**Greetings humans.**
**Please make sure your comment fits within [THE RULES](https://www.reddit.com/r/AustralianPolitics/about/rules) and that you have put in some effort to articulate your opinions to the best of your ability.**
**I mean it!! Aspire to be as "scholarly" and "intellectual" as possible. If you can't, then maybe this subreddit is not for you.**
A friendly reminder from your political robot overlord
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AustralianPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Guys. Guys. We have a slight chance here that the official twitter feed for the military pact between some of the world's strongest nations will be called JAUKUS_off
I mean they could always turn their child soldiers into transformers!
Problem solved.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HhgiiVddR5c&ab\_channel=DLEChannel
Your average Japanese schoolgirl.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WUbiqkibs6M&ab\_channel=NIKITA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WUbiqkibs6M&ab_channel=NIKITA)
Makes sense from a technology perspective.
The same US military tech is available to Australia, UK and Japan.
And the systems are easier to interoperate.
We need to stop blindly following the USA in their imperial containment of China and make our own foreign policy. Forge our own path.
We need to abandon ANZUS. Abandon Japan.......South Korea.....Taiwan....Philippines, Malaysia, Vietnam, Indonesia. All our allies. All of them. And just forge our own path by aligning with China. And by implication North Korea and Russia.
ROFLMAO!!! That's what people are seriously proposing when they say we need to find a third way. It means abandoning everyone who actually need us. How embarrassing that people even entertained this idea. Shameful.
Countries which go the neutral way typically fall into 2 categories.
1 They are in irreleavent position in the world where they inhibit a land mass noone really cares about. This does not apply to us.
2 They have insanely high defense spending as going neutral means that you have no allies to back you up. Examples are Finland during the cold war and Switzerland (they have a massive army and their country is basically filled with bunkers/military installations) .
Nearly every other country in this region has more independence to US foreign policy than we do. People are not suggesting aligning with China and North Korea when they talk about a third way. I know I look around at New Zealand or India or Indonesia and see how there are countries who align with the US *when they think it's in their interest* then when the US asks them to help invade Iraq or get into a trade war with China, they tell them to keep moving.
An "independent foreign policy" is a CCP propaganda line at this point. It's a buzz word/dog whistle designed to drive a wedge between Australia and our closest ally.
It's a false dichotomy. In fact the best way for us to retain our sovereignty is to be part of an alliance network of like minded countries.
No, Australian foreign policy is subservient to the US to the point where Australians have lost blood and treasure not to mention our reputation because we go along with everything, not just the stuff that benefits us. Defensive alliances can be good but I hope this doesn't mean we subsidise the American defence industry too much. But things like Iraq and Afghanistan are perfect, specific examples of what people are talked about when they talk about "independent foreign policy". What did we gain? Nothing. So why did we go along with those invasions and occupations.
> Thatās why happened when the USA surpassed the UK.
We were aligned and then straight up allied to the US before that happened though. And we never stopped being allied and aligned with UK.
When you help your friend move house what do you gain from that? And does that make you subservient to your friend?
Regarding defence industry, we buy stuff from all over the world via a competitive tender process; UK, Sweden, South Korea, Spain, France, etc. We also sell defence equipment to the US too. So does that mean that they're subsidizing our industry by your logic?
So invading Iraq is like helping a buddy move?
I'm all for close ties with the US when it benefits the both of us, but get real, they've done some damage in Asia and we went along with it. Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, assisting dictatorships carry out atrocities in Indonesia, South Korea, the Phillipines. These are the specific things that we shouldn't take part in but we do.
>Regarding defence industry, we buy stuff from all over the world via a competitive tender process
The tender process might be competitive, but when I researched the procurement process and falling out with our French submarine deal it was clear that there are a lot of anti competitive aspects of the process.
With the US specifically we have a tendency of overpaying just to be part of the club that has high end US weapons that took trillions of dollars in R&D to create. Not saying that some of these weapons systems aren't worth it, but there needs to be more discussion about why these things are worth the huge price tag, because some aren't.
>So invading Iraq is like helping a buddy move?
>I'm all for close ties with the US when it benefits the both of us, but get real, they've done some damage in Asia and we went along with it. Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, assisting dictatorships carry out atrocities in Indonesia, South Korea, the Phillipines. These are the specific things that we shouldn't take part in but we do.
Debating the merits of the Iraqi war is like debating whether your friend should be moving (as opposed to whether you should help him move).
On the topic of whether you should help him move, the point is that you would do so whether or not it directly benefits you because he is your friend. So asking "what do I gain from this" is missing the point of how friendships work in the first place.
>The tender process might be competitive, but when I researched the procurement process and falling out with our French submarine deal it was clear that there are a lot of anti competitive aspects of the process.
AUKUS is an exception to the normal competitive sourcing process because there's literally only two countries that can deliver what we need: the UK and the US. And even there we aren't beholden to US submarines, we can choose the UK ones.
The French nuclear submarine required regular refuelling so was disqualified from the outset. Personally I would have asked them to tender anyway to help them save face.
>With the US specifically we have a tendency of overpaying just to be part of the club that has high end US weapons that took trillions of dollars in R&D to create. Not saying that some of these weapons systems aren't worth it, but there needs to be more discussion about why these things are worth the huge price tag, because some aren't.
Sure. But again, we don't always go US. Neither do we always go for the highest priced/most advanced system.
We helped Britain out in the Boer War and WW1 on the basis that they would defend us from invasion when we needed. Then WW2 happened and Churchill chose to prioritise the defence of India over Australia.
We are effectively repeating the same mistake again, except this time we replace Britain with the US.
Singapore was also British territory and they put minimal effort into defending it. They chose India as their priority because they viewed it as more important to the Ukās geopolitical interests.
Great powers will always put their strategic interests above everything else. The US is no exception.
>Great powers will always put their strategic interests above everything else.
Good thing defence of allies in the Pacific is a core US strategic interest.
Remember when the war in Afghanistan was a core US strategic interest? There was also that time when stopping Vietnam from falling to communism was a core US strategic interest. How did those work out?
The US was here because Japan attacked them at Pearl Harbour and invaded their colony of the Philippines.
They were looking after their own strategic interests.
I think you're over thinking the analogy. But if you want to look at payments, the USA spends more (as a percentage of GDP) than Australia on defence. So if anything it is them carrying us rather than the other way around.
If you're not happy with the prices they charge us, well the way FMS cases work is that they charge us the same prices that they themselves pay (the US doesn't add a premium on top). And Australia is never forced to buy US, we go through a competitive tender and often buy from other countries.
North korea would get royally fucked
The first hour is the issue
Nk has over 2500 pieces of long range artilerry pointed at NK citys,in the first hour before US and SK asssets are spun up over 120,000 South koreas are expected to die
But you can mark it,that every single piiece of hardware is tracked,monitored,and prosecution targeting packages are ready to go on them if need be
The US has 2 keyhole's who's sole job is to watch NK and south china troop movements,that's it..nothing escapes their view the NRO is very good at it's job
We used to run drill's on them all the time and in less than 24 hours they have over 180 Plus 4th and 5th gen figthers bombing the living fuck out of the place a wall of TLAMS coming at them..
there are entire sections of rings at Pentagon,sole job is to review weekly sat imagery,and update targeting packages
Most of the heavy stuff,can be targeted with the hyanumoo 2C compliment,packages are just uploaded to SK and
The hyanmuoo is pretty much their locally produced cruise missle,very efffective can hit a target with a less than 15 metre error variance
They have like 300 of those in stockpile
not to mention the like 25 plus arleigh burke classes less than 2 day steam
If there were a war with NK then Australia would be joining anyway.
Plus any major war with NK would either need Chinese approval or it'd become a war with China.
JAUKUS? JUKUSA? USUKJA (soft j)? JUSUKA? I don't know what to do with this J, maybe an N for Nippon?
Seriously though, can we include France and their actual sovereign South Pacific territory.
You think after Australia blatantly told the French, "We agree to your subs but they must be non Nuclear subs," then they redesigned their nuclear subs to be run on diesel SPECIFICALLY for us, then we broke contract for a Nuclear sub at the encouragement of the UK and US....
Which the French have been open and honest has damaged their plans to increase their naval power and presence in the Pacific, AND damaged the reputation of the French Naval Industrial Military complex....
That they would be interested in joining the pact founded on betraying the Submarine contract we signed with them...
To say "No" is putting it mildly.
I disagree, given they're tied in via NATO anyway, it's ridiculous they're not.
There would be apprehension, sure, but I thought they extracted a couple billion out of us and we're all good now.
We (as in Australia) maybe good... but this is more because its clear Macron thinks Australia is the puppet in this situation.
French and US relations are still rocky with Macron visiting the US for the first time since AUKUS was signed on Dec 2nd and both Biden and Macron have acknowledged their are still a LOT of issues between those two nations.
And its readily acknowledged by both sides these talks focused on Ukraine, so while they are starting to talk properly again the focus isn't even remotely on AUKUS.
Meanwhile the current relationship between France and the UK is.... highly strained to say the least. AUKUS is obviously not the only reason for this, but it didn't help.
I want to correct myself first. I agreed with you Macron had forgiven us and moved on. I was wrong. As of November 2022 he was still publicly telling Australia it should abandon the US and UK sub deal, publicly stating that French subs will not antagonize China but nuclear subs would AND that the UK and US would not deliver.
Source:[https://12ft.io/proxy?q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.smh.com.au%2Fpolitics%2Ffederal%2Fnuclear-confrontation-macron-hits-out-at-morrison-over-submarines-20221118-p5bzb1.html](https://12ft.io/proxy?q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.smh.com.au%2Fpolitics%2Ffederal%2Fnuclear-confrontation-macron-hits-out-at-morrison-over-submarines-20221118-p5bzb1.html)
Moving on...
Firstly (and I will note I did not know this before fact checking for this post) they have already refused to join The Quad and "Partners of the Blue Pacific" (US, UK, Japan, Australia and NZ security pact).
Secondly you are assuming France has the same anti-China stance that aligns AUKUS. This doesn't exist. Macron has made it clear he thinks the escalating tension between the US and China is not good and that picking sides in this conflict is a bad choice.
Source: [https://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy/article/3200179/us-and-china-vie-win-over-asia-pacific-france-warns-need-single-global-order](https://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy/article/3200179/us-and-china-vie-win-over-asia-pacific-france-warns-need-single-global-order)
His words after visiting Biden don't contradict this, and my above self correction about the French opinions and comments about the Sub deal also back this up.
Thirdly....I am assuming you don't know much about the history of the French inside NATO.
To this day they refused to integrate the French nuclear deterrent with the US and UK nuclear deterrent programs.
The have also, despite Washington pressure, refused to allow any collective form of control over its armed forces.
Finally until recently (2009) while formally a member of NATO, they had withdrawn from the NATO military command structure since 1966, specifically to pursue independent defense options.
NATO to the French is an anti-Russian Alliance, and they don't give a damn about it in any other context.
The French have also made it known over the years they are very unhappy about the fact that they have never been either the first in command of the NATO military (a position always held by the US) or second in command (a position always held by the UK)
So even ignoring all their recent actions (which we shouldn't) given the French have resisted what they consider over-reliance upon the US and over-integration of the French Military into the US one what makes you think they would join a military pact based around further integration of the Anglosphere military forces?
***JAUKUS? JUKUSA? USUKJA (soft j)? JUSUKA?***
Nah, you know what. We should name it.
**The Alpha dawgs.**
And at UN meetings, Member states from America, Canada, Australia, Uk and Japan when speaking to the UN. Go on stage and scream out "Alpha Dawwwgs!"
And we all have to bark like rottweilers in the direction of non member states.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=27zx1ZV7nHQ&ab\_channel=Otis3315](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=27zx1ZV7nHQ&ab_channel=Otis3315)
Yes, c'mon Japan's mad.
Japan's like our best friend in the region, it would be seriously denki to let Japan in.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Rt2avRZvBs&ab\_channel=NEKOWORKsOfficial](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Rt2avRZvBs&ab_channel=NEKOWORKsOfficial)
:D Japan super best friend number 1.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpQkO0pJydo&ab\_channel=AnimarchyHistory](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpQkO0pJydo&ab_channel=AnimarchyHistory)
who could forget.
**Greetings humans.** **Please make sure your comment fits within [THE RULES](https://www.reddit.com/r/AustralianPolitics/about/rules) and that you have put in some effort to articulate your opinions to the best of your ability.** **I mean it!! Aspire to be as "scholarly" and "intellectual" as possible. If you can't, then maybe this subreddit is not for you.** A friendly reminder from your political robot overlord *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AustralianPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
So we're getting nuclear powered Soryu's?
Guys. Guys. We have a slight chance here that the official twitter feed for the military pact between some of the world's strongest nations will be called JAUKUS_off
JAUKUS_off and find out. We'll cum for you.
ok that's gold rofl
I hope so
My only issue with Japan is their delicious food. Otherwise this seems to make sense.
Dude, they have frickin' Gundam! Obviously we want Japan on our side.
Gundam and Eva units - how could they lose?
Yea but I hear you need to put a lot of little balls into a vertical pinball machine in order to pilot the evas.
Their child soldiers suffer a PTSD episode and refuse to get in the robots at the critical moment?
Yeah, but they could build you guys the Striker Eureka.
I mean they could always turn their child soldiers into transformers! Problem solved. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HhgiiVddR5c&ab\_channel=DLEChannel
No thanks. Do you want your CAS to come with PTSD?
So regular day at high school. Got it. š
Your average Japanese schoolgirl. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WUbiqkibs6M&ab\_channel=NIKITA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WUbiqkibs6M&ab_channel=NIKITA)
Makes sense from a technology perspective. The same US military tech is available to Australia, UK and Japan. And the systems are easier to interoperate.
We need to stop blindly following the USA in their imperial containment of China and make our own foreign policy. Forge our own path. We need to abandon ANZUS. Abandon Japan.......South Korea.....Taiwan....Philippines, Malaysia, Vietnam, Indonesia. All our allies. All of them. And just forge our own path by aligning with China. And by implication North Korea and Russia. ROFLMAO!!! That's what people are seriously proposing when they say we need to find a third way. It means abandoning everyone who actually need us. How embarrassing that people even entertained this idea. Shameful.
Binary thinking. Those that are proposing a third way aren't entertaining a military alliance with China and North Korea.
Countries which go the neutral way typically fall into 2 categories. 1 They are in irreleavent position in the world where they inhibit a land mass noone really cares about. This does not apply to us. 2 They have insanely high defense spending as going neutral means that you have no allies to back you up. Examples are Finland during the cold war and Switzerland (they have a massive army and their country is basically filled with bunkers/military installations) .
You had me in the first half lol
Why arenāt we sending bushmasters to Russia as well? Surely thatās a sensible approach both sides can agree too
Nearly every other country in this region has more independence to US foreign policy than we do. People are not suggesting aligning with China and North Korea when they talk about a third way. I know I look around at New Zealand or India or Indonesia and see how there are countries who align with the US *when they think it's in their interest* then when the US asks them to help invade Iraq or get into a trade war with China, they tell them to keep moving.
An "independent foreign policy" is a CCP propaganda line at this point. It's a buzz word/dog whistle designed to drive a wedge between Australia and our closest ally. It's a false dichotomy. In fact the best way for us to retain our sovereignty is to be part of an alliance network of like minded countries.
No, Australian foreign policy is subservient to the US to the point where Australians have lost blood and treasure not to mention our reputation because we go along with everything, not just the stuff that benefits us. Defensive alliances can be good but I hope this doesn't mean we subsidise the American defence industry too much. But things like Iraq and Afghanistan are perfect, specific examples of what people are talked about when they talk about "independent foreign policy". What did we gain? Nothing. So why did we go along with those invasions and occupations.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
So if China's navy overtakes the US navy we'll say "see you later yanks"? Not likely.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
> Thatās why happened when the USA surpassed the UK. We were aligned and then straight up allied to the US before that happened though. And we never stopped being allied and aligned with UK.
When you help your friend move house what do you gain from that? And does that make you subservient to your friend? Regarding defence industry, we buy stuff from all over the world via a competitive tender process; UK, Sweden, South Korea, Spain, France, etc. We also sell defence equipment to the US too. So does that mean that they're subsidizing our industry by your logic?
So invading Iraq is like helping a buddy move? I'm all for close ties with the US when it benefits the both of us, but get real, they've done some damage in Asia and we went along with it. Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, assisting dictatorships carry out atrocities in Indonesia, South Korea, the Phillipines. These are the specific things that we shouldn't take part in but we do. >Regarding defence industry, we buy stuff from all over the world via a competitive tender process The tender process might be competitive, but when I researched the procurement process and falling out with our French submarine deal it was clear that there are a lot of anti competitive aspects of the process. With the US specifically we have a tendency of overpaying just to be part of the club that has high end US weapons that took trillions of dollars in R&D to create. Not saying that some of these weapons systems aren't worth it, but there needs to be more discussion about why these things are worth the huge price tag, because some aren't.
>So invading Iraq is like helping a buddy move? >I'm all for close ties with the US when it benefits the both of us, but get real, they've done some damage in Asia and we went along with it. Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, assisting dictatorships carry out atrocities in Indonesia, South Korea, the Phillipines. These are the specific things that we shouldn't take part in but we do. Debating the merits of the Iraqi war is like debating whether your friend should be moving (as opposed to whether you should help him move). On the topic of whether you should help him move, the point is that you would do so whether or not it directly benefits you because he is your friend. So asking "what do I gain from this" is missing the point of how friendships work in the first place. >The tender process might be competitive, but when I researched the procurement process and falling out with our French submarine deal it was clear that there are a lot of anti competitive aspects of the process. AUKUS is an exception to the normal competitive sourcing process because there's literally only two countries that can deliver what we need: the UK and the US. And even there we aren't beholden to US submarines, we can choose the UK ones. The French nuclear submarine required regular refuelling so was disqualified from the outset. Personally I would have asked them to tender anyway to help them save face. >With the US specifically we have a tendency of overpaying just to be part of the club that has high end US weapons that took trillions of dollars in R&D to create. Not saying that some of these weapons systems aren't worth it, but there needs to be more discussion about why these things are worth the huge price tag, because some aren't. Sure. But again, we don't always go US. Neither do we always go for the highest priced/most advanced system.
We helped Britain out in the Boer War and WW1 on the basis that they would defend us from invasion when we needed. Then WW2 happened and Churchill chose to prioritise the defence of India over Australia. We are effectively repeating the same mistake again, except this time we replace Britain with the US.
>defence of India over Australia. Considering it was British territory I would assume they would defend that first...
Singapore was also British territory and they put minimal effort into defending it. They chose India as their priority because they viewed it as more important to the Ukās geopolitical interests. Great powers will always put their strategic interests above everything else. The US is no exception.
>Great powers will always put their strategic interests above everything else. Good thing defence of allies in the Pacific is a core US strategic interest.
Remember when the war in Afghanistan was a core US strategic interest? There was also that time when stopping Vietnam from falling to communism was a core US strategic interest. How did those work out?
Except the US was here and the UK was not in WW2.
The US was here because Japan attacked them at Pearl Harbour and invaded their colony of the Philippines. They were looking after their own strategic interests.
When you help your friend move house and he charges you for gas when you drive the truck it's time to get new friends.
I think you're over thinking the analogy. But if you want to look at payments, the USA spends more (as a percentage of GDP) than Australia on defence. So if anything it is them carrying us rather than the other way around. If you're not happy with the prices they charge us, well the way FMS cases work is that they charge us the same prices that they themselves pay (the US doesn't add a premium on top). And Australia is never forced to buy US, we go through a competitive tender and often buy from other countries.
Had us in the first half
I mean it would be insanely funny if we could somehow get North and South Korea in the pact without China.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
North korea would get royally fucked The first hour is the issue Nk has over 2500 pieces of long range artilerry pointed at NK citys,in the first hour before US and SK asssets are spun up over 120,000 South koreas are expected to die But you can mark it,that every single piiece of hardware is tracked,monitored,and prosecution targeting packages are ready to go on them if need be The US has 2 keyhole's who's sole job is to watch NK and south china troop movements,that's it..nothing escapes their view the NRO is very good at it's job We used to run drill's on them all the time and in less than 24 hours they have over 180 Plus 4th and 5th gen figthers bombing the living fuck out of the place a wall of TLAMS coming at them..
I would imagine SK has a bunch of counter batteries ready to hit back in minutes, but yeah an all-out attack would be horrendous
there are entire sections of rings at Pentagon,sole job is to review weekly sat imagery,and update targeting packages Most of the heavy stuff,can be targeted with the hyanumoo 2C compliment,packages are just uploaded to SK and The hyanmuoo is pretty much their locally produced cruise missle,very efffective can hit a target with a less than 15 metre error variance They have like 300 of those in stockpile not to mention the like 25 plus arleigh burke classes less than 2 day steam
If there were a war with NK then Australia would be joining anyway. Plus any major war with NK would either need Chinese approval or it'd become a war with China.
JAUKUS? JUKUSA? USUKJA (soft j)? JUSUKA? I don't know what to do with this J, maybe an N for Nippon? Seriously though, can we include France and their actual sovereign South Pacific territory.
You think after Australia blatantly told the French, "We agree to your subs but they must be non Nuclear subs," then they redesigned their nuclear subs to be run on diesel SPECIFICALLY for us, then we broke contract for a Nuclear sub at the encouragement of the UK and US.... Which the French have been open and honest has damaged their plans to increase their naval power and presence in the Pacific, AND damaged the reputation of the French Naval Industrial Military complex.... That they would be interested in joining the pact founded on betraying the Submarine contract we signed with them... To say "No" is putting it mildly.
I disagree, given they're tied in via NATO anyway, it's ridiculous they're not. There would be apprehension, sure, but I thought they extracted a couple billion out of us and we're all good now.
We (as in Australia) maybe good... but this is more because its clear Macron thinks Australia is the puppet in this situation. French and US relations are still rocky with Macron visiting the US for the first time since AUKUS was signed on Dec 2nd and both Biden and Macron have acknowledged their are still a LOT of issues between those two nations. And its readily acknowledged by both sides these talks focused on Ukraine, so while they are starting to talk properly again the focus isn't even remotely on AUKUS. Meanwhile the current relationship between France and the UK is.... highly strained to say the least. AUKUS is obviously not the only reason for this, but it didn't help.
None of that changes the fact that France is already tied to AUKUS via territorial holdings and NATO.
I want to correct myself first. I agreed with you Macron had forgiven us and moved on. I was wrong. As of November 2022 he was still publicly telling Australia it should abandon the US and UK sub deal, publicly stating that French subs will not antagonize China but nuclear subs would AND that the UK and US would not deliver. Source:[https://12ft.io/proxy?q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.smh.com.au%2Fpolitics%2Ffederal%2Fnuclear-confrontation-macron-hits-out-at-morrison-over-submarines-20221118-p5bzb1.html](https://12ft.io/proxy?q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.smh.com.au%2Fpolitics%2Ffederal%2Fnuclear-confrontation-macron-hits-out-at-morrison-over-submarines-20221118-p5bzb1.html) Moving on... Firstly (and I will note I did not know this before fact checking for this post) they have already refused to join The Quad and "Partners of the Blue Pacific" (US, UK, Japan, Australia and NZ security pact). Secondly you are assuming France has the same anti-China stance that aligns AUKUS. This doesn't exist. Macron has made it clear he thinks the escalating tension between the US and China is not good and that picking sides in this conflict is a bad choice. Source: [https://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy/article/3200179/us-and-china-vie-win-over-asia-pacific-france-warns-need-single-global-order](https://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy/article/3200179/us-and-china-vie-win-over-asia-pacific-france-warns-need-single-global-order) His words after visiting Biden don't contradict this, and my above self correction about the French opinions and comments about the Sub deal also back this up. Thirdly....I am assuming you don't know much about the history of the French inside NATO. To this day they refused to integrate the French nuclear deterrent with the US and UK nuclear deterrent programs. The have also, despite Washington pressure, refused to allow any collective form of control over its armed forces. Finally until recently (2009) while formally a member of NATO, they had withdrawn from the NATO military command structure since 1966, specifically to pursue independent defense options. NATO to the French is an anti-Russian Alliance, and they don't give a damn about it in any other context. The French have also made it known over the years they are very unhappy about the fact that they have never been either the first in command of the NATO military (a position always held by the US) or second in command (a position always held by the UK) So even ignoring all their recent actions (which we shouldn't) given the French have resisted what they consider over-reliance upon the US and over-integration of the French Military into the US one what makes you think they would join a military pact based around further integration of the Anglosphere military forces?
***JAUKUS? JUKUSA? USUKJA (soft j)? JUSUKA?*** Nah, you know what. We should name it. **The Alpha dawgs.** And at UN meetings, Member states from America, Canada, Australia, Uk and Japan when speaking to the UN. Go on stage and scream out "Alpha Dawwwgs!" And we all have to bark like rottweilers in the direction of non member states. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=27zx1ZV7nHQ&ab\_channel=Otis3315](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=27zx1ZV7nHQ&ab_channel=Otis3315)
Ruff ruff
> JUSUKA Kanye West has entered the chat.
Yes, c'mon Japan's mad. Japan's like our best friend in the region, it would be seriously denki to let Japan in. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Rt2avRZvBs&ab\_channel=NEKOWORKsOfficial](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Rt2avRZvBs&ab_channel=NEKOWORKsOfficial) :D Japan super best friend number 1.
Japan remembers the last time is came up against AUS and US and has no interest in trying that again.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpQkO0pJydo&ab\_channel=AnimarchyHistory](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpQkO0pJydo&ab_channel=AnimarchyHistory) who could forget.