ttbn,

China hasn't colonised the South China Sea.

But it did annex it in a move that can only be described as predatory expansion.

Has PNG signed up to China's One Belt Initiative?

Of course it has. Now China can start building military bases a stone's throw off the Australian coastline.

What can we do about it? I know! Let's start bringing in millions of cashed up Chinese to restart our economy. Think of the money we can make. Or as Tony Abbott once said: We can all have cheap TVs.

And don't forget when Tony Abbott wanted to sell Australian citizenship to the Chinese for $25,000 a person so that as he said: We can all get rich (I think he mentioned $600 each pa.)

Smart man that Tony Abbott.

Anyone giving serious credibility to the strategic value of forward bases in war should study some history of the 1941-45 Asia-Pacific theatre of WW2. In every one, whether European or USAian, the inhabitants suffered undeclared invasion, cruel occupation and economic and infrastructural devastation. This last feature was contributed to by its ally as well as its enemy. Add to this that it had no choice in who was its enemy or who was its ally in the first place.

The Philippine Islands and Guam are prime examples of forward bases being abandoned by their overlord to the gentility of the IJA and its airforce. The major difference with Pearl Harbor was that it was not abandoned by its colonial master. The great tragedy of this "strategic thinking" is suffered by the people in place for the sake of PC self-righteousness by politicians back home in carpeted offices who have never walked the deck of an aircraft carrier, fired a gun in anger, or gone out under fire to pick up a soldier whose guts are lying in the mud beside him.

If the USA is a partner in the Manus Base, can Australia be assured that the same execrable behaviour from the USA military hierarchy that left Pearl Harbor vulnerable will not be forthcoming if an attack from the north-west is imminent. Should Australia be left vulnerable so that Manus is designated as a "first strike" option for an enemy?

A forward base is a very, very expensive invitation card. It is the first strike choice against a continuing threat and is always vulnerable by its very nature. An enemy's first priority is to render it inoperable. If that enemy has a great arsenal of long and short range nuclear missiles, the OIC could launch from a console in his office.

Once forward bases are lost Australia's northern coast is indefensible. A naval/cum airforce base on Manus is a huge static, immovable target, an easy mark for missiles, not so a fragmented (by comparison) and mobile naval and airforce attack against Australia's north and north-west coast. (cont.)

(cont.) With its proximity to Australia,the more likelihood there is of a Brisbane Line thought process in both the military and political spheres. Given the distance from the USA mainland, the possibility of its abandonment of Manus might be considered prudent, in much the same way The Philippines was so easily given up by Washington and MacArthur.

George Santayana wrote: " Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it,"

Another threat from Asia is emerging. A once great civilisation that by some yardsticks was the greatest, most technically advanced, most innovative, most inventive and most resourceful of all. It is ruled by a man elected to rule as an emperor for life. He has demonstrated beyond doubt that he has a deep appreciation of history and his nation's role therein. Xi rejoices in the serendipitous confluence of two major pathways of history, firstly a foreseeable parity of military power and technological innovation with former and current competitors/enemies. And secondly, it's pay-back time for China's nigh on 200 years of humiliation and exploitation. And to ice the cake, he's leading the agenda along both paths.

Santayana should be spinning in his grave.

Electronic technology has made history one of the most accessible of the arts. It is the intellectual hobby of uncountable devotees, seriously studying their field of choice. Australia should indeed take the threat to Manus seriously and discard pride and defiance as major reasons for proceeding with the project. If there are compelling reasons for projecting Australia's interests northward into the Pacific by means of a trillion dollar investment shared with the USA, then publish the case for all to see. Security won't be an issue, so don't try to excuse a patronising reluctance to share. The Chinese will know the whys and the wherefores. Dammit, they probably already have the survey reports and preliminary blueprints anyway.