The Forum > Article Comments > Is Rudd the real McCoy on defence? > Comments
Is Rudd the real McCoy on defence? : Comments
By Sasha Uzunov, published 30/9/2008Taxpayers, veterans, and serving defence personnel have heard it all before from politicians promising heaven and earth.
- Pages:
-
- Page 1
-
- All
- Pages:
-
- Page 1
-
- All
I was initially stunned yet heartened by the thought that a person of the female gender was writing a defence article for OLO. Then I read your blurb. You're a bloke after all and an ex army one who's seen service.
The turf n toy battles in Defence are endless. Much of it is between the Army (as you suggest) versus the Navy and Air Force.
Much of it is between few toys (Army) and many toys (Navy and Air Force).
US Alliance inter alia means buying many toys from Uncle Sam. Many toys means Australian arms company/industrial offsets, money for South Australia and arms money for temporarily favoured electorates. The JSF is a tailor-made porkbarreling opportunity with Lockheed international pressure to boot.
The Army (just tanks trucks etc) is distinctly unsexy in the industry for electorates game - although Army bases are vote winners but hard to move between electorates.
I and perhaps you (?) suspect that the Government's interest in maintaining defence spending may not be deep or even financially possible with the US financial meltdown flow-on.
Anyway I reckon its a good article and I'm sure Brucey is chuffed to hear that he is now also a quotable defence expert ;)
Regards
Peter Coates
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=7401 (re F-35 debate)
and http://spyingbadthings.blogspot.com/2008/08/indian-submarines-chakra-atvs-make.html