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!