No Minister

Godwin’s Law is For Fools

We Live In Dangerous Times

The drums of war are beating.

Many commentators say Australia would not be invaded, in the event of hostilities between China and the US.  I disagree.  Australia is enormously vulnerable.  Its defense forces are weak and the current US administration cannot be relied upon to come to her aid.

Australia is rich in high grade coal and iron ore, bauxite, copper, uranium, lithium and mineral sands, all of which Xi needs to support a prolonged war with the enfeebled United States. (China currently is storing imported iron or on its sea bed.)

A decision to occupy would indicate Xi’s calculation he can’t control supply by threats alone.

If he going to have a crack at Taiwan, Xi will have to strike before the US mid-term elections.  He needs at least two years of an enfeebled and incompetent United States.  I think he likely will hit Hawaii with an intercontinental nuclear missile strike on the same day he invades Taiwan.  Hawaii will be a ‘keep out of my back yard’ message to the US and a ‘do as you’re told’ message to Taiwan and Australia.

History is full of repetitions.  E.g. the killing of John the Baptist, the killing of Jesus Christ, the metaphorical killing of President Trump.

This essay draws on a multitude of historical repetitions:

Who will be the Churchill of the United States?   Who will be the traitorous Lord Halifax?                                  

Hitler, Stalin and Hirohito managed to slaughter 60,000,000 people over five years.   What will Xi’s tally be?  My guess is somewhere between three and five hundred million.

What will be the trigger which sets China off on World War Three?  A recession? Some perceived insult resulting in ‘loss of face?’

What will bring the headlong rush to war to a halt?

The assassination of Xi.  

Someone had better call Mossad.

Russia China

Written by adolffinkensen

July 12, 2021 at 2:25 pm

Posted in Australia, China, USA

Tagged with

8 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. If Australia was invaded by China, she can absolutely count on the US coming to her aid. The only way such an invasion could happen or be threatened is if there is already a global war.

    You seem to have utterly ignored the fact that both China and the US are nuclear powers. The whole of nuclear doctrine is built around the idea that nuclear powers will not attack each other. The costs of too high. I see no indication that China is an outsider to this doctrine.

    Could you have a Third World War without nuclear weapons, but which involved the nuclear powers attacking each other? Well, the one thing they can’t do is attempt to invade each other. That would trigger the nuclear deterrent for sure. Could they invade other nations, in China’s case, Australia? No, I don’t think so. Australia has the benefit of the nuclear umbrella.

    But what if the US explicitly rules out the use of nuclear weapons in the case of an invasion of Australia. China still has to get there. They have to go through the US Pacific fleet. How likely is that there could be a massive air sea battle between enormous fleets of Chinese and US (and their allies) ships and aircraft, without a risk of nuclear weapons being used? Would the US really risk their entire Pacific fleet and not threaten the use of nuclear weapons at least the tactical level?

    The only way your theory works, is if the US has decided to utterly abandon its closest allies and lets China run amok throughout the western Pacific.

    Not withstanding your views about Biden, I think such a scenario is extraordinarily unlikely to happen.

    If Australia really feared this risk, they would at least double their military expenditure to at least 4% of GDP (which is simply the current US level). For that Australia could have an airforce of at least 300 strike aircraft, at least 20 advanced submarines, and hundreds of long range missiles (range of more than 1500 nm). The idea would be to sink or cripple an invasion fleet before a landing had occurred.


    July 12, 2021 at 2:58 pm

    • I agree with Wayne. And as for a strike on Hawaii, this has been tried once before and look what happened then. Taiwan is not Hawaii though. Note Defence Minister Henare’s budget reset speech. Not the right time for a reduction when the potential for turmoil is so apparent and when NZ’s Defence expenditure is so low already.


      July 12, 2021 at 3:56 pm

  2. I don’t agree with this apocalyptic scenario Adolf, for the very simple reason that China sees no need for that degree of military intervention.

    Hitler was not alone among leaders of his generation in thinking that conquest meant military action. Hell, despite all his communist “education” even Stalin had given up thinking along the lines of subversive revolution following Lenin pouring millions of roubles into various European revolutionary groups in the 1920’s.

    But China must be well pleased with how it’s worked the West, including the USA. All those business links and Confucius Institutes have many powerful, influential people in the West doing China’s bidding and making its arguments for them. See American Billionaires go long on China.

    A military might be needed for Taiwan at some point, but as the former director of Intelligence and Information operations for the U.S. Pacific Fleet pointed out several years ago in his Decade of concern testimony to Congress, they’re likely giving themselves a target date of 2029 for that, and even then it will be a combination of military, economic and diplomatic pressure that squeezes Taiwan into China’s embrace, rather than a simple attack.

    Tom Hunter

    July 12, 2021 at 4:12 pm

  3. Wayne and Cassandra

    Neither of your views appear be held by the Japanese Deputy Minister of Defense.

    But what would he know about Pearl Harbour or being attacked with nuclear weapons?

    Wayne, history is replete with fools who relied on ‘doctrine’ to save them from an aggressor. I presume you’ve heard of the Maginot Line, Singapore and Admiral Phillips’ famous doctrine on aircraft versus battleships?

    One redeeming feature of these comments is that they make your current Minister of Defense seem intelligent.


    July 12, 2021 at 4:13 pm

    • Woops! Wrong admiral. Corrected.


      July 15, 2021 at 5:51 pm

  4. Many thanks for that friendly edit Tom.

    Funny thing, nobody agreed with Churchill’s apocalyptic view of Germany in 1938/39.


    July 12, 2021 at 5:12 pm

    • No probs. It looks pwettier!

      Re Churchil, that’s true.

      Actually another comparison might be to the lead up to WWI? Given the trade connections between the superpowers of our day that might be an interesting factor-comparison list.

      And of course there’s always The Thucydides Trap which has been much written about in recent years re China-USA:

      a term popularized by American political scientist Graham T. Allison to describe an apparent tendency towards war when an emerging power threatens to displace an existing great power as a regional or international hegemon

      Tom Hunter

      July 12, 2021 at 5:39 pm

  5. I will readily concede to all and sundry my position on this issue is, indeed, apocalyptic. I should point out, however, that the ‘trend’ of events and attitudes of the last twelve months has moved substantially in favour of such an apocalyptic view. Perhaps the most significant event has been the installation of Biden as US president along with his political purge of the of US Armed forces and installation of ‘woke’ senior officers.

    If China or Russia or Iran decided to have a go during the ‘Biden’ window of opportunity, the US might be incapable of reacting. Biden wouldn’t be able to remember where he’d put the keys to the codes and he’d just sit there trying to change the TV channel with a chocolate bar.’


    July 12, 2021 at 6:46 pm

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: