The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Offensive defence > Comments

Offensive defence : Comments

By Sue Wareham, published 15/5/2009

Very few among those consulted for the Defence Review White Paper were people with expertise in peaceful conflict resolution or diplomacy.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. All
I'm always bemused when people make statements like "fighting the last battle."

This seems pretty stupid. If it's the 'last' battle, then by definition, we're all wiped out and fighting is useless. Unless it's some religious construct, in which case, I'dve thought the proper response was to be all peaceful and holy or something like that.

So to all those in the north arming themselves for the 'last battle', I suggest you take a chill pill and get back in touch with reality.

For someone who doesn't care about other people's posts and just states his opinions Leigh, you get awfully tetchy when criticised. It's always good for a hoot, but you might want to try relaxing sometimes. You'll live longer to grace us with your consistently vitriolic posts.

When I saw the blurb for this piece, my reaction was bemusement. The actual article wasn't quite the naive piece I thought it would be, but it still had its flaws. It did speak somewhat realistically about some threats though and made some pretty good points when highlighting the absence of commentary regarding nuclear threats and so forth.
Posted by TurnRightThenLeft, Monday, 18 May 2009 9:37:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Turnabout,
“Fighting the Last Battle” – in DefPlan circles is actually a technical term used to describe big acquisitions mistakes.
Some are better than others at doing that.
Australia has honed the expertise down to the proverbial razor’s edge.

Everyone tries to work out from the last shindig what would happen in the next and what equipment ‘we’ might need in order to make for more and hopefully complete carnage.

Believe me when I say that the next buy of equipment SHALL be built to sufficiently high a standard to last out well into at least approximately 1995.
Yes. That’s right. I exaggerate not in the least and repeat – 1995. It was, after all, a good year.

Oh.
If you mean sustaining combat capability against an ‘impossible scenario’, say, the US and Its allies then accept the timeframe might be closer to about – 1957 or thereabouts.

As regards ‘armchair generals’ – I’d suggest they belt up and let a superior breed hold sway.
We ‘Couch Commanders’ are an entirely more capable lot and fit right in with C/4ISR, situational awareness, minimum necessary effort/maximum destruction/social displacement – while some of that stuff cooked up at Langley sorts out whole populations - if it works right and doesn’t turn back on those boiling the pot.

As for tetchiness – this forum like most of them gives fair indication how wars happen.
All one has to do is humbly submit the truth and either one is ignored or bawled out remorselessly.
Such conflicting emotion devoid of any fact.

Nonetheless, I enjoyed writing this.
Posted by A NON FARMER, Tuesday, 19 May 2009 6:21:45 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The new purchases desired for the "defence" of Australia have a few things in common:
1 They are very expensive.
2 They are all made overseas in countries which may or may not supply us with parts etc.
3 They all run on fossil fuels. We have no strategic reserves of fuel and in another 25 years (when the joint strike fighter is ready) the supply of fossil fuels may be a bit limited.
4 They are all distracting us from tackling climate change.
5 They are all distracting us from seeking to make more friends and fewer enemies.
Posted by Peace, Tuesday, 19 May 2009 7:58:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
My remarkably innocent ‘Peace’,
Re- your last - by your numbers -

1 They are very expensive.

They’re nOT. ask your MP.
It saves us billions by buying in.
It also helps determine allies.
If they keep supplying their junk – they remain allies.
Joe Stalin could explain his particularly close relationship with his pal, Adolph Hitler.

2 They are all made overseas in countries which may or may not supply us with parts etc.

Who gave you that idea?
Australian industry involvement is the core of Defence Policy.
No-one ever said that Australians had to be stakeholders, be employed, or to derive any income
Besides tou need give regard to the immense difficulty of operating any standard of R&D, production and the like here in OZ.

3 They all run on fossil fuels. We have no strategic reserves of fuel and in another 25 years (when the joint strike fighter is ready) the supply of fossil fuels may be a bit limited.

Nooooo ! Who told you that?
The LATEST U.S. Gizmos run on Free Energy. A bullet fired from the latest US service rifle will chase you three times around the block and still kill you – batteries free!
We need to speak with that person who told you otherwise.

4 They are all distracting us from tackling climate change.

Dear Peace, distract you from a bait you’ve swallowed and hooked.

5 They are all distracting us from seeking to make more friends and fewer enemies.

IF you can find a nation in the Asia/Indian/ Pacific Bloc that actually remains a friend to Australia – then you are reading some scenario from some ‘alternative universe’.
Howard blew it entirely away, and the present lot have to exercise damage control.

Summary –
"Ci vis pacem para bellum" – make peace by being prepared for war.
That is the rule of the ages.
It isn’t right and should not be right – but that is how our ‘Masters’ still want it.
Now tell me; how might we work together, in concert with others, toward changing their attitude
Posted by A NON FARMER, Tuesday, 19 May 2009 9:16:33 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Non Farmer,

Your statements:

"There is always an immediate threat", - (Please point one out to me)

"And it does not take too long to build offensive capability towards overkill if the decision has been made " - (Please indicate how you will quickly build up a force with front line fighters, tanks, ships, and trained soldiers. Given that rounding up laymen and giving them pointy sticks won't cut it nowadays.)

Show a complete ignorance of anything military.

Your suggestion that the US let Japan strike first is ridiculous. The US sat back on its laurels believing that no one would dare attack it and had not updated its hardware. Japan thought it could take the US out of the war by destroying its navy and nearly succeeded.

An suitable defense force is to some extent like a seat belt in a car. You hope you never actually need it, but you would be ill advised not to have it.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Wednesday, 20 May 2009 11:29:00 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy