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.