The Forum > Article Comments > Offensive defence > Comments
Offensive defence : Comments
By Sue Wareham, published 15/5/2009Very few among those consulted for the Defence Review White Paper were people with expertise in peaceful conflict resolution or diplomacy.
- Pages:
-
- Page 1
- 2
- 3
-
- All
Posted by Leigh, Friday, 15 May 2009 12:07:29 PM
| |
I read the byline and the author's qualifications and thought O Dear! But then I read the article and the drift and compassion is heartfelt.
For every real or imagined threat from China there is an American multinational that stands to make megabucks, always late, always overbudget, from the Australian taxpayer. Looks like America (Electic Boat) will be the main foreign contractor from the 12 sub decision, and of course Lockheed Martin is the main F-35 contractor. If/when America decides that its economic ties with China outweigh its own old alliance with Australia, it won't matter that we have 12 U-boats or 100 new planes. Making a peaceable settlement with China or countering China with nuclear powered subs with nuclear weapons will be the main game. Our medium-high intensity CONVENTIONAL weapons will be more an industry development pork barrels of the near future rather than decisive weapons when they are needed in the main threat time. Either we go nuclear one day or we can forget the false comfort of conventional weapons bought from America. So the author wrote an excellent article. I didn't come to the conclusion she intended - but thats what discourse is for. Pete http://gentleseas.blogspot.com/ Posted by plantagenet, Friday, 15 May 2009 9:36:46 PM
| |
The authors sentiments are laudable, but the reality if the actual situation is lacking. Leigh's attack is totally unwarranted and appears to me to be just that, an attack, yet Leigh provides nothing to the debate, just his ideological irritation.
Our biggest defence problems will be when people start to stream out of Asia as the factional religious conflict spreads worldwide, along with global warming, economic collapse and ecological breakdown. It would only take 4-5 nuclear strikes to paralyze this country, yet the logistics and forces required to take it over, would run into millions of troops. It's religious refugees which we have to be careful of, already they are disrupting Europe and forcing their bizarre belief upon various societies and promoting their Abrahamic god of war. The white paper as badly flawed as it is, was supposed to be designed for this purpose, hence the reason we have no need of a missile defence system for the moment. Our defense forces are controlled by outside interests, all being owned by multinational European or USA corporations and this alone is a big problem logistically with supply and replenishment, if we are faced with more then 3 days of all out continuous conflict. I agree with the author more should be done for our neighbours instead of brown nosing the yanks and Europe. They have no interest in us other than our resources and strategic positioning for worldwide radio communications and satellite missile launching Posted by stormbay, Saturday, 16 May 2009 9:38:44 AM
| |
Stormbay,
Another newcomer who wants to "debate". By some rule of your own, you find that my "...attack is totally unwarranted", and that I "provide nothing to debate." Well, my "attack", if you must call it that, is warranted against such nonsense; and, I have no intention of debating when I express my opinion. I don't care what people think of my views, and I feel under no obligation to defend them from someone who doesn't like what I say. My only interest is what is put up by contributors - they are the ones inviting comment, and what ever other posters want to say is of little interest to me: except when someone like you comes along and has a go at me. The "debaters" have been arguing the toss on OLO ever since its inception. No changes in opinion have occurred, even though there are some people who think that their "superior" views will prevail over those they criticise. Nevertheless, you are entitled to post what you wish about whom you wish. Going on your initial post, I shan't be taking any notice of you. You might offer me the same 'courtesy'. Posted by Leigh, Saturday, 16 May 2009 11:05:08 AM
| |
The posters here so far, whether for or against the author’s argument, have sprouted the same old same old.
And that is … be afraid, be very afraid of (fill in your threat of choice), and then be more afraid still. And if you haven’t managed to be afraid enough to be absolutely bloody scared by now, then you must be naïve. And, of course, the logical progression of all this much-needed naivety-busting is to acquire lot and lots of blowy-uppy things, and keep acquiring more blowy-uppy things still. And if we haven’t managed to acquire enough blowy-uppy things then there is always a bigger and better blowy-uppy thing being acquired by someone somewhere (fill in your threat of choice) which might hit us before we can hit them. For what it’s worth, here is a link to an extremely ‘naïve’ website promoting an extremely important ‘naïve’ idea whose time has well and truly come. We just haven’t been ‘naïve’ enough to realise. http://www.ministryforpeace.org.au/ Posted by SJF, Saturday, 16 May 2009 12:24:56 PM
| |
There is a big difference between attack and defense.
If you want to attack someone you buy submarines and long range ships and aircraft. If you want to defend yourself you invest in early warning systems, Surface to air missiles, patrol boats, surveillance aircraft and coastal defenses like booms and mines. Australias defense forces seem more focused on attacking others than defending ourselves. If our neighbors were investing in the same sort of hardware we would rightly be worried. Posted by mikk, Saturday, 16 May 2009 5:36:57 PM
|
And how can a GP calmly talk about, “…our relative security from invasion for the foreseeable future…”? Are our enemies sending out invitations these days, so that we have plenty of time to get ready?
Or, perhaps the author thinks that the ‘Medical Association for Prevention of War’ can actually live up to its title! Supported of course by “… people with ‘expertise’ in peaceful conflict resolution, diplomacy, the root causes of terrorism and other threats, ways in which Australia can strengthen the role of the UN, and appropriate responses to the major threats of climate change and nuclear weapons.”
The naivety of this author is amazing. “Peaceful conflict resolution” might do for nursery school and work situations, but it is pathetic to even mention it, and the other “expert” areas when the dogs of war are straining at the leash.
The whole ‘wrong-headeness’ of this article is emphasised in the last two lines: “Overall, the paper might possibly have made some sense in a bygone era. In 2009, however, its recommendations are an expensive and dangerous distraction from dealing with the threats we face.”
It is the only way to deal with the world threats in 2009. Stick to your proper job, Dr. Wareham. Your opinions on defence are as ludicrous and of touch with reality as the idea of the Association you preside over. It probably makes you feel good, and that’s all.