You must log in or register to comment.

7thAndGreenhill t1_j6iz15x wrote

I’m not sure I’d want a NATO style agreement with India due to their tumultuous relationship with both Pakistan and China.

And aren’t we already committed to the defense of Japan?


Reselects420 t1_j6j37t2 wrote

There’s something called the Quad that already exists. India, US, Aus, Japan. India doesn’t share a mutual defence pact with any of these countries and joining this new expanded AUKUS alliance would not require such.


lordderplythethird t1_j6jc1bx wrote

AUKUS isn't a NATO treaty. It's an information sharing and joint cutting edge military R&D treaty.

  • Nuclear submarine designs

  • Hypersonic missiles

  • AI

  • Cybersecurity

  • Loyal wingman UAVs

They're all joint programs under AUKUS.


7thAndGreenhill t1_j6jc922 wrote

literally the first sentence of the article:

>Britain has called for an overseeing body similar to NATO to ensure security in the Indo-Pacific.


lordderplythethird t1_j6jczv1 wrote

This is me being surprised they Sky's "journalists" lack any understanding of what AUKUS is 😐. It's not a Pacific NATO in the slightest bit. It's far more akin to a modern era Manhattan Project, where the members pool their money and brains for a cutting edge weapons system. UK is suggesting India and Japan join said R&D team. They're not suggesting a Pacific NATO, Sky dreamed that moronic line themselves


Dagonet_the_Motley t1_j6ixq62 wrote

But they'd have to change the name


-wnr- t1_j6j68bo wrote

The article in its entirely is:

>Britain has called for an overseeing body similar to NATO to ensure security in the Indo-Pacific.

>The chair of the UK’s defence select committee has suggested the AUKUS agreement, a trilateral agreement between Australia, the United Kingdom, and the US that would expand to include India and Japan.

Kinda hard to spot between the torrent of ads, but it's there.

Also, I just don't see India joining up. Despite what the UK is saying, India is not an ally to the west. It has always loudly proclaimed itself a non-aligned nation. At best it would be a situation like Turkey, where they get membership because of geopolitical importance, but don't really give a crap about the interests of their allies.


Reselects420 t1_j6jrirr wrote

India is already a part of Quad (India, US, Aus, Japan), but the UK is missing from that. India is also running military exercises with some major western countries, but hasn’t signed any mutual defence pact. They won’t join an alliance that requires that anytime soon.


TBLwarrior t1_j6ktm41 wrote

Their neighbor being China, may eventually encourage them to be more of an Ally than they would prefer to be. I’m not that educated on the topic. But at some point, India will have to choose between buying oil/gas from Russia and being backed by the west against China. India is set for exponential growth if they play their cards right. I’m sure someone more educated would be able to extrapolate more fluently what I’m trying to say


broyoyoyoyo t1_j6kx0rp wrote

That'll never happen because India doesn't see itself as needing Western backing against China. The two countries are both nuclear armed and will never go to open war with each other. They'll experience exponential growth even without direct Western political backing. Really the only thing standing in their way is themselves, in the form of their Hindu hardliners like Modi that prioritize power and authoritarianism over economic growth. Honestly I forsee India continuing to be a growing thorn in the side of Western foreign policy in the Indo-Pacific.


AppleToGrind t1_j6ixrf9 wrote

Canada should be there too.


f0n50 t1_j6j0ivb wrote

CAUKUS has a nice ring


Prairiegentleman t1_j6j2ijg wrote

Canada is the deadbeat uncle of the family that shows up for Christmas 30 mins late, asks for $20.00, eats in 10 mins, leaves early and then goes on Facebook to say how important family is to them. We're a junk ally.


[deleted] t1_j6kl0db wrote



TROPtastic t1_j6kn600 wrote

The Northwest Passage will be an international passage in the same way that the Bosphorus and Dardennelles straits are.


[deleted] t1_j6koqmk wrote



Prairiegentleman t1_j6mx9bp wrote

Noone is taking about investing 10 percent here, how about 2? Or 2.2? Enough to recapitalize our dilapidated equipment and infrastructure so our stuff doesn't get people killed. Also, we like our military to be able to do things like participate in international ops or peacekeeping. At our current manning and equipment state, we can hardly manage Latvia, let alone everything else the government seems to want.


monkeygoneape t1_j6jb2a9 wrote

Current leadership makes that the case unfortunatly and idiots keep voting of trudeau because "blue party bad, and there's no other options"


Prairiegentleman t1_j6jbgdi wrote

This is bigger than Trudeau, as much as I'm not fond of the man's politics. We've been delinquents since at least Trudeau Snr, however one could argue it started with Lester Pearson. Blue party bad, red party bad is one of the reasons our country is sliding to non-seriousness and mediocrity in all things.


AppleToGrind t1_j6k1ys8 wrote

One of the first things our country did after Confederation was allow CPR to to bypass the tariff we had against American steel so they could get cheaper materials for the construction of the railroad. Then that very government - lead by John A. MacDonald - became mired a few years later in a bribing scandal. MacDonald had to resign in disgrace. He came back later and got re-elected funnily enough.

So the cancer and rot at the heart of Canada began long before Trudeau the First or Lester Pearson. It started right at the top from beginning.


lordderplythethird t1_j6jbr6m wrote

Issues with that;

  1. US will not allow Canada to share nuclear submarine designs until it accepts the NW Passage as an international strait, same as Malacca or Hormuz. It's why the Canada Class nuclear submarine was vetoed by the US

  2. Canada unfortunately doesn't offer anything. It's not even a factor in hypersonics, advanced AI, loyal wingman UAVs, etc, and it criminally underfunds its military, particularly R&D. So not bringing any knowledge, and not bringing any funding. It's in effect, being a free rider.

  3. Canada has not joined the US, UK, Australia, and Japan in recognizing China as a threat to security. Hell, the Canadian military is still doing research studies with the Chinese government. When the crux of AUKUS is looking square at China, Canada is not a great ally on that front.

  4. Canadian political leadership have openly stated they have no desire to join AUKUS, even though their military leadership is screaming for it. Same as when the military leadership was begging for the F-35, but was told "no, the Minister of Fisheries will decide what fighter jet the military gets".


TROPtastic t1_j6kodwr wrote

Seems like this

>Canadian political leadership have openly stated they have no desire to join AUKUS, even though their military leadership is screaming for it.

Is directly opposed by this

>US will not allow Canada to share nuclear submarine designs until it accepts the NW Passage as an international strait, same as Malacca or Hormuz

The Straits of Hormuz and Malacca are of course irrelevant here, since the shortest (desired) routes of the Northwest Passage take it through exclusively Canadian waters rather than waters shared by two nations. Comparisons to the Bosphorus and the Dardennelles straits are more appropriate.


AppleToGrind t1_j6jzvfg wrote

The knowledge I gained from all of that is that the United States is a regional bully and we as Canadians are doing the best thing we can do which is flip them the bird, geopolitically speaking. Goes in line with our passive-aggressive identity and actually makes me proud.


lordderplythethird t1_j6l7km0 wrote

That would be wildly uneducated, but that's fair and to each their own. Or Canada could accept international law and not try to fuck over their allies in the US and Europe with both declaring the NW Passage as a shipping route AND denying it's an international strait for shipping, in a blatantly illegal move to tax all shipping traversing those waters, where the most frequent users would be the US and Europe. It's as fucking moronic as China's claims in the South China Sea, or if Mexico demanded to tax all ships who entered the Gulf of Mexico...

Or we can falsely cry wolf and pretend Canada is being bullied. That works too I guess?


AppleToGrind t1_j6nuy7r wrote

International Law are a set of rules created by dominant players (ie. United States) using their leverage to largely benefit themselves. They have been imposed on smaller players because the alternative is far worse. So yeah, enjoy our middle finger salute.


ImaginaryRoads t1_j6ksnz6 wrote

I've always favored CANZUS for the major English-speaking Pacific Rim countries.


DrSeuss19 t1_j6l0308 wrote

A UK, US, AU, Japan, and India group would be stronger than any EU + US coalition because those countries actually have militaries and aren’t so passive and willing to let US do every single thing.


TheShakyHandsMan t1_j6iy9k7 wrote

Is this to replace the trade lost with the EU?

We better build a tunnel to make it more efficient.


No_Foot t1_j6jfb38 wrote

Unfortunately it won't in any way replace the huge amount of exports we lost to the EU because of the distance. There's good reason anyone who isn't an absolute idiot is pretending they didn't vote for it to happen.


DocMoochal t1_j6j1qkl wrote

Wasnt a large number of convoluted and sometimes over lapping military/defense pacts, one of the stated causes of world war 1?

Edit: Yes it was, well technically speaking alliances.

What's that age old saying? History doesnt repeat itself but it sure does rhyme.


Reselects420 t1_j6j4ct3 wrote

US already has mutual defence pacts with Japan. And India is already working with US, Japan and Australia (Quad alliance), but does not have a mutual defence pact. India wouldn’t sign a mutual defence pact just to join an expanded AUKUS.


Callysto_Wrath t1_j6j7xzc wrote

I heard it was 'cus some fellow name Archie-duke shot an ostrich 'cus he was hungry.


lordderplythethird t1_j6jcnw4 wrote

Except AUKUS isn't a defensive pact, it's a treaty to formalize joint R&D on multiple cutting edge projects...

Only history repeating here I see, is people talking about something they obviously don't understand, as though they're the authoritative source on the subject


DocMoochal t1_j6jdfm6 wrote

"Britain has called for an overseeing body similar to NATO to ensure security in the Indo-Pacific."


lordderplythethird t1_j6jea8d wrote

They're not. They're calling for AUKUS to add new members. Sky just doesn't understand what fucking AUKUS is, which is just such a shocker to literally no one


Startrail_wanderer t1_j6j4cm7 wrote

Prepare your popcorn for WW3. Hopefully I'll be too old to be conscripted by that time


Reselects420 t1_j6j5211 wrote

I don’t think western nations would draft (m)any soldiers. There almost wouldn’t be an invasion of another country (like China or Russia) by a western nation, it’d probably be a war on the seas or in the skies. Which you need to train soldiers for.


are-e-el t1_j6l1q1f wrote

Just start the GDI already ffs


av8orkiwi t1_j6kuvqa wrote

There was one for the USA, Australia and NZ (ANZUS) but the USA is still sore about NZ giving them the fingers and took their toys away. You’d think that would be pretty easy to get back up and running properly and add the UK back in.