We need a "serious debate" about how we are going to defend ourselves. Before you chuck out the electioneering bumf that will be coming your way from now on, check to see if candidates even mention China and national defence among all the free stuff they want to bribe you with. If there is no mention of the China threat, ask them why.

Inviting your most potential enemies to live & invest in your backyard & enlighten them as to your innermost thoughts of how you'd deal with their relatives if they decide to take over, is not diplomacy, it's gross stupidity !
But hey, that's how Academic Bureaucracy works !

Sorry, Jeff. But I believe there's a serious debate being had, that understandably, doesn't include blabber mouths like your very opinionated self?

I believe we are very aware of the threats?

Especially after the genocide occurring in Ukraine, which doesn't seem to have troubled China too much? Just made their trade with Russia more profitable, short and long term?
Alan B.

In my opinion, more is achieved through co-operation, negotiation, diplomacy, but all parties need to come to the table. Here is a link to an interview that every thoughtful Australian should find alarming. Former Australian diplomat John Lander explains how the strategic dynamic that has triggered war in Ukraine is also at play in the Asia-Pacific, and risks pushing Australia into a war with our biggest trading partner thanks to provocations by Dutton and Morrison.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m4JWcv2FQAg

I don't believe straight shooters Dutton and or Morrison are pushing us into a war with our biggest trading partner. I believe China will do as she pleases and justify it with all sort of B.S. Shoveled by the shipload? Ditto her current R's licking sycophantic spokespersons
Alan B.

Francesca said- "In my opinion, more is achieved through co-operation, negotiation, diplomacy, but all parties need to come to the table. "

Answer- Yes Chamberlain said so too- not that it was the wrong decision in it's context- and that's the point- it's all about context- sometimes you play nice sometimes not.

Francesca

There is a plethora of evidence proving the consequences of how we should not trust the US alliance to serve our needs effectively.

I viewed your video link without any surprises; but I do not support a full suck up to China as your video proposes, but a very much different attachment and expectation than now towards the US, for help on the issue of Chinese encroachment.

Comments by Trump in his early days in the White House, should have rung alarm bells to wake Australia to the need to be more independent of any anticipated support from them.

Their assistance in the Pacific during WW11 was begrudging, belated and problematic, albeit ultimately successful, more as luck would have it.

Anybody with half a brain can see at a glance, they definitely can’t be trusted: Follow the history of Israel for evidence of their unreliability and at times, treachery. That’ll be our lot!

The inevitability is China is moving into the South East Asia and the South Pacific.
The time has passed for any serious military reaction to that move.
We’ve been done cold on the issue.

As your video rightly points out, the chances of Australia becoming a sacrificial lamb by the US, which results in a wipe out, as did Ukraine under their naive trust of US meddling, goes without need for comment.

Dan.

Even though the US is unreliable it was still a necessary alliance- at least they had significant commonality with British Australia- but it seems to be becoming untenable and unstable due to the influx of Mexicans. The efforts to dilute the power of the US has been in play for a while by multiple groups of subversives often working through proxies- sadly this will result in a more unstable and tyrannical world.

Canem Malum

The last hope for US global supremacy was lost with the scorching of Donald Trump.

Trump was street wise: A serious and experienced negotiator: A true Statesman!

We should unhitch our cart from the US until they again show the world they are not a bunch of escaped lunatics set free in the armoury.

The US is out of control!

Dan

You may be right Diver Dan- there may come a time when "We should unhitch our cart from the US". We should certainly be cautious- especially with Sleepy Joe at the helm. The polarization of current US politics makes it hard for allies to know whether they should continue with their bilateral arrangements. Perhaps Australia should form an alliance with the US Republican Party rather than the US. Or maybe just with the "Sons of the American Revolution".

Francesca could be one of the increasing number of people who don't know history; they think that nothing happened before they were born.

I agree we need to be more self-reliant and independent. And that means we need nuclear weapons response in the defense locker Nuclear power to unhitch us from dependance on foreign fossil fuel and with the latter, an ability to manufacture all we need right here.

It also means we just don't have the luxury of sitting on our hands thinking about it! But need to crack on with very rapid rail and the building of electric powered vehicles here.

Electric trucks are doable now and should be rolling off of our assembly line now And why not an electric version of the Bushmaster? That can be recharged anywhere with portable solar arrays?

Ditto a locally built light armored German tank, the weasel? Only, the steel could be replaced with graphene reinforced titanium, and up to 200 hundred times tougher/blast resistant, yet as light as an aluminum version? And that means they could be parachuted in almost anywhere!

Mach 10 drones that can be packed with explosives, that as remotely controlled weapons, could sink battleships and destroy tanks etc.

Why rapid rail, well, very rapid deployment and a bunch of new bomb blast resistant tunnels.

A serious debate? No that's done now what we need is a serious DO! And all hands to the wheels. And we do not need to advertise it! Just get on with it and end the useless prevarication!
Alan B.

Alan B- Interesting idea's. I still think that there really isn't a good substitute for petrol- maybe biodiesel can be grown and used in Australia for certain functions (in the form of rapeseed or similar)- but it'll probably be more expensive to produce.

Australia still has hydrocarbons- but I think we license the rights.

As previously stated we don't have an energy problem we have an energy storage problem- hydrocarbons are a very good storage medium- so is nuclear in a sense- smallest package for biggest energy- but it's not mobile except for navy.

The efficiency and scale of the business operation is often critical.

There is also the economic battle.

The reserves of lithium are in Bolivia, China, US- it generally is best to mine the largest ores first as they are most efficiently mined and processed. Lithium batteries have a much lower energy density and greater complexity and hence the vehicles will have a shorter range than hydrocarbon based vehicles- this will be critical in combat.

Other battery chemistries are being considered- but not established.

The oil reserves data below is a bit old- Canada has large oil reserves but it's in the form of oil sands- most of the reserves are based in the middle east.

http://u4d2z7k9.rocketcdn.me/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Lithium-map.jpg

http://earth.org/data_visualization/are-lithium-ion-batteries-compatible-with-a-sustainable-future/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium#Terrestrial

http://i.pinimg.com/originals/63/0e/30/630e30e5fdc65c531d42038cb22d951b.jpg

I like the bushmaster- not sure of it's capabilities- light armoured amphibious troop carrier with light weapons capabilities. Electrifying it would reduce it's range.

"graphene reinforced titanium" Interesting

In many cases it might be better to use Unimog's or similar rather than the Bushmaster. The classic Jeep was developed in huge numbers as a cheap flexible mobile reliable platform with interchangeable parts- it wasn't pretty- but it was a good design. The Hummer was to be it's replacement- with less success. But it can handle larger weapons than the Jeep with some protection.

If I were tasked with reequipping our defense force with weapons that would serve for specific self defense.

Then I would develop a local version of the German weasel, but with the steel armor replaced with graphene reenforced titanium. I'd keep the 20mm automatic cannon with it interchangeable anti-personal or armor piecing munitions plus the mounted, six tank destroying missiles.

Very rapid response infantry would have parachutable cross country dune buggies, and 200 mm mortars and remote controlled drones to guide their fire and drop smart bombs/fire missiles etc. And able to fly out/evac on a deployable chute and prop drive at the rear.

And our navy would be Sub hunting, nuclear armed, nuclear powered subs with props replaced with water jet propulsion and a top speed in excess of fifty knots and able to out pace out perform enemy subs and their torpedoes. With our torpedoes replaced with 100 plus knots, sub sinking, underwater capable rockets.

Nuclear power would allow us to make all the alternative fuels/hydrocarbons we'd ever need for all time, from inexhaustible seawater! And by extracting carbon (CO2) from seawater Then splitting the water molecule to extract the hydrogen. And then using chemistry, unite the carbon and hydrogen to make all manner of useful hydrocarbons/liquid fuels. As millions of litres monthly.

Its dated but still useful technology. Only nuclear power, i.e., MSR thorium makes it economical, volumous and for less than any imported fossil fuel!

Alan B- Your plan seems to have significant merit- Kudos. If you add to it Individuals national service we'll have the manpower to implement it. We will need to create a system to manage anti-national elements within our structures. Tell me where to assemble!

A bit of sanity. The US is the only country with the capacity to build the weapons & ships we need in a suitable time frame, if we want to be ready to defend ourselves any time soon.

If we reckon we have until about 2050 before we need any real arms, & want to do it ourselves, we have to start building a nuclear industry, buy at least one of every thing we want to start studying the designs, & start developing the industries to build the stuff.

Try doing it from scratch & we would end up with some lovely gear, but with a couple of simple basic mistakes that would make them death traps. It takes a lot of making mistakes, & fixing them to develop good weapons. We have no experience.

Personally I doubt we have a decade to get fully armed. If it is going to take much longer than that we would be better off spending the money on partying before we die.

Hasbeen- Given your engineering background your view is important. I feel that Oz may have the capability to build the superstructure of submarines- the time frame could be an issue.

This next anecdote is probably a good reason why I shouldn't have any input into the decision making process but here it is- I was watching War Factories on YouTube and they were talking about Kaiser's WWII Liberty Ships and how he built 1000 ships based on mass manufacturing principles in three months without having ship building facilities. In "modern" times the industrial relations problems would probably kill the project- Australian Unions could be a major factor in undermining Australian Defence. I'd be interested in some sort of shared ownership model for our workers in our defence upgrade. Kaiser took a large water front property and used the large work force to build the piers, docks, and scaffolding- using a hundred site cranes on the hundred docks.

Bolt on Weapons, systems, reactor, engines need specialists

Probably ship based reactors are very different to land based ones- hopefully some synchronicities exist- for modularity- maybe contractors could mass produce two hundred reactor/ engine systems.

There is also the military security aspect of this sort of project- probably the US is the only one that can provide it.

I share your concern that these bold and bright new technological marvels will be coffins two hundred metres underwater- for hundreds of our boys.

But you have to admire Alan B's impetus to at least do something.

Even if he needs to drop the big ticket Subs and Power Stations off his list- in favour of the more achievable projects- and let the American's do it.

What's life without risk.

Alan B in deep discussion with his ghosted alter ego; caught again rhosty.

Try a bit of honesty AB, you might find that innovation refreshing.
.
Dan.

Our major problem is we're a nation of naysayers and it can't be done. Were we to face a prospect of our generation building the snowy mountains scheme? Naysayers like hasbeen or diver would tell us, it can't be done here.

We don't build planes, but during WW11 we started to build them only to mothball production by virture of others telling us, no you can't.

Dan for obvious reasons, does not want a armed and self reliant Oz. And calls me a liar for proposing we do just that! And given recent events and China's hostility we just need to crack were we can.

If we can and do build ships, trucks, trains and bushmasters and armed drones! It stands to reason we can build more if we remove the current impediments to local manufacture.

The first being energy costs that are higher than the wages bill. The second front loaded taxes and the third is red tape to the point we're strangled by it. the forth is state competition and their constructed impediments, almost as if we were seven different nations all competing for a slice of the cake?

Talk about shooting oneself in the economic foot!

Lastly we are hamstringed by divisive unions and our only way to ensure they cannot "eff it up" is via cooperative capitalism, i.e., co-ops.

Co-ops have no truck with unions and are far and away the most efficient and cost effective production paradigm. Only recalcitrant pollies (in bed with unions) prevent that very outcome. And means that a few dozen union heavies decide our future and direction! This has to stop! WE need to move away from just digging up rocks and selling them to China. To at the very least, value adding all our export commodities!
Alan B.

I'm surprised WPH&S still allows to have armed forces considering there's an element of risk to get a scratch !

Individual- WPH&S (Work Place Health & Safety)

Answer- Well the HR people are probably working for the Communists- the People's Commissar's of our age- classic piece of double speak.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commissar

From 1917 the Bolshevik administration, like the Provisional Government before it, relied on experienced (ex-Tsarist) army-officers whose loyalty it distrusted. Trotsky summarised the solution to the issue: "We took a military specialist and we put on his right hand and on his left a commissar [...]."[1] During the early stages of the usage of commissars, no military order might be issued which did not have the prior approval of both the commander and the commissar.

Many lower-level political officers never received the same military training as commanding officers. Prior to becoming a commissar an individual had to be registered as a communist for a minimum of three years and had to attend specific political institutions, many of which never offered any military-oriented training.

Other Communist-bloc militaries also adopted systems of using political commissars. Mulvenon and Yang (2002) report that the role of the political commissar in the People's Liberation Army (PLA) of China has become one resembling that of an HR specialist.[2]

It is all right believing in Flash Gorden adventures Alan, as long as it is only in comic books. In real life gaining experience in weapon building will end up with a lot of dead men, & has done so as the necessary knowledge was gained.

With subs we don't even make a suitable steel for our old subs, let alone the modern stuff we want. To develop a steel capable of handling deep diving subs, in the very cold water they will encounter took many mistakes. Perhaps the Yanks would give or sell us the technology, but perhaps not. Without it the things are easy prey.

If we want a defense force, rather than an attack force, what we need is very large number of infantry level guided anti tank missiles rather than lots of tanks. We don't need lots of tanks, this is obvious from the Ukraine. However we need lots of them, not just the capacity to make more.

The same goes for long range cruise missiles, & ICBMs. We meed a large expensive stock of the things, to stop an invading force before it gets here. We could consider them damn good value if we ultimately chuck them out unused. If never used their deterrent value would be proven.

Playing games trying to develop a pie in the sky death ray is fine, once you have real time weapons to defend the country.