We should certainly be armed...no country does anyone favours if it is a sitting duck for invasion.
We should also certainly be neutral and declare that violence is *only* acceptable for defence.
Warfare changed when the V2 was invented and Australia is quite capable of becoming capable of self defence. What is taboo at the moment is that our "defence" is nothing of the sort: It is strategic diplomacy for national interest...an extension of politics. This is why many folks feel sick when politicians rant on about "lest we forget" while killing folks overseas year after year for resources and the "great game".
What a shame both flavours of political party are 100% in the US sycophant club.

We owe a blood debt to the USA that arguably can never ever be repaid? The sacrifice of thousands of young American lives, in the battle of the Coral sea, won for us the continuing freedom and the democratic rights we enjoy today!
Moreover, our ongoing alliance probably prevented other more populous nations from annexing Australia.
One understands, there was during Suhartos's reign, war maps showing the northern half of Australia as Indonesian territory. Moreover, we could have hardly been instrumental in the freedom of East Timor, but for the fact, we have the unequivocal backing of the world's most powerful Military?
It's all very well for recent arrivals to Australia, with a vastly different perspective, to wax eloquent, about our junior partner relationship with our American cousins?
But the Anzus treaty has served us and our defence posture, very well thus far.
To be sure and all the lessons learned from actions in places like Vietnam, inform us, the at the end of the day, we must ultimately be completely self reliant!
We have to understand and accept, our relationship and alliance is not a signed in blood, blank cheque, ours or theirs?
Genuine self reliance means building and or acquiring more and more of our defence material from Australian based manufacture!
Even if that means major public investment in arms, missile, smart bombs, torpedo, submarines, ships, OTHR, VTO aircraft, drones and other launch platforms, in Govt owned and operated manufacture.
Local arms manufacture was and ought to remain standard wartime practise, that logically ought also apply to any genuinely capable forward defence posture?
Given missile, torpedoes, submarines, and smart bombs; dropped by sacrificial drones/remotely operated mini subs, will feature very heavily in any forward defence posture?
Stealth and manoeuvring, plus carrying capacity, will likely outweigh sheer speed in the sky. And we already know how to do/make all that! Rhrosty.

Rhrosty: As for us being protected by the US alliance...I have an elephant repellent t-shirt that has protected me all my life...not once have I had elephant problems which *proves* it works.
I agree with the rest of the post though...I think.
Keep in mind that the gear needed for *defence* is much cheaper than OS acts of offence...provided we stop buying from the inefficient US war machine.
My brother works for a company that is paid by our military to maintain capacity to build bullets and shells for weapons that we no longer use. Under Howard's US trade agreement we now have to buy most of our small arms ammunition from the US (due to commercial license agreements we cannot make them here) So we pay muppets to make weapons we don't need, and we pay US profiteers to make the bullets we do need...only because we rolled over to US in the name of "free trade". Our military "leadership": cannot even manage packing pallets...they have no clue in a modern world and are a huge money pit.
Replacing patrol boats with drones, and infantry with destruction from above and far away (The best way to transport explosives it to do it quickly via rocket...no need for most of the logistics needed for political police action OS)
In short we could be properly defended, gain moral ground, employ more people and even develop an export industry that isn't dirt (!). First, of course we must clear the decks of US sycophants and "strategists" that see the US as our only saviour.

Yeah,

Neutral Switzerland?

During the cold war it was surrounded by NATO countries that had undertaken to deter and, if necessary, beat off, the Soviet armies before they could reach Switzerland. Each of them spent far more on defence in relation to GDP than Switzerland. Switzerland itself never spent much more than 1% of GDP on defence.

Does that make Switzerland "neutral." Or does it make Switzerland a freeloader?

By an accident of geography Switzerland was shielded by NATO – ie mainly American – might without having to lift a finger in its own defence. Australia is not in such a fortunate position. To have a credible defensive capability Australia would need to spend far more than Switzerland's 1% of GDP or this country's current 1.5% of GDP on defence. Somewhere in the range 3-4% might be realistic.

We would also probably have to adopt conscription in order to be able to provide defence in depth.

And, finally, we would still need the help of the US in intelligence gathering.

Perhaps armed neutrality is a good idea but the Swiss are not a realistic model. A more realistic model might be Israel which has developed a high tech weapons industry of its own.

Under Labor Australia would probably have unarmed neutrality anyway.

Hear Hear.
I suggest all governments with standing armies should be sued be sued for false advertising (with the exception of Switzerland, of course).
We could save considerable amounts by designing a genuine, home grown defence force, instead of a fully imported attack force.
It could start with something as simple as a change of names. Replace “Navy” for “Coastguard”, for instance.
The essential problem with having a treaty with a country that reveres Corporate Capitalism above all else, is that you KNOW, their main (or only) interest is profiting from the deal.

When we discovered the UK defense umbrella we thought we were sheltering under turned out to be too small to reach out to us, we were pretty damn quick to scuttle under the big one offered by the US.

That umbrella may not be quite as big as it was, & may be a little threadbare in spots, but it is the only one on offer. Climb out from under that, & you'll find a big nasty world, where little Oz would look much like a lamb, waiting to be slaughtered. There's a few out there who would find our minerals a worthy target.

Even before our idiot government ripped over a billion a year out of our defence budget, we could not find a single ship capable of going up to Cardwell after the cyclone. A couple of years back we had an amphibious force capable of landing 800 men, & all their equipment anywhere on earth. Now we couldn't get even a few of them from Townsville to Cardwell.

Dr Peter suggests it "may" cost a bit more to go independent. MAY, hell it would cost about double just to be a really worth while ally. To go it alone would cost about 1000% more, just for equipment, & that's before we started paying miners wage rates to get some men to join, or stay in the forces.

Still, I suppose we could close some questionably useful museums, some universities, half the hospitals, & cut the welfare budget, to find a few quid, but we would have to close Canberra completely to start to find what would be needed.

Currently we augment our defense budget, with a few defense force peoples lives, to avoid spending our money. Much cheaper & easier to send some troupers where ever, rather than sack public servants, don't you know.

So do be careful what you wish for Peter, you just might get some unintended consequences you won't like

Hasbeen: We would not need to land 800 men if we were interested in defence...we only have to destroy any attempt to land 800 men on our soil.
An invasion force is *much* more expensive than the capability to blast an area from a distance. We have the advantage of distance, a hard border, a northern "killing field" zone which is very hard for invaders to keep, and more importantly no desire to annex our neighbours.
We are currently spending more on looking after US interests than our own, say, fishing resources.
The US uses our soil for Echelon and other spying missions yet we gain little from that arrangement. (Pine Gap is almost US soil!) If the US alliance drags us into a war with China then it will be *very* expensive...Can they prevent missiles hitting us? If push came to shove, would the modern US protect Australia, even if they could? Only if it was in their interests.

Another point which is tangential at least is that our enthusiasm for the Alliance is in proportion with the lack of casualties. (Are there poll figures for Vietnam era on this question, I wonder?)
This enthusiasm may be shot down (possibly a pun) with casualties in Oruzgan as we take over the command there - which seems to mean pushing our blokes a bit further up the line, or so the recent commentary suggested

Yeah, let every nation in the world get armed to the teeth. It's a great idea. Then we could have wars everywhere all the time and the people that make money from it would rejoice and the imperialists would rejoice...

Nowhere among the comments is anyone talking about achieving peace. It's as if war is natural, normal, kind of like having a cup of tea! Such is our indoctrination.

And of course the world's greatest warmongrel, America, just loves it, promotes it, relishes the sounds of its missiles blowing up women and children and the smell of burning flesh.

Humans intelligent? Perhaps one day they might be if there's any of Earth left!

http://dangerouscreation.com

David G wrote:

>>Nowhere among the comments is anyone talking about achieving peace>>

I'm a firm believer in Flavius Vegetius Renatus's dictum:

Si vis pacem, para bellum (If you wish for peace, prepare for war)

So, yes, when I say Australia should be so well armed that no one would think it worthwhile to attack us I am talking about "achieving peace."

If Britain and France had been better prepared for war in 1939 the most destructive war in history may have been averted.

The world is what it is and it can be a pretty nasty place. The wise man hopes for the best but prepares for the worst.

Stevenimeyer tells us that: "when I say Australia should be so well armed that no one would think it worthwhile to attack us I am talking about "achieving peace."

So peace is only possible if everyone is armed to the teeth, eh? What a profound, curious thought.

I mean Israel is armed to the teeth and is militarily supreme in its region but it doesn't talk peace. It talks about nuking Iran ASAP while it continues with its sixty years trample of the Palestinians.

The U.S. talks incessantly about peace and human rights while it wages endless war and sells its weapons around the world.

Peace will never be achieved by war. 10,000 of bloody history shows that!

We need to throw off our indoctrination and get a new mindset!

Yes, I'm afraid I'm a bit sceptical of paradoxes, including paradoxical quotes from obscure Romans. The one from Flavius reminds me of the protestations from old soldiers that war commemoration is really a way of saying 'never again': there will always come a time when one arm of the inherently contradictory concept triumphs over the other. And no prizes for guessing which arm triumphs. In the case of the quote from Flavius I'd guess that the thrill of war preparation tends to obscure the peaceful purpose of it all, particularly if you are in the equipment procurement game. If you want to toss around thought-provoking quotes I'd recommend 'Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori' which Wilfred Owen pinched from Horace. Heavily ironic perhaps but still a good paraphrase of the lines trotted out by political leaders through the ages over bodies on gun carriages or returning in military transports in body-bags.

Thank you to those who have responded to my piece. I must say that I'm confused by Rhosty's post. He/she says that the US 'blood sacrifice' from WWII 'can never be repaid', but later says that the alliance 'is not signed in blood'. Which is it? Sentiment is no basis for a defence policy: you can bet that the US isn't signing Australia up for its containment of China on the grounds that we were buddies in 1942.
Then Rhosty goes on to argue that we should be self-sufficient in defence - which is it to be, Rhosty?
Oh, and I hope she or he's not referring to me as a 'recent arrival' to Australia - I've lived in Australia since 1966 and have been a citizen since 1971 - how do you compare, Rhosty?
Hasbeen says that self-reliance will cost more. Perhaps, but a defence policy on the cheap that gets us into the US's wars seems to be expensive too.
David G would like us to abolish armies and live in peace. Sure, but as others said, we need also to be realistic.

I agree to some extent with this article, that Australia should have it’s own defence capability as much as we can afford it, but America has the most advanced weaponry in the world and our alliance with them gives us access to those defence capabilities.

Someone asked about the casualties in the Vietnam war, I heard at one point we had lost around 400 soldiers and the Americans had lost over 50,000 men. The opinion of the people against that war became so strong that the politicians had no choice but to pull our troops out.

There is no doubt that Australia would have fallen to the Japanese in World War 2 as Churchill said he would let Australia fall and get it back later as the British were so flat out defending Britain and Europe. We didn’t have enough men to defend ourselves against the superior numbers of the Japenese at that stage or much in the way of fancy weapons either. The Americans when they came here bought all their great weapons with them.

Plus the manpower. My dad said there were 100,000American troops here in my town in North Queensland when the yanks arrived. Aside from the attack on Pearl harbour the Americans had a base in Singapore. When the Japanese attacked that base as well as Pearl Harbour the Americans came into the fight in our region. So it could be supposed that if America has bases here and Australia is attacked that they will be inclined to attack back. Which is better than them being half a world away if we are attacked.

The Japanese killed 15 million Chinese around 1937-1939 just before WW2, nearly twice the number of Jews Hitler was said to have killed. If the aborigines think they could have held this country with their spears instead of being saved by the Australian and American forces they are dreaming. The fellow that said we should have no weapons because it leads to war to have weapons, should reflect deeply on what would have happened to the practically weaponless Aborigines.

Qzandy, I was thinking more of landing an 800 man mercy mission to help out our own cyclone victims, rather than an attack force. Yes, even when we had HMAS Manoora & HMAS Kanimbla, I very much doubt we would have had too much chance of landing an attack force anywhere more intimidating than the Solomon Islands, our last sort of hostile landing.

I agree that to go it alone, our best defence would have be to missiles. If we arm our patrol boats with missiles, & our frigates with cruise missiles we have replaced the forward defence we lost with the retirement of the F111s.

To be a really effective deterrent we would have to be armed with some nuclear cruise missiles. It would not have to be a great number, provided each ship could deploy them, their possibility to be on any frigate should do the trick.

Of course we would have to know how to use the things, & there is one of our problems. As a fleet air arm fighter pilot, I got to fire one missile a year, & they were just cheap air to air things. I can imagine how many practice shoots the navy would get with cruise missiles. The practice things are a few of million a pop.

So our cheapest, & most reliable defence strategy is still to put out a token force in the yanks adventures. Not really my favourite choice, with a son in the navy, & a son in law to be just back from Afghanistan, but beggars can't be choosers.

We need to be realistic, says Peter Stanley. Do you really mean that living with endless war is realistic? It is surely not what intelligent beings do.

I think that living with endless war is totally unrealistic especially when certain nations, namely America, are pressing this ugly reality upon the world to make a buck and gain control of the world.

This world could be anything we want it to be if the right people were in charge.

It's time for you to change your mindset, Peter, get with the neo-humans and condemn the warmongers.

http://dangerouscreation.com

While I find the insanity of War as abhorrent as any, I'm afraid I find Pacifism -as a philosophy- almost equally insane.
For all of Human history, and beyond, right up to just a few decades ago (and still, in many parts of the world), the most dangerous and breathtakingly courageous act in the simple matter of living that any Human could perform was simply having a baby.
Any male who is not prepared to match that courage, self-sacrifice and dedication by defending their wives, sisters and daughters simply does not qualify as a 'Man' in my opinion.
So yes, if we want Peace, we must be prepared to defend our loved ones, and make it known that we are prepared to do so.
I just don't think Pacifism is necessary. If no one ever throws the first punch, there won't be any fighting.
Our goal should be strict and total non-aggression; and that includes not mindlessly supporting the most aggressive and belligerent nation on the planet.
With friends like that, who needs enemies?
How much did we spend on F111's? And how much value did we get from them before they wore out and had to be replaced?
Planes, ships and tanks etc have to be used. People need to be trained in their use continually, upgrades and maintenance must be performed. They must wear out, and they must be replaced.
Projectiles, bullets, missiles etc., don't have to be used, or replaced.
Winning wars is mostly about logistics. Logistically, the odds will always favour the self sufficient defender, over the aggressor with long and vulnerable supply lines.
Not only has the US conned us into being party to their aggression, but they have removed our ability to be militarily self-sufficient.
Our military ordinance supply lines are longer than any of our putative enemies.
This is tactically, economically and philosophically indefensible.

Grim, while I agree with your assessment of the U.S., I don't agree with your Neanderthal assessment of what constitutes a real 'MAN'.

We have to evolve away from our base instincts. After all, we are supposed to be intelligent.

War is an activity that 'barbaric beasts' engage in! It is dehumanizing and counterproductive!

Think Peace!

Sometime in the future, maybe quite soon, our "friends" the United States will ask us to stop selling our coal and iron ore to the Chinese.
What will we do? Destroy our economy or upset our friends?

Neutrality is the only way out of such a dilemma.

mikk,

I think things will have to get dire before that happens...perhaps somewhere down the track. As things stand, Australia supplies China with the raw materials it needs. It also allows the U.S. to feel at home setting up bases here. At the moment cheap Chinese imports are helping to prop up the American economy.....until (or if) the U,S. can reboot its manufacturing sector, it will remain reliant of China for a leg up, so it's not likely to to try and influence countries to cut the supply lines - yet.

Ending all forms of welfare for the rich or better off would enable us to spend what we need to spend, to get the military equipment we need, to become progressively ever more self reliant.
If we were locked in a life or death conventional conflict with say, an unholy alliance between Christian Russia and Communist China, we would likely face a blockade, that would let very few imported products in.
The moat can and work two ways, for and against us!
Switzerland was able to remain neutral throughout the second world war; by becoming an armed camp, where every home had high powered weapons and every village had machine guns and artillery weapons, and the trained competent independence to use them, if ever attacked.
German military strategists looked at the terrain, which argumentatively, precluded their preferred blizgrieg?
And reportedly, decided the price they would pay might well cost them any ultimate victory in Europe?
Armed neutrality for an energy/mineral rich Australia, is probably not possible in any energy dependant and increasingly hungry world.
But armed independence is!
That independence ought to be founded on the Austrian model, which places their defence forces in familiar home terrain, that supports them.
But not suitable for any expeditionary force to effectively operate in.
And from where endless guerrilla attacks might be repeatedly mounted.
Moreover, once here, any expeditionary force could be forced through proper forward planning to also defend a vast coastline. We should develop that capability, through strike and run amphibious capabilities?
We could conceivably deter the mightiest power on the planet?
A position made much more probable, with a powerful technically advanced and willing ally in our corner!
Rhrosty.

We in the west, all but forced Japan, a former WW1 ally, into the Nazi camp, by cutting off the minerals they needed? Leaving them with little other choice, but but to take what they needed. They paid an enormous price for that military misadventure.
Most of my Ancestors were shipped here in chains from Ireland and Scotland, A few others were indigenous Tasmanians. Is that Australian enough? Yes we do owe a blood debt we can never ever repay and therefore there is little point in trying to actually repay it in full.
However, when deciding who to support in any future conflict, something to keep uppermost in the mind.
So, it is not an either either and never ever could be.
Nor is any treaty ever signed in blood or the endless sacrifice, we might commit to, in defence of our own homeland.
Those who volunteered to fight our wars, really did go forward to fight in defence of family and friends.
After all, and as clinical and cold as it sounds, if you are going to defend your home territory, it is always best to contain the "collateral damage" to the enemy's territory; and indeed, the best place to fight all our wars.
That said, missiles, stealth weaponry etc, have made almost any future conflict, a conflict between competing technologies and seriously hardened bunkers. And fall back guerrilla forces, who are equipped to endlessly harry and harras any intending conquering expeditionary force.
And far too high a price for any of the territory and resources, any intending occupier might eventually gain.
Let's not forget, we have the technology and the resources to make fusion/nuetronian bombs, which we could conceivably deploy, as a final death gasp burned earth defence?
And that capability almost guarantees, we will never ever be defeated and a capability, we will never ever have to deploy? Capishe? Rhrosty.

“Neanderthal”, David G?
Would you describe mothers as Neanderthal, for indulging in the severe risk of child birth?
Or do you simply believe that while it's perfectly acceptable for a mother to risk her life to produce a baby, it's unacceptable to expect a father to risk his life to protect one?
Would you really be prepared to stand back and watch your wife/daughter/sister/son be abused, beaten, raped and do nothing? Is it your idea of 'civilised' behaviour to say “sorry dear, just smile and try to enjoy it. I'm too 'civilised' to protect you from aggressors.”
I suspect your veneer of civilisation is as shallow as your philosophy.
If strict adherence to a policy of non-aggression makes me a barbarian...
Cool.

I have as little respect for pacifists as I do for so-called "neutral" Switzerland. It's easy to be a moralising pacifist or a "neutral" when others are protecting you. In my view pacifists are freeloaders just as Switzerland was during the Cold War.

But that does not make me a warmonger. Nor does it mean I automatically support every military escapade the Australian government undertakes. For example I cannot for the life of me understand why Afghanistan is worth the life of even one more Australian soldier.

I am not naïve about this. I understand, for example, that the already appalling plight of Afghan women will get worse once the Taliban returns to power. But, in the end, it's none of our business. We do not have it in our power to make Afghanistan a better place.

On the other hand we do have it in our power to make Australia a better place. That's where our focus should be.

I fully agree Steven.
History teaches very clearly that societies need to learn to walk before they can run. Societies cannot be taken from the 17th century to the 21st century in one step, no matter how much we wish it.
Ultimately, we can only encourage. We can “lead them to water...”
We need to make it clear to the entire world that we are not a threat.
WE ARE NOT A THREAT.
We need to extend our hand palm up, not palm down.
If we could do that, I think our defence expenditure could reasonably be reduced.

Grim
I fail to see how telling other countries we are not a threat will save us from attack. The problem for us is, are they a threat to us? History, tells us that, yes, they are,just as we are a threat to them.

It’s our resources or trade they will attack us for or just because they are overpopulated and have the muscle to take what we’ve got to ensure their survival at a bountiful level. Other countries couldn’t give two hoots about us extending the palm of friendship to them. Wars are always about economics when studied in depth for awhile.

After all they can’t feed their children with words of peace or friendship. It’s the economic wealth of the land they covet. As Hannibal said to Clarice in the movie, The Silence of the Lambs. “What is it that he covets?, discover that and you will find the reason he is doing this.”
You will also understand the reason mankind risks death and billions of dollars waging neverending wars. There must be enormous reward in it somewhere. What is it that he covets?

Perfectly true, Cherful.
But still only half the story. The US is now on a virtual war footing not for covetous neighbours, but more because their belligerence and aggression has managed to piss off a significant portion of the global population. To be tarred with the same brush as the Americans is to gain enemies we don't need.
I reiterate, we need a strong defence force, geared entirely to defending our coast. All weaponry and ordinance must be produced domestically, so we are self-reliant.
We must make it uneconomical for anyone to attack us.
And we must make friends by clearly demonstrating that we have no desire or even capability of attacking anyone else.
Non aggression is the only practical path to lasting peace, that doesn't involve total capitulation to an invading force which would almost certainly lower our standard of living and enforce codes of conduct we would find objectionable.

Ultimately, regardless of the rhetoric or religious zeal etc/etc. All wars are fought for/over real estate. In the future that will likely extend to water and energy resources. Japan for example still does not have a mineral resource to bless itself with. Hence in a pre war Japan, urban housing was constructed from paper and bamboo, and eating utensils utilised wood or clay based porcelain/china.
All metal was a scarce resource and the west's decision to cut off supplies forced them to desert former allies?
Moreover, the frequent quakes made steel strong bamboo, almost the most sensible enduring structures?
At least until allied bombers started fire-storms with incendiary bombing raids.
Pacifism is an ideal that we all want! But particularly the front-line soldiers, who must fight all our future wars or military adventures/police actions etc/etc. That said, appeasement has never ever worked.
As Roosevelt remarked, walk softly but carry a big stick!
Put another way, the best way to argue for, or negotiate a peaceful outcome, is always from a position of strength, with an iron hand in a velvet glove.
The porcupine fairly bristles, with endless painful reprisals, but never ever makes the first move against any potential foe? But merely waddles on its peaceful way.
However, any attack comes with very painful consequences the leaves any intending attacker aggressor, with painful memories and forever cautious, and ready willing and able to leave well enough alone, if it meets with the bristling porcupine ever again.
Our best defence posture is arguably an analogy of the porcupine's. Yes sure, we should keep an open, [extended in friendship,] hand policy, when so very little is ever achieved with a clenched fist! Rhrosty.

Rhrosty, I would urge you (and you alone) to view my most recent post and then consider again the 'clenched fist' analogy.

You cannot have world peace with every nation armed to the teeth and ready to fight at the drop of a hat. That is a nonsense, like being half-pregnant!

The world is being run by those who make money from war and gain power from it. Such people are mindless, immoral cretins.

We must change the human mindset and condemn all war and warmongers among whom the U.S. is pre-eminent.

If we don't, extinction awaits us!

http://dangerouscreation.com

Grim wrote:

>>All weaponry and ordinance must be produced domestically…>>

Total self-reliance for a country like Australia is a pipe dream. We are not capable of producing all the high tech weaponry we shall need in the future.

>>I reiterate, we need a strong defence force, geared entirely to defending our coast.>>

Look at a map Grim.

Australia's great strategic strength is that it has no land border with any other country. The logistics of invading Australia are formidable. Probably the only country with that capability today is the US and they are not going to do it.

Australia's great strategic weakness is its long supply lines. Just north of us is the Javanese Empire aka Indonesia. It has ten times Australia's population and a rapidly growing economy. In the foreseeable future it is Indonesia, not Australia, that will be dominant power in this region.

Perhaps it will be a peaceful country. Perhaps we can be "Canada" to Indonesia's "America."

Or perhaps it will be an expansionist power. Judging by some recent trends it may turn into a sort of Jihadi state. There is no way of knowing.

One thing is reasonably certain. As its economic power grows, so will its military capabilities. Once it possesses a blue water navy it would have the capability of strangling Australia's trade routes. I'm not saying it would do that. I'm saying it would have that capability.

We take freedom of movement across the oceans for granted because for decades the US Navy, the mightiest navy the world has ever known, has acted as a de facto guarantor of freedom of the seas. The US Navy is so powerful that most countries don't even think about obstructing ocean trade.

But take USN out of the picture and who knows what may happen.

Australia needs more than coastal defence. We cannot retreat to "fortress Australia." We need the capability to project air and sea power along our trade routes. And that is expensive.

David G wrote:

>>We must change the human mindset...>>

Oh is that all?

LOL

Well, when you succeed in "chang[ing] the "human mindset" to something more to your liking let me know and I'll revise my opinions on Australia's defence needs accordingly.

Till then I'm afraid rational defence planning requires us to view the world as it actually is, not as David G would wish it to be. And that reality needs to take into account the growing power of the Javanese Empire aka Indonesia.

Stevenimeyer, your comment suggests to me that most humans find the world 'peace' frightening.

So conditioned are they to a never-ending supply of war indoctrination and that the world is full of enemies, they think that peace is when nations reach a military stalemate.

Use your intelligence, man! In an age where great numbers of nuclear weapons exist, war guarantees human extinction.

Surely you can grasp that?

DavidG,

I am well aware of the dangers of a militarised world. I am also aware of the dangers of being weak. People may come and take your land away from you. Ask any Aborigine.

They might even herd you onto trains and cart you off to gas chambers. I can introduce you to people who witnessed that as well.

Or the dictator next door might want to seize your oil wells. Ask any Kuwaiti.

So until you succeed in changing the world's mindset I prefer to face the world with a strong military backing me up. It's not ideal but it's the lesser of two evils.

An example from the country you most love to hate.

During the 1973 Yom Kippur war it suddenly dawned on the US and Israel's Arab neighbours that Israel really would use its nukes rather than go down quietly*. That was the last time Israel has ever had to face a full on military assault.

Israel's position today may not exactly be comfortable. But it is infinitely better than it was in those dark days of 1973. It is certainly better than it would have been without the nuclear ace in the hole.

"But what about Iran?" you say.

Well Iran's nuclear program was intended mainly to deter Pakistan and Saddam Hussein, not Israel. They were going to go for nukes no matter what Israel did. However once they possess nukes they may just be tempted to toss a nuke or two at Tel Aviv absent the certainty of massive Israeli retaliation.

For a country like Israel, surrounded by heavily armed genocidal neighbours, possession of a nuclear deterrent has paid off. Even someone like me who supports Israel does not think this is an ideal situation. But until you succeed in changing mindsets it beats any REALISTIC alternative.

Deterrence works.

*Spare me the Arab propaganda that said they never intended to destroy Israel in 1973.

It appears stevenlmeyer believes his status as a 'hi-tech' 21st century citizen makes him immune to flint-tipped arrows.
Care to test that theory, Steven?
Projectiles WORK. You can store them for as long as you like; they will still WORK. They will always work, until someone comes up with a Star Trek style force field/shield.
I think it's safe to say they will continue to work, for some time yet.
There is absolutely no reason why we can't be militarily self sufficient. After all, Israel is, and they're a tiny, penny ante country with a tiny fraction of our resources.
So what are you suggesting, Steven? That Australians aren't as clever as Germans or Japanese? As innovative as Americans? As resourceful as Israelis?
Please remember the Australian Sir Mark Oliphant was a key player in the most innovative projectile delivery system ever devised.
To suggest military self sufficiency is just a pipe dream is arrant nonsense, as is the suggestion that it could possibly be more economical to protect the entire Pacific Ocean, than our own shoreline.

Grim

World War 1 era "dumb" ordinance might go on working for decades. But you'd need an awful lot of that to deter a modern military.

Dumb ordinance also won't work well against ships.

On the other hand modern "smart" ordinance does not just go on working. The enemy develops counter-measures to confuse the guidance systems. You need to keep updating it.

You also need systems to detect stealthy aircraft or drones whose missiles will take out your defensive positions before you've been able to fire a shot. That massed WW1 style artillery can be reduced to junk very quickly as can the plants you're using to make it, the sites where you store it and your fuel storage sites.

Anti-aircraft capability is expensive and requires leading edge technology.

Israel is not self-sufficient in weaponry. It gave up on building its own fighter which, in any case, would have needed imported engines. What Israel is able to do is offset the cost of importing what it cannot build by exporting what it can. India especially seems to have an unlimited appetite for Israeli military technology.

I did not suggest it would be "more economical to protect the entire Pacific Ocean.."

I pointed out that, realistically, we need to show that we can inflict damage on aggressors who seek to interrupt our supply lines far from our shores. That does not come cheap.

Finally, if you're using a flint arrow against my machine gun I don't like your chances. I'll kill you before you get in range. And if you do get in range my steel armour will easily stop your flint arrows.

Get real Grim. You can't fight a modern war with WW2 style weaponry. Especially if you're a small country you need a technology edge. It is beyond Australia's capabilities to produce all that technology itself.

Steven,
“World War 1 era "dumb" ordinance might go on working for decades. But you'd need an awful lot of that to deter a modern military.”
So? It doesn't go off. In land based bunkers, storage isn't a problem.

“Dumb ordinance also won't work well against ships.”
Pardon?
The USS Yorketown is reputed to be able to throw projectiles the weight of Volkswagen beetles.
You seriously think that wouldn't work well against a floating object?
Unlike missiles which can be exploded before reaching their objective, cannon balls are chock-a -block full of stuff called “mass” and 'momentum'.
Unexplodable and unstoppable.
“Anti-aircraft capability is expensive and requires leading edge technology.”
So?
Again I ask: do you believe Aussies are in some way genetically disadvantaged? Why can't we develop 'leading edge technology' as well as anyone else?
Or do you think we should import some Jews, to help us out?

“I did not suggest it would be "more economical to protect the entire Pacific Ocean.."”
Yeah, actually you did:

“Australia needs more than coastal defence. We cannot retreat to "fortress Australia." We need the capability to project air and sea power along our trade routes. And that is expensive.”
You just suggested that the US should shoulder that cost. But what happens if the US spreadsheet indicates that just isn't viable?

“I pointed out that, realistically, we need to show that we can inflict damage on aggressors who seek to interrupt our supply lines far from our shores. That does not come cheap.”
Considerably more expensive if our supply lines are completely internal. Almost impossible, in fact.

continued:
“Finally, if you're using a flint arrow against my machine gun I don't like your chances. I'll kill you before you get in range. And if you do get in range my steel armour will easily stop your flint arrows.”
Interesting. So you're going to dress all your soldiers in steel armour? Expensive...
Also interesting is that, while Kevlar armour is effective against low mass high velocity projectiles, it offers little protection against arrows.
More to the point, even arrows or 'dumb' projectiles need to be protected against. That means expenditure. That means an increase in the cost of war.
That makes it less economical.
Get real Steven.
“It is beyond Australia's capabilities to produce all that technology itself.”
Why? Other countries can do it. Why can't we?
Why do you have such a low opinion of Australia's capabilities?

Well, all the armchair warriors have put in their ten cents worth and war still reigns supreme. No, we just couldn't live without war, could we?

I guess all the armament manufacturers and their shareholders send their congratulations. All the psycho leaders who just love the sound of bombs falling and people screaming as their limbs are torn off send their congratulations too. And lets not forget the imperialists who need war to gain more wealth and power, they send a special thank you!

Yes, the idea of peace upsets a lot of people. Killing and destroying is the only game in town it seems!

http://www.dangerouscreation.com

There is no doubt the the USA/NATO are the aggressors.The West no longer has a manufacturing base so they are using their brute force to try and make the likes of China submit to their New World Order.

We should be acting as a moderator and seeker of peace not being a toady boy to the banking military industrial complex.

Even with all Stephen Smith's denials of the USA trying to contain China,we know and China knows that is exactly what they are doing.

Japan entered the 2nd World War because the USA was limiting their trade access to energy.This is exactly what they trying to do to China.

The West lost the peace because of their own greed and stupidity.The West now think that they can win the next big war.The lunatics are on our side.

Plenty of commentary on the subject....I would like to add something on the term 'defence'. Surely that is what we are discussing. I think a defence policy is a bit like an insurance policy. We take out insurance according to the assessed risks. Some people fall into the trap of having excessive insurance as they are prey to marketing from insurance companies and are often fearful people. My estimation of our present circumstances regarding risk of invasion, is that the risk is very low. We can increase that risk by swallowing the marketing of major players such as the arms industry which has well known enmeshment in the government of the USA- one only has to remember the connections of policicians in the Bush government- and aligning ourselves with the US in their risky Pacific play to contain China. Or we can act independently, realise we are part of the Asia Pacific. I consider that our neighbours have genuine intentions to rise from poverty to enjoy living standards that are normal for us.
Not to be naive, we do need to have a 'defence' force. That defence force should include skills in physical defence but also in diplomacy, conflict resolution and a willingness to work in the region to build relationships of cooperation in endeavours to realise a peaceful just and sustatinable future. Along the lines of the UN Declaration.

annb wrote:

>>I think a defence policy is a bit like an insurance policy>>

Not quite.

You cannot deter a flood, earthquake, burglary or fire by buying an insurance policy.

But if you can demonstrate sufficient military capability you can deter an enemy from starting a war. With a really strong military you may never need to fight a war.

And this is the nub of the matter. The goal of a good defence policy has to be deterrence, not mere war fight capability. With that in mind a bit of extra expenditure now may save a bucket-load of grief later.

Remember, the goal is not to fight a war; it is to deter an enemy from starting one.

The goal of defence policy is to never have to fight a war.

I have to emphasise again that a realistic defence policy cannot simply be about the defence of the territory of Australia against invasion. It must take into account the defence of Australia's long and vulnerable trading routes. A potential enemy could strangle this country without ever coming within range of the thousands of World War 1 era artillery pieces Grim (see above) thinks should line Australia's shores.

DavidG

Perhaps you could share with us exactly how you plan to change people's mindsets so that we no longer need to waste any money on a military.

Grim

A modern guided missile cruiser could sink a World War 2 era battleship before it got within range of its Volkswagen tossing guns.

The Chinese are experimenting with anti-ship ballistic missiles (ASBMs) that may be able to sink surface ships thousands of miles out at sea. If I were the US Navy I would be building more submarines and not a new fleet of aircraft carriers.

And, BTW, the WW2 Yorktown was an aircraft carrier.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Yorktown_(CV-10)

Stevenlmeyer,I don't think you understand.NATO thinks it can win a nuke war against China/Russia.http://www.globalresearch.ca/ Prof Michel Chossudovsky has written a book "Towards a WW3 Scenario"in which he makes the point that the nuclear/arms industry which in now in private hands is taking us to a nukle war scenario.Our Govts are now controlled by a banking/military/industrial complex.Profit and power are their prime motivations.They think the world is over populated anyway so this in some way justifies their actions.

All sides have developed these mini-nukes and the USA seems to think their defence shields will make them the winner.NATO seem to think they can have a limited nuke war and make Russia/China sue for peace under their terms thus bringing in their New World Order.

In 1962 the USSR detonated the largest nuke ever.It was scaled down by half to 50 megatons because of radiation fears.The power was 10 ten times all the weapons used in WW2.It's mushroom cloud was 64 km high and caused 3 deg burns in 100 km radius.It broke windows 900 km away.This was over 50 yrs ago.What new weapons have they now developed?

Unless the Oligarchs in the West come to their senses,there will not be a future for anyone on this planet.The planet is already poisoned by radiation and Fukushima alone has released enough radiation to equal over 1000 Hiroshimas.More weapons are not the answer.

Arjay, people like you and I can write a billion comments and nothing will change. Those who run the world control the minds of the peasants and they will do exactly what they are told.

That is how it is and will always be. Humans will disappear soon and the Earth will try to recover from the damage they have caused and will cause!

Humans intelligent? Not in a million years!

Davis G,

Humans "are" intelligent - the shame of it is that very few are also "wise".

Hasbeen: I guess I'm a little more confident in our ability to do technology home grown. Before we canned it we were world leaders in rocketry and electronics. It's much cheaper to test ones own missiles than blow off a profitable US company's expensive toys.
Yes, it's more expensive initially than paying US engineers and US soldiers, but strategically we need to get away from the psychopathic US war machine.
You are right though, we still need an emergency response force and the military is the perfect candidate.

"...but strategically we need to get away from the psychopathic US war machine," says Hasbeen.

Never were truer words spoken!

David G.Not all humans are pathologically insane.We just have a few inbred elites who have far too much power.In the modern era,we can trace this back to the instigation of the US Federal Reserve. Psychopaths premote their own kind and Romney will be little different from Obama.

A good analogy is this reality of humans jerking off with a noose around their neck in order the reach a new sexual high.Note that people with anexoria will starve themselves to death to fit a perverted perfect image.

Our oligarchs will push it to the limit and I cannot see Russia or China backing down.We have little choice but to keep trying to create awareness and hope for the best.

“I have to emphasise again that a realistic defence policy cannot simply be about the defence of the territory of Australia against invasion.”

Well actually, it can. Australia is very fortunate to be potentially capable of self-sufficiency, both in agricultural goods (food) and resources. And we certainly don't have to protect our export routes; any disruption to our exports can only increase global sympathies; particularly from those countries requiring our exports.
Much of our imports are in manufactured, even 'luxury' goods; at least, they could be seen as such in a war situation.
If we're invaded, we probably won't be too worried about getting the latest plasma TV.

“The goal of defence policy is to never have to fight a war.”
Precisely.
Unfortunately, a defence based on offensive weapons can only be effective if your offensive weapons are better than their offensive weapons.
The word is “escalation”, and we have been watching it for our entire lives; to the point where the major powers can destroy the entire planet, and pretty much wipe out all life on Earth.
Shore based defence systems which threaten no one require no escalation; merely diplomacy and treaties.
True “defensive” systems can actually make it feasible to reduce armaments through treaty. This is most unlikely in a situation requiring superior offensive weaponry.
Another historically tested non aggessive defence system is good old scorched earth. Some of our most valuable and (presumably) coveted assets are remote from the vast majority of our population. This makes it feasible to mine such assets with a relatively small, relatively 'dirty' bomb, thereby making the assets undesirable foreign takeovers.
Apart from short supply lines and virtually unlimited room to stockpile, the other major advantage to shore based defences is the ability to bunker. Unlike ships, bunkers can be made to withstand even nuclear attack.
And bunkers never really wear out.
Unlike warships like the 'Wisconsin' and 'Missouri'. My apologies for quoting 'Yorketown' (sic); memory's slipping.
Australia is in a position to actually be able to defend itself. What we cannot hope to do is compete in an offensive weapons race.