The article assumes that the future is fixed and that no changes, good or bad, will occcur that will change the way Australia is positioned. There is an argument that the skills lost if we "downsize" and "down skill" in the military will not easily be re-learnt and if we come to need it then it is too late.

I agree that the new aircraft purchase should be rationalised e.g. not going for involvement in the uncertain F35 but getting Proven Superhornets instead. By the way the subs now work and the past few recent Pacific exercises prove that.

I suppose the author will also analyse why our neighbours are buying more advanced equipment e.eg Su35 and 37's (?). If there is no tension in the area why is it happening? Just being Anti US is not a valid logical argument to deny an alliance.

I believe in the motto "if you want peace prepare for war" (something like that).

this is pretty much saying what i've been saying for thirty five years. now there's two of us, can world domination be far behind?

very few countries are capable of launching a sea-borne invasion. it's very hard to envision an attack, and it certainly wouldn't come out of the blue. there will be time to lift preparedness to maximum before any large number of foreigners come ashore.

oz doesn't need the american connection. national defense is a vastly different thing from war-making ability. oz maintains a small aggression-capable military as an adjunct to america's army, not for the defense of oz. if oz were attacked, actual defense would be a matter for a conscript mobilization of able-bodied ozzies.

"if you want peace, prepare for war" is a legitimate concept in this discussion. but it should be "...prepare for defense." instead of being aggression-capable, oz should aim to make invasion uncomfortable to the point of discouraging rational attack. the emphasis should be on training a large militia that can be brought to combat readiness very quickly. this policy has served switzerland and sweden very well.

putting an assault rifle under lock in every wardrobe in oz is also cheaper than than maintaining an aggressive army of significant size. it also sends a message to the world that we are no longer the 'go anywhere, do anything' gun dog of the american empire.

Demos,

The reason that the allies were pushed back to Dunkirk is because they weren't ready, and with a small military they were unable to prosecute a war against a well prepared enemy in spite of having nearly a year warning.

The reason the germans did not invade was because of the RAF's superior planes and pilots, but if they had made a beach head it would have all been over.

This military strategy is echoed in Aus today. The standing army is pitiful by most standards and would not be able to engage an enemy of any significance without the satelite and communication / information network provided by the US.

The airforce has invested in state of the art jet fighters to use this technology precisely to make an attempted beach head extremely difficult.

Without the US, China if it so desired has easily the military infrastructure to take and hold Aus, and the rifle in the wardrobe concept is extremely naive. The motivation would be the huge mineral resources that it needs for its economy.

To ensure military security without the US would require significantly greater military expenditure to compensate, thus the US alliance saves the tax payer billions.

Terrorism cyber or otherwise has only been effective against an occupying power and never more than an irritant to a foreign power.

NZ presently would struggle to fend off an invasion by anyone stronger than Fiji.

Shadow minister:

• People keep referring to China as a potential enemy. China’s booming economy is based on having lots a friendly customers overseas. The only country China may invade is Taiwan - as historically she owns the place.
• China does not desire our minerals as far more money is to be made out of value-added - which is exactly what she is doing.
• An established beach-head does not mean “that it is all over”. History has shown time and again that citizens fight a lot harder to repel an invader than the invader does to conquer the country

To all the supporters of the US alliance. Kevin Rudd is a friend of America. He wants to redeply our troops to Afghanistan which is the centre of the war on terror. We should continue to stand with America
against the backward savages who profess to speak for all Muslims.
We must not let these people prevail. The majority of Muslims want to benefit from the opportunities offered by western countries. Only by supporting moderate Muslims can we win the war of terror. It would be tragic indeed if we have to use weapons like those proposed by Mike O'Dwyer to prevail. We must engage the moderates so we don't have to use robotic weapon systems againsgt teh enemy

HW,

While I am not suggesting that China is planning to invade or even that it is in China's best interests to do so, I was simply pointing out that:

-there are nations capable of invading Aus,
-the structure of the defense force and the pact with the US is the most cost effective way of ensuring the nation's security,
-the nation's security cannot be ramped up quickly and takes years or decades to deploy. When a threat is apparent it is generally too late.

Further, China has been spending more on its military build up even than the US. Its investment in its navy and strike force is far beyond its needs for defense. So while not being an immediate threat, it is certainly a potential future threat.

Tibet might disagree with your assesment of the ability of citizens to repel invaders.

Shadow minister

Tibet is not a good example. Tibet shares a common border with China and many thousands of Chinese could simply step over it. Being a theocracy dedicated to peace set the country up to be a pushover.

If Tibet had an airforce, it would have been quickly destroyed first.

Tibet is not finished with the invader. We wait and see.

The article made the point that rural Australia is collapsing. Do we worry about what might happen or what is happening right now?

"The moment I’ve been dreading. George brought his ne’re-do-well son around this morning and asked me to find the kid a job. Not the political one who lives in Florida. The one who hangs around here all the time looking shiftless. This so-called kid is already almost 40 and has never had a real job. Maybe I’ll call Kinsley over at the "New Republican" and see if they will have him as a contributing author or something. That looks like easy work.

This is an extract from the diary of Ronald Reagan dated May 17, 1986."

No its not. Phony quote:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/satire/kinsley.asp

HW,

That money needs to be spent on other emotive issues is a furfe, as a military alliance allows less to be spent to provide an effective defense.

As movie guy showed, the entire article is trying to push a political agenda with neither facts nor logic.

Emotional burbling is not a sound foundation for policy.

Shadow Minister

The article would have been chosen to be posted as it met the criteria that what goes up on OLO should stimulate contrary opinion.

If the issue is the high school curriculum [arguments which do not normally have the facts presented challenged], than it would be expected to be less emotive than an issue on old-growth forests [in which the facts are traditionally pulled out of the air].

Some articles are on issues are naturally emotive and they should not be criticised for being that way.

Moviesguy

Many quotes are repeated by people who do not check back with the original source. It would be preferable to abandon a quote rather than sit on that quote until such backing arrived. Political issues as discussed on OLO do not have to meet quantum physics precision

HW,

While freedom of speech gives everyone the right to air their opinion, its does not negate the laws regarding libel. While not expecting "quantum physics precision" I would expect more in my 10 yr old's debate class than the tripe that Brian Holden has dished up.

Stimulating contrary opinions is no excuse for fabricating information and posting it as facts.

The same freedom of speech allows me to say in this forum that I think that the author is ethically challenged and by publishing such drivel has reliquished the right to be taken seriously.

It appears that the extract from the Reagan Diaries appearing in this OLO article does not appear in them at all and the "quote" was an actual fantasy by an editor [Kinsley] at the New Republic written as recently June 2007.

As GWB is so disliked by many people and who are waiting in ambush, it is not surprising that once Kinsley's fantasy appeared in print in one publication it would have appeared very quickly in other publications. But now it has become independent of it source and appears genuine to anybody who reads it.

The author should only quote from a book open in front of him and not pass on a quote supposedly taken from the original book.

Why for heaven sake is there never even any talk of how we can make Australia a more independant nation so we do have the infrastructure and knowledge to build up our population so we have enough manpower to fend off any potential invaders, relying so much on another country for defence is a very bad idea.

I cannot believe that with our status as a developed nation and a significant one at that we are not able to further improve our defence capabilities and our position of forward-defence so we can improve our position in world geopolitics.

Basically we have a choice, isolationism or assertive-diplomacy. Inconfidence and reliance on alliances should not be a option.

From the article “Our best plan of defence is not to antagonise other nations (or religions) by having military alliances with those nations they don’t trust.”

I recall Bill Hayden’s (ex leader of labor before Hawke) view was apparently, Australia needed a nuclear determent to balance the military potential of Indonesia.

Military alliances are trans-governmental and bi-partisan.

In other words, you count on your friends in the long term, not just for the momentary passing like fashion.

Australia has an historic alliance with both USA and UK and member states of the British Commonwealth of Nations.

Simply because Japan or China is an important trading partner does not mean we should neglect our historic alliances.

Let’s face it, if the USA had not been our ally in WWII, Japan might have got further than just bombing Darwin (our alliance with UK was pretty mute, UK having more problems on its plate to be in a position to help Australia).

I repeat, alliances, military and otherwise, are bipartisan and inter-generational.

For my part, I have always felt advantaged as being able to relate to USA a “friendly nation”.

However, to call it an enemy (or even indifferent) would be a position of dread.

Iran does not “trust” USA. North Korea does not “trust” USA.

So what. How many here would “Trust” Iran or North Korea?

Replacing an historic alliance because of a dislike of the allies momentarily elected political leadership is the sort of shortsighted thinking commonly identified as “stupid”.

Since Bill Hayden’s nuclear deterrent did not transpire, withdrawing from our alliance with USA would leave us more exposed to any possible action by Indonesia or any other potentially belligerent nation not simply now but in the future.

In short, “Alliances” secure a future in an uncertain world, where political waves can sweep across continents, not necessarily with notice.

A nations strength is measured in how many strong friends it can count on when the chips are down, not on how well it can stand alone.