China Declares Australia a Military Threat Over U.S. Pact

[Ray]

@s002wjh

Here is what your Chinese Communist mouthpiece GLOBAL TIMES has to say.

US to increase troops stationed in Australia
By Hu Qingyun Source:Global Times

Deal seen as move to 'encircle' China

US Secretary of State John Kerry shakes hands with Australian Foreign Minister Julie Bishop after a press conference at the conclusion of the Australia-US Ministerial Consultations at Admiralty House in Sydney on Tuesday. Photo: AFP


The US Tuesday signed a deal to deploy 2,500 Marines to Australia, which will give it a further edge to militarily "encircle" China, despite its repeated reassurance toward Beijing over its intentions.

Some 1,150 Marines are stationed in Darwin in Australia's tropical north under a 2011 agreement that launched US President Barack Obama's current pivot to Asia.

The contingent, primed to respond to regional conflicts and humanitarian crises, will swell to 2,500 by 2017.

A communiqué issued after the Australia-US Ministerial Consultations said that enhanced aircraft and naval cooperation was discussed, while the allies will also examine options for Australia's contributions to ballistic missile defense in the region.

Though no details about the talks were made public, Reuters quoted a source with direct knowledge of the discussions as saying that it involves an increased tempo of visits by US fighter jets and bombers.

"So more US air force visits to northern Australia, where they can use the fabulous Delamere bombing range and they would probably base out of Tindal," the source said, referring to an Australian air force base.

After signing the deal in Sydney, US Secretary of State John Kerry said Washington was not interested in conflict with China. "We welcome the rise of China as a global partner, hopefully as a powerful economy, as a full participating constructive member of the international community," he said.

"We are not seeking conflict and confrontation. And our hope is that China will likewise take advantage of the opportunities that are in front of it and be that cooperative partner."

Chinese analysts rebuffed Kerry's remarks as "insincere," noting the move is clearly targeting China.

Speaking at the start of the talks, Kerry said the Australia-US relationship was "essential to the stability of the Asia-Pacific region," and named maritime disputes in the South China Sea as one of the new challenges in the region.

Li Jie, a military analyst, told the Global Times Tuesday that the US base in northern Australia will operate in conjunction with its existing bases in Japan, South Korea and Guam. He added that it will further boost the US presence in the South China Sea and facilitate its future maneuvers in the region. "It is moving toward encircling China," he said.

Li also noted that given that Darwin is relatively close to the South China Sea, Indonesia and the Strait of Malacca, it will help the US to exert pressure over China by sealing off its maritime passage if necessary.

Australia's Foreign Minister Julie Bishop earlier defended the deal to bring US Marines and Air Force personnel to the Northern Territory, denying it was aimed at China.

"That's not what it is directed to do at all. It's about working closely with the United States to ensure that we can work on regional peace and security," she told a radio program.

"The United States is rebalancing to the Asia-Pacific "¦ ways we can work together to support economic development as well as security and peace.

"There is a desire to share the burden of implementing regional and global peace and prosperity, security and stability," she said.

Bishop added that there was no more important security partner for Australia than the US and their long-standing alliance "had never been stronger."

Shi Yinhong, a professor at the Renmin University of China, told the Global Times that the current administration in Canberra has been actively forging close ties with the US and Japan, as it upholds the view that China's military buildup is to some extent affecting its security.

"Therefore, Australia is hoping to strengthen its military with the help of Washington, which has also been pushing for such cooperation," Shi said.

Bishop had caused displeasure in China after she remarked last month that "China doesn't respect weakness" and that Australia will speak up in defense of peace, liberal values and the rule of law.

US to increase troops stationed in Australia - Global Times

Happy?

福无重至,祸不单行
Fortune does not come twice. Misfortune does not come alone.

Even your Global Times has been rattled as has the Communist Chinese and their acolytes have been.

Too bad for China and the Communist Chinese and their acolytes.

Read Epoch Times. They are not wrong always and sometimes they are ahead of the times!

希望你今天过得很愉快

 

[s002wjh]

@s002wjh

Here is what your Chinese Communist mouthpiece GLOBAL TIMES has to say.



Happy?

福无重至,祸不单行
Fortune does not come twice. Misfortune does not come alone.

Even your Global Times has been rattled as has the Communist Chinese and their acolytes have been.

Too bad for China and the Communist Chinese and their acolytes.

Read Epoch Times. They are not wrong always and sometimes they are ahead of the times!

希望你今天过得很愉快

yes we know that for a long time. aussies has our presence since few years back. china say the same things over and over again. but where is this so call "China SAID aussies a threat"" after all china is one of auss biggest partner. my point was epochtime is a joke as news media. i'm not ccp etc i just think epochtime has some BS news. i got my news from CNN etc not from falungong practioner.

 

[s002wjh]

Thank you. That answers my question.


I agree with you and @s002wjh, but my question was a hypothetical question.

Anyway, let us see what others have to say.

Should India join in the war against PRC, should India sit it out, or should India do something else?

IF there is a conflict between US/india/japan/vietnam etc and china, who would suffer the most? Not US, but the countries near china, vietnam/phillippine/japan/india etc. china dont have ability to attack US mainland short of NUKE, but its has ability to attack japan/vietnam/india etc At most US lost some ships/economy lost gonna be huge etc but neighbors of china will get attack for sure. I have no problem for inida/japan/vietnam attack china and destroyed each other well we provide some navy aid, after the war is over we get rid of our biggest rival/competitior without sacrifice much, well you guys do the hardwork

and US will not send land force to china, it will be a disaster, but china CAN have a land war against vietnam/india, SRBM etc against japan etc.

any war with china wheather is US or other think twice about the damage what china can inflict on you, is it worth it. like i said even US wont goto war with china, and we have the least amount of loss during a war. China's neighbor well they gonna lost more than just economy.

 

[pmaitra]

IF there is a conflict between US/india/japan/vietnam etc and china, who would suffer the most? Not US, but the countries near china, vietnam/phillippine/japan/india etc. china dont have ability to attack US mainland short of NUKE, but its has ability to attack japan/vietnam/india etc At most US lost some ships/economy lost gonna be huge etc but neighbors of china will get attack for sure. I have no problem for inida/japan/vietnam attack china and destroyed each other well we provide some navy aid, after the war is over we get rid of our biggest rival/competitior without sacrifice much, well you guys do the hardwork

and US will not send land force to china, it will be a disaster, but china CAN have a land war against vietnam/india, SRBM etc against japan etc.

any war with china wheather is US or other think twice about the damage what china can inflict on you, is it worth it. like i said even US wont goto war with china, and we have the least amount of loss during a war. China's neighbor well they gonna lost more than just economy.

I am not sure what you meant by that portion highlighted in red.

I recommend all others to read this response and comment.

I see this response as a pragmatic way to look at things. I am the last person to wish to see India becoming a pawn in the game of containment of PRC, which will benefit the west, and bring disaster to India.

 

[s002wjh]

I am not sure what you meant by that portion highlighted in red.

I recommend all others to read this response and comment.

I see this response as a pragmatic way to look at things. I am the last person to wish to see India becoming a pawn in the game of containment of PRC, which will benefit the west, and bring disaster to India.

navy aid/navy support, selling weapons to india. in the event of US/china conflict or blockade china sea lanes, SCS etc, while india occupy china force in the south west. if you read my comment i made it clear whos gonna suffer most during the war. the person asking wheather india should join the conflict, after reading my comments what do you thinks.

do you think japan will help phillippine/vietnam if there is a sino-phillippine/vietnam conflict. same is true for US-china conflict, india wont get involved. some might think its good chance for india to get some those dispute land but i doubt it, any land war with china will be bad.

 

[Zebra]

Anyway, let us see what others have to say.

Should India join in the war against PRC, should India sit it out, or should India do something else?

In such situation, it will be impossible for India to stay away from it.

India's location won't allow it. Right in the middle of Asia Pacific - CAR, at the top of IOR and has border with China.

Correct me, if I am wrong.

 

[no smoking]

In such situation, it will be impossible for India to stay away from it.

I don't see how it is possible for India to get involved. The border disputation is just a tiny problem. Even though we can't settle it, but no side has the willingness and capability to fight a total war over it. The local environment can make logistics a nightmare for any side who wants to get over the mountains.

India's location won't allow it. Right in the middle of Asia Pacific - CAR, at the top of IOR and has border with China.

In contrast, India's location won't allow India to step in.

Firstly, any war between China and US would focus on the west pacific, which completely cover every inch of the Chinese coast line. When you are fighting near your doorstep, it doesn't matter your street entrance is blocked or not.

Secondly, Indian forces are too away from the main battle field (western pacific), land and sea. The contribution from India would be minimized, which means your reward would be minimized too.

Finally, there is no resource that Chinese can't get without crossing India.

Correct me, if I am wrong.

I don't see how it is possible for India to get involved.

 

[pmaitra]

In such situation, it will be impossible for India to stay away from it.

India's location won't allow it. Right in the middle of Asia Pacific - CAR, at the top of IOR and has border with China.

Correct me, if I am wrong.

It is not about wrong or right. It is about each individual's opinion.

Thank you for sharing your thoughts.

 

[Jagdish58]

Here is a question to everyone:

In the hypothetical scenario of an armed confrontation or skirmish between PRC and the neo-SEATO (US, Australia, Philippines, Viet Nam, Japan, South Korea) that is currently being created, what should India do? Should India jump in the bandwagon, or should India sit it out? Or should India do something else?

Currently india is focusing on to develop home grown technology , hence we are close with both East & West any such conflict India should sit out because our main concern in Internal security,Terrorism along with border issue

India can be a covert partner , because once getting into a camp means your policy should be mend to suit the masters

 

[Ray]

yes we know that for a long time. aussies has our presence since few years back. china say the same things over and over again. but where is this so call "China SAID aussies a threat"" after all china is one of auss biggest partner. my point was epochtime is a joke as news media. i'm not ccp etc i just think epochtime has some BS news. i got my news from CNN etc not from falungong practioner.

Australia may not feel that China is a threat; at least may shy away from officially stating so. But what are military pacts for? A display of armament for their own public?

If there were no threat in the Pacific, then why a military pact?

And surely the other nations of the Pacific are no threat to the US or Australia.

So, obviously it is China that is the threat.

And that is proved so with the whining from China and China noting the move is clearly targeting China!

 

[Ray]

I am not sure what you meant by that portion highlighted in red.

I recommend all others to read this response and comment.

I see this response as a pragmatic way to look at things. I am the last person to wish to see India becoming a pawn in the game of containment of PRC, which will benefit the west, and bring disaster to India.

IF there is a conflict between US/india/japan/vietnam etc and china, who would suffer the most? Not US, but the countries near china, vietnam/phillippine/japan/india etc. china dont have ability to attack US mainland short of NUKE, but its has ability to attack japan/vietnam/india etc At most US lost some ships/economy lost gonna be huge etc but neighbors of china will get attack for sure. I have no problem for inida/japan/vietnam attack china and destroyed each other well we provide some navy aid, after the war is over we get rid of our biggest rival/competitior without sacrifice much, well you guys do the hardwork

and US will not send land force to china, it will be a disaster, but china CAN have a land war against vietnam/india, SRBM etc against japan etc.

any war with china wheather is US or other think twice about the damage what china can inflict on you, is it worth it. like i said even US wont goto war with china, and we have the least amount of loss during a war. China's neighbor well they gonna lost more than just economy.

No country is keen to attack China for this is an era of nuclear weapons and the results can be catastrophic.

The aim of all, spearheaded by the US, is to ensure that China does not have a free run to act like a Bull in the China shop.

Basic aim would be to contain China and make it difficult for it to block seaways and poach in the territorial waters of other nations (as enunciated in the Law of the Seas).

It is basically to help China to not become rogue state and instead be a responsible state, honouring international laws and obligations.

As far as China attacking any other countries, that is exactly what the aim finally desires to become - unitedly resist such irresponsibility on the part of China by assisting each other to develop a potential defence mechanism for their countries.

One of the aim is economically make China irrelevant, by boosting indigenous industry through encouraging capital, manufacture and industry to invest in these countries where the labour is most competitive and allow exports for mutual benefit.

 

[Zebra]

I don't see how it is possible for India to get involved. The border disputation is just a tiny problem. Even though we can't settle it, but no side has the willingness and capability to fight a total war over it. The local environment can make logistics a nightmare for any side who wants to get over the mountains.

In contrast, India's location won't allow India to step in.

Firstly, any war between China and US would focus on the west pacific, which completely cover every inch of the Chinese coast line. When you are fighting near your doorstep, it doesn't matter your street entrance is blocked or not.

Secondly, Indian forces are too away from the main battle field (western pacific), land and sea. The contribution from India would be minimized, which means your reward would be minimized too.

Finally, there is no resource that Chinese can't get without crossing India.
kjhyug

I don't see how it is possible for India to get involved.

At first place the super powers won't get involved in war with each other directly and if they get involved directly then they won't care any geographical limits in war.

The reason is they won't like to get call themselves as the super power number two specially after having war with each other.

A lot more get at stake if ever that happens.

And China know it very well.


Second, China will get its 4 more aircraft carriers in near future, may be further in future as much as the US has. Who knows.

Then they may need their own naval base / ports on different strategic locations far away out side China. Just like string of pearls.

In war like situation what they gonna do! And who knows how far they remain untouched there.


Third, the battle field can't be predicted in advance. All your stories are true if the war remains strictly in West Pacific only.

 

[apple]

nope any sensible person with a brain will not read epochtime. unless you are falunkong

Agreed, it's strangely written story. I actually laughed out loud when I reads its second sentence which claimed the Marines are training, in Australia, for humanitary missions and disaster relief. The United States Marine Corps are plenty of things, but have never thought of them as great humanitaries.

That being said, the article does have a point. Although, this topic (US Marines in Oz) has been discussed on this forum before

How does Australia which does not have a very large standing military, a threat to China?

Lol epochtime. Do ppl really read news from that site

You are right.

Communist Chinese don't.

They hate that site.

Are you still continuing your scurrilous attacks, Ray, on the Australian Defence Force? Or have you just decided to display your ignorance?

When out 2 new LHD's are operational we'd, theoretically, have the ability to launch an amphibious assault, tomorrow, comprising of a reinforcened infantry battalion with attached; tanks, cav, artillery, engineers and aviation assets to anywhere in the Pacific. With our air force's new heavy lift planes and those LHD's plus other navy assets we'd, potentially, be able to reinforce that battalion with a whole brigade, virtually immediately, without requiring any foreign assistance.

Our defences forces are, at least, a generation ahead of the Chinese.

While having thousands of tanks, sitting around the desert getting rusty, might be good for India when you long borders with neighbours as crazy as Pakistan, but a labour intensive approach isn't the only way to run a defence force.

 

[Ray]

Are you still continuing your scurrilous attacks, Ray, on the Australian Defence Force? Or have you just decided to display your ignorance?

When out 2 new LHD's are operational we'd, theoretically, have the ability to launch an amphibious assault, tomorrow, comprising of a reinforcened infantry battalion with attached; tanks, cav, artillery, engineers and aviation assets to anywhere in the Pacific. With our air force's new heavy lift planes and those LHD's plus other navy assets we'd, potentially, be able to reinforce that battalion with a whole brigade, virtually immediately, without requiring any foreign assistance.

Our defences forces are, at least, a generation ahead of the Chinese.

While having thousands of tanks, sitting around the desert getting rusty, might be good for India when you long borders with neighbours as crazy as Pakistan, but a labour intensive approach isn't the only way to run a defence force.

My apologies.

Oh yes, The Royal Australian Navy (RAN) is the naval branch of the Australian Defence Force. The RAN operates 74 vessels of all sizes, including frigates, submarines, patrol boats and auxiliary ships.

The Australian Army's main combat forces are grouped in brigades. These comprise a mechanised brigade—1st Brigade, a light infantry brigade—3rd Brigade, a motorised brigade—7th Brigade, six Army Reserve brigades, an aviation brigade (16th Brigade), a combat support and ISTAR brigade (6th Brigade) and a logistics brigade (the 17th Brigade). The Army's main tactical formations are battlegroups formed around the headquarters of a battalion-sized formation.

The RAAF has eighteen flying squadrons; four combat squadrons, two maritime patrol squadrons, five transport squadrons, six training squadrons (including three Operational Conversion Units and a forward air control training squadron) and one Airborne Early Warning & Control squadron. The Air Force also includes a single independent flight (No. 5 Flight).

All set to conquer the world, right?

Shiver me timbers!

Tanks?

59 M1A1 Abrams and five M88 Hercules, What a formidable armoured force! Rommel would be quaking in his grave!

 

[Ray]

While having thousands of tanks, sitting around the desert getting rusty, might be good for India when you long borders with neighbours as crazy as Pakistan, but a labour intensive approach isn't the only way to run a defence force.

Yes, Indian army has no teeth.

248 Arjun MBT and develop and induct the Arjun MK-II variant, 1,657 Russian-origin T-90S main-battle tanks, apart from the ongoing upgrade of its T-72 fleet.

Explosive Reactive Armor (ERA), mine ploughs, ability to fire Anti-tank missile with 120 mm main gun, Advanced Air Defense gun capable of shooting down Helicopters with a 360 degree coverage, Automatic Target Tracking (ATT) lending a greater accuracy when it comes to moving targets and superior Laser Warning and Control systems.The Indian Army will upgrade its entire Boyevaya Mashina Pekhoty-2 (BMP-2)/2K infantry combat vehicle (ICV) fleet in an effort to enhance their capability to address operational requirements. Upgrades include integration of latest generation fire control system, twin missile launchers and commander's thermal imaging panoramic sights, anti- tank guided missiles, as well as automatic grenade launchers.

Under the Field Artillery Rationalization Plan, the army plans to procure 3000 to 4000 pieces of artillery at the cost of US$3 billion. This includes purchasing 1580 towed, 814 mounted, 180 self-propelled wheeled, 100 self-propelled tracked and 145 ultra-light 155 mm/52 caliber artillery guns. After three years of search and negotiations, in September 2013, India ordered M777 155mm howitzers from USA.[

To lend greater firepower support to the mechanized infantry, DRDO has developed Pinaka multiple rocket launcher. The system has a maximum range of 39–40 km and can fire a salvo of 12 HE rockets in 44 seconds, neutralizing a target area of 3.9 km2
@apple.

You are right, The world capturing Australian army is way better!

Live up to your day dreams but admit like as below:

Din! Din! Din!
You Lazarushian-leather Gunga Din!
Tho' I've belted you an' flayed you,
By the livin' Gawd that made you,
You're a better man than I am, Gunga Din!

Don't delude and hallucinate!

 

[no smoking]

At first place the super powers won't get involved in war with each other directly and if they get involved directly then they won't care any geographical limits in war.

The reason is they won't like to get call themselves as the super power number two specially after having war with each other.

A lot more get at stake if ever that happens.

And China know it very well.

It is not how well China know it. Instead it is how much American know it. The power balance between US and China is changing in favor of China comparing to 20 years ago, which means it is impossible to keep the international relationship in this area as 20 years. The only to hold the whole system still is stop the rising of China. For Chinese, if they accept this, they will lose even more than a failure of war.

Second, China will get its 4 more aircraft carriers in near future, may be further in future as much as the US has. Who knows.

Then they may need their own naval base / ports on different strategic locations far away out side China. Just like string of pearls.

In war like situation what they gonna do! And who knows how far they remain untouched there.

No matter how many aircraft carriers they will have (at least not next 20 years), they can't go anywhere without forcing US navy out of East Asia. After all, if you can't control your doorway, it is pointless thinking about the shop in another street.

Third, the battle field can't be predicted in advance.

No, you can especially when you know which 2 countries are the major participants.

All your stories are true if the war remains strictly in West Pacific only.

Of course, my stories are true because that is where the American and Chinese military leaders are looking at and also the major weapons they are investing.

 

[Zebra]

Clive Palmer goes on rant against China on Q&A, claims China govt are 'mongrels' who kill their own people and want to take over Australia | News.com.au

 

[apple]

Yes, Indian army has no teeth.

You are right, The world capturing Australian army is way better!

Live up to your day dreams but admit like as below:

Don't delude and hallucinate!

Never said the Indian army has no teeth. Unlike yourself, I don't feel the need to insult others to make myself look big.

Good to see you research the Australian Army on wikipedia.

Doesn't make you a subject matter expert and there's no point in you continuing to attempt to insult me, my country or my nation's army. I have no respect for, or interest in, your opinions.

Clive Palmer goes on rant against China on Q&A, claims China govt are 'mongrels' who kill their own people and want to take over Australia | News.com.au

Palmer's an extremist with little public support. But, he does have some supporters and people like him often help shape public debate. How important his views are though is quite hard to quantify.

 

[Ray]

Never said the Indian army has no teeth. Unlike yourself, I don't feel the need to insult others to make myself look big.

Good to see you research the Australian Army on wikipedia.

Doesn't make you a subject matter expert and there's no point in you continuing to attempt to insult me, my country or my nation's army. I have no respect for, or interest in, your opinions.




Palmer's an extremist with little public support. But, he does have some supporters and people like him often help shape public debate. How important his views are though is quite hard to quantify.

If mentioning historical facts and ground realities is insulting, I am guilty.

If deluding oneself and being a frog in the well and feel the world is a goldfish bowl, then I am afraid that is not my way of approaching truth and reality.

Apart from Wiki, may I educate you that I have worked with officers of the Australian Army and so I am not all that clueless as you feel.

It is no secret that I check back the facts that I am aware of before putting it out in an open forum.

You will appreciate that only a fool and an impetuous one still green behind the ear would pen his thoughts recklessly and then eat humble pie.

I have never asked you to respect or disrespect my opinions. I live in the 'free world', in case you have forgotten.

All I have done is express my point of view, which makes your sensitive ears go red and blurs your eyes with tears of misplaced patriotic indignation.

Learn to face facts, realism and truth, even if it be not your cup of tea.

Instead of indicating indignation, do be good enough and refute what I have stated. That would do a world of good and even educate me.

Rambling with supercharged and turbocharged misplaced patriotism would not get you the Olive Wreath.

 

[Zebra]

It is not how well China know it. Instead it is how much American know it. The power balance between US and China is changing in favor of China comparing to 20 years ago, which means it is impossible to keep the international relationship in this area as 20 years.

Dude, Americans already knew it that China is coming as next super power. They knew it well before even Chinese people know it.

And you cry here for "international relationship", the fact is all those who were on US side, they still remain as it is.

On top of it, thanks to Chinese aggression, few more countries started talks with the US and its allies now.

The only to hold the whole system still is stop the rising of China. For Chinese, if they accept this, they will lose even more than a failure of war.

Who and how any one can stop China's rise?

Are there anything left to rise further more, I wonder. And let us know which is the limit that China wants to achieve in future.

No matter how many aircraft carriers they will have (at least not next 20 years), they can't go anywhere without forcing US navy out of East Asia. After all, if you can't control your doorway, it is pointless thinking about the shop in another street.

In near future China is getting atleast 4 more, if all go as per plan.

China secured its "doorstep" and "doorway" much better way since last many years, that too without any aircraft carrier.

Now they needs five, just to secure that "doorstep" again.

And you want me to buy that "secure doorstep" and "doorway" crap. Yeah?

No, you can especially when you know which 2 countries are the major participants.

It could be the US dream to keep war at their enemy's "doorstep". But here Chinese themselves are dying to keep it at their own "doorstep".

Of course, my stories are true because that is where the American and Chinese military leaders are looking at and also the major weapons they are investing.

Please enlighten me, which "major" weapons you are talking about.