The possibility for Australia involing in TaiwanStrait Conflict

[Ozzy Blizzard]

I think you guys are missing a pretty important point. Singapore and Australia are both signataries to the 5 powes defenceive treaty, and if china attacked Australia, Singapore would be bound to intervien, as we would sholud singapore be attacked. So unless treaties mean nothing to them, and if they dont adhere to this one then any of the military treaties signed would not even be worth the paper they're written on, they would be fighting along side us. Pragmatism or not.

 

[Transient]

I think you guys are missing a pretty important point. Singapore and Australia are both signataries to the 5 powes defenceive treaty, and if china attacked Australia, Singapore would be bound to intervien, as we would sholud singapore be attacked. So unless treaties mean nothing to them, and if they dont adhere to this one then any of the military treaties signed would not even be worth the paper they're written on, they would be fighting along side us. Pragmatism or not.

I did think of that, but as I understand the FPDA is not a NATO-like agreement which obligates the countries to come to the aid of one another should any party be subject to aggression. I would gladly stand corrected when provided with the proper sources stating otherwise. That said, even though it is not a mutual defense treaty, it does signify the depth of the relationship between Singapore and Australia, which reinforces my point that aid will likely be forthcoming from Singapore in the event of a Chinese attack on Australia.

 

[Schumacher]

Do you understand what it means to act pragmatically? Or is your understanding of pragmatism with regards to how nations formulate national policy so simplistic as to cause you to believe that trade statistics are the only factors underpinning their decisions?

And can China attack Singapore and Australia successfully all of a sudden now? Even if Singapore is unable to defend against Chinese aggression, do you really think that the US going to let a Chinese attack on Australia and Singapore slide?

I can't wait for u to enlighten us on the meaning of pragmatic.
So now China attacks S'pore as well ? Will S'pore respond ? I guess that's a no-brainer or do u really want me to give u the answer ?
No, I don't think US will stand by & let China attack Aust & S'pore ?

 

[Transient]

I can't wait for u to enlighten us on the meaning of pragmatic.

'Enlighten us"? nfloorl: You seem to be the only one with such a simplistic view of how governments formulate their policies, so don't rope in everyone along with your inadequacy.

So now China attacks S'pore as well ?

Of course it can't, which is why I said this: "And can China attack Singapore and Australia successfully all of a sudden now?". But you seemed to imply so, with your words: "As I said, no Asian nation will 'throw in her lot' for Aust against a China strong enough to attack it." So are you suffering from short term memory loss?

 

[Schumacher]

'Enlighten us"? nfloorl: You seem to be the only one with such a simplistic view of how governments formulate their policies, so don't rope in everyone along with your inadequacy.

And ur definition of pragmatic is ?

Of course it can't, which is why I said this: "And can China attack Singapore and Australia successfully all of a sudden now?". But you seemed to imply so, with your words: "As I said, no Asian nation will 'throw in her lot' for Aust against a China strong enough to attack it." So are you suffering from short term memory loss?

ok. I see the misunderstanding, 'it' refers to Aust. Pardon my bad english but u should've known shouldn't u abt what I said ?

 

[tphuang]

What does Tianamien show? That the way the chinese communist party reacts to political decent is to send in the tanks. Your right, they dont think like us, they think like the Soviet Union, you remember a similar reation to the Hungarian revolution in 1956?

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?

Singapore has shown that it can, like Australia, put the past behind instead of remaining with a world war 2 mentality. Singapore's government is also pragmatic enough to not let race get in the way when considering its foreign policy. Were China to go on an expeditionary rampage ala WW2 Imperial Japan (as the scenario where China tries to attack Australia implies), you can bet Singapore is throwing in her lot with Australia and the US. Don't be silly enough to think that Singapore will aid China just because they have a Chinese majority population. Not even the Chinese population will accept Singapore aiding a belligerent China

This entire thread is just getting ridiculous. How did it turn into China trying to attack Australia?

As for WW2 mentality, I bet Singapore will feel a lot more differently if IJA killed half of the city or forced its women to be their comfort women or left unexploded mines/chemical waste anywhere.

 

[Transient]

And ur definition of pragmatic is ?

Pragmatic policy formulation is harder to define by what it is, than by what it is not. So for the sake of my fingers, I'll go by the shorter route. Pragmatic decision making by states means that they will not have their judgement clouded by 'race' simply because another country shares the same dominant race, nor will they allow history to cloud their judgement when circumstances have clearly made a historical reference moot. Pragmatic policy formulation also means that decisions will not be so based solely on some trade statistics.

 

[Schumacher]

Pragmatic policy formulation is harder to define by what it is, than by what it is not. So for the sake of my fingers, I'll go by the shorter route. Pragmatic decision making by states means that they will not have their judgement clouded by 'race' simply because another country shares the same dominant race, nor will they allow history to cloud their judgement when circumstances have clearly made a historical reference moot. Pragmatic policy formulation also means that decisions will not be so based solely on some trade statistics.

And I thought I had bad English.
So what should China do to make its relations with Japan more pragmatic ?

 

[Musashi_kenshin]

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?

Did the Chinese government send in tanks, or didn't it? Because every source I've read said that it did - along with other armoured vehicles. So I don't know what you could possibly have to say that's relevant - certainly I hope you wouldn't try to make apologies for the murder of civilians.

 

[Transient]

And I thought I had bad English

You have worse things to worry about than your English. Try 'logic' and 'knowledge' for starters.

So what should China do to make its relations with Japan more pragmatic ?

Where did I say that the Chinese government wasn't pragmatic?

As for WW2 mentality, I bet Singapore will feel a lot more differently if IJA killed half of the city or forced its women to be their comfort women or left unexploded mines/chemical waste anywhere.

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.

 

[Schumacher]

You have worse things to worry about than your English. Try 'logic' and 'knowledge' for starters.

Where did I say that the Chinese government wasn't pragmatic?

Denial...
Didn't u say China should learn from S'pore's pragmatic policy ?

 

[Transient]

Did I say or imply that China's foreign policies were not pragmatic, or that China should learn from Singapore? Do come up with where I implied or said such. The Chinese government's actions have been pragmatic and self serving. It's constant criticism of Japan for its wartime past stem not so much from any pain but rather from their desire to suppress Japan's influnce in order to gain a position of hegemony in Asia.

 

[Schumacher]

Did I say or imply that China's foreign policies were not pragmatic, or that China should learn from Singapore? Do come up with where I implied or said such. The Chinese government's actions have been pragmatic and self serving. It's constant criticism of Japan for its wartime past stem not so much from any pain but rather from their desire to suppress Japan's influnce in order to gain a position of hegemony in Asia.

'...Singapore's government is also pragmatic enough to not let race get in the way when considering its foreign policy.....'

Didn't u imply this with the above ?
The second part abt Chinese government's criticism of Japan is not bad, u learnt from what I told u, didn't u ?
But the simplistic part is u seem to think only China engage in such 'pragmatic' diplomacy.

 

[Transient]

'...Singapore's government is also pragmatic enough to not let race get in the way when considering its foreign policy.....'

That was a response to Tphuang's assertion that Singapore would help simply because Singapore was "mostly ethnically Chinese". See what i mean by you lacking in the logic department?

The second part abt Chinese government's criticism of Japan is not bad, u learnt from what I told u, didn't u ?
But the simplistic part is u seem to think only China engage in such 'pragmatic' diplomacy.

A frog can teach me nothing.

 

[Ibizan Hound]

Japan has recently signed a defence accord with australia, which provoke China slightly. That's Japan's first defence accord with other country except that with US. Both side should provide military assistance to each other according to it if necessary.
IF China takes military actions to reunify Taiwan(which seems very possible in the forthcoming 10 years) and japan intervene. Does there exists any possibility for Australia involving in ?imo,Aus will but could only stay on the stage of logistic assistance,
What's your opinions ??

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

 

[Rich]

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

I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the Aussies, "even if your spelling is good". They have good equipment across the board and play the game in a very high level. Most of all in submarine operations, other naval OPs, and maritime strike. Could they make a contribution that would stop the Chinese? No! But they could make a contribution that the Chinese couldn't afford to dismiss. A Aussie task force wheeling around out in the South China sea, Collins class boats heavy, would be a threat big enough the Chinese would have to divert resources to counter. Even if the Aussies didn't actually fight, a show of force would have some significance. Especially as diplomatic efforst picked up steam.

For Taiwan it would simply be a matter of survival until some kind of help arrived.

Unless you meant, "Please.................Australia wouldn't evne last as long as Taiwan.", that Australia would be invaded and conquered even faster then Taiwan?? If that's what you meant then you are quite mad. Outside the range of their land based air the RAN and the RAAF would slaughter the PLAN piecemeal before they ever got close enough to fire a shot. We've already gone over this so I wont even mention the systems, training, and expertise they have in the Australian service.

 

[Tasman]

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

With all due respect Ibizan Hound, if you make a statement like this you ought to provide at least some supporting evidence to back your claim and give other members something to respond to.

In contrast Rich and others in this thread have provided considerable evidence that the effectiveness of any Australian involvement cannot just be dismissed with a quick one liner.

Cheers

 

[harryriedl]

would war involving AUS in taiwan drag in other singnatorys of the 5 power agreements [im looking at this in a UK centric view]. and would the UK be obliged to help in any way.

 

[Tasman]

would war involving AUS in taiwan drag in other singnatorys of the 5 power agreements [im looking at this in a UK centric view]. and would the UK be obliged to help in any way.

I can't see any way in which Australian involvement would obligate the UK to help. The five-power agreement was negotiated for the defence of Singapore-Malaysia.

http://www.naa.gov.au/the_collection/Cabinet/1970_cabinet/issues.html

An attack on continental Australia, on the other hand, would almost certainly see the UK involved, maybe not as a result of a treaty obligation, but as a result of 'family' ties that go back a long way.

Cheers

 

[Musashi_kenshin]

In contrast Rich and others in this thread have provided considerable evidence that the effectiveness of any Australian involvement cannot just be dismissed with a quick one liner.

Yes, it would be ridiculous to take on the Australians on their home turf. Even if they deployed a taskforce to support an American relief effort for Taiwan it would still be very stupid to dismiss the RAN.