thats one of the concerns... a disengaged US is not in anyones interests.
Boagrius
Well-Known Member
It strikes me as a really tricky thing to plan for/around. An isolationist President Trump could have serious consequences for the strategic balance in the Pacific... but what if it's only for 4 years?
Australia and the US in relation to trump is a bit of an unknown compared to other nations. On one hand other nations have low expenditures similar to Australia but Australia has actually backed the US in most of there conflicts since WWII (I'm not saying this in any criticism, There are grey area's to this and not all black and white as Trump thinks it to be), Other nations have large US forces placed there while Australia's US forces are small in comparison (Trump ignores that a number of nations actually contribute to the US forces cost). So it could be Australia would be viewed as a reliable allie at a marginal cost to others (In trumps warped mind).
That said, If he does pull out then globally everything will go to sh**, Australia would likely have to greatly expand our defence force and budget (3%+) while increasing the speed in which we build up ties with a number of ASEAN countries, Japan and South Korea.
According to Mark Thomson from ASPI if trump goes ahead with what he has said then we may be forced to build 2 submarines at a time instead of 1.
Either way at a time when the world is at it's most volitile for a long long time Trump is talking about shutting up shop which will only make it all the worse for every other nation not allied/puppeteered with Russia and China.
For the record I'm not against trump wanting other nations to do more for themselves rather then relying on the US, I hate that the Oz government relies on the US so as not to have to worry about our ADF but any disengagement should be partial rather then full and it should be phased rather then over night.
That said, If he does pull out then globally everything will go to sh**, Australia would likely have to greatly expand our defence force and budget (3%+) while increasing the speed in which we build up ties with a number of ASEAN countries, Japan and South Korea.
According to Mark Thomson from ASPI if trump goes ahead with what he has said then we may be forced to build 2 submarines at a time instead of 1.
Either way at a time when the world is at it's most volitile for a long long time Trump is talking about shutting up shop which will only make it all the worse for every other nation not allied/puppeteered with Russia and China.
For the record I'm not against trump wanting other nations to do more for themselves rather then relying on the US, I hate that the Oz government relies on the US so as not to have to worry about our ADF but any disengagement should be partial rather then full and it should be phased rather then over night.
If Trump wins the White House, it wouldn't be the first time that the US has gone isolationist but if it does this time, globally the ramifications are far more serious. There are to many unknowns with Trump and his how he much credence he would give his advisors advice. My own personal view is that a Trump White House would create excessive volatility worldwide, especially in the Asia Pacific region, by a unilateral withdrawal of US forces.
I would imagine a lot of economic/military relationships painstakingly built up over the years by the US with the SCS nations would be pretty much wiped out - the effort to rebuild ties with these nations would be monumental.
Add that with an emboldened China, and I can't see how the US stands to gain being isolationist.
t68
Well-Known Member
My personal view is Trump is tuning his narrative for public consumption mainly to get over the line, once in office the rhetoric won't match the realty of an embolded resurgent China/Russia or Middle East nations. In other words he will talk reduce thing in a minor way to look like a commitment it other than that that's all he can really do without costing the States more in the long run.
If we could please leave specific candidates out of the discussion, and instead focus on the potential impact on the ADF if the US were to adopt a more isolationist policy.
I don't want to see this or any other thread descend into the morass that is the current US political scene. Having a discussion involving specific candidates are likely to attract the 'wrong' kind of participants.
-Preceptor
If, and if is the key word, Trump got his way, and pulled back, then it could start another nuke arms development race.
I really don, t think Trump could get all his wishes past the rest of his party, who really don, t want him anyway.
They shot them selves in the foot, letting him buy his way in, no one really took him seriously, but if they dumped him 6 months ago, and he went independent, then that would have handed the election to the democrats, so the republicans are now paying for their mistake, and so will the rest of the world if he becomes potus. Which I dont think he will, but it is a real possibility.
I really don, t think Trump could get all his wishes past the rest of his party, who really don, t want him anyway.
They shot them selves in the foot, letting him buy his way in, no one really took him seriously, but if they dumped him 6 months ago, and he went independent, then that would have handed the election to the democrats, so the republicans are now paying for their mistake, and so will the rest of the world if he becomes potus. Which I dont think he will, but it is a real possibility.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Both of the presumed primary winners have been shovelling out a lot of bovine fecal matter to their respective party members. Once elected the winner will dump any unrealistic promises, deny they were ever made or state they were misunderstood. It's what pollies do. US isolationism is not an option and both of the leading candidates know this.
Its actually quite a reasonable concern as something similar occurred with the Guam Doctrine which virtually invalidated all the blood and treasure Australia had invested in backing the US as a down payment on ANZUS. Aware that in many ways, non-aligned Indonesia is more important strategically to the US than Australia is it was deliberate policy to do everything possible to keep the US engaged in the region, especially as the UK had already pulled back from east of Suez. Then along comes Nixon who basically announces allies will be expected to look after their own security, in anything short of a nuclear conflict, unless the US decides it is in their interest to get involved.
The doctrine also saw increased arms sales to nations within Australia's region / area of interest, irrespective if it was in Australia's interest or not, including arming a number of autocratic nations that subsequently became threats (potential mostly but actual in the case of Iran) to US allies.
It is my belief that it was Nixons changes forcing Australia to evaluate the actual effectiveness of the US alliance that led to DOA in place of expeditionary or forward defence. If the US weren't prepared to put boots on the ground why should Australia and why bother adopting common force structures and equipment if the troops wouldn't serve side by side.
My fear is the US may not just become more isolationist but may return to selling all and sundry to cashed up bullies in the name of detente. Military aero engines and avionics to the Chinese again?
The doctrine also saw increased arms sales to nations within Australia's region / area of interest, irrespective if it was in Australia's interest or not, including arming a number of autocratic nations that subsequently became threats (potential mostly but actual in the case of Iran) to US allies.
It is my belief that it was Nixons changes forcing Australia to evaluate the actual effectiveness of the US alliance that led to DOA in place of expeditionary or forward defence. If the US weren't prepared to put boots on the ground why should Australia and why bother adopting common force structures and equipment if the troops wouldn't serve side by side.
My fear is the US may not just become more isolationist but may return to selling all and sundry to cashed up bullies in the name of detente. Military aero engines and avionics to the Chinese again?
I would doubt weapon sales to China would be on the cards. It would be shooting themselves in the foot, considering how much the Chinese have "acquired" already they may not be all that interested. High tech sales to SE Asia would be more likely to better balance the region without risking too much US blood and treasure.
The ADF will have to get used to operating in a region that will have achieved technological parity.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
The manufacturing of high tech military jet engine components is one advantage both the West and Russia have over China. The West enjoys a considerable advantage over Russia for that matter. I can't see either selling their best tech to China especially the manufacturing techniques. I have no doubt both have serious reservations about the huge amount of dual use tech what was given to China in the name of economic trade benefit. With the mass of treasure that China has now, it is no surprise about the several news articles describing China's plans to develop state of the art jet engines (commercial and military) by investing 20-40 billion over the next decade. This will be made easier by the thousands of engineering/scientist graduates from Western universities. Frankly, their budget for stealing tech must be much less than that of the old Soviet empire as we basically have been selling it to them. The Soviets had to work to get Western tech back in the "good old Cold War days".
Early morning musings...would US isolationism might have the effect of strengthening Australia's partnerships with other regional nations? Maybe not all, but at least a few i.e. those in FPDA, some in ASEAN etc.
Or am I seeing this wrongly - that US isolationism will force regional nations to work together, it's just a matter of how effective these partnerships will be?
Or am I seeing this wrongly - that US isolationism will force regional nations to work together, it's just a matter of how effective these partnerships will be?
5PDA would probably strengthen. The Singaporeans in particular are already strengthening their relationship with Aust
Hard to see how the directly affected will play - china has been emphasising the divide and conquer approach with countries in dispute as she knows that she can deal with them more easily in isolation
its the bundle of sticks analogy
Seems like the Aus-Sin partnership sounds like something that would happen eventually, regardless of developments in the US. Would it be too far a stretch to claim that even if US disengaged from the region, the FPDA will still be able to manage a belligerent China, especially a militarised SCS?
Yeah, the divide-and-conquer bilateral approach. It seems to have worked on Vientiane and Phnom Penh, and it doesn't look like it will be changing anytime soon. I digress, but I do worry that the actions of these nations would drive a wedge within ASEAN. Sometimes I wonder if this is the reason why Singapore wishes to develop stronger ties with Australia, just in case more neighbours fall firmly into China's orbit.
Given the pre-existing divisions within SE Asia, it won't take much effort by China to take advantage. I could see the FPDA increasing its collective ISR capabilites but that would be it. As long as there is no threat or hindrance to trade routes I don't see us getting more involved than we are in the SCS. Why would we risk conflict with our no.1 trading partner? To defend Phillipine's fishing grounds or Vietnam's gas fields?
Sharia law is spreading in Malaysia, Brunei and Indonesia. Vietnam is Communist, Thailand is under military rule and the Philippines barely functions as a state. The realist in me says we have no natural friends/allies in SE Asia apart from Singapore.
In the event of an isolationist US, I would predict the ADF will put increased focus on being a self-reliant full spectrum force. This would allow us to conduct independent actions as needed whilst minimising the risk of getting dragged into a regional conflict. The First World War was a good first-hand demonstration of the unpredictable nature formal alliances can have.
Sharia law is spreading in Malaysia, Brunei and Indonesia. Vietnam is Communist, Thailand is under military rule and the Philippines barely functions as a state. The realist in me says we have no natural friends/allies in SE Asia apart from Singapore.
In the event of an isolationist US, I would predict the ADF will put increased focus on being a self-reliant full spectrum force. This would allow us to conduct independent actions as needed whilst minimising the risk of getting dragged into a regional conflict. The First World War was a good first-hand demonstration of the unpredictable nature formal alliances can have.
CREF Plan Jericho
While China definitely has the finances to back up causing any trouble I'm not so certain that they will be able to divide the ASEAN nations as we assume. While there are some big differences between the nations one thing they all have in common (excluding Laos, Cambodia, Thailand and to some extent Burma) is that China has used there muscle to try and bully them into doing what China want's.
Hard if not impossible to cause division when you have turned all parties involved against you and those not against you have no stake and are of no use in the dispute.
As it is while beyond Singapore we may not share any true deep allied relations we do share historical ties with some and common interests with others.
Individually any single nation excluding the US would have no chance against Russia, But when you consider that they have pi**ed of South Korea, Japan, (Taiwan?), Philippines, Vietnam, Brunei, Malaysia, Singapore, Indonesia? and Australia? and they actually do start to have them selves spread thin some what.
Even the most opposite of nations can put aside there differences to stand up to a common enemy (USA/USSR vs Nazi Germany).
That all being said there is no guarantee with Trump, He back flips so often he would likely announce war against some nation just to say they are really great guys the day after
Hard if not impossible to cause division when you have turned all parties involved against you and those not against you have no stake and are of no use in the dispute.
As it is while beyond Singapore we may not share any true deep allied relations we do share historical ties with some and common interests with others.
Individually any single nation excluding the US would have no chance against Russia, But when you consider that they have pi**ed of South Korea, Japan, (Taiwan?), Philippines, Vietnam, Brunei, Malaysia, Singapore, Indonesia? and Australia? and they actually do start to have them selves spread thin some what.
Even the most opposite of nations can put aside there differences to stand up to a common enemy (USA/USSR vs Nazi Germany).
That all being said there is no guarantee with Trump, He back flips so often he would likely announce war against some nation just to say they are really great guys the day after
I was going to mention the RAAF, they seem to have a better understanding and a better plan compared to the other two Services. Deploying a complete capability set to Iraq rather than just a few strike aircraft and expecting the US to provide the support assets as we would have in the past was wise.
RAAF is the capability lead - but its actually a JOINT solution. RAN and RAAF have worked in complex JOINT C4ISR/ISREW for a long time - RAN more than anyone else.
It just happens that the umbrella assets are mainly RAAF in the current solution sets, and they have service lead over some of the contributing space