President Joe Biden

Vic said:
A. How many ships marched on Moscow?

B. How many ships were at Waterloo?

C. Did the Prussian navy help Wellington at Waterloo, or was that their land army?
Click to expand...

Are you suggesting the nation with the superior army actually won that particular war?

Since you ask,

A. None.

B. None.

C. No.
 
Vic said:
Yes. Did I misconstrue your point?
Click to expand...

It didn’t. France had a much stronger army than any other European country at the time. They were beaten in Russia by unceasingly long supply chains and the Russian winter. They were beaten at Waterloo by a combination of allied armies. They weren’t beaten often in set piece land battles at that time.

They were for the most part unable to make their superior army count because their Navy was inferior to the a Royal Navy, which was superior - and by a distance - at the time to every other Navy in the world.

For instance, most of the tall firs that Britain used as masts in the biggest warships came from the Baltic states. The French tried to get the Danish fleet, Denmark being a French ally, to close the shipping lanes to the Baltic. The result was the battle of Copenhagen during which the Danish fleet was basically annihilated.

France by comparison obtained many of their supplies from North America, however that trade was substantially interrupt by the Royal Navy and the French fleet was largely blockaded in Brest. This meant that France was unable to use its Navy to support its army. Hence, for instance, long overland supply chains.

The history of the Napoleonic wars is highly interesting, and a. Or detailed discussion of it is way beyond the scope of this thread. I simply use it to reference that Paul Keating was quite wrong to say “when it Comes to conflict land beats water every time.”

That’s just wrong.
 
Last edited:
mancity1 said:
This is why the French will continue to play a role and don't forget the UK still require assistance from French assets when their own power supplies fall short of the mark.

They have every right to pissed off but also have expertise as you indicate that will be required and will be used.

For Australia its evitable that nuclear technology will become every more important both locally and overseas given out uranium reserves.

It has to if we are to decarbonise our industry ( 80 per cent of electricity is generated from fossil fuels on average ) and in terms of electricity generation into the future while expensive to set up its the safest and most environmentally friendly way to do so far more so than renewable energy and the best way to despatch reliable energy that we need as our population grows coming out of Covid.

I agree with you Bob interesting times ahead but make no mistake China's influence in the Pacific is on the increase and has been for many years on many levels least of all militarily.

Notwithstanding the local issues impacting on the US at present how the current admin handles China will be significant for countries like Australia and New Zealand and Indonesia and the list goes on.

I think so far so good but its early days in terms of engagement.
Click to expand...

France has the expertise if Australia does go for a nuclear power program, question is how, politically, will a nuclear program fare in Australia (I don’t have a feel for Aussie politics or public sentiment on the nuclear issue).

Signs are the French will excuse the US actions as ‘disappointing but not a surprise’ and their ire will focus on Australia for dicking them over and not telling them what was going on behind the scenes. Again, though this will blow over in time with only the EU/AUS trade deal a possible casualty.

Two other thoughts. Tying yourselves to US foreign policy for the next few decades given the timeframe for actually getting the vessels is long, so what if US policy on China changes and the US pulls out of the deal. Where will that leave Australia with China? Conversely, and more likely, what if the US under a different admin becomes more hawkish and Australia is obliged by the pact to follow suit? A lot will depend on what the pact actually does, but irrespective of that, the long term nature of the deal does give the US leverage over Australia in its dealings with China.

Second is China applying to the CPTPP. How does this play out? China will apply and expect to join, because which members are going to veto the biggest regional economy from joining? Then, is being a member of a regional trade pact with China compatible with a US defence pact aimed at China? Does Australia want China to join?

Lots of scenarios to unpack here.
 
Chris in London said:
It didn’t. France had a much stronger army than any other European country at the time. They were beaten in Russia by unceasingly long supply chains and the Russian winter. They were beaten at Waterloo by a combination of allied armies. They weren’t beaten often in set piece land battles at that time.

They were for the most part unable to make their superior army count because their Navy was inferior to the a Royal Navy, which was superior - and by a distance - at the time to every other Navy in the world.

For instance, most of the tall firs that Britain used as masts in the biggest warships came from the Baltic states. The French tried to get the Danish fleet, Denmark being a French ally, to close the shipping lanes to the Baltic. The result was the battle of Copenhagen during which the Danish fleet was basically annihilated.

France by comparison obtained many of their supplies from Canada, however that trade was substantially interrupt by the Royal Navy and the French fleet was largely blockaded in Brest. This meant that France was unable to use its Navy to support its army. Hence, for instance, long overland supply chains.

The history of the Napoleonic wars is highly interesting, and a. Or detailed discussion of it is way beyond the scope of this thread. I simply use it to reference that Paul Keating was quite wrong to say “when it Comes to conflict land beats water every time.”

That’s just wrong.
Click to expand...
Napoleon was quite mad by the way...
 
BobKowalski said:
France has the expertise if Australia does go for a nuclear power program, question is how, politically, will a nuclear program fare in Australia (I don’t have a feel for Aussie politics or public sentiment on the nuclear issue).

Signs are the French will excuse the US actions as ‘disappointing but not a surprise’ and their ire will focus on Australia for dicking them over and not telling them what was going on behind the scenes. Again, though this will blow over in time with only the EU/AUS trade deal a possible casualty.

Two other thoughts. Tying yourselves to US foreign policy for the next few decades given the timeframe for actually getting the vessels is long, so what if US policy on China changes and the US pulls out of the deal. Where will that leave Australia with China? Conversely, and more likely, what if the US under a different admin becomes more hawkish and Australia is obliged by the pact to follow suit? A lot will depend on what the pact actually does, but irrespective of that, the long term nature of the deal does give the US leverage over Australia in its dealings with China.

Second is China applying to the CPTPP. How does this play out? China will apply and expect to join, because which members are going to veto the biggest regional economy from joining? Then, is being a member of a regional trade pact with China compatible with a US defence pact aimed at China? Does Australia want China to join?

Lots of scenarios to unpack here.
Click to expand...
Sentiment for this deal to go ahead is strong within the public and the two main parties except the Greens ( falsely peddling the danger of nuclear fallout of the latest class of US and UK nuclear submarine classes in the event of an accident ) who have around 10 per cent of the vote but a strong hold on Labour in terms of preferences at each election however they have a greater platform on climate politics and renewable energy but what is not strong despite the benefits of nuclear technology on cancer research and treatment is a nuclear industry for electricity generation.

The basic facts are we cannot power our manufacturing , transportation and electricity requirements without reliable dispatchable energy and renewable energy can only be part of that mix.

We have a 13 billion at last count and rising rapidly spent on a Hydro project that looks like it will be a fizzer when it comes to generating cheap reliable electricity and renewable energy despite our climate and terrain and will only ever be a small part of the long term solution., In short we can only eliminate gas and coal from the energy mix in the next 60 years if we go nuclear and develop better hydrogen technology.

We have to become more self sufficient as a so called mini power in the region and if that means developing new trade relationships for our resources then so be it.

China will only do business with us ( education , tourism ( pre covid ) and resources and staples being the vast majority of trade ) while they need us and if we have to hedge our bets in an ever more dangerous world we have to back and have the back of democracies like the US and the UK however you define a democracy these days.

Australia would have few issues with China joining the CPTPP in principal it would assist exporters however they have shown they can breach agreements on a whim as has been the case with barley , beef , seafood and wine in the recent past and I doubt the WTO will be able to do much in respect of our recent representations to them to bring China into line.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.