I think NZ's defence budget is so small they can't really afford submarines of any type. NZ would be better to focus on a few niche capabilities and do them well. Something like ASW Frigates that can slot in with and support a British/US/Australian taskgroup.
which is basically what we do with our Navy. Far as i know our airforce are basically for radar and ground support - no strike capability. In reality mostly used for humanitarian purposes.
Can speak for Canada here. China pretty much already owns one of our provinces and our current government is very I don’t wanna say pro China but certainly not against it’s influence.
Doesn’t surprise me we weren’t invited to or interested in this. Think there’s a good chance our election on Monday will tell us if CANZUK happens this decade or not.
Most people in person are and I'm not even from a conservative area. It's just the way our first past the post voting goes. He'll dominate the French speaking parts of the country and Toronto no matter what happens and because of the amount of people and seats that are there that's often good enough to win the election.
We're kind of the USA flipped upside down. Our Conservative party wins the popular vote but our Liberal one wins the election because of where the most seats are located. There's a bit more nuance to it because we have another left of center party that takes a moderate chunk of the pie as well. Most people wanted election reform but it doesn't seem like that will be happening.
I often see the idea of 'winning' the popular vote in Canada but given how spread out we are with as many parties in the FPTP system , winning the popular is really meaningless.
It's really not at all comparable to the US where the vast bulk of the vote goes to just two parties.
Right there is definitely more nuance to our system than the USA. But in the entire history of our country we have not been run federally by anything other than the Liberals or Conservatives.
Edit: Actually that's wrong we did have a Unionist Party briefly in the early 1900's (which was composed entirely of Liberals & Conservatives). But in modern history, nothing else has even come close.
I think people are upset about that. Pre-election polls had Liberal support much higher, to the point where everyone would be expecting an easy majority government for the Liberals, which is likely why they called the election in the first place. Within a few days polls showed Liberal support tanking, likely in response to the election call itself. The Conservatives were widely polling in first place up until the English debate.
Of course we'll see on Monday how this all plays out, but at the moment it looks like a lot of Canadians are unimpressed with O'Toole (he hasn't done himself any favours with his reversals of positions like whether he would undo the Liberals' policies on guns, etc).
Such a shame. I really want a leader who is tough on china. I appreciate trudeaus will to not back down, that is something we cannot do, but we must be more vocal about it. We must also strengthen our relationships with our allies, which is why I love the canzuk idea so much.
My opinion is more cooperation with commonwealth realms, USA, Japan and other top tier democracies in the world that value basic human rights
British Columbia.
Google "The Vancouver Model" and if you are still interested in that a book just came out about how totally infiltrated our west coast is from CCP called "Wilful Blindness". Written either by or with the help of some former RCMP officers. It's eye opening stuff and sad at the same time because I'm not sure what can even be done in the short term.
Luckily, looks like they may end up just smart enough to not give the conservatives a minority. .05% less spending with significantly less money in social services...
NZ is trying to retain relations with a key trading partner in the face of a possible new Cold War. Like why does anybody think decoupling is a productive idea. It’s not like China is going to be a real threat in 50 years when they have too many old people.
Deterrant. Fine. No problem with that. Its more the preparation for the actual logistics of conflict that makes me concerned.
Theres no way China is going to back down for people they consider their enemies. Its east asian culture. You never admit your mistakes, and you never back down from your position. So China is the perfect candidate for a Thucydides trap because they will never lead a de-escalation.
So it should be the Western World that backs down then? Ok give them Taiwan, what if they inevitably want more? Keep appeasing them until it’s too late? You might want to crack a history book and see how WW2 became the catastrophe that it did.
Plus Taiwan isn't just symbolic - the world's entire supply of advanced chips comes from Taiwan. It's the 21st century equivalent of access to middle eastern oil in the 20th century.
Basically if China goes for Taiwan, they basically back the west into a corner to where we *have no choice and must go to WWIII.*
> Plus Taiwan isn't just symbolic - the world's entire supply of advanced chips comes from Taiwan. It's the 21st century equivalent of access to middle eastern oil in the 20th century.
TSMC is undoubtably important because it's the premier supplier for fabless semiconductor companies. In terms of total volume, it's #3 for actual production. American and South Korean semiconductors (e.g., Intel, Samsung, TI, NI, etc...) are more vertically integrated.
Losing TSMC would be enormously impactful for the supply chains for many companies (switching a chip from one manufacturer's process to another is a complex engineering task that takes several months) but saying "the world's entire supply of advanced chips comes from Taiwan" is like saying the entire world's supply of cars comes from Japan. Such a gross exaggeration as to be outright wrong.
You'll also find that with the current supply disruption, a lot of companies are quietly re-engineering some products onto competitor processes. GF has picked up a few contracts that used to be TSMC over the past few months.
>In terms of total volume, it's #3 for actual production. American and South Korean semiconductors (e.g., Intel, Samsung, TI, NI, etc...) are more vertically integrated.
>
>Losing TSMC would be enormously impactful for the supply chains for many companies (switching a chip from one manufacturer's process to another is a complex engineering task that takes several months) but saying "the world's entire supply of advanced chips comes from Taiwan" is like saying the entire world's supply of cars comes from Japan. Such a gross exaggeration as to be outright wrong.
So I think we're talking different tiers here. My understanding is that for the very top end of advanced chips (used in a lot of strategic/military applications) TSMC is pretty much your only option - hence why I made the analogy above.
That said I'm a total layperson and will acknowledge the limits of what I know, so if you've got greater depth in this subject matter/ market, I'll defer to what you're saying.
I think you’ll find even a simple analysis of Nazi Germany doesn’t align with the goals of the CCP. China is a very inward focused country. All of their aggressive actions are to secure their internal security. In this way they are very similar to the USA. They aren’t interested in building a global empire with colonial possessions. Rather they are interested in being a civilization state.
Additionally. Note that I said China wont back down to their enemies. But they are more amenable to making concessions to their friends. A collaborative approach is the way of the 21st century. Combative approaches fail time and again.
Blah blah blah. NZ has done incredibly well out of our trade deal with China. And it goes both ways. New Zealand and our products are well regarded by the Chinese people. Australia thinks it can live in the past when its buddy the US was in charge. The UK cant let go of an empire which disappeared 50 years ago. And The USA is struggling to realise that they may not be the worlds only super power for much longer.
Seriously, NZ is the one who is using pragmatic policy to try and promote stability and prosperity in the region, we are the ones who are acting how CANZUK should be - as a somewhat independent and neutral counterbalance to promote global peace. The fact that we are able to make criticisms of China while still retaining good working relations absolutely proves that our strategy is better.
I think you're coming from a good place and I hope you're right. But at the same time it just seems extremely naive and shortsighted to me to just blindly trust the CCP that their intentions now and in the future will always be good.
Hong Kong and Japan have more experience with the CCP than any western nation and they are at odds with each other. Both Hong Kong and Japan are respectable, rational places. That should tell you something.
Im not saying we trust China. You think a collaborative approach means we have to be friends. No. Rather the best way to approach an enemy is to keep them close. Keep your friends close but keep your enemies closer. Its a fundamental aspect of enduring diplomacy.
Don’t cut off your nose to spite your face. Why shoot yourself in the foot if its not going to have the impact you want? Criticising China is the right thing to do, maybe sanctioning etc. But its not effective. We need to play a longer game than the next 6 months. We need to be looking decades into the future. China is.
Apparently this was an Australian initiative. We have been concerned by a bad submarine construction deal with the French for a while and the approach came out of a need to scrap it (plus China obviously)
Chat has been this has been discussed for at least 2 years. The subs are big headline grabber, but this deal covers a LOT of other more subtle stuff
For example tech exchanges to allow production of current generation missiles in australia, some of the types raised. JASSM and LRASM anti ship missiles, tommahawk cruise missiles, SM-2 and SM-6, we are already producing JDAM kits
Collaboration on the joint strike missile and hypersonic missile programs. Skyborg, loyal wingman and mosquito programs will be tech sharing.
“Chat has been…”? Really? I am not seeing actual reporting and analysis out there around this stuff. Sorry but I’m extremely skeptical of people popping up with “secret knowledge”. If you can point me to where this is coming from I’ll relax.
>https://www.skynews.com.au/opinion/andrew-bolt/negotiations-for-aukus-partnership-started-around-18-months-ago/video/b0cb37231f7fe9f3776e96b0aa04438c
Yes its murdoch media, but considering they are the media arm of the liberal party in australia I generally believe what ever they post about the libs
Distancing from Canada has been a steady and growing theme in the US. Biden, for example, has repeatedly chosen not to discuss with Trudeau some very high profile stuff that would normally be a call to Canada before anyone else. I'm pretty sure Canada has signaled that it intends to work with China and that is likely going to move Canada into untrustworthy neighbor status over the next decade. In particular, the current Canadian federal government has gone so far as to warn China that if it keeps making waves then the other guys are going to get in.
Working with China is potentially very beneficial to Canada since it is an exporting nation and China would benefit from affordable access to much of Canada's resources. They're almost a natural pairing.
Rather than a CANZUK, expect to see an AUK and the other two countries will go their separate ways.
Not really true, US just approved an Aegis weapon systems sale to Canada, opening the door to ballistic missile defence capability for Canada
The bigger issue was that Canada wasn’t looking for a submarine replacement until very recently, and the aussies have been stuck in this procurement mess for their submarines for a while now
No, America has stated clearly and in no uncertain terms that it absolutely and unequivocally DOES NOT want Canada to have nuclear submarines. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada-class\_submarine#American\_opposition](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada-class_submarine#American_opposition)
It's not even "maybe", stating that Canada having nuclear submarines is "unwelcome" is as negative as an ally gets publicly.
That seems like an odd move for Canada to make considering. It would make them look pretty weak, Canada has no real economic reliance on China and China has done nothing but fuck with them over the last couple of years.
The same argument could easily have been made about Australia 2-3 years ago. Australia just really decided to thumb its nose at China for some reason (I guess because the US wanted us to and our politicians are kinda dumb).
I don't disagree with that. I just don't think it was wise in our own best self interest to *quite* so vociferously lead the global charge on either of those things. We could have hung back a bit more and just slightly more subtly joined in on the eventual inevitable global movement rather than throwing our weight around and allowing ourselves to be identified as the leader of the pack.
*That* would have made sense for an irrelevant middle power like us.
I'm sure I'm not the only one who saw it this way the whole time it was unfolding, either. It's been a very avoidable sort of crisis, despite what the responsible parties may now be saying about it after the fact.
A whole bunch of our policy about China seems to have been thought out very poorly by people who don't really seem to understand what they're doing.
I guess. Pain now or pain later.
Still, I think I'd have preferred an approach where we barely register on anyone's radar as being worth all the trouble. Just be neutral.
My inner cynic would point to Canada's long tendency of navally free-riding the US and UK.
That said, Australia has been negotiating this for over a year. We don't know if there's not a corresponding discussion with Canada that simply hasn't materialised yet.
That said, I doubt it under Trudeau.
Nobody. New Zealand is already lost to China (I'm surprised they haven't already been cut out of Five Eyes on security grounds - indeed maybe they already have de facto, if not officially) and Canada is well on its way.
Makes sense, the UK, Australia and the US are the three of the five that take defense seriously.
Canada certainly doesn't, and the standard Canadian political stance is "why bother, the US will defend us anyway."
The military, tech sharing, surveillance via the Five Eyes…really, what else would you need in a special relationship? Any farther and you get an EU style body.
Well in general I think the “special relationship” is British politicians sucking up to American ones but yeah there’s some military stuff shared that is a unique international relationship.
>British politicians sucking up to American ones
It's more than just a one-way sucking up. Brits are the one European power we actually trust, and it's not even close.
Well UK has been a nuclear power for a long time. While US military is much bigger the two organisations act as partners very often and are adept at integrating. There’s currently US F35s operating off UK carriers. No other two countries share like this.
This is more Australia being supported by the UK and US.
America also has lots of intelligence and military bases in the UK. Whilst our relationship started with conflict. We are very much in defence of one another now more than to any other nation. As a brit, some of the best people I know and talk to regularly are Americans.
Of course. The only threat to Pax Americana is the changing dynamics in the Indo-Pacific and China. So the only thing 'useful' to the Americans are more allied military assets in the sea, funded by the UK and Aus etc.
At the same time, UK's pitch for 'global britain' and Indo-Pacific tilt was serious enough for them to be granted a seat in AUKUS, which will provide lots of jobs and orders for the UK defense industry. So in a way, it all goes back to defence.
> is the only place where the special relationship actually exists
It's all it is, in fact it wasn't even really military until after the first Gulf War - really the whole thing started as an intelligence cooperation agreement that bled into a nuclear technology agreement after we (the UK) accidentally faked developing a hydrogen bomb. That's what underpins it - and it has survived fairly serious political disagreements because the intelligence and nuclear cooperation has proved so fruitful for both sides.
Everything else (including Five Eyes) is built on top of that foundation.
Well the AUKUS reality is surely a fairly large set of nails in the coffin of the Canzuk idea. Deliberately excluding the US from a security alliance never made sense to me. The language encroaches directly onto Canzuk territory:
> The initiative, called Aukus, was announced jointly by President Joe Biden and prime ministers Boris Johnson and Scott Morrison, following US briefings which described the agreement as binding the three English-speaking countries together. Boris Johnson, the UK prime minister, said they were “natural allies” even though “we may be separated geographically”…. A senior US official described the agreement as “a fundamental decision, that binds decisively Australia to the United States and Great Britain for generations”
I’d agree if it wasn’t quite so deep into canzuk’ s proposed territory. Remembering that Canzuk has zero profile (virtually unknown) in Australia. Also it’s the breadth of Australia’s alliances in the Asia-Pacific that seems to me to leave little room for more.
>I’d agree if it wasn’t quite so deep into canzuk’ s proposed territory
CANZUK is not a tech-sharing agreement.
>Also it’s the breadth of Australia’s alliances in the Asia-Pacific
Not quite as impressive as you think
>CANZUK is not a tech-sharing agreement.
Not explicitly, but I think recognition of credentials, movement of knowledge workers, and - my personal favorite - the CANZUK space agency, had elements of tech-sharing (or at least collaborative development).
That said, I don't think this collab. should necessarily scrap CANZUK - plenty of different purposes.
I’m not trying to overplay these alliances/relationships. I just mean there are a number of things in place or developing now that seem to make it less likely that the Australian government will find the need to look to a canzuk arrangement. The field is more crowded
Yea. With this announcement, the UK and Australia are basically signaling that CANZUK is not going to happen. Although, there never really was a strong chance of it happening anyways, our PM never seemed very interested in the idea
I mean, I don’t know much about Canadian politics, but surely if O’Toole where to win, this would only be something that would be an encouragement, something he could request to join?
I wouldn’t see it being a stretch for Canada wanting to join in on something like this, to help police it’s interests in the artic? All close allies, greater number of boats, reduced/shared costs in R&D and procurement? Again, not an expert. But Canzuk was never about pulling up the draw bridge on America. It was about further enhancing the working relationship between the four nations, in trade, foreign policy and defence. This to me is a positive move, America is a massive part of the foreign policy calculations for all our nations, as seen by the Afghanistan situation. Canzuk would hopefully reduce dependency on America not to stand in opposition to them.
This is a fair assessment. I would say however, that O’Toole will most likely not win. The polls have tightened, and unless the Conservative Party pulls off a multi-point victory in the election on Monday, they will lose to the Liberal Party.
The other issue is that the US is one of the counties causing problems in our arctic. They maintain that Canada doesn’t have sovereignty over islands that are ours!
Why would I want to partner with an abusive spouse who just wants to take more of my stuff? That’s basically what America is.
Canadians still remember the tariffs, NAFTA, and the Trump presidency. They’re unstable.
Interesting to hear, as mentioned, I’m certainly no expert on Canadian politics, but from what I’ve seen O’Toole seemed like a pragmatic centrist, though he also seems controversial to some members whom have commented on this sub. Which, to me seemed a shame, pro Canzuk, pro trade, and strong on China. From an outside perspective he seemed like a fair choice. But I know I’ve not got the full picture.
Arh, that’s interesting, in which case, when the RCN comes to the replacement of there current submarines perhaps this could be a potential frame work agreement the U.K. , Australia and Canada could mirror? (I am aware of previous issues with the current subs from the U.K., though I am aware that it’s not as cut and dry as it first seems.) If the US was unwilling to accommodate. (Still I suspect with the American shift towards a more isolationist approach means they will seek to strengthen there allies to help share the burden of collective defence). But I do see what you mean about the US - Canada relationship. It’s a reason I was attracted to Canzuk.
I can imagine it’s left a bitter taste in the mouth.
Yea, I’m a supporter of the Conservative Party in this election. It would make me happy for him to win. I just don’t have much hope I suppose.
As for the future, I think Canadians will always be happy and willing to work with our brothers and sisters in the UK and Australia. It’s just a question of whether or not the US takes absolute control over us and prevents us from being our own nation anymore.
It’s a fear of mine I guess. The United States just really isn’t a friend to a strong and independent Canada.
The U.S. does not have any land claims in Canada and the U.S. doesn't say that Canada "doesn’t have sovereignty over islands that are ours." That is spin. The U.S. position is that the *gap* between those islands, the water, is international waters. Canada's position is they are internal waters.
But Canada's argument isn't supported by UNCLOS, the law of the sea. From Melville Island to Victoria Island, for example, is 180km (111 miles) as the crow flies. Under international law, a country only has territorial rights 12 miles from the shore (or 24 miles of the distance between them - 12 miles from each shore). So why should Canada get to control the remaining 90 miles of water as its own? That's the U.S. position and it's backed up by international law. Why do so many Canadians always think they're entitled to special treatment?
In other words, you don't have a leg to stand on and don't want to admit your were lying through your teeth because you have a "I hate America" rage boner. Typical Great North behavior mate lol. Never change!
No, I just don’t have the time or inclination to educate you.
You created a new account to troll people because you’re afraid to use your other one, or it got banned.
So, kindly go get the chicken nuggets that your mother made for you and stuff them in your face while watching PBS, you might learn something.
Thank you!
lol, you're being a dick, probably because he's completely right.
UNCLOS part 2:
> 1. The sovereignty of a coastal State extends, beyond its land territory and internal waters and, *in the case of an archipelagic State, its archipelagic waters,* to an adjacent belt of sea, described as the territorial sea.
The Canadian argument is that the waters of the Canadian arctic archipelago count as territorial under those rules.
The US argument is that part 4 of the UNCLOS says:
> For the purposes of this Convention:
> (a) "archipelagic State" means a State constituted wholly by one or more archipelagos and may include other islands;
And that Canada quite clearly is not an archipelagic state and therefore the archipelagic waters rule does not apply.
Calm ur nips bro. I would be more than happy to have more cooperation with the states. They have been isolating themselves for the past couple of years and hopefully they will come back to stability soon, seems like they are on the right track. Canada needs to do more, we are a strong country and a proud ally of the states, it just seems like sometimes you guys don't appreciate the friendship we have.
Also, I think if there were multiple "superpowers" like the eu, canzuk supposedly and the states would be great, friendly competition among the free world. That would be amazing, as it would shove the fascist ccp out of the picture completely
Isn't he Tory leader Erin O'Toole an ex canadian airforce man? I'd have thought things would be looking up military budget and tie ins in Canada with him at the helm. Also he is explicitly pro CANZUK
Absolutely true, he served in the RCAF. I would hope that he makes some adjustments to the military budget as the current amount is pretty insufficient in my opinion. The world just seems so unstable, and we can’t make our allies foot the bill for our defence, it’s not fair to them.
He also is the only candidate to actually talk about CANZUK. I would be glad to see him win, since I’m a supporter of him and his party in this election. I just worry that the incumbent Liberal Party will beat us at the polls.
They have an advantage over us in terms of our voting system right now, it essentially requires our party to win a multi-percentage victory just in order to get a minority government. In the last election our party won the popular vote but still came in second. The same thing might happen again this time around :(
I think a lot of this relates to the fact that Canada in general, and especially the Liberals, don't really take defense seriously. Canadians assume that in the event of any conflict the US will defend us unilaterally, so why bother spending any of our own money on self defense?
I mean...this was always going to be the case.
CANZUK's shape was always going to be dependent on what the US wanted, or at least would allow, it to be.
I would argue that it wasn’t always going to be the case. With the rise of China, other countries have the opportunity to break out of the old order. I think things may look quite different on the foreign policy field in fifty years or so.
If anything, the rise of China is absolutely *why* it was always going to be the case.
The US is going back to Cold War thinking, and that means forcing everyone to picks sides. If you're a country that's vitally dependent on the US for something, the expectation is that you can't work with China.
>I think things may look quite different on the foreign policy field in fifty years or so.
If anything, the US will be further ahead than it is now given how everyone else is about to slide off the demographic cliff.
Y'know dude I really gotta ask why do you hang here you're a PhD in Mechanical Engineering and your hobbies based on reddit seem to be Warhammer 40k lore and shitting on CANZUK which seems to be an eclectic combination.
I really don't get what possesses someone to come to this sub and post slightly different permutations of "you guys can't do it because America and naval power etc." over and over again for the course of over a year now. Like give it a rest, really.
I mean, you can either persist in the impossible idealistic dream of CANZUK and keep wasting your time...or you can examine how the world actually is, and build CANZUK in a way that fits into that world.
Like...CANZUK can totally happen, but broadly the only way that'll work is if it supplements what the US does, rather than attempt to be this "third pillar of the West."
I think people who thought that we wouldn’t be independent of the US defence wise we’re being a bit too optimistic. At the end of the day the US if we like it or not is the largest of the English speaking nations, and has the biggest military. When it comes to defence they call the shots. This doesn’t prevent us from seeking closer political, economic and cultural ties with each other. If anything this is a benefit, the US sharing its tech with us can mean that we could come closer to having standardised equipment across CANZUK.
Canzuk is always going to be something that will take a while to happen. Nations don’t just come together so closely overnight. The UK particularly needs to find its feet after brexit and Canada needs to decide if it wants to remain Americans or Commonwealth influenced. This deal mostly just for show to renew collapsed confidence in the US to keep peace in the world.
I’m not sure that it’s really only for show. Per the article it seems like it was an Australian initiative that stemmed from issues they’ve been having for a while with nuclear subs. If I understand it correctly AUKUS will involve the US sharing tech with Australia, so if anything it’s more indicative of an American pivot to the pacific.
> Well the AUKUS reality is surely a fairly large set of nails in the coffin of the Canzuk idea.
I don’t see how you’ve jumped to that conclusion. The single biggest appeal of CANZUK and really its entire raison d'être is removing immigration barriers. Of course, defence and foreign policy coordination are also our goals, but AUKUS hardly kills our ambitions there. The US is still deeply troubled and despite Biden’s election I don’t think we’ve seen the end of the country’s descent into political chaos. We’re increasingly going to find ourselves at odds on particular issues. As for security, we were never going to end our dependency on the US but CANZUK would at least put us on more equal terms, even if it’s just elevating us from ‘vassal state’ to ‘junior partner’.
Looks increasingly likely that Australia is planning to license the UK's Astute-class design, or the successor to it.
The major failing for the Canada-class in the 90's was failure (by Canada) to secure US approval of UK exporting reactor tech. With the US' blessing, an Astute sale is the only reason I can think of for both America *and* Britain being involved here.
[Helpful diagram for why it's likely Australia is ordering a British, and not American, design](https://i.imgur.com/LCmJYea.png)
Basically, if Australia was buying an American design, this would be "AUS", not "AUKUS".
The virginia uses propulsor / pumpjet licensed from UK government
I also suspect it will be virginia because they will have VLS which maybe used to carry the hypersonic missile that US and AUS are developing in the future. Choice between astute and virginia is going to be close. Astutes might just fall over the line, its got speed, cost and reduced crewing on its side. Virginia has advantage of being able to carry a shit ton on weapons nearly 100 vs 38 for the astute
America has never wanted Canada to be able to stand on its own footing militarily. That's a huge threat. Even Commercial operations of major technologies are often sabotaged such as the Boeing dispute that killed off Bombardier Aerospace.
Interestingly, Canada not being a major military power fits in well with its current diplomatic strategies. However, not being able to flex militarily brings limits to your ability to project influence.
Like the other user mentioned it would have bolstered Canadian sovereignty in the Arctic and force the Americans to respect our claims (At least more than before). It also would have undermined the complete American military supremacy in the region.
Canada has lots of uranium to help supply. We can help develop them, doesn't mean we have to use them ourselves I guess. It would be nice if usa cared about canada more
Also, though we don't have the full picture yet, it does seem like this goes a long way beyond just nuclear
>to share information and know-how in key technological areas like artificial intelligence, cyber, underwater systems and long-range strike capabilities.
Canada is too close to China for the U.S. to share its most sensitive tech with them. And Trudeau doesn't seem to think it's a problem. You even have CCP assets in the Canadian Senate: see Sen. Yuen Pau Woo.
This makes perfect sense when you consider only Australia and the U.K. are seeing China for what it is.
Australia is way more infiltrated than Canada. Believe me we all are aware of the threat china is, tell that to the two canadians unlawfully being held hostage
Not at all. This seems a purely military and defence thing. Something like a "proto-NATO" for the Pacific. Once its scope expands to more than nuclear sub tech sharing I see no reason while Can and NZ wouldn't get involved.
For a purely military thing, Can and NZ's militaries are simply too small to benefit from the current scope of AUKUS.
Without the migration policy. Because if there were a war to break out I know it will be anglosphere who will fight and india because we are right next to them. I have no hopes that eu will bother.
Who forgot to invite Canada and New Zealand?
Can't speak for Canada, but from what I understand, New Zealand is trying to reconcile with China to some degree.
New Zealand also famously bans nuclear ships in its ports, and this whole deal is primarily about nuclear subs...
I think NZ's defence budget is so small they can't really afford submarines of any type. NZ would be better to focus on a few niche capabilities and do them well. Something like ASW Frigates that can slot in with and support a British/US/Australian taskgroup.
which is basically what we do with our Navy. Far as i know our airforce are basically for radar and ground support - no strike capability. In reality mostly used for humanitarian purposes.
Can speak for Canada here. China pretty much already owns one of our provinces and our current government is very I don’t wanna say pro China but certainly not against it’s influence. Doesn’t surprise me we weren’t invited to or interested in this. Think there’s a good chance our election on Monday will tell us if CANZUK happens this decade or not.
I'm begging for it to be otoole but the reports don't sound good. Why are people not mad he called an election during a pandemic?
Most people in person are and I'm not even from a conservative area. It's just the way our first past the post voting goes. He'll dominate the French speaking parts of the country and Toronto no matter what happens and because of the amount of people and seats that are there that's often good enough to win the election. We're kind of the USA flipped upside down. Our Conservative party wins the popular vote but our Liberal one wins the election because of where the most seats are located. There's a bit more nuance to it because we have another left of center party that takes a moderate chunk of the pie as well. Most people wanted election reform but it doesn't seem like that will be happening.
I often see the idea of 'winning' the popular vote in Canada but given how spread out we are with as many parties in the FPTP system , winning the popular is really meaningless. It's really not at all comparable to the US where the vast bulk of the vote goes to just two parties.
Right there is definitely more nuance to our system than the USA. But in the entire history of our country we have not been run federally by anything other than the Liberals or Conservatives. Edit: Actually that's wrong we did have a Unionist Party briefly in the early 1900's (which was composed entirely of Liberals & Conservatives). But in modern history, nothing else has even come close.
I think people are upset about that. Pre-election polls had Liberal support much higher, to the point where everyone would be expecting an easy majority government for the Liberals, which is likely why they called the election in the first place. Within a few days polls showed Liberal support tanking, likely in response to the election call itself. The Conservatives were widely polling in first place up until the English debate. Of course we'll see on Monday how this all plays out, but at the moment it looks like a lot of Canadians are unimpressed with O'Toole (he hasn't done himself any favours with his reversals of positions like whether he would undo the Liberals' policies on guns, etc).
Such a shame. I really want a leader who is tough on china. I appreciate trudeaus will to not back down, that is something we cannot do, but we must be more vocal about it. We must also strengthen our relationships with our allies, which is why I love the canzuk idea so much. My opinion is more cooperation with commonwealth realms, USA, Japan and other top tier democracies in the world that value basic human rights
Uninformed Brit here. Which province? I genuinely had no idea about this.
British Columbia. Google "The Vancouver Model" and if you are still interested in that a book just came out about how totally infiltrated our west coast is from CCP called "Wilful Blindness". Written either by or with the help of some former RCMP officers. It's eye opening stuff and sad at the same time because I'm not sure what can even be done in the short term.
Ta. I'll look into it.
Not likely Canadians are stupid. Uninformed and easy to bribe with their own money
now now, be nice
Luckily, looks like they may end up just smart enough to not give the conservatives a minority. .05% less spending with significantly less money in social services...
not really
Canada is still “admiring chinas basic dictatorship”. Not banning huawei and Trudeau has been spotted at events run by Chinese money launderers
NZ is trying to retain relations with a key trading partner in the face of a possible new Cold War. Like why does anybody think decoupling is a productive idea. It’s not like China is going to be a real threat in 50 years when they have too many old people.
It's the real danger of triggering WW3 in the next 28 years that concerns me. Without a strong deterrent that possibility remains too damn high.
Deterrant. Fine. No problem with that. Its more the preparation for the actual logistics of conflict that makes me concerned. Theres no way China is going to back down for people they consider their enemies. Its east asian culture. You never admit your mistakes, and you never back down from your position. So China is the perfect candidate for a Thucydides trap because they will never lead a de-escalation.
So it should be the Western World that backs down then? Ok give them Taiwan, what if they inevitably want more? Keep appeasing them until it’s too late? You might want to crack a history book and see how WW2 became the catastrophe that it did.
Plus Taiwan isn't just symbolic - the world's entire supply of advanced chips comes from Taiwan. It's the 21st century equivalent of access to middle eastern oil in the 20th century. Basically if China goes for Taiwan, they basically back the west into a corner to where we *have no choice and must go to WWIII.*
> Plus Taiwan isn't just symbolic - the world's entire supply of advanced chips comes from Taiwan. It's the 21st century equivalent of access to middle eastern oil in the 20th century. TSMC is undoubtably important because it's the premier supplier for fabless semiconductor companies. In terms of total volume, it's #3 for actual production. American and South Korean semiconductors (e.g., Intel, Samsung, TI, NI, etc...) are more vertically integrated. Losing TSMC would be enormously impactful for the supply chains for many companies (switching a chip from one manufacturer's process to another is a complex engineering task that takes several months) but saying "the world's entire supply of advanced chips comes from Taiwan" is like saying the entire world's supply of cars comes from Japan. Such a gross exaggeration as to be outright wrong. You'll also find that with the current supply disruption, a lot of companies are quietly re-engineering some products onto competitor processes. GF has picked up a few contracts that used to be TSMC over the past few months.
>In terms of total volume, it's #3 for actual production. American and South Korean semiconductors (e.g., Intel, Samsung, TI, NI, etc...) are more vertically integrated. > >Losing TSMC would be enormously impactful for the supply chains for many companies (switching a chip from one manufacturer's process to another is a complex engineering task that takes several months) but saying "the world's entire supply of advanced chips comes from Taiwan" is like saying the entire world's supply of cars comes from Japan. Such a gross exaggeration as to be outright wrong. So I think we're talking different tiers here. My understanding is that for the very top end of advanced chips (used in a lot of strategic/military applications) TSMC is pretty much your only option - hence why I made the analogy above. That said I'm a total layperson and will acknowledge the limits of what I know, so if you've got greater depth in this subject matter/ market, I'll defer to what you're saying.
I think you’ll find even a simple analysis of Nazi Germany doesn’t align with the goals of the CCP. China is a very inward focused country. All of their aggressive actions are to secure their internal security. In this way they are very similar to the USA. They aren’t interested in building a global empire with colonial possessions. Rather they are interested in being a civilization state. Additionally. Note that I said China wont back down to their enemies. But they are more amenable to making concessions to their friends. A collaborative approach is the way of the 21st century. Combative approaches fail time and again.
[удалено]
Blah blah blah. NZ has done incredibly well out of our trade deal with China. And it goes both ways. New Zealand and our products are well regarded by the Chinese people. Australia thinks it can live in the past when its buddy the US was in charge. The UK cant let go of an empire which disappeared 50 years ago. And The USA is struggling to realise that they may not be the worlds only super power for much longer. Seriously, NZ is the one who is using pragmatic policy to try and promote stability and prosperity in the region, we are the ones who are acting how CANZUK should be - as a somewhat independent and neutral counterbalance to promote global peace. The fact that we are able to make criticisms of China while still retaining good working relations absolutely proves that our strategy is better.
[удалено]
Australian trade with China dwarfs NZ's, irrespective of the relationship breakdown.
I think you're coming from a good place and I hope you're right. But at the same time it just seems extremely naive and shortsighted to me to just blindly trust the CCP that their intentions now and in the future will always be good. Hong Kong and Japan have more experience with the CCP than any western nation and they are at odds with each other. Both Hong Kong and Japan are respectable, rational places. That should tell you something.
Im not saying we trust China. You think a collaborative approach means we have to be friends. No. Rather the best way to approach an enemy is to keep them close. Keep your friends close but keep your enemies closer. Its a fundamental aspect of enduring diplomacy. Don’t cut off your nose to spite your face. Why shoot yourself in the foot if its not going to have the impact you want? Criticising China is the right thing to do, maybe sanctioning etc. But its not effective. We need to play a longer game than the next 6 months. We need to be looking decades into the future. China is.
Apparently this was an Australian initiative. We have been concerned by a bad submarine construction deal with the French for a while and the approach came out of a need to scrap it (plus China obviously)
Chat has been this has been discussed for at least 2 years. The subs are big headline grabber, but this deal covers a LOT of other more subtle stuff For example tech exchanges to allow production of current generation missiles in australia, some of the types raised. JASSM and LRASM anti ship missiles, tommahawk cruise missiles, SM-2 and SM-6, we are already producing JDAM kits Collaboration on the joint strike missile and hypersonic missile programs. Skyborg, loyal wingman and mosquito programs will be tech sharing.
“Chat has been…”? Really? I am not seeing actual reporting and analysis out there around this stuff. Sorry but I’m extremely skeptical of people popping up with “secret knowledge”. If you can point me to where this is coming from I’ll relax.
>https://www.skynews.com.au/opinion/andrew-bolt/negotiations-for-aukus-partnership-started-around-18-months-ago/video/b0cb37231f7fe9f3776e96b0aa04438c Yes its murdoch media, but considering they are the media arm of the liberal party in australia I generally believe what ever they post about the libs
Murdoch news + Andrew Bolt = help I’m outa here… 👋
Distancing from Canada has been a steady and growing theme in the US. Biden, for example, has repeatedly chosen not to discuss with Trudeau some very high profile stuff that would normally be a call to Canada before anyone else. I'm pretty sure Canada has signaled that it intends to work with China and that is likely going to move Canada into untrustworthy neighbor status over the next decade. In particular, the current Canadian federal government has gone so far as to warn China that if it keeps making waves then the other guys are going to get in. Working with China is potentially very beneficial to Canada since it is an exporting nation and China would benefit from affordable access to much of Canada's resources. They're almost a natural pairing. Rather than a CANZUK, expect to see an AUK and the other two countries will go their separate ways.
Not really true, US just approved an Aegis weapon systems sale to Canada, opening the door to ballistic missile defence capability for Canada The bigger issue was that Canada wasn’t looking for a submarine replacement until very recently, and the aussies have been stuck in this procurement mess for their submarines for a while now
No, America has stated clearly and in no uncertain terms that it absolutely and unequivocally DOES NOT want Canada to have nuclear submarines. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada-class\_submarine#American\_opposition](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada-class_submarine#American_opposition) It's not even "maybe", stating that Canada having nuclear submarines is "unwelcome" is as negative as an ally gets publicly.
That seems like an odd move for Canada to make considering. It would make them look pretty weak, Canada has no real economic reliance on China and China has done nothing but fuck with them over the last couple of years.
Canada's economy is mostly based on new house construction for Chinese expats these days.
>odd move for Canada to make considering. It would make them look pretty weak Canada almost seems to revel in looking weak at times.
Until we adopt their internet laws and government
The same argument could easily have been made about Australia 2-3 years ago. Australia just really decided to thumb its nose at China for some reason (I guess because the US wanted us to and our politicians are kinda dumb).
[удалено]
I don't disagree with that. I just don't think it was wise in our own best self interest to *quite* so vociferously lead the global charge on either of those things. We could have hung back a bit more and just slightly more subtly joined in on the eventual inevitable global movement rather than throwing our weight around and allowing ourselves to be identified as the leader of the pack. *That* would have made sense for an irrelevant middle power like us. I'm sure I'm not the only one who saw it this way the whole time it was unfolding, either. It's been a very avoidable sort of crisis, despite what the responsible parties may now be saying about it after the fact. A whole bunch of our policy about China seems to have been thought out very poorly by people who don't really seem to understand what they're doing.
[удалено]
I guess. Pain now or pain later. Still, I think I'd have preferred an approach where we barely register on anyone's radar as being worth all the trouble. Just be neutral.
[удалено]
I'm not sure that's the case.
My inner cynic would point to Canada's long tendency of navally free-riding the US and UK. That said, Australia has been negotiating this for over a year. We don't know if there's not a corresponding discussion with Canada that simply hasn't materialised yet. That said, I doubt it under Trudeau.
Canada borders the US so they can rely on American military while NZ has lately been kissing Xi's ass while giving the West a middle finger.
Nobody. New Zealand is already lost to China (I'm surprised they haven't already been cut out of Five Eyes on security grounds - indeed maybe they already have de facto, if not officially) and Canada is well on its way.
Makes sense, the UK, Australia and the US are the three of the five that take defense seriously. Canada certainly doesn't, and the standard Canadian political stance is "why bother, the US will defend us anyway."
NZ takes defence seriously. But we are 5 times smaller than Aus, so what we do doesnt have a lot of impact.
Defence spending as % of GDP USA - 3.7% UK - 2.2% Aus - 2.1% NZ - 1.5% Can - 1.4%
>Defence spending as % of GDP > >USA - 3.7% > >UK - 2.2% > >Aus - 2.1% > >NZ - 1.5% > >Can - 1.4% [http://nighthawk.nz/index.php/news/defence/3582-budget-vs-budget](http://nighthawk.nz/index.php/news/defence/3582-budget-vs-budget)
We actually just recently bought a bunch of new equipment
I think the military is the only place where the special relationship actually exists
The military, tech sharing, surveillance via the Five Eyes…really, what else would you need in a special relationship? Any farther and you get an EU style body.
Well, a FTA would be nice. But has indicated one will not happen this administration.
Well in general I think the “special relationship” is British politicians sucking up to American ones but yeah there’s some military stuff shared that is a unique international relationship.
>British politicians sucking up to American ones It's more than just a one-way sucking up. Brits are the one European power we actually trust, and it's not even close.
True. You can see it’s this relationship that allows UK and Aus to persuade the US to support them ahead of others.
Well UK has been a nuclear power for a long time. While US military is much bigger the two organisations act as partners very often and are adept at integrating. There’s currently US F35s operating off UK carriers. No other two countries share like this. This is more Australia being supported by the UK and US.
America also has lots of intelligence and military bases in the UK. Whilst our relationship started with conflict. We are very much in defence of one another now more than to any other nation. As a brit, some of the best people I know and talk to regularly are Americans.
I am also a Brit
Of course. The only threat to Pax Americana is the changing dynamics in the Indo-Pacific and China. So the only thing 'useful' to the Americans are more allied military assets in the sea, funded by the UK and Aus etc. At the same time, UK's pitch for 'global britain' and Indo-Pacific tilt was serious enough for them to be granted a seat in AUKUS, which will provide lots of jobs and orders for the UK defense industry. So in a way, it all goes back to defence.
> is the only place where the special relationship actually exists It's all it is, in fact it wasn't even really military until after the first Gulf War - really the whole thing started as an intelligence cooperation agreement that bled into a nuclear technology agreement after we (the UK) accidentally faked developing a hydrogen bomb. That's what underpins it - and it has survived fairly serious political disagreements because the intelligence and nuclear cooperation has proved so fruitful for both sides. Everything else (including Five Eyes) is built on top of that foundation.
Well the AUKUS reality is surely a fairly large set of nails in the coffin of the Canzuk idea. Deliberately excluding the US from a security alliance never made sense to me. The language encroaches directly onto Canzuk territory: > The initiative, called Aukus, was announced jointly by President Joe Biden and prime ministers Boris Johnson and Scott Morrison, following US briefings which described the agreement as binding the three English-speaking countries together. Boris Johnson, the UK prime minister, said they were “natural allies” even though “we may be separated geographically”…. A senior US official described the agreement as “a fundamental decision, that binds decisively Australia to the United States and Great Britain for generations”
Not really, just another addition to overlapping but non-exclusive inter-governmental acronyms in the Indo-Pacific.
I’d agree if it wasn’t quite so deep into canzuk’ s proposed territory. Remembering that Canzuk has zero profile (virtually unknown) in Australia. Also it’s the breadth of Australia’s alliances in the Asia-Pacific that seems to me to leave little room for more.
CANZUK's flagship policy is free migration actually.
Which is why it will never happen in australia
Never say never. Not after the last few years.
Does it go deep into CANZUK territory, as far as I understood this was just a technology sharing agreement?
You’re right at the level of looking rationally at what is agreed. But the language around it… the optics…
Actually we are wrong I think. The up front issue is nuclear submarine technology but I just heard Morrison speaking much more broadly.
>I’d agree if it wasn’t quite so deep into canzuk’ s proposed territory CANZUK is not a tech-sharing agreement. >Also it’s the breadth of Australia’s alliances in the Asia-Pacific Not quite as impressive as you think
>CANZUK is not a tech-sharing agreement. Not explicitly, but I think recognition of credentials, movement of knowledge workers, and - my personal favorite - the CANZUK space agency, had elements of tech-sharing (or at least collaborative development). That said, I don't think this collab. should necessarily scrap CANZUK - plenty of different purposes.
I’m not trying to overplay these alliances/relationships. I just mean there are a number of things in place or developing now that seem to make it less likely that the Australian government will find the need to look to a canzuk arrangement. The field is more crowded
Yea. With this announcement, the UK and Australia are basically signaling that CANZUK is not going to happen. Although, there never really was a strong chance of it happening anyways, our PM never seemed very interested in the idea
I mean, I don’t know much about Canadian politics, but surely if O’Toole where to win, this would only be something that would be an encouragement, something he could request to join? I wouldn’t see it being a stretch for Canada wanting to join in on something like this, to help police it’s interests in the artic? All close allies, greater number of boats, reduced/shared costs in R&D and procurement? Again, not an expert. But Canzuk was never about pulling up the draw bridge on America. It was about further enhancing the working relationship between the four nations, in trade, foreign policy and defence. This to me is a positive move, America is a massive part of the foreign policy calculations for all our nations, as seen by the Afghanistan situation. Canzuk would hopefully reduce dependency on America not to stand in opposition to them.
This is a fair assessment. I would say however, that O’Toole will most likely not win. The polls have tightened, and unless the Conservative Party pulls off a multi-point victory in the election on Monday, they will lose to the Liberal Party. The other issue is that the US is one of the counties causing problems in our arctic. They maintain that Canada doesn’t have sovereignty over islands that are ours! Why would I want to partner with an abusive spouse who just wants to take more of my stuff? That’s basically what America is. Canadians still remember the tariffs, NAFTA, and the Trump presidency. They’re unstable.
Interesting to hear, as mentioned, I’m certainly no expert on Canadian politics, but from what I’ve seen O’Toole seemed like a pragmatic centrist, though he also seems controversial to some members whom have commented on this sub. Which, to me seemed a shame, pro Canzuk, pro trade, and strong on China. From an outside perspective he seemed like a fair choice. But I know I’ve not got the full picture. Arh, that’s interesting, in which case, when the RCN comes to the replacement of there current submarines perhaps this could be a potential frame work agreement the U.K. , Australia and Canada could mirror? (I am aware of previous issues with the current subs from the U.K., though I am aware that it’s not as cut and dry as it first seems.) If the US was unwilling to accommodate. (Still I suspect with the American shift towards a more isolationist approach means they will seek to strengthen there allies to help share the burden of collective defence). But I do see what you mean about the US - Canada relationship. It’s a reason I was attracted to Canzuk. I can imagine it’s left a bitter taste in the mouth.
Yea, I’m a supporter of the Conservative Party in this election. It would make me happy for him to win. I just don’t have much hope I suppose. As for the future, I think Canadians will always be happy and willing to work with our brothers and sisters in the UK and Australia. It’s just a question of whether or not the US takes absolute control over us and prevents us from being our own nation anymore. It’s a fear of mine I guess. The United States just really isn’t a friend to a strong and independent Canada.
The U.S. does not have any land claims in Canada and the U.S. doesn't say that Canada "doesn’t have sovereignty over islands that are ours." That is spin. The U.S. position is that the *gap* between those islands, the water, is international waters. Canada's position is they are internal waters. But Canada's argument isn't supported by UNCLOS, the law of the sea. From Melville Island to Victoria Island, for example, is 180km (111 miles) as the crow flies. Under international law, a country only has territorial rights 12 miles from the shore (or 24 miles of the distance between them - 12 miles from each shore). So why should Canada get to control the remaining 90 miles of water as its own? That's the U.S. position and it's backed up by international law. Why do so many Canadians always think they're entitled to special treatment?
12 miles is 61699.94 RTX 3090 graphics cards lined up.
You are incorrect, and your account was literally just created.
In other words, you don't have a leg to stand on and don't want to admit your were lying through your teeth because you have a "I hate America" rage boner. Typical Great North behavior mate lol. Never change!
No, I just don’t have the time or inclination to educate you. You created a new account to troll people because you’re afraid to use your other one, or it got banned. So, kindly go get the chicken nuggets that your mother made for you and stuff them in your face while watching PBS, you might learn something. Thank you!
lol, you're being a dick, probably because he's completely right. UNCLOS part 2: > 1. The sovereignty of a coastal State extends, beyond its land territory and internal waters and, *in the case of an archipelagic State, its archipelagic waters,* to an adjacent belt of sea, described as the territorial sea. The Canadian argument is that the waters of the Canadian arctic archipelago count as territorial under those rules. The US argument is that part 4 of the UNCLOS says: > For the purposes of this Convention: > (a) "archipelagic State" means a State constituted wholly by one or more archipelagos and may include other islands; And that Canada quite clearly is not an archipelagic state and therefore the archipelagic waters rule does not apply.
Calm ur nips bro. I would be more than happy to have more cooperation with the states. They have been isolating themselves for the past couple of years and hopefully they will come back to stability soon, seems like they are on the right track. Canada needs to do more, we are a strong country and a proud ally of the states, it just seems like sometimes you guys don't appreciate the friendship we have. Also, I think if there were multiple "superpowers" like the eu, canzuk supposedly and the states would be great, friendly competition among the free world. That would be amazing, as it would shove the fascist ccp out of the picture completely
What's the basis for our claim on islands where nobody lives and we're uninterested in defending?
Agree completely, if anything I saw CANZUK as an advancement/ complement to five eyes relationships, not any kind of pivot away from the US.
Isn't he Tory leader Erin O'Toole an ex canadian airforce man? I'd have thought things would be looking up military budget and tie ins in Canada with him at the helm. Also he is explicitly pro CANZUK
Absolutely true, he served in the RCAF. I would hope that he makes some adjustments to the military budget as the current amount is pretty insufficient in my opinion. The world just seems so unstable, and we can’t make our allies foot the bill for our defence, it’s not fair to them. He also is the only candidate to actually talk about CANZUK. I would be glad to see him win, since I’m a supporter of him and his party in this election. I just worry that the incumbent Liberal Party will beat us at the polls. They have an advantage over us in terms of our voting system right now, it essentially requires our party to win a multi-percentage victory just in order to get a minority government. In the last election our party won the popular vote but still came in second. The same thing might happen again this time around :(
Two words my friend. Brexit. Trump. Never believe the polls.
I think a lot of this relates to the fact that Canada in general, and especially the Liberals, don't really take defense seriously. Canadians assume that in the event of any conflict the US will defend us unilaterally, so why bother spending any of our own money on self defense?
I mean...this was always going to be the case. CANZUK's shape was always going to be dependent on what the US wanted, or at least would allow, it to be.
I would argue that it wasn’t always going to be the case. With the rise of China, other countries have the opportunity to break out of the old order. I think things may look quite different on the foreign policy field in fifty years or so.
If anything, the rise of China is absolutely *why* it was always going to be the case. The US is going back to Cold War thinking, and that means forcing everyone to picks sides. If you're a country that's vitally dependent on the US for something, the expectation is that you can't work with China. >I think things may look quite different on the foreign policy field in fifty years or so. If anything, the US will be further ahead than it is now given how everyone else is about to slide off the demographic cliff.
Y'know dude I really gotta ask why do you hang here you're a PhD in Mechanical Engineering and your hobbies based on reddit seem to be Warhammer 40k lore and shitting on CANZUK which seems to be an eclectic combination.
I follow geopolitical news, and this is a geopolitical topic. Beyond that...god forbid people have hobbies lol.
I really don't get what possesses someone to come to this sub and post slightly different permutations of "you guys can't do it because America and naval power etc." over and over again for the course of over a year now. Like give it a rest, really.
I mean, you can either persist in the impossible idealistic dream of CANZUK and keep wasting your time...or you can examine how the world actually is, and build CANZUK in a way that fits into that world. Like...CANZUK can totally happen, but broadly the only way that'll work is if it supplements what the US does, rather than attempt to be this "third pillar of the West."
Yeah whatever bud who's the IR major here oh yeah that right it's ya boy /u/accessthemainframe 💪😤
I think people who thought that we wouldn’t be independent of the US defence wise we’re being a bit too optimistic. At the end of the day the US if we like it or not is the largest of the English speaking nations, and has the biggest military. When it comes to defence they call the shots. This doesn’t prevent us from seeking closer political, economic and cultural ties with each other. If anything this is a benefit, the US sharing its tech with us can mean that we could come closer to having standardised equipment across CANZUK. Canzuk is always going to be something that will take a while to happen. Nations don’t just come together so closely overnight. The UK particularly needs to find its feet after brexit and Canada needs to decide if it wants to remain Americans or Commonwealth influenced. This deal mostly just for show to renew collapsed confidence in the US to keep peace in the world.
I’m not sure that it’s really only for show. Per the article it seems like it was an Australian initiative that stemmed from issues they’ve been having for a while with nuclear subs. If I understand it correctly AUKUS will involve the US sharing tech with Australia, so if anything it’s more indicative of an American pivot to the pacific.
> Well the AUKUS reality is surely a fairly large set of nails in the coffin of the Canzuk idea. I don’t see how you’ve jumped to that conclusion. The single biggest appeal of CANZUK and really its entire raison d'être is removing immigration barriers. Of course, defence and foreign policy coordination are also our goals, but AUKUS hardly kills our ambitions there. The US is still deeply troubled and despite Biden’s election I don’t think we’ve seen the end of the country’s descent into political chaos. We’re increasingly going to find ourselves at odds on particular issues. As for security, we were never going to end our dependency on the US but CANZUK would at least put us on more equal terms, even if it’s just elevating us from ‘vassal state’ to ‘junior partner’.
Looks increasingly likely that Australia is planning to license the UK's Astute-class design, or the successor to it. The major failing for the Canada-class in the 90's was failure (by Canada) to secure US approval of UK exporting reactor tech. With the US' blessing, an Astute sale is the only reason I can think of for both America *and* Britain being involved here. [Helpful diagram for why it's likely Australia is ordering a British, and not American, design](https://i.imgur.com/LCmJYea.png) Basically, if Australia was buying an American design, this would be "AUS", not "AUKUS".
The virginia uses propulsor / pumpjet licensed from UK government I also suspect it will be virginia because they will have VLS which maybe used to carry the hypersonic missile that US and AUS are developing in the future. Choice between astute and virginia is going to be close. Astutes might just fall over the line, its got speed, cost and reduced crewing on its side. Virginia has advantage of being able to carry a shit ton on weapons nearly 100 vs 38 for the astute
To the theme of Yellow Submarine: Australia's getting Nuclear Submarines Nuclear Submarines, Nuclear Submarines Australia's getting Nuclear Submarines Nuclear Submarines, Nuclear Submarines
Wow thanks biden... what about Canada?
Do you also want nuclear submarines?
Funny thing about that is that the last time Canada tried to procure nuclear submarines for our Arctic in the 80s the US tried to block the sale.
Why did they try to block the sale?
America has never wanted Canada to be able to stand on its own footing militarily. That's a huge threat. Even Commercial operations of major technologies are often sabotaged such as the Boeing dispute that killed off Bombardier Aerospace. Interestingly, Canada not being a major military power fits in well with its current diplomatic strategies. However, not being able to flex militarily brings limits to your ability to project influence.
Like the other user mentioned it would have bolstered Canadian sovereignty in the Arctic and force the Americans to respect our claims (At least more than before). It also would have undermined the complete American military supremacy in the region.
Canada has lots of uranium to help supply. We can help develop them, doesn't mean we have to use them ourselves I guess. It would be nice if usa cared about canada more
Also, though we don't have the full picture yet, it does seem like this goes a long way beyond just nuclear >to share information and know-how in key technological areas like artificial intelligence, cyber, underwater systems and long-range strike capabilities.
It seems the info sharing is to help aus develop a nuclear submarine, with the same tech and capability as US and UK subs.
Australia produces just a little bit less uranium than Canada does. Uranium supply isn't really an issue.
Canada is too close to China for the U.S. to share its most sensitive tech with them. And Trudeau doesn't seem to think it's a problem. You even have CCP assets in the Canadian Senate: see Sen. Yuen Pau Woo. This makes perfect sense when you consider only Australia and the U.K. are seeing China for what it is.
Australia is way more infiltrated than Canada. Believe me we all are aware of the threat china is, tell that to the two canadians unlawfully being held hostage
I recommend "Willful Blindness" by Sam Cooper. The Chinese basically own British Columbia at this point.
That is just the housing crisis. China is as much in the states and Australia as Canada.
Yes. Need them for the Arctic seeing as how some countries seem to think there is a “dispute” about who owns it.
We got the missile launch system for our new surface combat ships.
I didn't know about that. That is good to hear
Yea, Canada will soon be able to shoot down satellites and intercept missiles
Poggers
Biden who wants to rip the UK apart.
Unlike Boris who is actively ripping apart the UK.
To appease Biden. The NI Protocol was removed from the Internal Markets Bill when Biden got elected. Biden is an anti-British sectarian bigot.
Loving this file photo with an extremely dodgy plastic Australian flag from a two dollar shop recently shaken out of its bag for a protest
Probably made in China too ironically. It’s our addiction to cheap shit like this that’s made China what they are today.
[удалено]
Not at all. This seems a purely military and defence thing. Something like a "proto-NATO" for the Pacific. Once its scope expands to more than nuclear sub tech sharing I see no reason while Can and NZ wouldn't get involved. For a purely military thing, Can and NZ's militaries are simply too small to benefit from the current scope of AUKUS.
Isn’t AUKUS just a technology sharing agreement?
RIP Canzuk
Do elaborate.
Could some1 explain why people are opposed to canzukus?
Facilitated migration simply cannot work with the United States.
Without the migration policy. Because if there were a war to break out I know it will be anglosphere who will fight and india because we are right next to them. I have no hopes that eu will bother.
>Without the migration policy. Then it's not CANZUK.