy is derived from
renewable sources).

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com

On 9/03/2023 9:47 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
> On 9/03/2023 9:33 am, Noddy wrote:

>>> OTOH: We can produce plenty of electricity. We can't produce enough
>>> oil for our needs.
>>
>> No, we don't, but we are capable of producing roughly one third of our
>> current daily needs from our own domestic supplies. That means that
>> fuel would become limited, and certainly much more expensive, but we
>> wouldn't be left without it.
>>
>> This country got through WWII with fuel rationing, and if we had to do
>> something like that again we could.
>>
>>
>
> **I knew someone would bring up WWII. Australia's population was MUCH
> smaller and MUCH, MUCH, MUCH less reliant on fossil fuels back then. We
> were desperate enough to make oil from shale deposits (very, VERY
> expensively). The comparisons with how things were 80 years ago and
> completely irrelevant.

Not in the slightest.

It's relative. We were using far less fuel back then, but we were also
producing far less as well. We've had rationing before, and if we had to
resort to those days again we would. look at the Covid restricted world
we've just emerged from for example. 5 years ago had you told anyone
that we would have a world wide pandemic that would see us all be locked
down like rats in our own homes people would have thought you were a
complete nutbag and moved to have you committed. Yet there we all were
doing exactly what we needed to do in order to get by.

It's not something that we've never done before, or are incapable of
ever doing again.

It's that simple....

> Make no mistake: ALL available oil will be dedicated to essential
> services and the military.

The only "mistake" being made here is your overly simplistic view on how
you perceive things would play out in such as scenario in my opinion.

In the first instance, the ability of the Chinese to completely surround
and cut off this country from the outside world are absolutely zero. We
have one of the biggest unbroken coastlines in the world, and as
powerful as the Chinese military may be putting an impenetrable "wall"
all the way around this country is entirely beyond their ability. This
isn't Taiwan we're talking about here.

Secondly, our ability to produce our own fuels, both fossil and
synthetic, has never been adequately tested. We've relied heavily on
imports purely for economic reasons, but that doesn't mean we're not
capable of producing our own fuels should the need arise. I doubt that
we'd be able to meet our current requirements, but I also doubt we'd be
unable to produce enough to get by with restrictions.

In other words, I don't believe your "end of the world as we know it"
predictions are anywhere near as accurate as you like to think they are.

--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

On 9/3/2023 11:23 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
> On 9/03/2023 11:08 am, Daryl wrote:
>> On 9/3/2023 9:02 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>> On 8/03/2023 4:08 pm, Daryl wrote:
>>>> On 8/3/2023 1:40 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>>> On 8/03/2023 1:02 pm, Nomen Nescio wrote:
>>>>>> I bet Elon has a diesel pickup with long-range tanks to
>>>>>> escape the apocalyse.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> **I've been thinking about that. Let's say the zombie apocalypse
>>>>> happens. No more refined oil. Petrol lasts about 1 year in a sealed
>>>>> container. I am uncertain, but I guess Diesel will last a bit
>>>>> longer. Maybe 2 years.
>>>>
>>>> Depends on how its stored, diesel needs to be sealed without any air
>>>> and then it will last a very long time, I've also used petrol that
>>>> was 5yrs old without a problem but its variable.
>>>>
>>>>   A battery pack will last a lot longer. Prolly 20+ years.
>>>>
>>>> A rather wild guess, batteries can last a long time if stored
>>>> correctly but 10yrs is a more realistic guess.
>>>
>>> **Which is WAY longer than oil.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> A survivalist will be able to charge his Tesle via his Solar PV
>>>>> array, whilst the fossil fueled vehicles become useless.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Certainly possible to charge an EV from solar but EV's need lots and
>>>> lots of power so it could take a very long time to fully charge
>>>> unless you have a very big solar system.
>>>> The sort of portable solar panels that a survivalist could carry in
>>>> a vehicle would take weeks to charge an EV.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> **When China blockades Australian sea lanes, we will have no oil.
>>> What will we run our cars on?
>>>
>>
>> If we are forced to use electric cars most of the power will have to
>> come from coal or gas since almost all solar panels are made in China
>> which is rather ironic.
>
> **Yep. And we should be stocking up on them. Quick smart. Australia
> could make Solar PV cells. India makes them, as does the US and other
> places. They're just more expensive though.
>
>> If there is a positive to electric cars its that we won't need to rely
>> on anyone else for fuel supplies, their overall environmental benefits
>> are dubious at best and their cost is partly to blame for our
>> inflation problem.
>
> **Really? Prove the inflation claim.

LOL, its simple mathematics, cost increases cause inflation, EV's are
way more expensive than normal cars, end of story.
>
>> I'm starting to think that EV's are the biggest con job in history,
>> Govts around the world have been conned into believing that EV's are
>> the only solution to reducing emissions when there are very viable
>> alternatives that are close to production ready.
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jxtxZY45RMM
>
> **You are, as usual, looking at ONE issue only. H2 fuel cell vehicles
> are also EVs. And they represent a technology that Japan is embracing.
> Fast refuelling, convenient and low emissions (if energy is derived from
> renewable sources).
>
>
Did you watch the video, seems not, its not about fuel cell EV's, it
about redesigned diesel engines running on hydrogen, at this point in
time their mainly for machinery and trucks but no reason they can't be
used in cars.
Also worth noting is that the power and torque curves of the hydrogen
engines are identical to their diesel equivalents and the only emission
is water vapor.
The video also mentions that India and the USA are making massive
investments in hydrogen production.

--
Daryl

On 9/03/2023 9:43 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
> On 9/03/2023 9:37 am, Noddy wrote:

>> China likes to talk tough, but when it comes to putting their words
>> into action they're not that flash. They're also well aware that any
>> action they take against us would invariably see them facing action
>> against our allies which is not something they would look forward to.
>
> **That reliance would be a fatal mistake on our part.

I don't think so. That's why we have military alliances in the first
place :)

> Should that fucking idiot, Trump, be elected as the next POTUS, we will be left on
> our own. DeSantis is an unknown factor, but you can bet he would be
> happy to sacrifice Australia for votes. Australia MUST be able to be
> self-sufficient in both defence and essential commodities.

Australia will *never* be self sufficient at anything, as we don't have
the population or the wealth to be so. We are a small nation on a very
large island.

As far as the Americans are concerned, I believe Trump's day in the sun
has passed. He's too much of a liability now for the Republican Party to
stand him as a candidate for a second term, and I think "Sleepy Joe's"
days are also numbered. DeSantis will most likely be the next US
President, and while he *is* a relative unknown he doesn't appear to be
anywhere near as hardcore right as Trump is, or have the same
isolationist views.

The other point to consider is that regardless of whomever is in office
in the White house, Australia has far too much value to the Americans
both in terms of investment and strategic importance for them to sit
idly by and see it over run by a hostile country.

America is making waves about China's desires to control Taiwan just so
they're not held to ransom by the Chinese having control over the
world's chip market. In light of that, I can't really see them doing
nothing and letting the Chinese take over one of the world's largest
sources of coal, aluminium, uranium, gold or just about anything else :)

>>
>> We live in difficult times and it would be a fatal flaw to
>> under-estimate the Chinese, but your pessimistic view is equally wrong
>> in my opinion.
>
> **We'll see. The next US election will be critical to China's plans.
> Trump will not defend Taiwan and has zero interest in Australia.

Trump won't be the next US President, so it's a non issue.

--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

On 9/03/2023 9:02 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
> On 8/03/2023 4:08 pm, Daryl wrote:

>> Certainly possible to charge an EV from solar but EV's need lots and
>> lots of power so it could take a very long time to fully charge unless
>> you have a very big solar system.
>> The sort of portable solar panels that a survivalist could carry in a
>> vehicle would take weeks to charge an EV.
>>
>>
>
> **When China blockades Australian sea lanes, we will have no oil. What
> will we run our cars on?

China is not going to blockade Australia's see lanes, and even if they
did we would still have some oil :)

--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

On 9/03/2023 11:18 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
> On 9/03/2023 10:56 am, Daryl wrote:

>> Whilst it may cause us pain to not have fuel imports we will adapt but
>> the Chinese would be screwing themselves so the chances of it
>> happening are very very slim.
>
> **China won't be screwing itself. China is playing the long game. We
> aren't. Australia is, as usual, looking very short term.

Of *course* they'd be screwing themselves. Right in the arse from a 20
foot run up with no lube.

Just because they're a communist/socialist state country doesn't mean
they're any less reliant on a viable economy as much as anyone else. In
fact their need to export in order to survive has become enormous in the
last 20 years, and if that were suddenly taken away their economy would
collapse and along with it their power.

Despite their sabre rattling to the contrary....

--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

On 9/3/2023 10:58 am, alvey wrote:
> Noddy <me@home.com> wrote in news:tu92hi$p0fa$1@dont-email.me:
>
>>
>> You live in a strange fantasy world.
>
> O the irony...

Indeed it is!

--
Xeno

Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
(with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)

On 9/3/2023 12:40 pm, Noddy wrote:
> On 9/03/2023 11:18 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>> On 9/03/2023 10:56 am, Daryl wrote:
>
>>> Whilst it may cause us pain to not have fuel imports we will adapt
>>> but the Chinese would be screwing themselves so the chances of it
>>> happening are very very slim.
>>
>> **China won't be screwing itself. China is playing the long game. We
>> aren't. Australia is, as usual, looking very short term.
>
> Of *course* they'd be screwing themselves. Right in the arse from a 20
> foot run up with no lube.
>
> Just because they're a communist/socialist state country doesn't mean
> they're any less reliant on a viable economy as much as anyone else. In
> fact their need to export in order to survive has become enormous in the
> last 20 years, and if that were suddenly taken away their economy would
> collapse and along with it their power.
>
> Despite their sabre rattling to the contrary....
>
A large well equipped military is very very expensive, if economy goes
downhill with it goes the ability to support a large military, they may
still be able to afford to have lots of military personnel but large
numbers of ships and planes won't be of much use if they can't afford to
use them.

--
Daryl

On 9/03/2023 12:15 pm, Daryl wrote:
> On 9/3/2023 11:23 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>> On 9/03/2023 11:08 am, Daryl wrote:
>>> On 9/3/2023 9:02 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>> On 8/03/2023 4:08 pm, Daryl wrote:
>>>>> On 8/3/2023 1:40 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>>>> On 8/03/2023 1:02 pm, Nomen Nescio wrote:
>>>>>>> I bet Elon has a diesel pickup with long-range tanks to
>>>>>>> escape the apocalyse.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> **I've been thinking about that. Let's say the zombie apocalypse
>>>>>> happens. No more refined oil. Petrol lasts about 1 year in a
>>>>>> sealed container. I am uncertain, but I guess Diesel will last a
>>>>>> bit longer. Maybe 2 years.
>>>>>
>>>>> Depends on how its stored, diesel needs to be sealed without any
>>>>> air and then it will last a very long time, I've also used petrol
>>>>> that was 5yrs old without a problem but its variable.
>>>>>
>>>>>   A battery pack will last a lot longer. Prolly 20+ years.
>>>>>
>>>>> A rather wild guess, batteries can last a long time if stored
>>>>> correctly but 10yrs is a more realistic guess.
>>>>
>>>> **Which is WAY longer than oil.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> A survivalist will be able to charge his Tesle via his Solar PV
>>>>>> array, whilst the fossil fueled vehicles become useless.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Certainly possible to charge an EV from solar but EV's need lots
>>>>> and lots of power so it could take a very long time to fully charge
>>>>> unless you have a very big solar system.
>>>>> The sort of portable solar panels that a survivalist could carry in
>>>>> a vehicle would take weeks to charge an EV.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> **When China blockades Australian sea lanes, we will have no oil.
>>>> What will we run our cars on?
>>>>
>>>
>>> If we are forced to use electric cars most of the power will have to
>>> come from coal or gas since almost all solar panels are made in China
>>> which is rather ironic.
>>
>> **Yep. And we should be stocking up on them. Quick smart. Australia
>> could make Solar PV cells. India makes them, as does the US and other
>> places. They're just more expensive though.
>>
>>> If there is a positive to electric cars its that we won't need to
>>> rely on anyone else for fuel supplies, their overall environmental
>>> benefits are dubious at best and their cost is partly to blame for
>>> our inflation problem.
>>
>> **Really? Prove the inflation claim.
>
> LOL, its simple mathematics, cost increases cause inflation, EV's are
> way more expensive than normal cars, end of story.

**Except that you have failed to prove your claim. Australia's most
popular car/s are far more expensive than a Kia Picanto too. Therefore,
according to YOUR Martian economic theory, it is the fault of Ford
Rangers and Toyota Hilux (#1 & #2), not the fault of EVs. The reality is
that years of fucked up economics (thanks to the fucking idiots in the
COALition), COVID 19 and the war in Ukraine that are the root causes of
inflation, not the nadful of people buying EVs.

However, feel free to present your alternate theory, WITH DATA0

>>
>>> I'm starting to think that EV's are the biggest con job in history,
>>> Govts around the world have been conned into believing that EV's are
>>> the only solution to reducing emissions when there are very viable
>>> alternatives that are close to production ready.
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jxtxZY45RMM
>>
>> **You are, as usual, looking at ONE issue only. H2 fuel cell vehicles
>> are also EVs. And they represent a technology that Japan is embracing.
>> Fast refuelling, convenient and low emissions (if energy is derived
>> from renewable sources).
>>
>>
> Did you watch the video, seems not, its not about fuel cell EV's, it
> about redesigned diesel engines running on hydrogen, at this point in
> time their mainly for machinery and trucks but no reason they can't be
> used in cars.

**Except that the pressure vessels are huge, heavy and inconvenient.
That, combined with the inefficiencies of IC engines, means that H2 fuel
cell vehicles are far more efficient.

> Also worth noting is that the power and torque curves of the hydrogen
> engines are identical to their diesel equivalents and the only emission
> is water vapor.

**Same as H2 fuel cell vehicles. EXCEPT that the BEST efficiency you can
hope for is 45% for ICE and the WORST efficiency for an H2 EV is 90%.

> The video also mentions that India and the USA are making massive
> investments in hydrogen production.

**Sure. I've said as much. Japan is moving rapidly towards an H2
economy. For vehicles, it will be H2 fuel cell EVs.

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com

On 9/03/2023 12:01 pm, Noddy wrote:
> On 9/03/2023 9:47 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>> On 9/03/2023 9:33 am, Noddy wrote:
>
>>>> OTOH: We can produce plenty of electricity. We can't produce enough
>>>> oil for our needs.
>>>
>>> No, we don't, but we are capable of producing roughly one third of
>>> our current daily needs from our own domestic supplies. That means
>>> that fuel would become limited, and certainly much more expensive,
>>> but we wouldn't be left without it.
>>>
>>> This country got through WWII with fuel rationing, and if we had to
>>> do something like that again we could.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> **I knew someone would bring up WWII. Australia's population was MUCH
>> smaller and MUCH, MUCH, MUCH less reliant on fossil fuels back then.
>> We were desperate enough to make oil from shale deposits (very, VERY
>> expensively). The comparisons with how things were 80 years ago and
>> completely irrelevant.
>
> Not in the slightest.
>
> It's relative. We were using far less fuel back then, but we were also
> producing far less as well. We've had rationing before, and if we had to
> resort to those days again we would. look at the Covid restricted world
> we've just emerged from for example. 5 years ago had you told anyone
> that we would have a world wide pandemic that would see us all be locked
> down like rats in our own homes people would have thought you were a
> complete nutbag and moved to have you committed. Yet there we all were
> doing exactly what we needed to do in order to get by.
>
> It's not something that we've never done before, or are incapable of
> ever doing again.
>
> It's that simple....
>
>> Make no mistake: ALL available oil will be dedicated to essential
>> services and the military.
>
> The only "mistake" being made here is your overly simplistic view on how
> you perceive things would play out in such as scenario in my opinion.
>
> In the first instance, the ability of the Chinese to completely surround
> and cut off this country from the outside world are absolutely zero. We
> have one of the biggest unbroken coastlines in the world, and as
> powerful as the Chinese military may be putting an impenetrable "wall"
> all the way around this country is entirely beyond their ability. This
> isn't Taiwan we're talking about here.

**How many places can an oil tanker disgorge it's cargo in Australia?

Do you honestly imagine that China cannot track oil tankers bound for
Australia?

If China tells a tanker to turn around, do you imagine that the tanker
operator will not comply?

I'll say again: Tankers are big, slow and easy to track. China can very
easily cut off our supply of oil. And I believe it very likely will,
unless there is a change of leadership in China.

>
> Secondly, our ability to produce our own fuels, both fossil and
> synthetic, has never been adequately tested. We've relied heavily on
> imports purely for economic reasons, but that doesn't mean we're not
> capable of producing our own fuels should the need arise. I doubt that
> we'd be able to meet our current requirements, but I also doubt we'd be
> unable to produce enough to get by with restrictions.
>

**AFAIK, we have two oil refineries left.

> In other words, I don't believe your "end of the world as we know it"
> predictions are anywhere near as accurate as you like to think they are.

**We'll see. When the Republicans take office in the US, we'll be fucked.

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com

On 9/03/2023 12:17 pm, Noddy wrote:
> On 9/03/2023 9:43 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>> On 9/03/2023 9:37 am, Noddy wrote:
>
>>> China likes to talk tough, but when it comes to putting their words
>>> into action they're not that flash. They're also well aware that any
>>> action they take against us would invariably see them facing action
>>> against our allies which is not something they would look forward to.
>>
>> **That reliance would be a fatal mistake on our part.
>
> I don't think so. That's why we have military alliances in the first
> place :)
>
>> Should that fucking idiot, Trump, be elected as the next POTUS, we
>> will be left on our own. DeSantis is an unknown factor, but you can
>> bet he would be happy to sacrifice Australia for votes. Australia MUST
>> be able to be self-sufficient in both defence and essential commodities.
>
> Australia will *never* be self sufficient at anything, as we don't have
> the population or the wealth to be so. We are a small nation on a very
> large island.

**Bullshit. As others have stated, we need to make ourselves to be like
a porcupine, in a defensive sense. That would likely mean hosting nukes
on our soil on in subs. Long range missiles, sea mines, drones and drone
subs should all be considered to ensure that China refrains from
attacking or interfering with our trade. We CANNOT rely on the US or
anyone else. To remind you of WWII, the US was quite prepared to
sacrifice Australia to the Japanese, should it have been required. The
US will do so again.

>
> As far as the Americans are concerned, I believe Trump's day in the sun
> has passed. He's too much of a liability now for the Republican Party to
> stand him as a candidate for a second term, and I think "Sleepy Joe's"
> days are also numbered. DeSantis will most likely be the next US
> President, and while he *is* a relative unknown he doesn't appear to be
> anywhere near as hardcore right as Trump is, or have the same
> isolationist views.

**DeSantis has been described as 'Trump with a brain'. Which makes him
potentially far more dangerous. DeSantis has no care for Australia. We
need to do far more to enhance our defences and our critical
infrastructure. It has recently been stated that Xi intends to take
Taiwan in 2027. We have FOUR years to get our shit together.

>
> The other point to consider is that regardless of whomever is in office
> in the White house, Australia has far too much value to the Americans
> both in terms of investment and strategic importance for them to sit
> idly by and see it over run by a hostile country.

**Nonsense. Americans don't know where Australia is and, apart from our
baristas, they don't care about Australians. Which, of course, means
that their politicians don't care either.

Consider Ukraine: Despite the commitment and bravery of the Ukrainian
people, the US has not committed a single military person to fight in
Ukraine. The US is (rightly) concerned of what retaliation Russia might
unleash on the US if they did. In a few years, China will be a MUCH
bigger worry.

>
> America is making waves about China's desires to control Taiwan just so
> they're not held to ransom by the Chinese having control over the
> world's chip market. In light of that, I can't really see them doing
> nothing and letting the Chinese take over one of the world's largest
> sources of coal, aluminium, uranium, gold or just about anything else :)

**There is NOTHING in Australia that the US can't find anywhere else.
Except decent coffee. They ain't gonna defend their coffee habit.

>
>
>>>
>>> We live in difficult times and it would be a fatal flaw to
>>> under-estimate the Chinese, but your pessimistic view is equally
>>> wrong in my opinion.
>>
>> **We'll see. The next US election will be critical to China's plans.
>> Trump will not defend Taiwan and has zero interest in Australia.
>
> Trump won't be the next US President, so it's a non issue.

**Trump PROBABLY won't be the next POTUS. However, never understimate
the stupidity of the American public. They voted for Reagan, Dubya and
Trump. That speaks volumes for just how dumb Americans are.

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com

On 9/03/2023 1:30 pm, Daryl wrote:
> On 9/3/2023 12:40 pm, Noddy wrote:

>> Just because they're a communist/socialist state country doesn't mean
>> they're any less reliant on a viable economy as much as anyone else.
>> In fact their need to export in order to survive has become enormous
>> in the last 20 years, and if that were suddenly taken away their
>> economy would collapse and along with it their power.
>>
>> Despite their sabre rattling to the contrary....
>>
> A large well equipped military is very very expensive, if economy goes
> downhill with it goes the ability to support a large military, they may
> still be able to afford to have lots of military personnel but large
> numbers of ships and planes won't be of much use if they can't afford to
> use them.

I don't imagine they can afford to do a lot of what they claim they're
capable of now, but then you're talking about a country that locks their
people into their own homes and welds the doors shut. This is a
totalitarian regime that, for the most part, survives on the fear they
instil into their populace. Financial constraints obviously play a role,
but the fear of being put to death for "Treason" is also a significant
motivating factor in their people's willingness to tow the party line.

For the most part I think the average Chinese couldn't give a flying
fuck about their government and wish they would just go away, and it's
clear from what's happening in Hong Kong that Chinese government policy
is *not* very welcome outside of China.

China needs to look at what happened to the former Soviet Union as a
great example of how state run "muscle flexing" doesn't work, and if
they're not careful they'll end up going broke and collapsing just like
the Soviets did.

--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

On Thursday, 9 March 2023 at 11:18:08 UTC+11, Trevor Wilson wrote:
> On 9/03/2023 10:56 am, Daryl wrote:
> > On 9/3/2023 8:41 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
> >> On 9/03/2023 8:21 am, Keithr0 wrote:
> >>> On 9/03/2023 7:14 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
> >>>> On 9/03/2023 8:11 am, Noddy wrote:
> >>>>> On 9/03/2023 7:50 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
> >>>>>> On 8/03/2023 3:22 pm, Noddy wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> You live in a strange fantasy world. You can get far enough away
> >>>>>>> from a disaster on a jerry can of fuel regardless of whatever you
> >>>>>>> happen to drive, and refilling it to keep it fresh once a year
> >>>>>>> isn't a big deal. Use the old fuel in your mower and refill the
> >>>>>>> container with fresh fuel for your escape.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Assuming, of course, this kind of fantasy situation ever arises
> >>>>>>> which is highly unlikely :)
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> **You could substitute 'zombie apocalypse' for a Chinese blockade
> >>>>>> of sea freight to and from Australia. When/if that occurs, EV
> >>>>>> owners will be the only vehicles travelling anywhere.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I doubt it.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> We still produce oil in this country, and while most of the petrol
> >>>>> we use here is imported we only do so because it's cheaper than
> >>>>> making our own. We could start our own production up and make our
> >>>>> own fuel here if the need arose.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> **The pitifully small amount of oil we produce will go straight to
> >>>> emergency services and defence. Consumers will not get a single drop.
> >>>>
> >>>> OTOH: We can produce plenty of electricity. We can't produce enough
> >>>> oil for our needs.
> >>>>
> >>> Australia is a very big place to blockade.
> >>
> >> **Indeed and China has (or soon will have) the capacity, the will and
> >> the desire to do so. Australia needs to be totally self-sufficient in
> >> energy production as soon as possible. Oil is our biggest problem and
> >> we need to find alternative energy sources very quickly. Make no
> >> mistake: China will neutralise Australia as soon as they think they
> >> need to. Cutting off our oil is a very quick and easy way to fuck us.
> >> Oil tankers move slowly and Chinese aircraft are much faster.
> >>
> > You are missing one thing, trade goes 2 ways and China desperately needs
> > our coal and other minerals such as lithium and iron ore, if they were
> > to block our fuel imports then they wouldn't be getting any of our
> > exports so it would cause them more problems than it would cause us.
> **No, it would not. They have their own (inferior, but usable) coal. As
> do other places. And one of the biggest is Russia. China has not and
> will not cut ties with Russia. The biggest known lithium deposits are in
> Chile. Followed by China and most recently, Iran. China owns a very
> large chunk of the company which mines lithium in Chile. China is
> readying itself for a divorce from Australia. Iron ore is available from
> a number of sources. China doesn't need Australia as much as you
> imagine. We are just cheap(er).
> > Whilst it may cause us pain to not have fuel imports we will adapt but
> > the Chinese would be screwing themselves so the chances of it happening
> > are very very slim.
> **China won't be screwing itself. China is playing the long game. We
> aren't. Australia is, as usual, looking very short term.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
It`ll be OK chicken little. Just wear your foil-covered pith helmet!. ;)
> --
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> www.avast.com

On Thursday, 9 March 2023 at 12:17:07 UTC+11, Noddy wrote:
> On 9/03/2023 9:43 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
> > On 9/03/2023 9:37 am, Noddy wrote:
>
> >> China likes to talk tough, but when it comes to putting their words
> >> into action they're not that flash. They're also well aware that any
> >> action they take against us would invariably see them facing action
> >> against our allies which is not something they would look forward to.
> >
> > **That reliance would be a fatal mistake on our part.
> I don't think so. That's why we have military alliances in the first
> place :)
> > Should that fucking idiot, Trump, be elected as the next POTUS, we will be left on
> > our own. DeSantis is an unknown factor, but you can bet he would be
> > happy to sacrifice Australia for votes. Australia MUST be able to be
> > self-sufficient in both defence and essential commodities.
> Australia will *never* be self sufficient at anything, as we don't have
> the population or the wealth to be so. We are a small nation on a very
> large island.
>
> As far as the Americans are concerned, I believe Trump's day in the sun
> has passed.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~```
For sure, the yanks might not be the sharpest tool in the shed, but *surely* not stupid enough to enable even his *chance* of re-election.
He's too much of a liability now for the Republican Party to
> stand him as a candidate for a second term, and I think "Sleepy Joe's"
> days are also numbered. DeSantis will most likely be the next US
> President, and while he *is* a relative unknown he doesn't appear to be
> anywhere near as hardcore right as Trump is, or have the same
> isolationist views.
>
> The other point to consider is that regardless of whomever is in office
> in the White house, Australia has far too much value to the Americans
> both in terms of investment and strategic importance for them to sit
> idly by and see it over run by a hostile country.
>
> America is making waves about China's desires to control Taiwan just so
> they're not held to ransom by the Chinese having control over the
> world's chip market. In light of that, I can't really see them doing
> nothing and letting the Chinese take over one of the world's largest
> sources of coal, aluminium, uranium, gold or just about anything else :)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Actually, Oz has a vast supply of Bauxite, and six Alumina refineries . As for Aluminium production, not so much.
> >>
> >> We live in difficult times and it would be a fatal flaw to
> >> under-estimate the Chinese, but your pessimistic view is equally wrong
> >> in my opinion.
> >
> > **We'll see. The next US election will be critical to China's plans.
> > Trump will not defend Taiwan and has zero interest in Australia.
> Trump won't be the next US President, so it's a non issue.
> --
> --
> --
> Regards,
> Noddy.

On 9/03/2023 2:20 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
> On 9/03/2023 12:17 pm, Noddy wrote:

>>> **That reliance would be a fatal mistake on our part.
>>
>> I don't think so. That's why we have military alliances in the first
>> place :)
>>
>>> Should that fucking idiot, Trump, be elected as the next POTUS, we
>>> will be left on our own. DeSantis is an unknown factor, but you can
>>> bet he would be happy to sacrifice Australia for votes. Australia
>>> MUST be able to be self-sufficient in both defence and essential
>>> commodities.
>>
>> Australia will *never* be self sufficient at anything, as we don't
>> have the population or the wealth to be so. We are a small nation on a
>> very large island.
>
> **Bullshit.

Really? We're a country that is geographically almost the same size as
mainland USA, with around 1/13th of the population and an economy around
1/20th of the US. If you don't consider that to be "small" then I'm
fucked if I know how you gauge sizes.
> As others have stated, we need to make ourselves to be like
> a porcupine, in a defensive sense. That would likely mean hosting nukes
> on our soil on in subs. Long range missiles, sea mines, drones and drone
> subs should all be considered to ensure that China refrains from
> attacking or interfering with our trade.

That is a lovely sentiment Trev, and it would be nice. But we simply do
not have the manpower or the money to be able to do that. Not even close.

How much do you reckon it would cost us to man ourselves with enough
weapons of mass destruction to make the Chinese think twice about
invading us? The Chinese sound like they're ready to take on the
Americans over Taiwan, and if they're not perturbed about the threat of
American military might I can't see *anything* we could ever do here
that would make them change their minds if they ever saw fit to invade us.

> We CANNOT rely on the US or anyone else. To remind you of WWII, the US was quite prepared to
> sacrifice Australia to the Japanese, should it have been required. The
> US will do so again.

Yeah, I don't think so.

You must study different historical sources than I have, as during WWII
the Americans considered Australia to be far too valuable an outpost in
the Pacific region for it to ever fall into Japanese hands, which is why
they sent their fleet to the Coral Sea to defeat the Japanese amphibious
invasion of Port Moresby.

From mid 1942 onwards, Australia was the largest Pacific base the US
had, and there was no way they were ever going to surrender it :)
>> As far as the Americans are concerned, I believe Trump's day in the
>> sun has passed. He's too much of a liability now for the Republican
>> Party to stand him as a candidate for a second term, and I think
>> "Sleepy Joe's" days are also numbered. DeSantis will most likely be
>> the next US President, and while he *is* a relative unknown he doesn't
>> appear to be anywhere near as hardcore right as Trump is, or have the
>> same isolationist views.
>
> **DeSantis has been described as 'Trump with a brain'. Which makes him
> potentially far more dangerous. DeSantis has no care for Australia. We
> need to do far more to enhance our defences and our critical
> infrastructure. It has recently been stated that Xi intends to take
> Taiwan in 2027. We have FOUR years to get our shit together.

Stated by who?

Take such comments with a massive grain of salt. For the last 25 years
the American State Department has been predicting that Indonesia will
invade Australia "within 10 years". Guess what? In that 25 years they've
been wrong twice, and are well on their way to making it a hat-trick.

*IF* the Chinese *were* ever going to invade us, do you honestly think
they'd throw out a projected date so we had time to prepare? :)

>> The other point to consider is that regardless of whomever is in
>> office in the White house, Australia has far too much value to the
>> Americans both in terms of investment and strategic importance for
>> them to sit idly by and see it over run by a hostile country.
>
> **Nonsense. Americans don't know where Australia is and, apart from our
> baristas, they don't care about Australians. Which, of course, means
> that their politicians don't care either.

Go back and read what I said a second time and see if it sinks in.
America has far too much strategic investment in this country for it to
ever be lost to the Chinese, or anyone else for that matter. The average
American Joe may not give a flying fuck about us, and the average US
politician may not either. But the joint chiefs, heads of the various
intelligence agencies and the industrial military complex in general
will all recognise the danger of losing this cornerstone of the South
Pacific to the enemy.

> Consider Ukraine: Despite the commitment and bravery of the Ukrainian
> people, the US has not committed a single military person to fight in
> Ukraine. The US is (rightly) concerned of what retaliation Russia might
> unleash on the US if they did. In a few years, China will be a MUCH
> bigger worry.

America, or anyone else for that matter, isn't sticking their nose into
the Ukrainian affair because it's mostly considered to be a civil war.
Fighting between the Ukrainians and Russians has been going on for
decades, and while it has the potential to get ugly if foreign forces
*do* put boots on the ground against the Russians, the Americans (and
others) are not exactly sitting idly by and doing nothing either.

The US is funding the Ukrainians with cash and military equipment on a
*massive* scale, and while the Russians may not be happy about that
they're not doing too much complaining because that's exactly what
*they* were doing during the Vietnam war. The Russians are getting their
own back and they have to suck that up. They're also well aware that
given the horrendous shit-show they've made of demonstrating how
incapable their military might is against the Ukrainians, they would be
doing all they can to avoid a direct military confrontation with the
Americans who would no doubt kick the absolute fucking snot out of them
on the battlefield.

The threat from Russia is not in the form of a protracted military
engagement, which they would no doubt unquestionably lose, but from a
Nuclear strike. The Americans would be well aware of this, which is why
I suspect that they have the bulk of their ballistic missile submarine
fleet on station within striking range of every Russian target of
importance as we speak.

The Chinese situation is a different ball game. They know that a move
against Taiwan will involve a direct confrontation with the US, and
possibly the UK, and New Zealand, and us.

>> America is making waves about China's desires to control Taiwan just
>> so they're not held to ransom by the Chinese having control over the
>> world's chip market. In light of that, I can't really see them doing
>> nothing and letting the Chinese take over one of the world's largest
>> sources of coal, aluminium, uranium, gold or just about anything else :)
>
> **There is NOTHING in Australia that the US can't find anywhere else.
> Except decent coffee. They ain't gonna defend their coffee habit.

Pine Gap is a pretty important part of America's overall intelligence
gathering ability, and I don't expect they'd be all that keen to see it
fall into Chinese hands :)

>> Trump won't be the next US President, so it's a non issue.
>
> **Trump PROBABLY won't be the next POTUS. However, never understimate
> the stupidity of the American public. They voted for Reagan, Dubya and
> Trump. That speaks volumes for just how dumb Americans are.

The American public can be as stupid as rocks, and a great many are, but
they can't vote for someone who's not an official candidate. I don't
believe Trump will be unless he stands as an independent.

--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

On 9/03/2023 2:07 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
> On 9/03/2023 12:01 pm, Noddy wrote:

>> In the first instance, the ability of the Chinese to completely
>> surround and cut off this country from the outside world are
>> absolutely zero. We have one of the biggest unbroken coastlines in the
>> world, and as powerful as the Chinese military may be putting an
>> impenetrable "wall" all the way around this country is entirely beyond
>> their ability. This isn't Taiwan we're talking about here.
>
> **How many places can an oil tanker disgorge it's cargo in Australia?

There's a few, but they're all a long way from China :)

> Do you honestly imagine that China cannot track oil tankers bound for
> Australia?

They can track them, sure. A 10 year old kid with internet access can
track a ship anywhere in the world.

> If China tells a tanker to turn around, do you imagine that the tanker
> operator will not comply?

That depends. What's China threatening to do if they don't? Sink the
vessel? What kind of international turmoil do you think the Chinese
sinking an unarmed merchant vessel would cause?

> I'll say again: Tankers are big, slow and easy to track.

So what?

China can very
> easily cut off our supply of oil. And I believe it very likely will,
> unless there is a change of leadership in China.

And how exactly are they going to do that? They have no authority in
international waters, so the *only* way they could enforce a blockade
would be by military means which would be in breech of every
international law in the book and turn many countries against them.

>> Secondly, our ability to produce our own fuels, both fossil and
>> synthetic, has never been adequately tested. We've relied heavily on
>> imports purely for economic reasons, but that doesn't mean we're not
>> capable of producing our own fuels should the need arise. I doubt that
>> we'd be able to meet our current requirements, but I also doubt we'd
>> be unable to produce enough to get by with restrictions.
>>
>
> **AFAIK, we have two oil refineries left.

Again, so what? There is nothing preventing us from building more if we
need them, and even with those two we *still* produce around a third of
our daily demand.

>> In other words, I don't believe your "end of the world as we know it"
>> predictions are anywhere near as accurate as you like to think they are.
>
> **We'll see. When the Republicans take office in the US, we'll be fucked.

You watch too many movies :)

--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

On 9/3/2023 3:02 pm, Noddy wrote:
> On 9/03/2023 1:30 pm, Daryl wrote:
>> On 9/3/2023 12:40 pm, Noddy wrote:
>
>>> Just because they're a communist/socialist state country doesn't mean
>>> they're any less reliant on a viable economy as much as anyone else.
>>> In fact their need to export in order to survive has become enormous
>>> in the last 20 years, and if that were suddenly taken away their
>>> economy would collapse and along with it their power.
>>>
>>> Despite their sabre rattling to the contrary....
>>>
>> A large well equipped military is very very expensive, if economy goes
>> downhill with it goes the ability to support a large military, they
>> may still be able to afford to have lots of military personnel but
>> large numbers of ships and planes won't be of much use if they can't
>> afford to use them.
>
> I don't imagine they can afford to do a lot of what they claim they're
> capable of now, but then you're talking about a country that locks their
> people into their own homes and welds the doors shut. This is a
> totalitarian regime that, for the most part, survives on the fear they
> instil into their populace. Financial constraints obviously play a role,
> but the fear of being put to death for "Treason" is also a significant
> motivating factor in their people's willingness to tow the party line.
>
> For the most part I think the average Chinese couldn't give a flying
> fuck about their government and wish they would just go away, and it's
> clear from what's happening in Hong Kong that Chinese government policy
> is *not* very welcome outside of China.
>
> China needs to look at what happened to the former Soviet Union as a
> great example of how state run "muscle flexing" doesn't work, and if
> they're not careful they'll end up going broke and collapsing just like
> the Soviets did.
>

Our biggest defence is that we are a long way from anywhere so any
invasion of Australia is going to be very costly and will require a lot
of logistics, getting boots on the ground and keeping them supplied will
never be easy and it will be very costly.
I think Trev is being overly pessimistic, I can't think of a single
reason why the Chinese would want to invade us, its a lot cheaper to buy
resources such as iron ore than to invade and take it.
If there is a war over Taiwan and we support the US Australia will be
the least of their worries when the US has the ability to turn the whole
of China into a smoldering wasteland in a very short time, they
certainly have the capability.
I find it very unlikely that something that major will ever happen when
there can be no winners, everyone will loose and even the Chinese can
see that.

--
Daryl

On 9/03/2023 1:07 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:

> If China tells a tanker to turn around, do you imagine that the tanker
> operator will not comply?
>
> I'll say again: Tankers are big, slow and easy to track. China can very
> easily cut off our supply of oil. And I believe it very likely will,
> unless there is a change of leadership in China.

Head south by southwest from the gulf until you are 32 degrees south,
then turn west and you are at Freemantle. A little further south before
you turn west and you get to Melbourne. The Indian ocean is very large
and a long way from China.

I'm sure that the Chinese government realise that a war with the west
will wreck their economy and there are nations like India, Thailand, and
Vietnam who would love to take on the production that China does today.

--
Clocky on programming 18 Feb 2022
"What, you copy and paste code into a sketch in Arduino, select the
libraries to include, modify it a bit and hit program"

Clocky on NASA 18 Mar 2022
"Oh, and btw... if you worked for NASA how is it thay you are seemingly
oblivious to Commodore Amigas used at NASA"

On 9/03/2023 5:27 pm, Keithr0 wrote:
> On 9/03/2023 1:07 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>
>> If China tells a tanker to turn around, do you imagine that the tanker
>> operator will not comply?
>>
>> I'll say again: Tankers are big, slow and easy to track. China can
>> very easily cut off our supply of oil. And I believe it very likely
>> will, unless there is a change of leadership in China.
>
> Head south by southwest from the gulf until you are 32 degrees south,
> then turn west and you are at Freemantle. A little further south before
> you turn west and you get to Melbourne. The Indian ocean is very large
> and a long way from China.
>
> I'm sure that the Chinese government realise that a war with the west
> will wreck their economy and there are nations like India, Thailand, and
> Vietnam who would love to take on the production that China does today.

The recent "affront" China has faced over calls for an enquiry into the
origins of Covid have already had people looking in that direction.
Within 10 years I expect India will emerge as a new manufacturing giant
as multi nationals look to their welcoming arms and endless supply of
cheap labour as they get sick of dealing with the arrogance of the Chinese.

--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

On 9/3/2023 8:19 pm, Noddy wrote:
> On 9/03/2023 5:27 pm, Keithr0 wrote:
>> On 9/03/2023 1:07 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>
>>> If China tells a tanker to turn around, do you imagine that the
>>> tanker operator will not comply?
>>>
>>> I'll say again: Tankers are big, slow and easy to track. China can
>>> very easily cut off our supply of oil. And I believe it very likely
>>> will, unless there is a change of leadership in China.
>>
>> Head south by southwest from the gulf until you are 32 degrees south,
>> then turn west and you are at Freemantle. A little further south
>> before you turn west and you get to Melbourne. The Indian ocean is
>> very large and a long way from China.
>>
>> I'm sure that the Chinese government realise that a war with the west
>> will wreck their economy and there are nations like India, Thailand,
>> and Vietnam who would love to take on the production that China does
>> today.
>
> The recent "affront" China has faced over calls for an enquiry into the
> origins of Covid have already had people looking in that direction.
> Within 10 years I expect India will emerge as a new manufacturing giant
> as multi nationals look to their welcoming arms and endless supply of
> cheap labour as they get sick of dealing with the arrogance of the Chinese.
>
>
Our Prime Minister and many others are in India at the moment for pretty
much the reasons you just said so hopefully India does eventually
replace most of our trade with China.

--
Daryl

On 9/3/2023 3:48 pm, Noddy wrote:
> On 9/03/2023 2:20 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>> On 9/03/2023 12:17 pm, Noddy wrote:
>
>>>> **That reliance would be a fatal mistake on our part.
>>>
>>> I don't think so. That's why we have military alliances in the first
>>> place :)
>>>
>>>> Should that fucking idiot, Trump, be elected as the next POTUS, we
>>>> will be left on our own. DeSantis is an unknown factor, but you can
>>>> bet he would be happy to sacrifice Australia for votes. Australia
>>>> MUST be able to be self-sufficient in both defence and essential
>>>> commodities.
>>>
>>> Australia will *never* be self sufficient at anything, as we don't
>>> have the population or the wealth to be so. We are a small nation on
>>> a very large island.
>>
>> **Bullshit.
>
> Really? We're a country that is geographically almost the same size as
> mainland USA, with around 1/13th of the population and an economy around
> 1/20th of the US. If you don't consider that to be "small" then I'm
> fucked if I know how you gauge sizes.
>   > As others have stated, we need to make ourselves to be like
>> a porcupine, in a defensive sense. That would likely mean hosting
>> nukes on our soil on in subs. Long range missiles, sea mines, drones
>> and drone subs should all be considered to ensure that China refrains
>> from attacking or interfering with our trade.
>
> That is a lovely sentiment Trev, and it would be nice. But we simply do
> not have the manpower or the money to be able to do that. Not even close.
>
> How much do you reckon it would cost us to man ourselves with enough
> weapons of mass destruction to make the Chinese think twice about
> invading us? The Chinese sound like they're ready to take on the
> Americans over Taiwan, and if they're not perturbed about the threat of
> American military might I can't see *anything* we could ever do here
> that would make them change their minds if they ever saw fit to invade us.
>
>> We CANNOT rely on the US or anyone else. To remind you of WWII, the US
>> was quite prepared to sacrifice Australia to the Japanese, should it
>> have been required. The US will do so again.
>
> Yeah, I don't think so.
>
> You must study different historical sources than I have, as during WWII
> the Americans considered Australia to be far too valuable an outpost in
> the Pacific region for it to ever fall into Japanese hands, which is why
> they sent their fleet to the Coral Sea to defeat the Japanese amphibious
> invasion of Port Moresby.
>
> From mid 1942 onwards, Australia was the largest Pacific base the US
> had, and there was no way they were ever going to surrender it :)
>>> As far as the Americans are concerned, I believe Trump's day in the
>>> sun has passed. He's too much of a liability now for the Republican
>>> Party to stand him as a candidate for a second term, and I think
>>> "Sleepy Joe's" days are also numbered. DeSantis will most likely be
>>> the next US President, and while he *is* a relative unknown he
>>> doesn't appear to be anywhere near as hardcore right as Trump is, or
>>> have the same isolationist views.
>>
>> **DeSantis has been described as 'Trump with a brain'. Which makes him
>> potentially far more dangerous. DeSantis has no care for Australia. We
>> need to do far more to enhance our defences and our critical
>> infrastructure. It has recently been stated that Xi intends to take
>> Taiwan in 2027. We have FOUR years to get our shit together.
>
> Stated by who?
>
> Take such comments with a massive grain of salt. For the last 25 years
> the American State Department has been predicting that Indonesia will
> invade Australia "within 10 years". Guess what? In that 25 years they've
> been wrong twice, and are well on their way to making it a hat-trick.
>
> *IF* the Chinese *were* ever going to invade us, do you honestly think
> they'd throw out a projected date so we had time to prepare? :)
>
>>> The other point to consider is that regardless of whomever is in
>>> office in the White house, Australia has far too much value to the
>>> Americans both in terms of investment and strategic importance for
>>> them to sit idly by and see it over run by a hostile country.
>>
>> **Nonsense. Americans don't know where Australia is and, apart from
>> our baristas, they don't care about Australians. Which, of course,
>> means that their politicians don't care either.
>
> Go back and read what I said a second time and see if it sinks in.
> America has far too much strategic investment in this country for it to
> ever be lost to the Chinese, or anyone else for that matter. The average
> American Joe may not give a flying fuck about us, and the average US
> politician may not either. But the joint chiefs, heads of the various
> intelligence agencies and the industrial military complex in general
> will all recognise the danger of losing this cornerstone of the South
> Pacific to the enemy.
>
>> Consider Ukraine: Despite the commitment and bravery of the Ukrainian
>> people, the US has not committed a single military person to fight in
>> Ukraine. The US is (rightly) concerned of what retaliation Russia
>> might unleash on the US if they did. In a few years, China will be a
>> MUCH bigger worry.
>
> America, or anyone else for that matter, isn't sticking their nose into
> the Ukrainian affair because it's mostly considered to be a civil war.

You have no clue. The US and NATO have realised that Russia sees its war
in Ukraine as a matter of *existential* survival - and rest assured
Russia will soon no longer exist as a functional country - with or
without the war. The demographics of Russia will see to that. The
Russians and the Ukrainians are the same race of people - Slavs. It's
way more complex than a civil war. Ukraine was a buffer zone, among
others, that inhibited invasion of mother Russia by the invaders from
Europe - ie. Napoleon, Hitler. Russia wants its buffer zones back and,
with it, the Soviet Union.

The US and NATO looked at how the Russians fared on the first few days
of the war back in February 2022 and saw that Russia could no longer
fight a conventional war - then realised that if the US and NATO put
troops on the ground, Russia would be backed into a corner and would
bring out the heaviest shit they have at hand - and that would be nukes.
Desperate countries do that you know. So Ukraine has to fight this war
on the ground themselves with generally only logistics and MI support -
no US or NATO boots on the ground. So far so good.

> Fighting between the Ukrainians and Russians has been going on for
> decades, and while it has the potential to get ugly if foreign forces

Mainly from 2011 and 2014 when Russia no longer obeyed treaties it
signed between themselves and Ukraine.

> *do* put boots on the ground against the Russians, the Americans (and
> others) are not exactly sitting idly by and doing nothing either.
>
> The US is funding the Ukrainians with cash and military equipment on a
> *massive* scale, and while the Russians may not be happy about that
> they're not doing too much complaining because that's exactly what
> *they* were doing during the Vietnam war. The Russians are getting their
> own back and they have to suck that up. They're also well aware that
> given the horrendous shit-show they've made of demonstrating how
> incapable their military might is against the Ukrainians, they would be
> doing all they can to avoid a direct military confrontation with the
> Americans who would no doubt kick the absolute fucking snot out of them
> on the battlefield.

The US knows this, as does NATO, and it also knows nukes would be
instantly on the table.
>
> The threat from Russia is not in the form of a protracted military
> engagement, which they would no doubt unquestionably lose, but from a
> Nuclear strike. The Americans would be well aware of this, which is why
> I suspect that they have the bulk of their ballistic missile submarine
> fleet on station within striking range of every Russian target of
> importance as we speak.
>
> The Chinese situation is a different ball game. They know that a move
> against Taiwan will involve a direct confrontation with the US, and
> possibly the UK, and New Zealand,  and us.
>
>>> America is making waves about China's desires to control Taiwan just
>>> so they're not held to ransom by the Chinese having control over the
>>> world's chip market. In light of that, I can't really see them doing
>>> nothing and letting the Chinese take over one of the world's largest
>>> sources of coal, aluminium, uranium, gold or just about anything else :)
>>
>> **There is NOTHING in Australia that the US can't find anywhere else.
>> Except decent coffee. They ain't gonna defend their coffee habit.
>
> Pine Gap is a pretty important part of America's overall intelligence
> gathering ability, and I don't expect they'd be all that keen to see it
> fall into Chinese hands :)
>
>>> Trump won't be the next US President, so it's a non issue.
>>
>> **Trump PROBABLY won't be the next POTUS. However, never understimate
>> the stupidity of the American public. They voted for Reagan, Dubya and
>> Trump. That speaks volumes for just how dumb Americans are.
>
> The American public can be as stupid as rocks, and a great many are, but
> they can't vote for someone who's not an official candidate. I don't
> believe Trump will be unless he stands as an independent.
>

On 9/03/2023 10:59 pm, Daryl wrote:
> On 9/3/2023 8:19 pm, Noddy wrote:

>> The recent "affront" China has faced over calls for an enquiry into
>> the origins of Covid have already had people looking in that
>> direction. Within 10 years I expect India will emerge as a new
>> manufacturing giant as multi nationals look to their welcoming arms
>> and endless supply of cheap labour as they get sick of dealing with
>> the arrogance of the Chinese.
>>
>>
> Our Prime Minister and many others are in India at the moment for pretty
> much the reasons you just said so hopefully India does eventually
> replace most of our trade with China.

Yeah, I think the Chinese need to be really careful. They see themselves
as being this unassailable manufacturing giant that can be as fucking
arrogant as they like in the belief that the world has no choice but to
deal with them on whatever terms they see fit to demand.

That may be so in the short term, but they fail to appreciate that
they're not the only country on the planet with an abundance of cheap
labour and if they keep pissing the rest of the world off as they seem
hell bent on doing then the rest of the world will just pack up and take
their business somewhere else.

China needs to bear in mind that it was foreign multinationals looking
to exploit cheap labour that made them what they are today, and there is
absolutely nothing stopping that process being repeated in other parts
of the world....

--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

On 10/3/2023 12:42 pm, Noddy wrote:
> On 9/03/2023 10:59 pm, Daryl wrote:
>> On 9/3/2023 8:19 pm, Noddy wrote:
>
>>> The recent "affront" China has faced over calls for an enquiry into
>>> the origins of Covid have already had people looking in that
>>> direction. Within 10 years I expect India will emerge as a new
>>> manufacturing giant as multi nationals look to their welcoming arms
>>> and endless supply of cheap labour as they get sick of dealing with
>>> the arrogance of the Chinese.
>>>
>>>
>> Our Prime Minister and many others are in India at the moment for
>> pretty much the reasons you just said so hopefully India does
>> eventually replace most of our trade with China.
>
> Yeah, I think the Chinese need to be really careful. They see themselves
> as being this unassailable manufacturing giant that can be as fucking
> arrogant as they like in the belief that the world has no choice but to
> deal with them on whatever terms they see fit to demand.
>
> That may be so in the short term, but they fail to appreciate that
> they're not the only country on the planet with an abundance of cheap
> labour and if they keep pissing the rest of the world off as they seem
> hell bent on doing then the rest of the world will just pack up and take
> their business somewhere else.
>
> China needs to bear in mind that it was foreign multinationals looking
> to exploit cheap labour that made them what they are today, and there is
> absolutely nothing stopping that process being repeated in other parts
> of the world....
>
>

Agree and the sooner it happens all the better.
India should also be a lot easier to deal with, they are a democratic
country with the same Westminster system as ours, certainly don't think
it will be totally easy without any issues but a lot easier going than
China.

--
Daryl

On 10/03/2023 1:53 pm, Daryl wrote:
> On 10/3/2023 12:42 pm, Noddy wrote:
>> On 9/03/2023 10:59 pm, Daryl wrote:
>>> On 9/3/2023 8:19 pm, Noddy wrote:
>>
>>>> The recent "affront" China has faced over calls for an enquiry into
>>>> the origins of Covid have already had people looking in that
>>>> direction. Within 10 years I expect India will emerge as a new
>>>> manufacturing giant as multi nationals look to their welcoming arms
>>>> and endless supply of cheap labour as they get sick of dealing with
>>>> the arrogance of the Chinese.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Our Prime Minister and many others are in India at the moment for
>>> pretty much the reasons you just said so hopefully India does
>>> eventually replace most of our trade with China.
>>
>> Yeah, I think the Chinese need to be really careful. They see
>> themselves as being this unassailable manufacturing giant that can be
>> as fucking arrogant as they like in the belief that the world has no
>> choice but to deal with them on whatever terms they see fit to demand.
>>
>> That may be so in the short term, but they fail to appreciate that
>> they're not the only country on the planet with an abundance of cheap
>> labour and if they keep pissing the rest of the world off as they seem
>> hell bent on doing then the rest of the world will just pack up and
>> take their business somewhere else.
>>
>> China needs to bear in mind that it was foreign multinationals looking
>> to exploit cheap labour that made them what they are today, and there
>> is absolutely nothing stopping that process being repeated in other
>> parts of the world....
>>
>>
>
> Agree and the sooner it happens all the better.

Absolutely. Fuck China and everything it stands for as far as I'm
concerned.

> India should also be a lot easier to deal with, they are a democratic
> country with the same Westminster system as ours, certainly don't think
> it will be totally easy without any issues but a lot easier going than
> China.

Yep. The transition would take some time, and I'm not sure that you or I
will live long enough to see it effectively implemented, but it would
definitely be a positive move and one that would provide for a far more
stable future than what we have now.

--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.