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.

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

"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.

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.

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.

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.

Stephan; Perhaps the Israel solution would be effective.
Build nuclear weapon(s) but do not tell anyone and never admit that
you have such weapons.

It does not take long for the word to get out that a country has built
such weapons but if it is denied everyone is in a quandry.

This is the siyuation Israel has manufactured for itself.

I wonder if Vanunu was a plant to give some backing to the theory that
Israel had a bomb ?

It may be that we have nukes here already.
Its reputed that part of the deal that Bob Menzies made for the Brits to test their bombs out here (Maralinga) was that if we ever needed nukes... they would send them.
There are also strange things happening...i.e. stories amongst military personnel and Oz scientists of black flights from the US and unspecified loads to certain locations? One story I came across the witness swore he saw long, rectangular boxes with airconditioning units on the side being unloaded off a black flight at Woomera SA.
I find it hard to believe that with such a threat as Russia and China pose that nukes are not already stored here somewhere. You think of it... the Americans have a number of secret bases here as part of their global ICBM systems. We could hardly protect them with our 3rd world Defence forces in time of invasion.

What the Defence industry and analysts will be telling government has to be taken with a (large) grain of salt (as they have a private interest in continued and continuous military expansion and spending). All of our forces in future will be annihilated. That must be accepted because to pretend otherwise is FANTASY.

If people today want to join the armed services in the near future they will be sent home in coffins by the hundred or thousand (if their bodies aren't disintegrated, which they probably will be) if they engage any country that is part of this "arms race".

We will NEVER win an arms race in this region. It will make us bankrupt if we attempt to maintain dominance. The bigger economy and producer always wins. We are neither.

Interesting stuff Steel.
My only thought was if a citizens army could be formed and couldnt be targeted by nukes... OZ might survive. With lost of prayer too.
What it means though is weapons and ammo dumps all over the place, a publishing for the gun clubbers to get them on side. Food silos etc. As China builds with her eyes on the road south I hope someone in Australia is going to do something, anything.

I agree with your "citzen army" or militia idea.

BAZZ,

Australia's geostrategic position is very different to that of Israel. Israel has land borders with hostile neighbours. It needs nukes ready for instant use.

Australia is an island-continent. There would be a long lead time were any threats to develop. Therefore the CAPABILITY to deploy nukes within a year or two is probably all that is needed for now. The Japanese could probably deploy a sizeable nuclear deterrent in less than two years.

PAUL.L,

Indonesia gave permission for Australian troops to land in East Timor RELUCTANTLY and only after much PRESSURE from the US. Apparently an IMF bail out was conditioned on letting go of East Timor. From the perspective of many of Indonesia's elite we invaded their sovereign territory.

I agree that we need a lethal CONVENTIONAL capability. However there is a problem. Australia's weakness is its inordinately long supply routes. Whoever controls the oceans around Australia can, in principle, control Australia.

At the moment the US Navy controls the oceans. The hysteria of certain lefties notwithstanding, the US is on the whole a friendly power.

Were an aggressive Indonesia ever to acquire a blue ocean navy the only way to protect Australia's sea routes would be to have the capability of destroying their naval bases. Nukes MAY be needed for that.

It is unlikely that Australia would ever find itself in conflict with China on its own. However some rather frightening scenarios involving Taiwan are imaginable.

STEEL.

I agree with you. That is why it is best if we never have to fight. And that is why the ultimate deterrent may actually be the best bet.

In the cold war it was called Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD).

Steel says >> All of our forces in future will be annihilated. That must be accepted because to pretend otherwise is FANTASY.

Sorry WTF? On what basis do you claim this PREPOSTEROUS nonsense? Who will annihilate our forces? What will they do it with? Have you gone over to GIBO’s “dark side” or something. Do you know believe that our future is set and that some “evil” bogeyman is coming to get us all?

But seriously, have you done any kind of comparative analysis between armed forces of the region? I sincerely doubt it.

Steel says >> If people today want to join the armed services in the near future they will be sent home in coffins by the hundred or thousand … “

Oh Why is that Steel? Who’s going to be doing all this killing? And what do you suggest we do to avoid being killed by these unnamed hordes. Should we surrender now perhaps?

You say >> “We will NEVER win an arms race in this region. It will make us bankrupt if we attempt to maintain dominance. The bigger economy and producer always wins. We are neither”

Why do we need to WIN an arms race Steel? We wouldn’t even try to beat China or India. What on earth makes you think we would, certainly Rudd is not suggesting that. He’s merely suggesting we retain a credible threat to any would be enemies.

When Howard invested in planes and choppers from the USA, has the order been fully received? While agreeing that Australia's forces need ships,jets,subermarines etc to operate and protect our country, I don't know that nukes are a viable choice. With the amount of countries that have nuclear weapons, it's only going to take one leader to go off the rails, fire a nuke, it's good-bye all.

Sounds like you had better start digging your air raid shelter,without delay. And don't forget the baked beans, ya could be there for a while.

Steven,

You say>> "Were an aggressive Indonesia ever to acquire a blue ocean navy the only way to protect Australia's sea routes would be to have the capability of destroying their naval bases."

No.

For starters, their Naval capabilities are nowhere near "blue water" operational. It would be obvious to us if they tried to acquire such a capability and I cannot imagine that we would not expand to meet that threat.

Neither do they have any kind of "brown/green water" advantage that would be useful in these circumstances.There are number of options open to Australian forces if the worst was to come about and we had to confront an agressive indonesia.

Firstly our Naval forces with their full complement of sailors for complete operation of all our capabilities is quite strong. Especially when the new AWD's arrive, and the collins class are fully manned.

Secondly our Air Force is far more sophisticated and would be operating on much shorter supply lines than any indonesian expeditionary forces.

We could easily stop any kind of aggressive expedition by the indonesians in situ, were that ever to occur. Until the f111's are finally retired we still have the capability of significant punishment to Indonesian military bases as well as centres of power. At the moment though, this scenario is still fairly unlikely.

As for China, as you so correctly note, we are unlikely to come into conflict with them on our own. At this point, involvement with US forces in defending Taiwan is the most likely (although still fairly unlikely) scenario. In that case there would be no need for offensive nuclear capability.

I think the bottom line with the future defence of Australia is really quite simple.

"If they, China and/or Russia (I always see them as a Gang of 2 against the West) cant target home defence forces in time of war because the forces are so scattered and well-equiped... the nation will survive".

But... we have to make the effort and not say anything else is of greater importance.

What we need is more immigration, so we have some expendables to through around.

OLLy, you say we need more immigration so we have expendables. How can we defeat an ememy,if they have been allowed to enter the country by the multitude. Plus why would the enemy worry about attacking the country when they can just apply to enter as immigrants or refugees and take over?

Gibo,
I not sure about a Russian/ Chinese alliance. I believe the Chinese see Russia as an enemy.
Where the Chinese are a concern is economically. Their economy is thriving. Most goods sold in Australia and in the Western World are manufactured in China. Look at our clothing and most electrical goods. We buy all our stuff from China because it can be made cheaply. The Chinese are already making low cost cars for export (Although they are not in Australia yet to my knowledge). Eventually, only the Chinese will have the technology, and they can start putting the prices up. The Chinese invasion you talk about may not be a conventional invasion, maybe their weapon of war will be their money, and they will simply buy us.