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.