I can agree with most of this David and add, my preference is for complete military self sufficiency; based loosely on the Austrian never ever defeated model?

And that means we need to divest ourselves of conservative thinkers trying to emasculate that tax collection system that pays for it; just to advantage a privileged few?

For mine, the best way to beat now endemic tax avoidance costing the budget bottom line somewhere north of 60 billion; is to adopt a single, stand alone unavoidable system, which like an unavoidable but very modest expenditure tax; has the added benefit of making current avoidance schemes work exactly the opposite to the intended outcome!

And as the consequence collect a greater percentage from the avioders!

There's more than one battle of the bulge needing to be fought here?

It costs money to have a military and even more to deploy them!

The major problem with the Collins class submarines was simply manning them?

Perhaps we should bring back conscription for fixed terms, as an alternative to the dole; for home guard self defense/admin/logistical duties?

Thereby relieving three quarters of the current regular force for front line duties!

However, like you I believe the only amplification of our effort over there, is to rule out nothing in the way of essential airsupport!

Thus creating an essential no fly zone over Syria for Assard and his genocide with barrel bombs and such!

After that we should leave it to those folk with a very real vested self interest to put boots on the ground; and that has to include the most powerful militaries in the region, Israel and Turkey!

It really is a case for those folk standing shoulder to shoulder as a entirely, united we stand, military force, or divided we fall; fleeing rabble leaving most of their military hardware behind; to be used against them!
Rhrosty.

Military contributions probably should rest with parliament, and not a government. But we should STAY OUT OF SYRIA as we should have stayed out of Iraq and Afghanistan. Our troops should be used no further from our own region, and then only in policing actions such as Timor etc. It's doubtful that we could defend ourselves if push came to shove - so slack are our politicians on defence spending - and we are certainly incapable of playing best buddy to the U.S. The Yanks haven't won anything since Vietnam (now that was certainly a stupid waste of life that that the Commos won anyway) and most of the fights they pick have nothing to do with Australia. All we get from these conflicts is more make-out refugees we can no longer keep in the manner they would like to be accustomed to.

It is a commended charitable activity to fight Daesh as well as Boko Haram, so it is should be funded by donations and manned by volunteer militias.

People who pay with their own money and blood can better tell when the effort is worthwhile and when it is futile, than governments who pay with other people's money and blood.

I was going to poo poo you about your article till I read it though.
I found have to agree with you.
I would like to add to it by saying that the whole mess was brought about by the deranged cowboy who was running the US and used as a puppet by the oil companies through Cheney.
He with Blair and Howard should all be in the dock in the Hague for war crimes.
However the evil has been done and we should be staying right out of the mess now.
You are on the right track about the "parliamentary vote on foreign deployments of Australian soldiers".
This is a must because we too have a deranged cowboy of our own, just drooling to start a stouch over there .
Labour is following along like a lamb so I do not hold any hope for this.

All fairly predictable with the same limitations coming up.

The author's suggestion of a "a parliamentary vote on foreign deployments of Australian soldiers - if not beforehand then at the earliest opportunity thereafter." immediately runs into problems.

1. the Coalition-Labor dominated House of Reps would automatically rubber stamp foreign deployments (with minimal debate).

2. Coalition-Labor dominated Senate would automatically rubber stamp foreign deployments (with minimal debate).

Unlike the Independents and Greens those Parties that actually govern realise backing up the US is Australia's main foreign policy reality.

Pete

Pete; Perhaps the French could've waited until the Nazis were marching into Paris or we waiting to get involved until the japanese were landing in Darwin, with boots on the ground?

There's a very good reason for executive power making these decisions; albeit, one needs the absolute power of Presidents to be limited by a parliamentary input after the event; and them forced to justify the action by actual events?

Say in a unity ticket wartime cabinet?

And where attack upon our sovereign land required immediate action; rather than an endless exchange/stalemate between the hawks and the doves?

I mean the horse designed by a committee is what gave us a camel?

The unending input and intervention by Gormless Politicians countermanding Generals, is what turned the action in Vietnam into a virtual rout; which cost more lives than WW11!

Keep the pollies out!
Rhrosty.

Australia will never be self-sufficient except in stupidity, deserts, and choosing the wrong friends!

Rhrosty, the reason we couldn't man the Collins class subs is because they were pieces of junk, built by a workforce that should have been locked up not paid. From the horses mouth, "no one with half a brain, or a smidgen of mechanical ability would go near one".

As for conscripting the dole bludgers, so many of them are middle eastern Muslims, that we would be training & arming our own fifth column. Not a great idea.

Military self sufficiency when just a quick glance at those Collins subs, & what is going on with the frigates should get that idea out of your head. Hell we had major difficulty just repelling invasion by a few fishing boats until Tony won government.

We even had to use Kanimbla a large slow amphibious warfare ship as a patrol boat a couple of times when our real patrol boats couldn't handle the work load. Do you really think we're equipped to repel a shooting invasion.

We can't even build cars that anyone wants, what chance do you think we have of building engines to drive tanks & ships. Ours & buckle's springs to mind, or about as much chance as those Collins have of getting north of Broom, in one go, under their own steam.

I would ask, what do we actually use a submarine for?
In previous wars they were used to attack mainly merchant ships and deny supply to the UK and Japan for instance.
Who are we going to attack and deny supply to?
I think that a fleet of submarines are an admirals wet dream, close to having an aircraft carrier again.
The only way that we could justify a submarine, is to attack an invading fleet approaching Australia. Aircraft and drones would do this much more efficiently AND cheaper.
While on the subject please could we not buy the totally useless F35 and buy a cheaper option from Russia, China or UK instead.
We do NOT have to do everything the US tells us to.

Hi Robert LePage

Yeah, like, whadda we need armies for, neither?

Yeah, like, whadda we need armies for, neither?
Posted by plantagenet:

Fairly obviously to defend the country but I cannot see how a submarine would come into it?
The point of my previous post is: why do we need weapons of offence unless we are going to invade someone?

Robert, now we no longer have F111s & as we don't have nuclear armed cruise or surface to surface missiles, submarines, if we actually had any that worked, are about the only weapon we would have to even damage, let alone take out an invasion force.

As history should tell you, once an invasion force has landed, it is very hard to stop them, particularly with just the few pop guns we actually have.

Playing with lead toy soldiers has been the undoing of many a good man, perhaps even Tony and certainly Howard.

Australia has few armed forces and couldn't defend itself from any other nation including Fiji so why are we kidding ourselves?

It's time to declare ourselves neutral and stop posing as a member of America's army of mercenaries and plunderers.

With no air force or navy to speak of, let's seek peace and, instead, strongly condemn the warmongers.

G'day Robert

About 90% of what submarines do during peacetime is:

1. intelligence gathering of other countries submarines, ships, coasts, harbours (all soughts of emissions are sucked up). This involves interaction with naval assets of friendly countries (eg. US and Singapore)

2, deterrence against opponent's naval assets getting too close (uninvited) to the Australian coastline.

In wartime 1 and 2 as well as more active defence against enemy naval elements - including elements who try to sink tankers going from the major refinery in Singapore to Australia.

Pete
Submarine Matters
at http://gentleseas.blogspot.com.au/