I agree with your analysis. Some rumours heard in defence were that at one stage the ADF was asked to make a choice of whether they wanted to be a surveillance/intelligence based organisation or a projection of force organisation. As if they could be mutually exclusive.

We need both, but the limited thinking available to our current government could not contain that evidently, and the size of the egos currently in Canberra meant there was no room for real military analysis.

The White Paper is a frustrating document clearly intended to save money and make it nearly impossible to spend any that does not have photo opportunities or solid bragging rights attached. The work of collection of inteliigence is not obvious, yes I know, and thus has no attraction to this spin based, show pony government.

The military is rightly frustrated, but is not going to mutiny as they are too well trained and unlike the government they are truly Professional men and women, not created marketing facades for a limited purpose.

We have done a great disservice to the ADF with this attempt to put someone's personal moniker across for no other purpose than ego. We will regret it, but then again it is a democracy.

Spot on.
Although lacking in specific hardware terminology I think the 'logic'
for the white paper is as you say fanciful.
When I tried to run a topic on the subject many couldn't get past the 'big' is best concept. As I also tried to point out the ADF has its own self interested careerists who seem hell bent on maintaining their power structures and image. Such as toys for boys.

Arguments often stemmed from chose the best weaponry then fit a strategy. Rather than the more the REALISTIC set a strategy that is best for the country then search for the appropriate weaponry.

I also question how willing the US would be to enter a shooting war particularly with China et al over Australia.

I agree that the threat to Australia isn't one of war per se.
Our concern will probably be energy, resources, food security and the common fear of our racial/cultural purity.

It is against this background that Govt. has opted for continuation of the deputy sheriff part of the US bloc (both to satisfy US and domestic politics.) as for achieving anything substantial in the way of self defense of Australia....The hobbits are coming.

Marco said

"Beijing does not constitute a military threat. The threat that Beijing poses is its example of an alternative model of economic development that runs counter to the neoliberal models of industrialisation that have been developed to suit the interests of dominant centres of global financial and economic power. China also provides breathing room for less developed states to reject the economic austerity programs, promoted in the interests of western investors, that have long been a feature of the Washington Consensus".

I suppose now that Sweden or Japan are no longer the desirable options to our flawed liberal democratic societies, one may now marvel at China (as if).

Keep dreaming Marco, and watch while Aust policy makers continue not to listen to you and long side with the US and Western interests.

oicy anrble

1 - Somebody forgot to invite defence personnel into the cult of free trade. If they did I'm sure some smart strategist could have easily broken the swaying zombie chant of "globalisation benefits everyone" by musing: don't trade with someone you don't trust. Problem solved. No trade with China = no rising beast to be afraid of. Now that's a mother of a contradiction: we now have to spend a motza on defence because of a problem we created.

So take the minerals syringe out of our vein and stop buying China's goods. If you don't trust someone, then sanction them, don't trade with them.

2 - Rudd will staff the Navy with Pacific Islanders as part of his grand nation destroying idea of the Asia Pacific Union. Be afraid ...

A mostly accurate analysis I think.

100 F-35s and a rolling average of 12 submarines will give Australia a force:

- overly large to take on nearby neighbours and

- too small and under-armed to defend Australia against the potential giants (China, India and even plutonium rich Japan).

The American nuclear umbrella won't delay the need for independent judgement forever.

Either we:

- should orego the proposed massive investment in CONVENTIONAL medium-high intensity strike power (jets and cruise missiles) for more pressing national goals (as New Zealand did), or

- prepare a nuclear force to meet the main threats.

Maybe there is such a plan deep in the bowels of DIO - nothing that the US or the Australian electorate will want to hear now. But maybe that will be the pressing need by 2025 that was disregarded as too pointed in 2009.

It takes many years to build ones own, effective, nuclear force. It took Israel 15 years by 1966 with much needed help from France...

Pete

Plantagenet,

I concur, a nuclear deterrent is valid alternative. As China is not an immediate threat, there is time for development.