Bruce there is only one thing we could do to defend Oz. Acquire nuclear armed cruise missiles. We would have to acquire heaps of the things, not just a few, as we may come up against a large numerical, if not all that effective force.

We probably could build them, given 10 years lead time, at about 5 times the cost of buying them, but we would have to lock up thousands of greenies to be able do it

We should have shore, air & ship based missiles, & we should spend enough on training, yes actually practicing with million dollar missiles, to actually know how to use the things.

I am an ex fleet air arm pilot, from when we actually had a few well armed ships. Yes our aircraft were a bit of a joke, but we could handle any threat we faced at the time. We actually were allowed to fire one unarmed air to sea missile per pilot per year for training.

My son has just resigned from the navy, as the whole service is now the joke. Our only amphibious ship, which should be here at present, getting ready to support any areas seriously damaged by cyclones, is a public servants luxury hotel at Manus Island.

Time to send the bludgers some tents, & sack any that complain, & bring the bloody ship back here.

Our ships are half armed, & the crews have no idea of how to fight them, if they had to.

We have an infantry trained for peace keeping, & as targets for Muslim insurgents.

Our air force could just about get out of sight, before returning to base to refuel.

There is not a damn thing we could build to improve the situation, except perhaps decent infantry vehicles, able to protect men from roadside bombs.

Otherwise we should make every public servant serve 2 years of every 5 in the infantry, including a tour in Afghanistan. This would not help the army in any way, but should reduce the bureaucracy by 50% pretty quickly, one way or another.

Hi G'dayBruce

I was talking about me not you when I said - "But being negative is just defeatism or accurate?"

Even a century ago Australia couldn't design and build state of the art surface ships, subs and front-line aircraft. Since 1914 the technical gap has only widened. So its more sensible, and economically sustainable to buy them overseas but be able to service-repair them here.

As Hasbeen says - other than armoured cars other weapon systems are beyond our capacity to design and build.

As Hasbeen says Australia should have a nuclear weapon capability. I would suggest though the delivery vehicles be ballistic missiles (not cruise) because cruise can be shot down more easily and flies too slowly for a pre-emptive strike. Best that the launch platform be submarines (preferably nuclear propelled) because land based ICBMs or bombers are too vulnerable.

Also we need - something like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DF-21#DF-21D_.28CSS-5_Mod-4.29_Anti-ship_ballistic_missile

Despite the wishlist above - remaining in alliance with the US brings all the military intelligence benefits (including satellites), US nuclear protection and more powerful conventional forces than Russia or China.

You may have a vision but what actual weapons systems do you suggest?
--

Hi Hasbeen

Thanks for your comment - see my response to them in the G'day Bruce reply. Through your own experience and your son's you clearly know what you're talking about.

Regards

Pete

It's amazing really that the whole world dances to the WAR WAR WAR polka, the dance invented by the Yanks in 1945.

Yeah, since the Yanks decided to run the world to suit themselves by building a massive army on a credit card, all the rest of the world has joined in the endless-war dance.

Some nations have spent up big on armaments. Some haven't. And some, like Australia, have become craven, servile acolytes of America buying their old Vietnam helicopters, some of their tanks, and we still await delivery of fighter jets which are years behind in production while we make submarines that don't work.

Yeah, thanks to the Yanks the whole world sits on the edge of a nuclear precipice. We don't know when the first nukes will fall but fall they will because the Yanks want to take Russia and China out of the world domination stakes before they get any stronger.

Meanwhile, on the FORUM, people argue back and forth, powerless little people who the Yanks have no interest in.

What the Yanks want is global domination, total power, and they'll do anything to get it and will kill billions if they have to!

What a sad reality! What a sad indictment of the human race!

The American Soldier Ants will control our world one day! And we can't blame anyone but ourselves!

Time to grow up David G, your wish of ostrich like head in the sand is a recipe for loss of sovereignty.

The poms had a bloke called Chamberlin who thought like you some time back. His attitude cost millions of lives in the long run.

We have seen the mutually assured destruction theory put to the test of time, & it works. The best way to prevent war is to be too well armed to be an easy target. If attacking you is not likely to be successful, & profitable, you are unlikely to be attacked.

That of course means sitting on fools who want to be lambs for the slaughter. Not too heavy are we?

Hi David G

Yes the US economy has some (although not total) reliance on defence industry.

When I was in London in 1981 constantly arguiung with students from the London School of Economics they fairly blindly followed a unilateral nuclear disarmament totem. Their thinking was "the UK should surrender its nuclear weapons to the Soviet Union as its better Red than Dead". That was in 1981. In 1988 it was the Soviets who began to fall apart, partly due to US-Reagan military pressure. The Cold War ended and it was (and still is) a more peaceful world.

Unforseen benefits of Western military power.
---

Different subject:

Where I said "The South China Sea is potentially worth many $Billions in undersea mineral and energy resources and perhaps military bases on the islands." Someone from antichrist US has sent me a link:

"China building massive island big enough for airstrip, report says" http://www.foxnews.com/world/2014/11/23/china-building-massive-island-big-enough-for-airstrip-report-says/#.VHKzDuj00CE.mailto Report says:

"IHS Jane’s said satellite imagery it obtained showed that in the past three months Chinese dredges have created a land mass that is almost the entire length of Fiery Cross Reef in the contested Spratly Islands."

This partly manmade island seems to be-becoming suitable as a seaport for Chinese warships and tankers. So China may have the industrial power to outbuild the opposition in the South China Sea. Interesting how Japan responds.

Regards

Pete

Australian navy 1939.

Two heavy cruisers (Australia and Canberra)
Two very modern light cruisers (Perth and Sydney)
One old WW1 light cruiser (Adelaide)
Five destroyers.

Australian navy 2014

One helicopter carrier/ assault ship (Another being fitted out)
12 frigates.