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.