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 > General Discussion > IF there is a genuine strategic threat nukes are the only viable deterrent.

IF there is a genuine strategic threat nukes are the only viable deterrent.

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. All
Rudd has made a surprisingly strong statement about defence spending. Not only has the defence budget been quarantined from possible cuts; the military have been promised a 3% per annum real increase in expenditure.

Quote:

"We need a first-rate and flexible land force, one capable of taking on challenges from contributing to high-end military engagements through to delivering post-conflict reconstruction support. We need enhanced naval capability that can protect our sea lanes of communication and support our land forces as they deploy.

"And we need an air force that can fill support and combat roles and can deter, defeat and provide assistance to land and maritime forces."

See: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24336633-7583,00.html

What motivates this is what Rudd calls an "explosion" in military spending in our region. In other words, it looks as if Rudd thinks an arms race is starting.

I do not know whether there is going to be an arms race. Certainly Indonesia's purchase of weapons from Russia is a cause for concern. See:

http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/jitters-as-indonesia-buys-russian-subs/2007/09/04/1188783237164.html

Remember that from the Indonesian perspective we invaded their territory when Australian troops arrived in East Timor. This makes the Indonesians inherently suspicious of us. They may think West Papua is next.

However, here's the thing. Our strategic rivals are giants compared to us. Indonesia alone has more than ten times our population. No way can we match Indonesia, or other Asian powers, in an arms race.

We also probably cannot be sure of the US commitment to defend us.

If there is a strategic threat a small nation needs an equaliser. And the only one available is a nuclear DETERRENT. That provides most bang for the buck.

I am not suggesting that Australia openly acquire nuclear weapons. The Japanese approach is probably best. Japan is a "virtual" nuclear power. It has the capability to deploy nuclear weapons faster than any threat could materialise. We could do the same.

NB: Remember that nuclear weapons are meant as a DETERRENT against threats be they nuclear or CONVENTIONAL.
Posted by stevenlmeyer, Monday, 15 September 2008 8:17:41 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
considering the events on 9 /11 and the perceived implications of those events does history show the American solution viable?
Clearly not.
If the terrorist networks belonged to no one country why would America invade Iraq?
The terrorist networks belong to governments who support them or have no capacity to expel them
The war in Iraq is winnable but it is not in the interests of America to win it
I believe there is a credible threat to America and the only plausible reaction was to use nuecular weapons on these countries that support them
This way these countries get to come out of the closet and stand to account for their actions
The countries who have no capacity to expel them would try harder or ask for help
what is the point of having these weapons if the owners perceive them only as doomsday weapons?
America needs to walk the walk. Its army is perceived as beatable and that is no good thing for America or the Free world
Posted by robbo5, Tuesday, 16 September 2008 1:05:24 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
"Its army is perceived as beatable and that is no good thing for America or the Free world

Posted by robbo5, Tuesday, 16 September 2008 1:05:24 AM"

By who?. The Jihadi's will be totally aware of the reality of the current situation they're in right now. Yeah, they get to kill few by hiding behind civilians and by using remote bombs, but beatable?, no. They'll know the numbers they're losing. They get to run around and crack off a few shots but if the war goes similar to the tactics of WW2 by displacing the civilian population the Jihadi's will get wiped off the board. Right now, they're being kept in Iraq and Afghanistan with something to shoot at.

At least that way they're not flying into buildings. You think the yanks are stupid enough to believe that the war will be 'won' by hanging around Iraq only?. That makes you naive, not them. They're the ones fighting them, they'd know where the replacements are coming from.
Posted by StG, Tuesday, 16 September 2008 8:29:13 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
This is not about the so-called "war on terror."

It is, if Rudd is correct, about an arms build-up by NATION STATES in our region. Nearly every country in the region – not just India and China – appears to be increasing its military CAPABILITIES.

They may be doing this for reasons that have nothing to do with Australia. But once they have added CAPABILITIES it is impossible to predict how they may use them in the future.

Rudd's argument is that Australia needs to match this increase in CAPABILITIES.

However, I don’t see how a small nation like Australia can match the more lethal CAPABILITIES our neighbours appear to be acquiring with conventional weapons alone.
Posted by stevenlmeyer, Tuesday, 16 September 2008 8:45:56 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
A multinational agreement would negate the need to call it an 'arms race'.

Pool your resources then build on what's lacking. Then there's no need for us to acquire nukes.
Posted by StG, Tuesday, 16 September 2008 9:00:55 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
Steven,

The arms build up in Asia is not imaginary. It is real and poses significant threat to stability. China has massively increased its submarine fleet, including both conventional and nuclear powered subs. These subs would be very effective in any conflict with the US over Taiwan.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/25/world/asia/25submarine.html?ref=world
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PLA_Navy#Current_status

China has also invested heavily in new jets, AWACS, cruise missiles etc. see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PLA_Air_Force#Modernization_Program
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/02/08/news/fighter.php
http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0111/p07s01-woap.html

The Chinese have increased military spending by more than 10% a year for the last 15 years.

India have recently decided to buy nearly 200 new Russian jets including 40 of the advanced Sukhoi Su 30 Flankers’s. In 2004 India spent US $5.7 billion in arms purchases making India the developing world's leading military buyer. A major chunk of those purchases were made for the Indian Navy. India is currently focusing on expanding its submarine fleet. They are investing in new nuclear submarines and have plans for an indigenous replacement for their aircraft carrier. The Indian Navy is preparing for a full “blue water” capability.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Navy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Air_Force
http://english.aljazeera.net/business/2007/02/2008525131139445890.html

Indonesia has ordered new Flankers to fit out a squadron. They have also ordered new f-16s. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indonesian_Air_Force

Indonesia is also looking at significantly expanding its naval patrol forces http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200502/s1301509.htm

As well as the new subs, tanks and helicopters that you mentioned
http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/jitters-as-indonesia-buys-russian-subs/2007/09/04/1188783237164.html

Given all the above it is very unlikely that Australia will find itself in conflict with China or India on our own.

As it stands we currently have a far more lethal Air Force and Navy that Indonesia although that could change. However with the gov’t commitment to a 3% real increase in defence budget we should be able to maintain our advantage for a long time yet.

By the way, Australian troops landed in East Timor, only with the permission of the Indonesian gov’t.

I think nukes would be a waste of money, diverting resources away from conventional/usable technology.
Posted by Paul.L, Tuesday, 16 September 2008 12:00:59 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
  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. All

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