This article is very well written, but a pathetic propaganda piece by an obviously anti US author who does not want the USA to build an aircraft storage facility in Australia. Her position follows the usual left wing party line, that no matter what the yanks do, they must be up to something insidious.

She concludes that the US facility must be bad for Australia after a lot of creative thinking. She grossly overestimates the Chinese space warfare assets, including their ability to shoot down (a non manoeuvring) satellite, and claims that the US facilities in Australia are desperately needed by the US to counter this laughable Chinese technological lead. If she ever picked up a copy of Aviation Week she might avail himself that the US is decades ahead of the Chinese in that department.

She equates the fact that the Chinese now own a 20 year old ex Soviet built aircraft carrier, with the fact that the USA builds the best carriers in the world, has more than a dozen of them, has a dozen old ones in reserve, and a couple of dozen "assault ships" which make fine aircraft carriers for VSTOL aircraft.

Upon such flawed thinking she darkly intimates a long list of far fetched negative effects that this horrible base could have. Among them the rather potty idea that the USA could store ICBM's in it and it might secretly store nuclear warheads at a nuclear waste dump just up the road.

She never even hints that the Australia's defence policy for the last sixty years has been to defend Australia by fighting to the last American, or that Australia might just have to do something for the yanks in return.

I don't understand why Kate Smith hates the Americans so much. Like western Europe, the yanks are in decline anyway, and just like Europe, they are broke. The next superpowers will be a population poor, geriatric, rich, nationalist socialist China, and a population expanding, poverty stricken Muslim world.

If you hate the yanks, Kate, you sure as hell won't like what is coming next.

Lego and I must have been reading a different article because apart from the first six words of his comment I do not recognise a single aspect that he purports to see.

This is an important article. It raises issues that are scarcely debated within the Australian body politic. The present government has taken several steps to raise the level of the US military presence in Australia, virtually without public debate and certainly with no serious opposition from the Coalition.

But there are very important issues at stake, including but not limited to a consideration of whether or not transforming the US military presence in Australia is in fact in Australia's best interests.

Kate, there will always be nincompoops like Lego who automatically translate any attempt at discussion of these issues into a perceived anti-American diatribe. Do not be deterred. I suspect the vast majority of Australians are unaware of the real role of Pine Gap, or how that is only one example of a rapidly expanding US military presence on our soil, particularly in North Queensland and Western Australia.

These matters need to be widely discussed. The main political parties need to come clean with the electorate about what they are negotiating in secret so that we might have a real and informed choice come 14 September. A lack of real discussion, to which your article is an honourable exception, only drives the xenophobic fantasies of some of the commenters on this site.

Could I respectfully suggest, Mr James O'Neill, that if you can't see the muddled thinking and outright anti Americanism in Kate Smith's article, you are not looking very hard?

If the presence of US bases on Australian soil is a matter of profound indifference to both sides of the Australian parliament, then that is because both sides see the advantage of the US/Australia alliance. And both sides of parliament recognise that most Australians are in very much in favour of that.

Could I also suggest that anti Americanism is very much a minority opinion among Australians? And that its propagation is the defining characteristic of an educated caste well known for their contempt for their fellow Australians, and their self righteous belief that they are morally and intellectually superior to everybody else?

Contemporary anti Americanism is now the preserve of the Greens, who are very much on the nose with the electorate for always supporting anything that goes against the interests of their own people. The Green constituency primarily consists of homosexuals, Muslims, immature young people who want to give the adult world the finger, and a coven of inner city elites who really know how to talk down to their inferiors.

And I see that you are not immune to that yourself with you "nincompoop" slur.

The USA is the leader of the western world, James, and it's military protector. If it wasn't for the USA, all of Europe would now be singing "Deutchland Uber Alles" as their national anthem, all of Asia would be sing "The East is Red", and the Grenadier Guards would now be goose stepping around Buckingham Palace.

If you knew your own countries history, you would know that when Darwin was first bombed by the Japs, almost the entire Australian garrison took to their heels and headed for Adelaide. The only ones who stood their ground were some Australian AA units, the Australian Navy, and the US Navy and Air Force. Say thank you, USA. If the USA wants to garrison our North with their fine young men, then I say thank you, again

Leg Over has not a clue. The groin lust of power, seems to expunge all reason or logic.

We are just the puppet of the Banking Military Industrial Complex. Russian and China are standing up to our master's imperialism with enormous effect.

Vladmir Putin was the only leader at the recent G8 meeting to oppose the attacks on both Syria and Iran.

Syria has not only the S300 missiles ready, but also the Russian S400 missiles that are far more advanced than the Patriot US Missiles. Obama is balking at an attack, however the lunatic neo-cons want war to escape our awareness. We,with notions of freedom, are the real enemies.

The Russians could not have a missile more advanced than the yanks, Arjay. The Ivans and the chinks have to wait until the yanks invent a new technology before they can steal it.

Lego, you are obviously caught in a time warp circa the 1940s. You are badly in need of an updating of geo-political realities. Read Scott's American War Machine, Edmonds' Classified Woman, Scahill's Dirty Wars and Turse's Kill Anything That Moves, the latter three all published in the past 12 months, for some insights into how the world is really run.

Lego - Quote "The Ivans and the chinks" You really show your racist attitude here.

Please be so kind as to tell people what experience you have with Russian or Chinese people that would make you so hateful?

To Phillip S

I also called the Americans "yanks", but I noticed that you did not get all self righteous over that? The reason I am a racist, is because of people like yourself who claim to be non racist, but who judge white people (especially yanks) by a different standard than they judge other races. Thank you for displaying your own double standard on this subject.

To James "O'Neill.

A very poor response, James. Unless I read a bunch a loony left books which gave you a twisted view of the world, then I am not qualified to comment? Look James, I can read a 1500 word article by Kate Smith and I can see holes in her reasoning that I can drive a bloody bus through.

Her conclusions are so potty, that what interests me more is how an intelligent and supposedly intelligent person like Kate could actually get such a twisted worldview. But I know enough of history to know that attitudes like Kate's have been common among educated people in recent history.

I lived through a time when educated and eloquent people like Kate advocated a Socialist economic system which beggared the populations of the countries which were stupid enough to accept it, and turned what should have been advanced societies into screaming nightmares, right out of 1984. An intelligent person might have thought that turning a country into a giant prison camp would a bad idea, but educated elites like Kate were still advocating support for Socialist tyranny right up to the fall of the Berlin Wall.

Here we are thirty years later, and the same bunch of social climbing socialists are at it again, and still hurling brickbats at the USA who did the most to destroy their utopian socialist nightmare. Pick up any contemporary history book and read how the university socialists in Seoul cheered on Kim Il Sung's tanks and how the university socialists in Cambodia cheered on Pol Pots Khmer Rouge.

And then they wondered why they were being led to the killing fields.

I do not want Americans, especially the warmongering types, on Australian soil. No good can come of it given where we are located!

America is a rogue nation, one intent on gaining world domination. Big Brother and the U.S. are synonymous.

Read some of the articles on Information Clearing House if you don't believe me.

LEGO - Because in your first post you paraphrased the author "She equates the fact that the Chinese now own a 20 year old ex Soviet built aircraft carrier," YOU used Chinese here.

But your third posting Quote "The Russians could not have a missile more advanced than the yanks, Arjay. The Ivans and the chinks have to wait until the yanks invent a new technology before they can steal it."
Is totally hostile with the intent to denigrate them.
Maybe you could give some examples to prove your argument that they steal every idea.

If one person from 1 race calls another person from the same race (or similar) something it is not deemed racist. For all I know you may be American.

Hi LEGO

I pretty much agree with you, noting the article appears to be re-translated from a much longer paper that the author (who can speak Mandarin Chinese) may have originally translated into Chinese.

Hence there are, verb at the end, sentences like:

"A strategically vital lifeline that American and Western military interests and capabilities do not have in Southeast Asia, but China does."

Many of the author's claims appear to be heavily reliant on Chinese information and Chinese-strategic-academic points of view - in contrast to the usual American information and points of view.

Its interesting to get an idea of what the Chinese establishment, or some in Chinese academia, think via this article.

Regards

Pete

Hi Planagenet

Your premise makes a lot of sense. After re reading Kate Smith's article, it does indeed seem like a Chinese inspired propaganda effort where Chinese capability is talked up, and the yanks are portrayed as so deficient that they have to go hat in hand to the Aussies to find a base to match Chinese advances.

Her claim about "China's first aircraft carrier fleet is coming online" is so over the top that only an Oriental could suggest it and think that people are stupid enough to believe it. Her exaggerated and fanciful boastings brings to mind such sophisticated Communist propaganda as the so called "spontaneous confessions" of shot down US pilots in Korea which had headings of "HOW MY CRUEL CAPITALIST MASTERS FORCED ME TO MAKE INHUMAN GERM WARFARE ON PEACE LOVING SOCIALIST PEOPLE".

China has been unable to build its own aircraft carrier, even after stealing HMAS Melbourne (by setting up a phony scrap metal company that was supposed to cut it up) and towing it to Shanghai to try and figure out how a carrier was built.

Her extraordinary claim about how sophisticated the Chinese are because they have ocean going satellite tracking ships ignores the fact that this is major disadvantage to the Chinese. They need these ships because they don't have any bases to track them. And they are obviously sore at the Australians for giving the yanks the bases that they covet.

Then there is the claim about the Chinese anti satellite missile which is treated by the author as a triumph of Chinese engineering, when all it did was blow up a non manoeuvring old satellite and enrage the entire international community by adding 4000 new pieces of space junk that threaten the existence of commercial and scientific satellites.

Some triumph.

It doesn't take a Mensa from the local Audobon Society to figure out that the whole article is crapola. Even a Densa could figure it out. Unfortunately, James O'Neill, Arjay and StephenS can not even match a Densas modest intellectual attainment.

Lego - Quote "It doesn't take a Mensa from the local Audobon Society to figure out that the whole article is crapola. Even a Densa could figure it out. Unfortunately, James O'Neill, Arjay and StephenS can not even match a Densas modest intellectual attainment."

I assume you include yourself as a Densa because even though I have 2 posts on the page you make your reply you could not even get my name right.

I certainly disagree with anti-Chinese, racist, views, noting I also said "in contrast to the usual American information and points of view."

So overall its a good article because it raises many thought-provoking issues from other than the standard Western perspective.

Pete

What a stupid article.

The yanks are the only ones likely to get a manned mission to Mars up and running; if Australia can contribute anything let's go; full steam ahead!

The lefties and the chatterers hate the idea of humanity leaving the planet because it will mean their pernicious, mean and little minds won' be able to control other people.

I didn't respond to your post Phillip S, because it was so devoid of any reasoned argument that it was not worth responding too. I typically write 500 words in response to the articles posted on OLO, and I then usually have the painful task of winnowing out 150 words to conform to the 350 word limit. I even have to do things like name you PhillipS to save a word.

The most noticeable thing about you trendy lefty types is how poorly you can form any argument to support he causes you advocate so passionately. This simply reinforces my perception that you have never thought about these issues at all. You simply accept the slogans tossed at you by your peers, because you need to think that you are clever, and you have been conditioned to think that clever people advocate these causes.

Please note how bad the responses are from people who have your culturally conditioned ideals? Unable to say anything to support their own worldview, they limit themselves to sneery one liners, usually pronounced in the tone of moral outrage, followed by some Dorothy Dixer question which they demand their opponents must answer.

In other words, they are tacitly admitting that they can not support their own premises. They can only ask leading questions which allows them to attack their opponents answers, usually by demanding that their opponents prove everything while they say nothing.

Pretty pathetic.

If you think you are smart, then you had better start thinking smart. Do what I do, and research your topics so that you know what you are talking about. Of course, if you did that, you would find out how wrong you were, and how the western self loathing lefties who hate the societies that they choose to live in, have made a chump out of you.

The Northern Territory is close to the equator, but the existing RAAF Woomera Test Range would be simpler to use for launching satellites.

An "aviation boneyard" in central Australia is not a useful staging platform for US interests into Southeast Asia, as it is too far away. There are more useful military bases around Australia.

There is no reason for the USA to control UAVs from central Australia, as this can be done from more accessible bases in the USA and elsewhere.

Reid-Smith suggested that "by 2012 China's first aircraft carrier fleet would be coming online". This seems a curious statement as China's first carrier, Liaoning (formerly the Russian Varyag) was only commissioned in September 2012: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_aircraft_carrier_Liaoning

One second hand carrier does not make a "fleet". Varyag and the former HMAS Melbourne have allowed China to learn a lot about carrier design, but it will take many years to build their own and operate them effectively: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_aircraft_carrier_programme

The Chinese military may not see LORAN (Long Range Navigation system) as an alternative to satellite technology, but rather something kept in use for use by their older military equipment. As an alternative to Global Positioning System (GPS), China has its won BeiDou Navigation Satellite System (BDS): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beidou_Navigation_Satellite_System

The Australian defense budget situation is not that bad, but a problem is that there are several long term large budget items which reduce flexibility. In particular Australia has invested in new electronic warfare aircraft, AWACS, in-flight refueling, heavy air transport, air warfare destroyers (with potential ballistic missile capability) and landing helicopter dock ships for amphibious assault (with the potential to operate stealth strike aircraft). This will provide considerable military capability, assuming Australia has the money to pay the skilled personnel needed to operate and maintain it.

See also: http://blog.tomw.net.au/search/label/Defence%20IT

I cannot comment on much of the article, except for at the beginning
where the advantage of the Nth Territory for satellite launching was
mentioned. That seems to be in error.
When a geostationary satellite is launched it makes a number of orbits
of the earth while it is maneuvered into place.
The US would be just as satisfactory as the NT.

I agree that in a warlike situation the GPSs of all varieties would have a short life.

LEGO - What you have posted above is a pretty pathetic attempt to extricate your self from a situation of your making, namely your use of racist language.

Quote "I didn't respond to your post Phillip S" but you did reply.

Quote "The most noticeable thing about you trendy lefty types is how poorly you can form any argument to support he causes you advocate so passionately." (by the way THE is spelt as I have it not as HE) Please provide examples to substantiate your statement.

Quote "Please note how bad the responses are from people who have your culturally conditioned ideals?" That is a idiotic statement but please explain why you put a question mark on the end instead of a full stop.

Time does not permit a full evaluation of your reply, but I am sure if you re-read it you will see how idiotic it is in relation to this thread.

Hi PhillipS

Deprogramming trendy lefties is a hobby of mine, but I can see that you are probably not worth the effort.

Of course I use racist language, PhilipS, I am a racist. If sticking up for my own people is racist, I am proud to say I am a racist.

I, amongst others found Kate's article to be informative. I detest Imperialism and military expansionism even if it is "squeaky clean"? U.S.A. brand. Diplomacy is the only intelligent and humane way to go. Lego, forgive my criticism, but you do come across as a bit of a hardliner. By the way, what is a "trendy leftie"? God forbid! I might have to undergo an exorcism.
Den 71

LEGO - Quote "If sticking up for my own people is racist" The context you were racist was not about defending your own people it was an outright use of derogatory names for different races.

In the context of this article it was totally uncalled for.

To quote you further "Deprogramming trendy lefties is a hobby of mine, but I can see that you are probably not worth the effort." You have absolutely idea what you are saying, because I have made no comments here that you could construe that I am as you imply a leftie.

If the "outright use of derogatory racist names" is so outrageous to you, where was your moral outrage at my use of the term "yank?"

Lego - You obviously are suffering dementia, if you read above you will see I answered that before Quote "If one person from 1 race calls another person from the same race (or similar) something it is not deemed racist. For all I know you may be American."

Also as your comments are biased totally on the side of America you are not using the term Yanks in a derogatory or racist manner.

Yeah Phillip S, I repeated the question, because I want to know exactly where you stand before I start pulling your logic apart.

1. You claimed it is "not deemed racist" for a person of one race to call people of his own race a racist name. Deemed by whom?

2. If it is not "deemed racist" (by persons unknown) for a person of one race to call people of his own race by a racist name, why did you attack me for calling the Russians "Ivans?" Surely that is no different to calling the Americans "yanks?'

3. If it is not "deemed racist" (by persons unknown) for a person of one race to call people of his own race by a racist name, does that mean it is not "deemed racist" (by persons unknown) to call French people "frogs" and Italian people "wogs?"

Since you presume to tell me what is right and what is wrong, I think that the onus is now upon you to explain just how your anti racist morality works. You can not reform my wicked ways, unless you explain to me what the rules are, and by what logic they work.

Please hurry. I am fascinated, and I eagerly await your reply.

Phillip S?

Where arrrrrrrrrrrre youuuuuuuuuuuuu?

Damn, another moral puritan who does the runner when you fixate on him, and ask him a few uncomfortable questions.

LEGO - I did not reply straight away, just testing your level to getting frustrated, appears it is very low.

Now Quote "1. You claimed it is "not deemed racist" for a person of one race to call people of his own race a racist name. Deemed by whom?"
You know that is the case you are just trying to extricate your self from the position you put your self in.

Quote "You can not reform my wicked ways," That to me is an admission you know you were wrong, but the rest indicates you just can't accept it.

Good try but we will just build up your frustration level a bit more.

You know you meant it as racist or derogatory.

I thought that you would squib out, DavidS

Four simple questions relating to the logic of your moral declarations(one of which was rhetorical), and you dodged all three of them.

Conclusion? You are aware of the contraditions in your own Alice in Wonderland ideology, and you know that you have no way at all of justifying those contradictions. All you could do was stand on your dignity and stonwall.

Now you know why I did not bother to respond to your earlier posts. I have seen such sneery and self righeous posts like yours before, and I knew they were indicative of a person who advocates issues that he or she has never really thought about. I predicted that if I challenged you, you would go to water and stonewall.

I was more interested in crossing swords with Mr O'Neill who had the courage to write 250-300 word articles. Such people I consider to be worthy opponents who's attitudes can be swayed by the force of reasoned argument. But since Mr O'neill has left the arena, I was with great reluctence that I turned my stare on you.

Congratulations, you reacted exactly as I predicted you would. Long on sneery one liners and pointed questions, but you ran for cover when challenged.

I doubt if I will bother with you again. Please come back when you have grown a backbone and you are prepared to defend the moral values that you advocate. And thank you for displaying to any impartial reader the weakness of your position.

LEGO - Quote "Now you know why I did not bother to respond to your earlier posts"

You did not reply because you know were wrong.

The rest of your post is just to disguise the fact you were wrong and rather than admit it you try to extricate yourself with a load of meaningless questions and comments.

FACT you are racist.

To Quote you "I doubt if I will bother with you again." Could I be so lucky, I hope so. Time will tell.

Yup. I am a proud racist. That's the only thing you have got right so far.

LEGO - To quote yo "Yup. I am a proud racist. That's the only thing you have got right so far"

That is the only thing I was pointing out that you are racist.

Your diatribe of meaningless questions etc were a useless waste of time and failed to extricate yourself from a situation you put yourself in..