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.