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 > Nuclear weapons for Australia.

Nuclear weapons for Australia.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All
"This is the Asian century", "America's position as THE world power is fading." we are told.

Given this, the pathetic state of our armed forces, and one of the lowest expenditure as a % of GDP on defence in the world, it is easy to conclude that we are facing a growing threat in our region, and our ability to rely on Uncle Sam is wearing thin.

Until now, our close bond with the US has meant that we were safe from predators, but the Asian tigers don't see us as allies, and are unlikely to offer Australia any protection. While we are unlikely ever to want to mount an offensive campaign, we need (like the porcupine) to be sufficiently prickly to ensure that any attempt at aggression carries an obvious price.

While I am expecting a chicken little approach from those for whom the N word is anathema, but I invite all to comment on whether Australia needs its own nuclear umbrella, or what are the alternatives?
Posted by Shadow Minister, Sunday, 22 April 2012 1:19:04 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
SM...if I didnt know any better, I think your trying to pick a fight:)

Its an Asian world, and as Yoda would say....problem you have, or NOT.

cc
Posted by planet 3, Monday, 23 April 2012 12:22:28 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
Planet 3,

Here is the scenario, a strong military takes at least a decade or two to build, but problems where we need it can arise much faster. The second world war is a prime example, where other than relying on America, Australia would have been soundly thrashed by the Japanese. China is building up it military, including submarines and air craft carriers which are designed to project force, and not for defence.

The comparison to insurance is a good one. Regular payments to avoid a huge life altering catastrophe. While everyone is good neighbours now, what do we do if things change in 2030? If we don't have big brother, how do we make it unattractive to invade?
Posted by Shadow Minister, Monday, 23 April 2012 5:47:34 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
Thankfully planet 3 comes from a minority.
An almost invisible one.
I am told, by ex Navy men we have them.
If not we should.
Considering North Korea, India, Pakistan, have them.
We will hear from put the guns away folk.
I would ask they look at what Britain did in the years building to ww2.
And what Germany was doing.
Then at how very close we came to total defeat.
Unfortunately, some great folk tend to forget wars start after one side see,s the other as weaker than them.
Posted by Belly, Monday, 23 April 2012 6:05:24 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
The very reason Iran, Pakistan, and North Korea are developing Nukes and the missiles to deliver them is for defence, to make the cost of invasion intolerably high, against the perceived threat of the US and India. The dangers with these unstable regimes are that a border dispute could be escalated out of control, or that the regimes could collapse and the weapons fall into the hands of terrorists.

With the effective collapse of the Australian Navy, who can't get most of their ships out of dock let alone mount a defence of the realm there is a real risk that our destiny might not be of our making.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Monday, 23 April 2012 6:19:08 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
China is the problem it's takeover by stealth, with all this high pay mining our defense force is depleted. What is wrong with a grey army.
Nookes may very well be on our land, just not known.
A shared base in the north won't do any harm.
America still has plenty of money for defense, I think Australia's defense budget would be better of in the hands of America in exchange for our defense requirements
Posted by 579, Monday, 23 April 2012 10:22:53 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
The problem with nuclear bombs is that they can destroy large numbers of people in cities, but they may neither deter nor protect. Israel has had a nuclear capability since the early 60s. That prevented neither the Arab armies massing in 1967 on Israel's borders nor the 1971 attack by Arab armies. If there are nuclear weapons there must be procedures to use them under certain circumstances. That means there must be a person in the chain of command who is authorised to use them. There is no way one can be sure that person will not in an irrational moment order the weapons to be used. It is better for Australia's security to try to persuade those countries w nuclear weapons to rid of them rather than get them for ourself. Australians are not immune to irrationality.
Posted by david f, Monday, 23 April 2012 12:58:02 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
SM....while I don't like anything nuclear, however you do have a valid point about our pathetic means to defend ourselves. China and North Korea are in each others back pockets and South Korea is more on the menu than us.

597's post has the best advice and he's probably right.

See the link.

http://tinyurl.com/87ok7rt

Even though no-one win's if the red button is pushed, I don't think its a bad idea to have haft a dozen or so. In stead of Australia looking like a smooth ball that anyone a catch, with a few war heads underground, we turn from catch-able to spiky and second thoughts of the easy takeover is gone.

cc
Posted by planet 3, Monday, 23 April 2012 2:05:53 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
Planet3 thanks for seriously considering it.

Davidf, Israel only built its first Nuke in the late 60s and the Arab countries were probably unaware of Israel's progress as no weapons or delivery systems had been tested. In 67 the Arabs were almost certainly unaware, and in 71 too. The awareness came to the world after Mordechai Vanunu let the cat out of the bag.

As in North Korea, unless resources of the extent of the US are mobilised, it takes many years to build a deliverable weapon. If this is a project for Australia, it is unlikely to be ready before 2030, but by then the world may be very different.

P.S. I also asked for anyone that poo poo ed the proposal, to provide some alternative.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Monday, 23 April 2012 2:36:38 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
As will always be the case not haveing weapons our enemy's have is asking to be defeated.
All very well to put our thoughts and motivations in their heads, but unwise.
No sane man wants a Nuclear war.
But I think too we dare not use rubber bands and sling shots to repel Nuclear weapons.
Posted by Belly, Monday, 23 April 2012 3:34:48 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
Who said we don't have them already?

As for the claim that it will take till 2030:

Firstly it's incorrect - it took Israel a similar period to develop - before computers were around, without any uranium of its own, without a local testing-site and at a time when it was poor and its population was only 2-3 million. For comparison, the U.S.A took only 2-3 years, including basic research and without computer technology.

Secondly, this assumes that we haven't started already.

Thirdly, today it is quite possible to purchase readily assembled weapons from Russia.

As for the claim that it will not deter or protect anyone, that may be true in Israel's case because its area is so small that one bomb can destroy all, but not in Australia where the area is huge and launching sites can be spread and hidden anywhere in the outback.

Yes, it isn't cheap to develop, but how much does it cost to SAY that we have? in the least to stop saying that we don't!
Posted by Yuyutsu, Monday, 23 April 2012 5:49:59 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
Some historical trivia -

1. The Snowy Scheme (well situated near Jervis Bay and the ANU) included a network of tunnels that were intended to house our own nuclear research facilities with a view to developing our own weapons. The USA policy was not to assist any other nation until they reached a certain level on their own but our plans were soon shelved. England proceeded for a while after their Maralinga tests but in the end, they just bought theirs ready-made from the USA (or rather, allowed the USA to install missiles on their territory).

2. According to the principal historian of the Australian War Museum, Japan never intended to invade Australia and we knew that in 1942, so American didn't so much "save us" as we gave then access to our facilities to fight the war. This was kept secret during the war but the record was never officially corrected for political and patriotic reasons. To this day there is no evidence of a planned invasion and plenty against it.

3. We were already a prime nuclear target for the USSR because of the US military bases that provide a first alert for their defence system by pinpointing USSR missile launch sites for a counter-attack. We would have been the very first nuclear target in case of a nuclear war between the USSR and USA, and not just the bases but the major cities as well in order to stop the transmission of data back to the USA. Our main ally was prepared to use us as a "sacrificial goat" to protect itself.

Now what sort of nuclear umbrella would be feasible to protect us from that scenario?
Posted by rache, Monday, 23 April 2012 11:46:19 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
We have to be mad if we don't have a few.

It only takes a single nuclear cruise missile, or at worst just a couple, to take out an invading force, while still at sea.

This would be the only effective defence we could offer, now we have retired the F111s. Nothing we have, or are likely to have, including a fleet of subs, would do the job.

Once any even a moderate force landed, it would be impossible for us to contain.
Posted by Hasbeen, Tuesday, 24 April 2012 1:59:00 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
Rache, I promise I am not angry heated, any thing like that.
I will till I die, consider views such as one you put here,far more dangerous to democracy than us haveing the bomb.
Japan did not intend to invade Australia?
Did they then only intend to choke us to death, then take control?
No doubt we will get the Nuclear bombs on Japan was evil thing again?
Yet EVEN NOW that country is not teaching its true past.
Tomorrow I will have that beer,and quietly remember the prisoners of was the Nurses the Chinese hundreds of thousands killed.
A lot of sadness.
America, is owed much ,as is Russia,who carried the west to victory against another with no Territorial wishes Hitler.
We I think have the bomb, if not yes hasbeen we are quite mad!
Posted by Belly, Tuesday, 24 April 2012 5:20:12 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 list of countries bombed by The United States of America since WWII:

China 1945-46
Korea 1950-53
China 1950-53
Guatemala 1954
Indonesia 1958
Cuba 1959-60
Guatemala 1960
Belgian Congo 1964
Guatemala 1964
Dominican Republic 1965-66
Peru 1965
Laos 1964-73
Vietnam 1961-73
Cambodia 1969-70
Guatemala 1967-69
Lebanon 1982-84
Grenada 1983-84
Libya 1986
El Salvador 1981-92
Nicaragua 1981-90
Iran 1987-88
Libya 1989
Panama 1989-90
Iraq 1991
Kuwait 1991
Somalia 1992-94
Bosnia 1995
Iran 1998
Sudan 1998
Afghanistan 1998
Yugoslavia - Serbia 1999
Afghanistan 2001
Libya 2011

Is there a trend here? They sure got them rouge states like Guatemala under control. They have been responsible for the deaths of over 50,000,000 people. Not one of the for mentioned countries has ever attacked the USA. So who is the aggressor in this world, I don't think it is Grenada.
Posted by Paul1405, Tuesday, 24 April 2012 9:37:41 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
Worth watching.

World War III is also a common theme in popular culture. Who might start World War III and how it might start are perennial topics of discussion in press. A vast apocalyptic and post-apocalyptic science fiction literature exists describing the postulated execution and aftermath of World War III, several notable movies have been made based on World War III, and it is the topic of various comics, video games, songs, magazines, radio programs, newspapers and billboards.

World war 3?......

http://tinyurl.com/74kmtau

http://tinyurl.com/7whg792

http://tinyurl.com/2davwhd

cc
Posted by planet 3, Tuesday, 24 April 2012 9:38:09 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
Also as someone who is anti-nuclear energy (for a variety of reasons) this is a much more complex issue and hardly in the same category.

Nuclear deterrence is a reality, and while even one nation possesses nuclear weapons it may be a necessary evil (as much one might wish otherwise).

Possession of nuclear weapons creates both an environment of mutual deterrence but also increases risk. Retaliation (Hiroshima), human error or radical/extremist forces are all factors in these sorts of scenarios.

Also, the alliances Australia seeks may potentially act as both a deterrent as well as emphasise our position as a potential target.

The fact is a signed treaty is not always worth the paper it is written on, in the face of global mistrust, weeping sores and old wounds I can't see a nuclear free world anytime soon and these decisions will still be made based on fear and mistrust. Sometimes these fears and trust issues are valid.

Does anyone really believe the US would ever destroy or dismantle their nuclear weapons program? Or the USSR, Israel, Iran?
Posted by pelican, Tuesday, 24 April 2012 4:09:22 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
...The most enlightening (and simple) way to gauge the military power of America against the rest of the world, is to inspect the strength of the US navy. For example, aircraft carriers: The USA has twelve nuclear powered 90,000 ton “Nimitz” class carriers and eight smaller conventionally powered carriers.

...China has one conventionally powered carrier, but an active R & D carrier program, and is expected (by the USA) to begin building its first “indigenous” class carriers this year.

...Russia has one, the UK two, Spain two, France one, Brazil one, Thailand one, India one, which sums-up the opposition. A simpler statistic highlighting the US monopoly in aircraft carriers, is deck space: The deck-space on US carriers is 70 acres, as a comparison to the rest of the world at 25 acres.

...It is obvious looking through this small (carrier) window alone, that the threat to US military might (thus Australia) is China!

...And the question? With the existing US alliance,Why would Australia bother with nuclear armaments!
Posted by diver dan, Tuesday, 24 April 2012 5:11:23 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
"With the existing US alliance,Why would Australia bother with nuclear armaments!"

One answer is that power-balances can change, but more importantly, do we want to remain slaves of America forever and ever?
Posted by Yuyutsu, Tuesday, 24 April 2012 5:23:04 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
Yuyutsu:

...Interesting, you see an alliance as slavery! The ANZUS treaty is now historic. However, I think from memory, NZ excluded itself in the '80s over the issue of banning visiting nuclear armed US warships.

...About the only worthwhile benefit to the US of this alliance, would be the use of Australia as a staging ground, or for training purposes: And probably some further secret issues of land use with communications no doubt. Our alliance outside of the ANZUS treaty in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan, are insignificant in terms of the "big-picture".
Posted by diver dan, Tuesday, 24 April 2012 7:52:34 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
I think we should stick with the US, otherwise they might deliver us a dose of "freedom and democracy" too. Check out my US bomb list to see all the lucky countries that have been liberated by Uncle Sam since they nuked the Japs in 1945. Special mention must go to the Vietnamese, Afghans and Ireq's they qualified for an extra special dose, those lucky, lucky B's.
Can anyone tell me why the US bombed Peru in 1965? Did the Peruvians win Uncle Sam's Bomb Lottery or something for that year.
Gee, I think the North Koreans, Iranians and the people of Niue qualify for a Liberal dose of freedom and democracy to be delivered shortly.
I think Uncle Sam can leave Niue to us, just wait till we get our own battle ship and H bomb, those Nieu's wont know what hit em'. that will teach em' a lesson, how dare they keep all the coconuts for themselves!
Posted by Paul1405, Tuesday, 24 April 2012 8:03:30 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
A day may well come, I truly hope so, when we look at the alternatives.
I fear totally the impacts of the very left, the tree huggers too,those who hide extremism behind what we all should want,conservationism.
What if we did break out ties with America.
As our near neighbors hold Nuclear weapons what if we do not follow.
Look at the claims of Paul 1405, what if we believed them.
Did I see a claim America killed 50 million?
America is not the proud country of its birth.
It seems to be both good and bad, just like every country in the world.
The left feeds on anti American junk.
Much to be upset with exists, it city's full of guns,one state at least haveing a policy you can stand your ground! murder an unarmed man.
But where is the concern about a nation of slaves North Korea? more in prison camps the Russia at its worst, China and it support for a country of death and starvation?
I would ask that we all take a closer look at the implications of yesterdays failed leftist half truths.
And just as closely todays lurch toward right wing lunacy.
Get if we have not Nuclear weapons,follow Rudd's path in to being heard on the International stage, this world needs fixing.
Not fragmenting.
Posted by Belly, Wednesday, 25 April 2012 5:49:53 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 day may well come, I truly hope so, when we look at the alternatives.
But not right now.

I fear totally the impacts of the very left, the tree huggers too,those who hide extremism behind what we all should want,conservationism.
Belly was that a typo 'conservationism' did you not mean CONSERVATISM.

Yes Belly 50,000,000 and still counting. Extremism, here we have the so called moderates talking about arming Australia with nuclear weapons with the capacity to kill millions of innocent people. Then there is the hypocrisy of those who oppose the 'bad guys' having these weapons but at the same time supporting their proliferation amongst the 'good guys' including Australia. These conservatives then go on with the nonsense that these weapons are only a deterrent against those that would use such weapons. These people conveniently forget that the only nation to have used nuclear weapons so far is the United States, fully justifiable of course, I am sure the next nation to use an atomic bomb will also fully justify their action. I do not support any nation having nuclear weapons. I have to question who really are the extremists in our society.
Posted by Paul1405, Wednesday, 25 April 2012 8:04:11 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
There are problems with building and maintaining a nuclear deterrence:

1. Cost - to research, enrich, build and maintain
2. Time - as another pointed out, this is decreasing over time and many countries (such as Japan ) overcome this by developing to a 'breakout' stage
3. Delivery - there is no point having the weapons if they cannot be delivered.

This is probably my main point. We would need to spend MORE on our conventional systems (missiles, subs, stealth jets) in order to maintain a credible deterrent. As an individual country I do not believe that we could guarantee delivery of sufficient weapons into the cities of a substantially stronger country. Thus this method would be ineffective.

On the other hand, if by effective we mean that we can cause major civilian/economic/infrastructure damage to a militarily superior opponent I would suggest taking a non-conventional approach. Cyber warfare seems quite effective, but to have the same effect (terrible/evil/mass casualty) as nuclear weapons, I believe that biological warfare would be devastating without the three major drawbacks described above. Scientists have already developed super virulent strains of influenza, and new strains can be designed/made relatively cheaply and with high secrecy. Further, delivery would simply require individuals within enemy territory, which gives plausible deniability. The major disadvantage of this method is the inability to guarantee that we would not destroy ourselves or the entire human race.

Now I'm off to think happy thoughts...
Posted by Stezza, Wednesday, 25 April 2012 9:56:54 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
Here is a scenario,

Say in 2050 Australia had 10 MX type missiles in hardened hidden silos. (the MX missile deploys up to 10 warheads with 300 radar identical decoys that make anti missile defence near impossible) The damage an invader could suffer would outweigh the gains.

I agree the expenditure on the military is pitiful, and if we wanted to fight anyone bigger than East Timor we would struggle.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Wednesday, 25 April 2012 1:36:14 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
Belly.

I must say, in using the term tree huggers, just puts you and others as Paul kindly pointed out, as real threat to humanity. People just love using that word as a platform to say they belong in some sort of loony bin. The fact is belly, some people just don't or can not see the bigger picture beyond their own ignorance's.

"I am sure the next nation to use an atomic bomb will also fully justify their action. I do not support any nation having nuclear weapons. I have to question who really are the extremists in our society.

Well said...

Posted by Paul1405, Wednesday, 25 April 2012 8:04:11 AM

I myself, sit just 50% off the centre of neutral, and the far left Iam not. The biodiversity of this planet that we need.....(Ive got to laugh at this) are cause the entire planet to collapse and I don't think you understand how important other governments decisions are.

The conservative members of this planet, you may want to thank them rather than insult them, cause while you cant see the larger and more crucial aspects of the life-support-system's, others do with a passion.

Now when it comes to unclear weapons, no-one would dare press the button, it too will be the end of them as well.

Conservationists work very hard while the majority continue to sit back and just help to kill the very planet our own grandchildren will inherit after us.

Try and think Belly....look into my eyes:/......THE BIGGER-PICTURE!

cc
Posted by planet 3, Wednesday, 25 April 2012 2:36:04 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
Planet 3 yes you and Paul, I would buy you both a beer have a laugh then another beer, most definitely are in my view the perfect match for those radical tree hugers.
A war any war any reason is unwanted.
Being the side that lost, is occupied, is not on my wish list.
Planet 3 if my view of you is wrong, enjoy! but can you stand by Paul's numbers he infers are killed by America?
Why is it no mention is made of mass murders of their own people,by others, or why America went into the Balkans?
I want to tell you a story,years ago an unbalanced in my view student from a northern uni scribbled on every lane merging sign for hundreds of klms.
Form one Lane or more, TO make it read one planet!
I consider him an addition to Paul and your own view of current affairs and politics.
Sorry but see it is a curse to lie ,to not say what you think, in the name of good manners.
Posted by Belly, Wednesday, 25 April 2012 4:15:41 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
Belly,

If you feel offended by my remark about Japan's (alleged) plan to invade Australia all I can repeat is that is a historical fact, based on extensive by Dr Peter Stanley, the former Chief Historian of the Australian War Memorial as has been widely discussed for several years.

Even PM Tojo said "We never had enough troops to do so [invade Australia]. We had already far out-stretched our lines of communication. We did not have the armed strength or the supply facilities to mount such a terrific extension of our already over-strained and too thinly spread forces. We expected to occupy all New Guinea, to maintain Rabaul as a holding base, and to raid Northern Australia by air. But actual physical invasion — no, at no time".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposed_Japanese_invasion_of_Australia_during_World_War_II

If it makes you feel better to think that John Wayne was as he appeared to be and that Wars are just like Hollywood, then go ahead.

You must also believe that politicans never lie (except for Gillard) and that the winners don't write the history books.
The perpetuation and glorification of historical myths are what keeps people going back for more of the same, over and over and over again.
Posted by rache, Thursday, 26 April 2012 4:12:17 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
rache bit snide, but I except that.
What offends me, and points to you not under standing, is the childish inference it is I who do not understand.
Had Japan,won the pacific war, we would have been strangled and in fact defeated.
Planet 3 too grabs the thought I fail to see the big picture.
Fact is I am part of the big picture vast majority, not the lost green left.
Posted by Belly, Thursday, 26 April 2012 4:33:59 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
Belly.....I find your Internet behaviour quite poor. The self-righteous attitude is most unfitting for a man of your knowledge. Differences of opinion in places like this must be respected with the up-most diligence.

"Sorry but see it is a curse to lie ,to not say what you think, in the name of good manners."

Belly, you might want to take your own advice:)....and what LIE?

Being in the majority, doesn't make you right, in fact....its the majority that makes the situation the GREENS/INVIROMENTISTS-plus....that have to clean up after you.

If one was to take all the caring people out of the equation, this world would go down the drain faster than you could blink.

And as for the rest of your gobbledygook, go and ask Paul yourself about the question, and I don't drink beer:)

"Planet 3 if my view of you is wrong, enjoy! Yes Belly, sometimes you too get it wrong:) but don't we all.

Cheers.

cc
Posted by planet 3, Thursday, 26 April 2012 7:36:40 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
I plead guilty, any other action will be a waste as you will both devalue my views and elevate your own.
A truth should not be over looked, all views have value,some far less than others.
You got this started, in your response to no mate of mine Shadow Minister.
You claimed, in putting up this thread, he was starting a fight.
It is my view, strongly held, he reserves his fighting for the ALP.
Review your comments about me, in all our contacts, see the thought that I should see the big picture/yours.
I am aware, very much so,Greens dislike me, it is their right to.
Do I have the rights to mine?
And can I underline a truth than can not with honesty be rebutted?
More Australians, FOREVER, intensely dislike/do not trust greens than will ever vote for them.
I leave you to your own views unchalenged.
Posted by Belly, Friday, 27 April 2012 6:13:09 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
Rache and P3,

By Dec 1941 Japan had expanded it reach over most of south east Asia, Manchuria and large portions of China. It certainly needed a year or two to consolidate its positions before it was in any position to expand further. If it had not been stupid enough to tackle the USA, and lost its fleets at Coral sea and Midway, Australia would have been effectively cut off and within 12 months, the situation might have been very different.

Irrespective, Australia was spectacularly unprepared and its saving grace was its vast size and the sea separation. The army would have been soundly whipped, and was in no position to mount any defense off shore.

A powerful foe say china with a strong navy is not going to be even slowed by the military we have now. The alternatives really lie in a far stronger and better equipped conventional force, and/or a nuclear deterrent.

A emergency parachute is a complete waste of money right up until the time you need it.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Friday, 27 April 2012 11:58:35 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
SM....Australia's transparency is well known around the world and Aussies just go about there only little ways, and don't bother anyone.

If people are worried about an invasion, just go to Sydney airport or christmas island in a leaky boat...:) jokes aside SM, WA or NT is where all of our forces should be. ( in the unlikely event of invasion )
Japan's the only threat thats ever hit our shores.

"A powerful foe say china with a strong navy is not going to be even slowed by the military we have now. The alternatives really lie in a far stronger and better equipped conventional force, and/or a nuclear deterrent"

Sorry, I don't see what all the fuss is about. Who would want to invade us? 3/4 or so of our land mass is a sandy waste land. The only green strip worth anything is the eastern sea-board, and thats already filled with every race under the sun......no..your making mountains out of mole hills.....but like I said, if the Australian people are that worried, lobby the Government with the peoples concerns. SM

Australia is what Switzerland was in the II world war, and thats neutral.

What we have, wouldn't be worth the effort.

cc
Posted by planet 3, Friday, 27 April 2012 6:04:46 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
"Australia is what Switzerland was in the II world war, and thats neutral."

If I was sitting in Beijing, Jakarta or any other Asian capital I don't think my view of Australia would be that its 'neutral' considering its track record in the region since WWII and its present position in the Middle East. and in the light of its stated foreign policy, US troops in the NT etc, I might think Australia was firmly in Uncle Sams Camp and a rather belligerent mob to boot. Then again those Asians never have understood "The White Mans Burden" have they and after all we are white and they are not, so easy for them to get things wrong.
SM
About our Aussie Bomb. Once the Mad Monk comes to power his first priority, well second after getting rid of the dreaded carbon tax, should be to start an Aussie Atomic Weapons Program, take a leaf out of North Korea's and Iran's book telling the World its all for peaceful purposes. We could fast track the whole program. I think the CIA will give us a hand with a few blue prints etc, a few long range missiles, perhaps. Maybe if we let our good buddy Uncle Sam post another million troops in Australia he will lets us have some old war surplus missiles he's got no more use for, could pick them up for a couple of bills. Then point our purely for defensive purposes missiles at Jakarta, Kuala Lumpur or any other place in reach where the yellow peril hang out. Then the Mad Monk can tell these not white people what he really thinks of em and their boaties. If you are in Government with the Mad Monk you will be elevated from a lowly Shadow Minister to the exalted position of Minister for Atomic Weapons and Asian Affairs, the two go hand in hand.
Posted by Paul1405, Saturday, 28 April 2012 4:20:22 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
@Paul 1405,

<< Those Asians have never understood…>>

ROFL. What or who are “those Asians “? Asia is fragmented in a hundred different races, languages, religions and polities.
Sorry to break the news to you, but there ain’t any monolithic polity called Asia!

<<If I was sitting in Beijing, Jakarta or any other Asian capital I don't think my view of Australia would be that its 'neutral' …I might think Australia was firmly in Uncle Sams Camp and a rather belligerent mob to boot.>>

It would depend on what “Asian capital” you were in!
Were you in Seoul (South Korea) faced with a less than friendly northern neigbour, New Delhi ( India ) faced with a Pakistan intent on extending its influence in South Asia, or Dili (East Timor), Taipei ( Taiwan), Phnom Penh (Cambodia), Kuwait City (Kuwait) or even Kula Lumpur (Malaysia), and had even a smidgen more knowledge of history than the average Green, you might want to use the word cooperative rather than belligerent.

However,I concede, that there would be at least one Asian capital you would most likely hear the word belligerent used a lot in relation to the US and OZ -- Tehran (Iran). Come to think of it with your politics you would fit in well there – till they learnt what you think about God & priests!(LOL)

<<Then again those Asians never have understood "The White Mans Burden" have they and after all we are white and they are not, so easy for them to get things wrong.>>

PS:I hope you are not the white races official representative … since you are doing a very great job of TRASHING the reputation/tradition/conceit --you say we have -- of Not “getting things wrong”.
Posted by SPQR, Saturday, 28 April 2012 7:31:48 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
SPQR

My post was some what cynical. I was commenting on the notion of 'Australian neutrality'. You said "there ain’t any monolithic polity called Asia!" and I agree.
Its my opinion that our near neighbors, both friend and foe, in no way view us as neutral. We are rightly seen as pro America and as a close alley of same.
You said "you might want to use the word cooperative rather than belligerent." By far the biggest conflict Australia has been involved in since WWII was the Vietnam War, and I hardly think Vietnam and the rest of Indochina and China itself ever viewed Australia as cooperative when it came to that particular war.
Now that America (Obama) has made it clear its intention once again is to become more involved in Asia, no doubt to counter Chinese influence in the region, Australia has once again demonstrated its 'neutrality' by allowing American troops to set up on our soil. Australia could be far more influential for good in our region if we were clearly seen as being neutral but at the present time that is out of the question.
I fail to comprehend how Australia obtaining nuclear weapons would be viewed as a friendly gesture by the likes of Indonesia, China etc, particularly if we pointed them right at em'.
p/s When you hitch your wagon to the most belligerent nation in the world, some of that belligerency may rub off. See my list of wars since WWII.
Posted by Paul1405, Sunday, 29 April 2012 8:56:26 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
The "no worries brigade" is echoing the same arguments heard before WWII, the Korean War, the Vietnam war. Why waste money on a military when there is no threat.

Time and time again Australia has found itself militarily with its pants around its ankles.

Because there is no threat now is no indicator that there will be no threat in 10 years or 20.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Sunday, 29 April 2012 10:43:17 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
SM, I'm thrilled to see you have found time to leave the shrine of the Mad Monk and post a comment, thank you. You alluded to 3 different wars and Australia's preparedness when these conflicts involved us, lets take them in turn. Once Britain was partially defeated by Japan in 1942-43, and make no mistake following the fall of Singapore Britain's position in this part of the world was precarious, took a real effort to protect India from a Japaneses thrust in that direction. Australia was in no position to defeat Japanese expansionism regardless of any military build up we may have entered into during the 1930's, and we were hardly in a position to spend millions of pounds on the military during those years, besides we seen ourselves as part of the British empire and well protected by Britain.
Australia's involvement in the Korean War is hard to comprehend. After the defeat of Japan who ruled Korea from 1910 to 1945, there was a period of destabilization following the partitioning at Potsdam. The Korean War began as a civil conflict but quickly escalated into an ideological war between the super powers of communism and capitalism. Why 339 Australian's had to die in Korea and here 60 years later we are no closer to a solution to the problem, I don't know the answer. SM Why did 339 Australians die in Korea?
The Vietnam War was a war that clearly Australia had no place in. Like Korea, Vietnam become another cold war conflicts between the super powers of communism and capitalism. Why 500 Australian's died in Vietnam is also beyond me, SM can you shed some light on the out come for Australia, following the defeat of capitalism in Vietnam? Here it is 37 years later and still the communist hoards are yet to launch their invasion of Australia. SM when will they be coming? Keep that musket under the bed loaded and ready for action.
Posted by Paul1405, Sunday, 29 April 2012 5:38:58 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
Paul,

Glad to see that you have left the greens' tea party in wonderland to comment.

The disaster that befell the British in Asia, was largely due to the lack of spending on the military between the wars, and Singapore fell to a smaller but better prepared force with my Grandfather and great grandfather spending years in Changi.

If the UK had modernised its Navy, and trained its men would they have defeated Japan? No, but they would have stopped them a lot sooner than Burma. Perhaps in Malaysia. As for Korea, I am surprised to see you happy to let the entire Korean peninsula fall under the North Korean murderous regime. As for Vietnam, while we lost the war, we cemented an alliance with the US upon which we still rely.

Perhaps you could shed some light on why China suddenly needs aircraft carriers and submarines?
Posted by Shadow Minister, Monday, 30 April 2012 5:46:56 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
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All

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