Current US Military

[Smitty-48]

Vindman is clearly in the club. If hes calling Milley out, it's an indication that Ol White Rage is on shaky ground.

Plus they know Afghanistan has to be blamed on someone. Might as well be Milley.

They still need Joe to get tax increases and other shit passed. Dont need Milley for that.

Milley is the definition of expendable

hence why he is such a sycophant

surely he has been shooting for some sort of post retirement MICC swan job all along

once you're the CJS, there's nowhere left to go within the chain of command

[Zlaxer]

Think I said this before, but something happened between the CCP elites and the Western techcrats....

https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/ ... nter-china

Soros decided the CCP wasn't going to go along with his plans for a borderless nanny state.

CCP still evil and a nanny state, but it seems like they don't want to play ball with our tyrants.

[Smitty-48]

https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/ ... nter-china

it's not the Chinese who are sabotaging the Australian-French submarine deal, it's America doing that

Lockheed Martin & General Dynamics won't work with the French Naval Group to arm the subs

it's America which prevents its allies from having the best American submarine technology

there is a deal between America & the UK to share submarine and associated nuclear tech

but only the UK is allowed inside that tent, no other ally has ever been permitted to enter

this fight here is not between America & China, it's between America & France

France is a military industrial competitor for the MICC, so Washington refuses to work with the French

Australia went to the French because America doesn't sell submarines

but the Australians wanted to arm their French subs with American combat systems

that is where the deal is getting broken up

Washington won't supply the tech because they don't trust the French

America is not prompting Australia to abandon the deal in order to "counter China"

America is doing that to counter the French

Australia will not end up with American submarines instead, Australia will end up with no submarines

America doesn't want Australia to have submarines, it is only wanted as a base for the US Navy

in truth, the Pentagon doesn't like having well armed allies, the Pentagon only seeks basing rights

the Pentagon likes to run everything in house, they are loathe to share anything with foreigners

see the larger picture, America is engaged in financial hegenomy, King Dollar

if Australia goes and gives $100 billion to the French for submarines, that doesn't come back to America

so America would rather Australia have no submarines than let them buy subs from the French

[C-Mag]

Welcome Jimmy Dore in the fight against experimental gene therapy jabs
https://youtu.be/iwPKnOhJRYg

[Smitty-48]

there is also an operational reason why the Australian submarine deal is a bad idea

the French would actually sell the Australians the nuclear powered version of the sub

but the Australians don't have the infrastructure to support nuclear subs

and the Australian population is Anti-Nuclear lefties

so the Australian government went for the worst of both worlds

they bought the French nuclear subs without the nuclear reactors

because those submarines would be so slow running on deisel electric, they'd be useless against China

but they are as expensive as nuclear submarines to buy, removing the reactors doesn't save any money

so America is saving Australia from itself in the end

better to have no submarines than vastly overpriced useless submarines in the end

diesel electric subs (SSK) are useful for coastal ops, like in the Baltic, or Black Sea

but in the vast expanse of the Pacific, you need nuclear (SSN) to cover the distances effectively

the PLAN is defensive A2AD in the China Seas, whereas Australia has to sail for weeks to get there\

so it makes sense for the PLAN to have lots of SSK's for coastal ops

but for far away Australia, sending SSK's towards China at a snails pace 8 knots makes no sense

Australian SSK's would take two weeks to get to the SCS, then need to be refuelled when they got there

you need nuclear fuelled SSN's to project power, otherwise don't bother paying the expense

[Montegriffo]

there is also an operational reason why the Australian submarine deal is a bad idea

the French would actually sell the Australians the nuclear powered version of the sub

but the Australians don't have the infrastructure to support nuclear subs

and the Australian population is Anti-Nuclear lefties

so the Australian government went for the worst of both worlds

they bought the French nuclear subs without the nuclear reactors

because those submarines would be so slow running on deisel electric, they'd be useless against China

but they are as expensive as nuclear submarines to buy, removing the reactors doesn't save any money

so America is saving Australia from itself in the end

better to have no submarines than vastly overpriced useless submarines in the end

diesel electric subs (SSK) are useful for coastal ops, like in the Baltic, or Black Sea

but in the vast expanse of the Pacific, you need nuclear (SSN) to cover the distances effectively

the PLAN is defensive A2AD in the China Seas, whereas Australia has to sail for weeks to get there\

so it makes sense for the PLAN to have lots of SSK's for coastal ops

but for far away Australia, sending SSK's towards China at a snails pace 8 knots makes no sense

Australian SSK's would take two weeks to get to the SCS, then need to be refuelled when they got there

you need nuclear fuelled SSN's to project power, otherwise don't bother paying the expense

I think you may be a little behind the times on this one.
Sounds like there's an announcement coming tomorrow.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-09-15/ ... /100465628

[Smitty-48]

there is also an operational reason why the Australian submarine deal is a bad idea

the French would actually sell the Australians the nuclear powered version of the sub

but the Australians don't have the infrastructure to support nuclear subs

and the Australian population is Anti-Nuclear lefties

so the Australian government went for the worst of both worlds

they bought the French nuclear subs without the nuclear reactors

because those submarines would be so slow running on deisel electric, they'd be useless against China

but they are as expensive as nuclear submarines to buy, removing the reactors doesn't save any money

so America is saving Australia from itself in the end

better to have no submarines than vastly overpriced useless submarines in the end

diesel electric subs (SSK) are useful for coastal ops, like in the Baltic, or Black Sea

but in the vast expanse of the Pacific, you need nuclear (SSN) to cover the distances effectively

the PLAN is defensive A2AD in the China Seas, whereas Australia has to sail for weeks to get there\

so it makes sense for the PLAN to have lots of SSK's for coastal ops

but for far away Australia, sending SSK's towards China at a snails pace 8 knots makes no sense

Australian SSK's would take two weeks to get to the SCS, then need to be refuelled when they got there

you need nuclear fuelled SSN's to project power, otherwise don't bother paying the expense

I think you may be a little behind the times on this one.
Sounds like there's an announcement coming tomorrow.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-09-15/ ... /100465628

so they are claiming, I don't buy it tho

two reasons, you need a nuclear infrastructure to run the SSN's, Australia doesn't have it

and the nuclear subs are going to be more expensive than the French SSG's

so once the price tag comes down, this program will get cancelled too

it's similar to how Canada operates, they announce big plans, which get trimmed back to nothing later

I bet you Australia ends up running the Collins Class indefinitely as their sub program is "Canadianized"

it already is Canadianized, because they can't afford 12 SSN's anymore than Canada could

so it's a completely unrealistic plan which will run into fiscal reality before too long

this is all part of the US & UK kyboshing the French deal

once that is done, then this phony deal will be cancelled later

bear in mind, nobody thinks Australia can stand up to China, it's an Australian pipe dream

this is all just defense contractors suppressing competitors market share

this is all Lockmart, GD & BAE Systems trying to fuck the French

[Montegriffo]

there is also an operational reason why the Australian submarine deal is a bad idea

the French would actually sell the Australians the nuclear powered version of the sub

but the Australians don't have the infrastructure to support nuclear subs

and the Australian population is Anti-Nuclear lefties

so the Australian government went for the worst of both worlds

they bought the French nuclear subs without the nuclear reactors

because those submarines would be so slow running on deisel electric, they'd be useless against China

but they are as expensive as nuclear submarines to buy, removing the reactors doesn't save any money

so America is saving Australia from itself in the end

better to have no submarines than vastly overpriced useless submarines in the end

diesel electric subs (SSK) are useful for coastal ops, like in the Baltic, or Black Sea

but in the vast expanse of the Pacific, you need nuclear (SSN) to cover the distances effectively

the PLAN is defensive A2AD in the China Seas, whereas Australia has to sail for weeks to get there\

so it makes sense for the PLAN to have lots of SSK's for coastal ops

but for far away Australia, sending SSK's towards China at a snails pace 8 knots makes no sense

Australian SSK's would take two weeks to get to the SCS, then need to be refuelled when they got there

you need nuclear fuelled SSN's to project power, otherwise don't bother paying the expense

I think you may be a little behind the times on this one.
Sounds like there's an announcement coming tomorrow.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-09-15/ ... /100465628

so they are claiming, I don't buy it tho

two reasons, you need a nuclear infrastructure to run the SSN's, Australia doesn't have it

and the nuclear subs are going to be more expensive than the French SSG's

so once the price tag comes down, this program will get cancelled too

it's similar to how Canada operates, they announce big plans, which get trimmed back to nothing later

I bet you Australia ends up running the Collins Class indefinitely as their sub program is "Canadianized"

it already is Canadianized, because they can't afford 12 SSN's anymore than Canada could

so it's a completely unrealistic plan which will run into fiscal reality before too long

this is all part of the US & UK kyboshing the French deal

once that is done, then this phony deal will be cancelled later

bear in mind, nobody thinks Australia can stand up to China, it's an Australian pipe dream

this is all just defense contractors suppressing competitors market share

this is all Lockmart, GD & BAE Systems trying to fuck the French

Well, the deal to share nuclear technology is going ahead. The Aussies will build 8 of their own nuclear powered subs under the supervision of the US and they will cancel their deal to buy 12 subs from France. I guess America will provide the nuclear material.
Is Aukus the new 5 Eyes? Dropping NZ and Canada and moving even further away from France?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-58564837

[Smitty-48]

Well, the deal to share nuclear technology is going ahead. The Aussies will build 8 of their own nuclear powered subs under the supervision of the US and they will cancel their deal to buy 12 subs from France.

again, it's not actually a signed contract to build 8 submarines of any particular design

all that happened is that America got Australia to cancel its submarine deal with the French

nothing has actually replaced that deal, as of this time, Australia has no submarine program at all

this submarine deal is even less firm than the last one, which just got cancelled

politicians like to make announcements, but no actual steel has been cut on any new submarines

Australia is going to build an SSN program from scratch, and have more SSN's than the UK can afford ?

that's just not a realistic plan in terms of Australian industrial capacity and costs

once it becomes apparent how much it is going to cost in reality, this plan will likely be cancelled too

the Australian defence budget is just not going to be big enough to run an in house SSN program

the plan to build the French submarines in Australia was unrealistic too

I expected that plan to be cancelled all along, and so it was, it was never going to happen

same thing with this plan, I fully expect this to be cancelled at a later date

Australia is going to end up using the Collins class SSK's till they rust out due to unrealistic planning

they keep announcing submarine replacements which they can't afford, then cancelling

the result is that Australia has no submarine replacements at all

[Smitty-48]

Is Aukus the new 5 Eyes? Dropping NZ and Canada and moving even further away from France?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-58564837

FVEY is not a military alliance

FVEY is simply an agreement between intelligence agencies

there is no binding Article V in FVEY

but I would say that Canada & NZ are no longer trusted due to Chinese influence in Canada & NZ

in terms of France, the US MICC is just defending its turf, preventing the French from selling to Australia

the French are never trusted, they are a competitor to the Americans

Emmanuel Macron, Justin Trudeau & Jacinda Arden are like a trio

and none of those three are trusted by the Washington National Security Consensus

so it is a case of France, Canada & NZ being thrown under the bus together