Tuesday 17th of September 2024
Home » Blogs » Gus Leonisky's blog

how many aussie nukes? two? ten? one hundred? silly artcher with silly ideas.....

We very rarely talk about it [WE DO ON THIS ALT SITE AND OTHER ALT SITES], but Australia has lived under the protection of the US “nuclear umbrella” since the 1960s. The umbrella, however, has developed big holes. Behind the scenes, Australian and US officials quietly have started talking about the problem, and should again next week when Minister for Foreign Affairs Penny Wong and Defence Minister Richard Marles meet their US counterparts for the annual Ausmin consultations.

 

White House, Australia may need its own nukes

Peter Hartcher/SMH

 

With the fancy name of “extended nuclear deterrence”, the idea always has been that the US would use its nuclear weapons to defend an ally. Australia willingly accepted the promise, then spent the next 60 years not thinking about it. After all, we were a low-risk target in the Cold War.

A former strategist for the Australian Defence Department, Paul Dibb, maintains that Soviet officials in the 1980s told him that Australia would be a target for Moscow in the event of a nuclear war. Why? Because Australia hosts US tracking and communications facilities in Pine Gap and North-West Cape vital to American war fighting.

But the risk was low and their locations remote. No cities were at risk. And accepting America’s nuclear umbrella allowed Australia the best of all possible worlds – we didn’t have to worry about acquiring our own nukes, we could parade around the world preaching non-proliferation to everyone else, all the while feeling smugly protected by the US.

It was pretty cosy. And we didn’t like to talk about it. “Australia is unique among US allies in that it has largely preferred not to discuss US extended nuclear deterrence commitments publicly,” observes Kelsey Hartigan of the Centre for Strategic and International Studies in Washington.

Others have been more sceptical. The original doubter was French president Charles de Gaulle. He challenged John F. Kennedy over the sincerity of the American guarantee in 1961: Would the US really be willing to “trade New York for Paris” if France were at risk of atomic attack from Moscow, as de Gaulle put it?

In other words, would Kennedy have fired nuclear warheads at Russia to protect Paris from Soviet attack even if it meant that Russian retaliation would destroy New York? De Gaulle didn’t think so. France built its own nuclear forces, which remain today.

We’d rather not even think about it, but as the world grows more dangerously uncertain, is the umbrella still extended protectively over Australia? Some of the foremost US experts today say it’s not. This includes some of the people who’d potentially be advising a future president on how to act in the event of a crisis.

“You know, there are no fallout shelters in Seattle, there are no civil defence drills,” says Elbridge Colby, who was the lead author of the US National Defence Strategy in 2018 in his capacity as deputy assistant secretary of defence for strategy and force development. “Right? If we actually were preparing to potentially lose a city because of something, you would see that evidence. And so it’s obviously not going to happen,” he tells me.

This observation has a commonsense quality. No US city is preparing for possible nuclear attack. So the US is not contemplating taking the risk involved in defending its allies.

Colby currently is affiliated with the Marathon Initiative, a strategy research think tank that he co-founded. But it’s widely speculated in Washington that he’d be appointed national security adviser or similar in a potential Trump administration.

Does Colby have a point? “I think he makes a good point,” says Nadia Schadlow, the chief architect of another key US government policy document, the 2017 National Security Strategy, complementary to but distinct from the defence strategy.

“It’s difficult to counter that point because it’s true – we don’t have civil defences around the country,” she tells me. “That could reduce the credibility of our commitment” of a US nuclear shield over Washington’s allies. “But there are other options, too, such as improved missile defence to protect the United States. It is figuring out the combination of capabilities we need to improve deterrence.”

Schadlow served as deputy national security adviser for strategy during the first year of the Trump White House.

Could it be there is no real risk of nuclear strike on any US ally? It’s actually a time of greater risk than at any since the end of the Cold War. Vladimir Putin repeatedly threatens nuclear attack against the US and its NATO allies in Europe. Russia has “weapons that can hit targets on their territory”, said Putin this year, and they were risking the “destruction of civilisation”.

Further, China has built 300 new nuclear silos in the past few years and the Pentagon estimates that, at its current rate, it could have 1000 nuclear weapons by 2030. And Russia is developing entirely new nuclear weapons systems.

“Matching China and Russia’s nuclear expansion goals missile-for-nuclear missile, warhead-for-nuclear warhead,” says Henry Sokolski of the Nonproliferation Policy Education Centre, “would require a tripling or more of America’s current nuclear deployments of 1770 nuclear weapons.” He doesn’t think that’s very plausible.

“Our closest allies know this,” says Sokolski, a former US Defence Department non-proliferation official. “South Korea, Japan and Poland want either the US to base nuclear weapons on their soil, or to get nuclear weapons of their own.”

They fear the current American umbrella is no longer enough; they are seeking more protection. And all of this is happening with a conventional US president in the White House. Joe Biden has been firm in supporting US allies worldwide. In the event of a return of the doctrine of “America First” with a recrudescent Trump, uncertainties for US allies would only escalate. Would anyone seriously expect a president operating under the rubric of “America First” to risk sacrificing New York for Berlin, or San Francisco for Seoul, or Miami for Melbourne?

“I don’t think there’s any way that the American president would actually risk losing, like five American cities, because of something that North Korea did, because the stakes are too low for Americans,” says Colby.

Among US allies in the Indo-Pacific, South Korea is most immediately exposed because of a bellicose North Korea. Japan is next most vulnerable; its air force scrambles to intercept Chinese air force intrusions at an average rate of every second day. Tokyo has announced a doubling of its defence budget but has no nuclear capability of its own.

Australia’s situation is “less acute”, says Colby, because Beijing’s first priority is to establish naval dominance in its nearer realms. But as Australia integrates more closely with the US military in the next few years, the nuclear question will grow more pressing and more uncomfortable.

We know about AUKUS. It involves more than Australia buying, then building, submarines, however. Increasingly, US forces will be using Australia as an operations base. For instance, Australia is spending $8 billion to upgrade the Stirling submarine base in Western Australia so that four US and one British nuclear-powered submarine can begin rotating through in a continuous relay starting in three years.

Australian governments, Coalition and Labor, welcome all and any US facilities. The more the US depends on Australia, the more likely it will defend it, runs the logic. The vaunted ANZUS treaty contains no security guarantee whatsoever. And the US enjoys the options that Australia presents. As China’s military reach expands, the US seeks to disperse its forces to make them harder for Beijing to obliterate. Australia, to the Pentagon, looks like an unsinkable, continent-sized aircraft carrier. And submarine base, missile base and communications base.

But, of course, the more valuable Australia is to the US military, the more tempting a target it presents to Beijing. We already know that Beijing’s underlying policy towards Australia is “hostile”, a word that both Malcolm Turnbull and Kevin Rudd have used to categorise it.

But neither Washington nor Canberra is ready for any hostility of the nuclear variety against Australia. Can’t Beijing and Washington get sensible? Negotiate some nuclear restraints, as the US and the Soviets did in the Cold War? No. Beijing is refusing to discuss the topic until it has reached nuclear parity with the US. So the danger is a reality, but the protection is a fiction.

“I think we’ve got to figure out something quickly,” says Colby. He doesn’t claim to have the answers, but he does say “we should put all the options on the table to preserve these vital Asian alliances”.

Options include a policy of US allies “sharing” – hosting – American nuclear weapons, or, most radically, acquiring their own nuclear weapons.

“We’ve got to be realistic and pragmatic,” says Colby. “Non-proliferation is fantastic, but it’s not working. If we ignore the problem, we court failure and disaster.”

Peter Hartcher is political and international editor.

https://www.smh.com.au/world/north-america/if-trump-returns-to-the-white-house-australia-may-need-its-own-nukes-20240801-p5jym8.html

 

YEP....  THE MORE NUKES ON THE PLANET, THE HAPPIER?... CRAP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

YOURDEMOCRACY.NET RECORDS HISTORY AS IT SHOULD BE — NOT AS THE WESTERN MEDIA WRONGLY REPORTS IT.

a discreet code....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F1LPmAF2eNA

The Remarkable Mechanism That Secures Nuclear Weapons

 

 

MEANWHILE:

From 1952 to 1963, the British government, with the permission of the Australian government, conducted a series of nuclear weapons development tests in Australia. The testing occurred at Maralinga, South Australia; Montebello Islands, Western Australia and Emu Field, South Australia. The tests included major trials described as detonation of nuclear devices and minor trials were investigating the performance of various components of a nuclear device.

 

Atomic detonations (major trials)

In total, 12 atomic detonations of nuclear devices occurred of varying sizes (yields) across Australia. This included:

  • three at the Montebello Islands
  • two at Emu fields
  • seven at Maralinga

These atomic detonations, known as major trials, dispersed radioactive material into the environment. At Maralinga and Emu the nuclear devices were detonated from ground level and at higher altitudes. These nuclear explosions were not the major cause of contamination at Maralinga. As the nuclear device explodes, a large fireball is created. Everything inside of this fireball vaporizes and is carried upward creating a mushroom-shaped cloud. The material in the cloud cools into dust-like particles and drops back to the earth as radioactive fallout. This radioactive fallout is carried by the wind very long distances away from the site of the explosion.

At the Montebello Islands, the first nuclear device detonation was conducted in Operation Hurricane within the cargo hold of a Royal Navy ship, the HMS Plym. In the resulting atomic explosion, components of the ship became radioactive and were dispersed over the local area. These were mostly fragments of metal and have since been largely removed from the site.

The explosive yields (size of the explosion) of these tests were similar in size to the atomic weapons used on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Comparing Australian detonations

Nuclear detonations in Australia: 12
Duration: (1952-57)
Total yield: 181 kilotons

Nuclear atmospheric detonations globally: 520
Duration: 1945 - 1963
Total Yield: 545 000+ kilotons 

Nuclear detonations globally: 2100+
Duration: 1945 - present
Total yield: 600 000+ kilotons

Largest nuclear detonation: atmospheric test of Tsar Bomba by USSR in 1961
Total yield: 50 000+ kilotons

 

https://www.arpansa.gov.au/understanding-radiation/sources-radiation/more-radiation-sources/british-nuclear-weapons-testing

 

MEANWHILE:

 

315 nuclear bombs and ongoing suffering: the shameful history of nuclear testing in Australia and the Pacific

The Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons received its 50th ratification on October 24, and will therefore come into force in January 2021. A historic development, this new international law will ban the possession, development, testing, use and threat of use of nuclear weapons.

Unfortunately the nuclear powers — the United Kingdom, France, the United States, Russia, China, Israel, India, Pakistan and North Korea — haven’t signed on to the treaty. As such, they are not immediately obliged to help victims and remediate contaminated environments, but others party to the treaty do have these obligations. The shifting norms around this will hopefully put ongoing pressure on nuclear testing countries to open records and to cooperate with accountability measures.

For the people of the Pacific region, particularly those who bore the brunt of nuclear weapons testing during the 20th century, it will bring a new opportunity for their voices to be heard on the long-term costs of nuclear violence. The treaty is the first to enshrine enduring commitments to addressing their needs.

From 1946, around 315 nuclear tests were carried out in the Pacific by the US, Britain and France. These nations’ largest ever nuclear tests took place on colonised lands and oceans, from Australia to the Marshall Islands, Kiribati to French Polynesia.

The impacts of these tests are still being felt today.

All nuclear tests cause harm

Studies of nuclear test workers and exposed nearby communities around the world consistently show adverse health effects, especially increased risks of cancer.

The total number of global cancer deaths as a result of atmospheric nuclear test explosions has been estimated at between 2 million and 2.4 million, even though these studies used radiation risk estimates that are now dated and likely underestimated the risk. 

The number of additional non-fatal cancer cases caused by test explosions is similar. As confirmed in a large recent study of nuclear industry workers in France, the UK and US, the numbers of radiation-related deaths due to other diseases, such as heart attacks and strokes, is also likely to be similar.

 

https://theconversation.com/315-nuclear-bombs-and-ongoing-suffering-the-shameful-history-of-nuclear-testing-in-australia-and-the-pacific-148909

 

READ FROM TOP

 

YOURDEMOCRACY.NET RECORDS HISTORY AS IT SHOULD BE — NOT AS THE WESTERN MEDIA WRONGLY REPORTS IT.

kiloton MADness....

Nuclear-powered Virginia Class and AUKUS submarines are a useful deterrent only if they carry cruise missiles with nuclear warheads that can be launched from their unique vertical firing shaft.

Then if a distant enemy nuked Australia, we could launch an instant nuclear retaliation from such submarines lurking off their coast for months without needing refuelling.

 

America’s war machine: Unless Australia acquires nuclear weapons, why acquire AUKUS subs?    By Percy Allan

 

That’s called MAD – mutually assured destruction – both sides know that neither side could nuke the other without risking oblivion.

Australia does not have nuclear weapons, nor does it plan to acquire them.

Australia’s quest to become part of America’s armed forces 

Australia is fusing its navy, air force and army with America’s military forces. It’s called shifting from “interoperability” to “interchangeability”. One senior Australian defence officer has explained it as follows:

“…interoperability is two organisations able to work together, share information through technology and systems, and operate effectively as a joint or combined team. The higher standard of interchangeabilityincludes all that plus the ability to seamlessly exchange individual people, equipment, doctrine, and/or systems between trusted nation groups.”

In essence under “interoperability” there are two separate national chains of command working jointly, whereas under “interchangeability” there is single chain of command. Under the latter it is doubtful the junior partner could break the chain of command and insist it call its own shots if the senior partner got into a skirmish not of Australia’s doing.

Without nuclear arms Australia should not be a party to confronting China

As such the Australian mainland could be the first casualty in an American war with China because we would be the weak link in America’s war machine without our own nuclear weapons.

Australian owned Virginia Class and AUKUS submarines carrying cruise missiles with conventional war heads would not provide a meaningful MAD deterrence.

And we have no guarantee from America that if a foreign power nuked Australia, America would nuke it in turn since that could cause a nuclear attack on America itself.

Worse still, unlike America we do not have an air defence system to intercept missile and drone attacks on our capital cities nor will we have such a protective shield in the foreseeable future.

Australia’s choice – get nuclear armed or stay conventionally armed? 

In February 1970, Australia signed the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), which commits us not to acquire nuclear weapons and to champion non-proliferation gobally. Since then, we have been one of the treaty’s strongest supporters.

Given that very long-range submarines like Virginia Class and AUKUS are best suited for nuclear armed powers (US, UK France,  Russia, China, India, Pakistan, Israel, and North Korea), Australia needs to make a choice:

  • Break the NPT and the join the club of nine nuclear armed nations and risk provoking our biggest neighbour Indonesia to do likewise, or
  • Scrap nuclear-powered submarines for conventional ones better suited for defending our coastline than patrolling China’s foreshores

Canada recently decided to buy 12 modern electric-diesel powered submarines for an estimated US$44 billion (versus US$ 268-$368 billion for Australia’s 8 Virginia Class and AUKUS nuclear-powered submarines) since its focus is on patrolling its own vast coastline not that of distant nations.

Marles’ rationale for nuclear-powered subs does not stack up

Australia’s official rationale for obtaining submarines that can stay under water almost indefinitely is that they will defend our world shipping lanes and undersea communication cables. But that’s not credible.

Each year there are 26,000 ship port calls involving over 3,000 different ships at 70 Australian ports according to Shipping Australia.

China is Australia’s largest two-way trading partner in goods and services, accounting for one third of our trade with the world. It is not in China’s interests to disrupt it.

Marles should explain how three nuclear submarines by 2039 or eight by 2055 can defend each of these ships doing 26,000 round trips from being sunk by enemy submarines, destroyers, or bombers. Note that only one sub in three will be at sea at any time with the other two in port for maintenance or training purposes.

Marles probably thinks that our subs would be assisted by America’s 67 nuclear submarines (China has only 12 but is planning to have 21 by the early 2030s). But what assurance does he have that America would prioritise Australia’s trade routes and shipping movements over its own?

As for the nearly one million miles of telecommunication cables lying on the ocean floor, submarines can’t protect them. To safeguard these optical fibres, they are covered in silicone gel and wrapped in multiple layers of plastic, steel wires, copper sheathing, polyethylene insulator, and nylon yarn. In the deep sea, ocean inaccessibility largely protects cables, requiring only a thin polyethylene sheath. Hence the navy won’t have a role in patrolling their security.

https://johnmenadue.com/americas-war-machine-unless-australia-acquires-nuclear-weapons-why-acquire-aukus-subs

 

 

READ FROM TOP

 

 

 

YOURDEMOCRACY.NET RECORDS HISTORY AS IT SHOULD BE — NOT AS THE WESTERN MEDIA WRONGLY REPORTS IT.

 

at it again....

PETER HARTCHER IS AT IT AGAIN... ANTI-CHINESE IS HIS GAME... JINPING GIVES HIM THE PIPS... AND PETER GROWS BIG TITS...

 

Peter Hartcher

Beijing is on a dogged disruption mission throughout the western hemisphere: its latest stop is Venezuela’s recent election.

Divided America comes together on precious few points, and one of them is that the Chinese Communist Party needs to be confronted. So it’s striking that China has consolidated its grip on the American hemisphere in recent days with barely a word uttered in US public debate.

‘‘Beijing and its axis has made considerable gains against the free world over the last four years,’’ says Matt Pottinger, a China expert and deputy national security adviser in the Trump White House.

‘‘And we now have just in the last couple of weeks a stolen election in Venezuela, in America’s front porch, where Beijing, Iran and Russia are the primary supporters – diplomatically, materially in terms of security apparatus support – of this dictator,’’ he tells me.

While Pottinger is aghast at what’s happening in the Caribbean, the US political and media class, consumed by the presidential election, hasn’t paid much heed.

China’s gains in Venezuela violate the spirit of America’s Monroe Doctrine of 1823 that declared the western hemisphere to be off limits to other great powers.

China years ago chose Venezuela, economically stricken yet oil rich, as its beachhead in Latin America. Xi Jinping has embraced Venezuelan dictator Nicolas Maduro accordingly. So when Maduro blatantly defrauded his way to an election ‘‘victory’’ two weeks ago, how did Xi react?

The leaders of the region’s major democracies questioned the result. Argentina’s President Javier Milei said ‘‘not even [Maduro] believes the electoral scam he is celebrating’’.

The US dismissed the election as a fraud and, according to The Wall Street Journal, it is prepared to give Maduro amnesty over outstanding US indictments if he surrenders power. But why would he? He has Xi Jinping on his side. In offering his congratulations, Xi whitewashed the fact Venezuela’s economy has collapsed by some 80 per cent over the past decade under Maduro, driving more than seven million citizens out of the country in a quest for food, work and hope.

‘‘President Maduro has led the Venezuelan government and people,’’ said Xi, ‘‘making remarkable achievements in the cause of national development.’’

China would ‘‘firmly support Venezuela’s efforts to safeguard sovereignty, national dignity and social stability, and its just cause of opposing external interference’’. The last clause, of course, is a reference to resisting the US.

With an estimated $US60 billion in Chinese investment in the country, Xi is protecting his turf even though it’s in America’s traditional sphere of influence. At its closest point, Venezuela is roughly 800 kilometres from the US territory of Puerto Rico.

But it’s about more than money. ‘‘Venezuela is important to the full range of China’s ambitions in the Americas,’’ says Evan Ellis, professor of Latin American studies at the US Army War College. ‘‘Including access to resources, markets in strategic sectors, political strategic objectives, and military options if it ever must fight a war with the US in the Indo-Pacific.’’

Maduro’s forces have locked up at least 1300 protesters since the election and killed 24, according to rights group Foro Penal, and they continue a crackdown Maduro calls Operacion Tun Tun – operation knock knock – an unsubtle reference to the black-clad security goons who knock on people’s front doors at night to seize suspected dissidents.

In return for Beijing’s support, Maduro cheerleads Xi’s projects, including his crackdown on Hong Kong’s liberties and his territorial ambitions in the South China Sea.

As China continues its programs of global reach, Pottinger says the US and all democracies need to be alert to Beijing’s exploitation of chaos wherever it occurs.

‘‘Policymakers in Australia and the US [need to] remain clear-eyed about what Beijing’s true ambitions are, and about the profound lack of sincerity in any offers by Beijing to, quote unquote, stabilise the relationship,’’ he says.

This is a direct challenge to the Albanese government’s aim of ‘‘stabilising’’ the China relationship.

Although he was a senior official in the Trump administration and is mooted to be so again should Trump win, Pottinger is respected as an expert on China, where he worked as a journalist for seven years.

He says Xi’s policy in the region ‘‘is working to destabilise Latin America through things like shoring up a dictator. That policy means that you’re going to see millions more refugees walking out of Venezuela and into places like Colombia and all the way up into the US. You’re going to see more money laundering and drug trafficking,’’ says Pottinger. ‘‘You’re going to see Beijing, Moscow and Tehran strengthen their foothold in America’s front yard. Beijing’s goal in supporting Vladimir Putin and his attacks on Ukraine was to destabilise and fragment Europe, not about stabilisation.

‘‘Beijing’s support for Iran, as it was preparing its proxies to wage war in Israel, is about destabilising free countries, and in trying to discredit and undermine American power. Beijing’s goal is to foment chaos beyond its borders.’’

He cites a Xi speech from 2021 that revived a Mao Zedong slogan: ‘‘The world is in great chaos. Situation excellent!’’ Says Pottinger: ‘‘You have it straight from the horse’s mouth. So anyone who’s sort of entertained this idea of stable ties with Beijing is really smoking dope.’’

Pottinger says the democratic world has big advantages. For instance, the US and its allies have combined GDP double that of the combined economic heft of China and Russia. But the allies’ power is ‘‘latent’’, he says, and it’s time to activate that power to ‘‘impose costs’’ on China and Russia.

When the US election is over, we’ll see exactly how a divided America comes together to confront China. America’s eventual policy could be Australia’s asset. Or Australia’s liability.

Peter Hartcher is international editor. SMH 13/08/2024

 

PLEASE CONSIDER THE AMERICAN EMPIRE HAS SANCTIONED VENEZUELA FOR BEING DEMOCRATIC... VENEZUELA NEEDS TO SURVIVE AND IF CHINA GIVES GOODIES IN EXCHANGE FOR OIL, WHAT'S THE BEEF? WE KNOW, THE US REIGN SUPREME... SORRY, NOT ANY MORE AND AUSTRALIA ALSO NEEDS CHINA... IMAGINE CHINA CUTTING ALL ITS IMPORTS FROM AUSSIELAND? WESTERN AUSTRALIA CAN'T DIG HOLES ANY MORE... AND NO CHEAP CHINESE EV HERE.... SO STOP BEING A HYPOCRITE, PETER.

 

READ FROM TOP

 

YOURDEMOCRACY.NET RECORDS HISTORY AS IT SHOULD BE — NOT AS THE WESTERN MEDIA WRONGLY REPORTS IT.

hartcherings....

PETER HARTCHER STILL GOES LIKE AN IDIOT ABOUT CHINA AND VENEZUELA....

 

Divided America comes together on precious few points, and one of them is that the Chinese Communist Party needs to be confronted. So it’s striking that China has consolidated its grip on the American hemisphere in recent days with barely a word uttered in US public debate.

“Beijing and its axis has made considerable gains against the free world over the last four years,” says Matt Pottinger, a China expert and deputy national security adviser in the Trump White House.

“And we now have just in the last couple of weeks a stolen election in Venezuela, in America’s front porch, where Beijing, Iran and Russia are the primary supporters – diplomatically, materially in terms of security apparatus support – of this dictator,” he tells me.

 

While Pottinger is aghast at what’s happening in the Caribbean, the US political and media class, consumed by the presidential election, hasn’t paid much heed.

China’s gains in Venezuela violate the spirit of America’s Monroe Doctrine of 1823 that declared the Western Hemisphere to be off limits to other great powers.

 

https://www.smh.com.au/world/north-america/albanese-wants-a-stable-relationship-with-china-this-expert-thinks-he-must-be-smoking-dope-20240811-p5k1ic.html

 

THIS IS 100 % BULLSHIT FROM THE WARMONGERING HARTCHER... ANYTHING THAT IS NOT AMERICAN IS BAD IN HIS HEAD THAT IS BECOMING HOLLOWER AND HOLLOWER DAILY... THE ELECTION IN VENEZUELA WASN'T STOLEN...

 

 

READ FROM TOP

 

YOURDEMOCRACY.NET RECORDS HISTORY AS IT SHOULD BE — NOT AS THE WESTERN MEDIA WRONGLY REPORTS IT.

smokin' it....

 

Is peaceful cooperation a hopeless pipe dream?    By Mark Beeson

 

According to Matt Pottinger, ‘a China expert and deputy national security adviser in the Trump White House…anyone who has entertained the idea of stable ties with Beijing is really smoking dope.’ If that’s what it takes, it might be time to light up.

The quotes above come from an article by Peter Hartcher who, in the face of some depressingly stiff competition, has made himself into one of Australia’s most prominent and vociferous China hawks. Bizarrely, other prominent members of this influential group, like former Secretary of the Department of Home Affairs, Michael Pezzullo, not only fret about the supposed threat posed by the PRC, but also about the dangers of ‘self-censorship and reticence’ if the government pursues a more stable relationship with ‘belligerent communist China’. Not much danger of that in Mike’s case, unfortunately.

Perhaps the most startling aspect of Pottinger’s flippant dismissal of anyone who is not a card carrying ‘realist’ when it comes to China is the light it shines on the hard-headed types who make domestic, foreign and strategic policy on our behalf. They really do inhabit a world in which trying to establish productive working relationship with our major trading partner is seen as a major sign of weakness, inconsistency and/or living in a dream world.

Given that Pottinger worked for Donald Trump he’s not the most obvious person to be citing as an authority on how to deal with China. After all, Trump famously privileges his ability to establish productive relationships with some of the world’s leading despots and authoritarians over the sorts of ‘structural’ factors that people like Pezzullo emphasise. Pot-smoking peaceniks might find the Trumpian approach to international relations a bit too impulsive and hubristic for comfort.

Or then again, they might not. One of the problems that China doesn’t suffer from to anything like the same extent as the US, of course, is drug abuse. Despite the fact that there have been more than 700,000 drug deaths in the US since 2,000 (more than 10 times the number of Americans who died in the Vietnam War), something like 50% of Americans admit to having used illicit drugs. Perhaps altered states of consciousness are the best way of handling the reality of a Trump presidency. It might help explain Trump’s continuing popularity with his rusted-on supporters.

Yes, that’s a flippant point, too, but as P&I’s founder, John Menadue, points out, the US is the most violent and aggressive country in the world. In 2021, nearly 50,000 Americans died from ‘gun-related injuries’, nearly half of which were suicides. Little wonder, perhaps, that so many of its citizens choose to self-medicate and temporarily escape the reality of life in an increasingly dysfunctional, polarised society where oligarchs, populists and plutocrats dominate the political and economic landscape. It’s far from clear that this will change even if Kamala Harris is elected president¾even if Trump’s gun-toting supporters accept the result, of course.

China’s rulers may be bossy, interventionist, and allergic to criticism, but at least they are fairly predictable and thus far don’t have a track record of violent foreign invasion. If the US had a more cooperative relationship with China, they may be able to persuade the PRC to crack down on the growing export of fentanyl, which claimed another 70,000 American lives in 2022 alone.

It’s also worth remembering that the drug trade is based on supply and demand: the ‘drug problem’ and the growth of the gang violence in Mexico and elsewhere that is causing so many to flee South America, is primarily caused by Americans’ insatiable appetite for dope. Somewhat ironically, the market forces that American foreign policy has helped to universalise are demonstrating their unsurpassed ability to deliver whatever it is that the customer may desire.

Sometimes it’s a bit hard for even the most powerful leaders to connect the dots, though. It may be especially difficult for the likes of Vladimir Putin, Xi Jinping and Trump to do so given they have all displayed signs of incipient megalomania and an unshakeable belief in their own historical significance. Perhaps they need a little help coming to terms with their own limitations and even insignificance in the larger cosmic scheme of things.

Interestingly, there’s good scientific evidence that some drugs, principally the psychedelic variety, can be very helpful in treating a range of psychological disorders, especially depression. The principal sensation users report is a feeling of being part of something much bigger than themselves, which might be just the thing for some of the world’s more self-obsessed leaders who seem incapable of thinking about the very real and immediate problems the planet currently faces.

I realise that’s just the sort of irresponsible nonsense you’d expect from an ageing hippie, but the realists have got us where we are today: facing a climate apocalypse, unable to stop the slaughter of women and children in pointless wars on two continents, and spending colossal amounts on exotic weapons systems that are designed to facilitate what Richard Marles euphemistically calls ‘impactful projection’ – or wiping out millions of innocent Chinese people if deterrence fails and war breaks out.

When dream worlds seem more attractive than reality, no wonder so many people are turning on and tuning out.

https://johnmenadue.com/is-peaceful-cooperation-a-hopeless-pipe-dream/

 

READ FROM TOP

 

YOURDEMOCRACY.NET RECORDS HISTORY AS IT SHOULD BE — NOT AS THE WESTERN MEDIA WRONGLY REPORTS IT.