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.