“Australia was ill-prepared for war in 1941. In 2025, we’re making the same grave mistake”. (historian Geoffrey Blainey).

“Australia stands at a crossroads. The world is more unpredictable and dangerous than at any time in recent memory”, writes Marc Ablong of the Australian Strategic Policy Institute after spending a year investigating Australia's preparedness for crises. And, Australia remains dangerously unprepared.

It seems Australia is not prepared for very much at all: not just defence. We have no national risk assessment, when we should be looking at everything from natural disasters, cyber attacks, economic coercion, and the prospect of war. There is a “strategic failure” putting every Australian at risk. Government and the bureaucracy are complacent. There is no way that the country could switch quickly from peace to war. On that note, our deindustrialisation comes to mind: particularly the loss of a motor industry, which could have switched from cars to military vehicles and weapons in an emergency. Our enemies wouldn't let us import such things.

The author states the bleeding obvious (obvious to all but Australian politicians) that is prudent and essential to prepare. He suggests that Finland is the country to emulate; a country that involves the entire population with what will happen if they are ever involved in a war. If you are familiar with Finnish history, you will know why.

Australians are uninformed, unless they take the trouble to inform themselves because, to date, our governments are either deliberately keeping us in the dark, or they too are shockingly uninformed and as ignorant of history as most Australians now are.

Australians need a comprehensive national assessment, publicly available, and readily upgraded, and a clear governance framework for preparedness. Adequate funding is needed. Some of the bribes to vote for our lacklustre politicians and the free stuff Australians like could be diverted to their security.

Currently, any steps Australian governments have taken are “neither visible or sufficient”.

http://www.aspistrategist.org.au/learn-from-finland-australia-doesnt-assess-its-risks-isnt-ready-for-them/

The enemy is within and can’t be defeated by military means: Save your money.

.

Dear ttbn,

.

I fully agree with you, ttbn. I’m afraid we’re in for a rude awakening.

The world is becoming more and more dangerous, and our “protectors” are becoming less and less reliable.

If we want peace, we must prepare for war.

We must do it seriously. We must do it urgently. And we must do it based on the worst possible scenario : that we are all alone.

That is the reality today. We have no protectors we can rely on 100%.
We have no nuclear submarines, and the 6 diesel-electric submarines we have will soon be obsolete.

We are David, a shepherd with no armour, who faces Goliath armed only with a sling, our courage, faith, determination and intelligence.
.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XyAy13C0vAQ&ab_channel=C.JohnO%27BrienSPINAFEX

.

BJ

I'm glad you get it. But I'm merely reporting on what the ASPI says. They are the people who spend their days investigating such things.

I hope that people out there who don't say much also get it; but I'm afraid that Australians are pretty naive when it comes to the state of the world now. Too young, or too uninterested in history to know that the world is looking like it did 80 years ago.

Both sides of politics have let us down badly when it comes to defence.

ttbn,

Eighty years ago there were no atomic weapons. (Trinity was detonated on July 16th 1945.) Are you of the opinion that the United States would abandon Australia if China paid a big enough bribe to Trump?

If you want peace, you must be peaceful. I agree with defence, what I don't agree with is a policy of aggressive militarism, nuclear submarines fall under that latter category. Where has aggressive militarism led the world, the answer is simple... war, not one but many.

There is no evidence that the build up of arms has made the world safer, or less prone to war, history shows, the countries with the most weapons have engaged in the most wars.

The reality for the whole planet is we are all at the mercy of the warmongers. AND regardless if we spend no dollars or $100 Billion the reality wont change.

Hi Paul,

"If you want peace, you must be peaceful."

Poland, Czechoslovakia and Ukraine come to mind. My observation is that peace is maintained when a solidarity is maintained against bully nations. Trump seems to be treating international security as a protection racket, which is a worry.

.

Dear ttbn,

.

Australia had been occupied for about 65,000 years by Aboriginal tribes before the British took it over it as a penal colony. 113 years later, the 6 separate colonies that had been established came together and federated as a nation in the form of a constitutional monarchy.

That is history. What comes next is pure conjecture :

Allow me, in my congenitally optimistic fashion, to suggest that our most important trading partner, the People’s Republic of China, may decide to take advantage of our protectors’ reticence to honour their pledges and absorb us by the sheer force of its persuasion.

This may seem extravagant, but it is consistent with the military strategy outlined by the Chinese military strategist Sun Tzu in his treatise entitled “The Art of War” (5th century BC) :

« Sun Tzu said: In the practical art of war, the best thing of all is to take the enemy’s country whole and intact; to shatter and destroy it is not so good. So, too, it is better to recapture an army entire than to destroy it, to capture a regiment, a detachment or a company than to destroy them. »

In view of the way things are shaping up at present, future generations of Australians may well be Chinese.

Zhù hao yùn ! (good luck!)

Here is “The Art of War” :

http://ia903407.us.archive.org/35/items/TheArtOfWarBySunTzu/ArtOfWar.pdf

.

Hi Fester,

I'm not aware of any situation that has seen war prevented and "peace is maintained when a solidarity is maintained against bully nations". No nation going to war believes they are not justified and not right in their actions. The god fearing ones, even claim "God is on their side", you can't be wrong if god is on your side.

Hi Banjo,

Not since the Han Dynasty around 220 BC has China been successful in annexing vast territories from other nations. The forces of Emperor Wu Han were successful in expanding China's borders into northern Korea and northern Vietnam. They had a go at invading Japan in 1281 AD, but unfortunately for the Chinese, the Devine Wind ("kamikaze") came to Japans rescue, actually it was a typhoon, and destroyed the Chinese invasion fleet. Tibet is another john dory, the Chinese claim they haven't invaded a sovereign country, but view Tibet as an inseparable part of the People's Republic of China, citing historical control dating back to the Yuan dynasty (about 1300 AD). However it certainly looks like an invasion to me.

Lets hope the Chinese don't discover a long lost dynasty from about 67,000 BC that had Australia as part of China. Then we would become another Tibet.

Fester

You've gone a bit weird on us. “... if China paid a big enough bribe to Trump”! The US is at war with China NOW. A cold war, yes; but a war nonetheless. I have to say I find your comment bizarre. I don't think the US will “abandon” Australia. Not just because of ally and buddy-buddy reasons, but because Australia is a strategic asset for US troops and aircraft if armed conflict does occur. Marines are already here, and we are getting ready for US nuclear submarines rotation on the West and East coasts. There is much more in our connection to the US than lump-in-the-throat emotionalism.

I'm not sure what your comment on the lack of nuclear weapons before 1945 means.

The ASPI reports on our lack of defence seem to be hitting the mark because Albanese this morning is whingeing about it. I'll get around to seeing what the most useless PM ever has to say later.

BP

Given that Australia is now a definite Left wing country - a Marxist government has been returned with 94 seats in Parliament, with Liberals only managing 20 something, and the Nationals what they already had - I don't find your hypothesis at all exaggerated.

Given Albanese's appalling pawing of and sucking up to the Communists dictator and thug, Xi Jinping; not to mention his supine attitude to all the bullying and menacing from Communist China, Australia could very well end up closer to China and the US. There is also the mass importation of the Third World which is going to eventually make us part of that world. Xi Jinping must be salivating.

If that happened , we would certainly lose the US alliance, and their next batch of troops in the north wouldn't be friendly, but they would still use us as a strategic launching pad against China.

Albanese is hinting at closing down ASPI, a once bipartisan think tank to provide alternative, independent advice: to create debate.

ASPI should ‘look at itself’, he whined. He probably doesn't like the way it tells the truth about Communist China and his pal Xi, apart from the criticism of the government's lack of defence arrangements. All this government and the one before it have done is hollow out the defence budget to pay for ‘someday’ in the future submarines. A decade of very poor policy over at least a decade, worsening under Albanese.

ASPI's agenda for 2025 is to focus on the NEED to:

. defend Australia
. navigate our place in a new world (dis)order
. reform our security architecture and policies
. secure our critical infrastructure
. protect and use our natural resources.

A non-partisan think tank, ASPI was created by the government in 2001 to provide the government with fresh ideas. Albanese has decided that he doesn't like its ideas on defence.

Periodic investigations are carried out, and advice given. In 2025 concerns and events affecting Australia have been/are:

. The Russia-China partnership
. China and the “ratcheting up” of of military intimidation
. China's increased aggression against the Philippines and Taiwan
. The possibility of a terror attack
. October 7 2023
. Artificial Intelligence
. Donald Trump's re-election (added tension re US-led international order)

ttbn,

Weird is the Trump Putin bromance. The hawks in the US are incensed by it, but note that Vlad and Xi are allies.

Eighty years ago there weren't nukes. There has never been a war between nuclear armed nations. Ukraine thought its sovereignty would be protected when it gave up its nuclear arsenal. Betrayed by Obama, Biden and Trump.

Hi Fester...
http://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/ukraine-nuclear-weapons-and-security-assurances-glance

1994 Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances

"To solidify security commitments to Ukraine, the United States, Russia, and the United Kingdom signed the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances on December 5, 1994. A political agreement in accordance with the principles of the Helsinki Accords, the memorandum included security assurances against the threat or use of force against Ukraine’s territory or political independence. The countries promised to respect the sovereignty and existing borders of Ukraine. Parallel memorandums were signed for Belarus and Kazakhstan as well. In response, Ukraine officially acceded to the NPT as a non-nuclear weapon state on December 5, 1994. That move met the final condition for ratification of START, and on the same day, the five START states-parties exchanged instruments of ratification, bringing the treaty into force."
http://www.securitycouncilreport.org/atf/cf/%7B65BFCF9B-6D27-4E9C-8CD3-CF6E4FF96FF9%7D/s_1994_1399.pdf

What stands out to you here?
'included security assurances against the threat or use of force against Ukraine’s territory or political independence'

* Specifically - 'political independence'

What happened in 2014, and was Ukraine still politically independent?

MUST WATCH: Nov 2013 (pre-Maidan!): Ukraine Deputy has proof of USA staging civil war in Ukraine
http://youtu.be/y9hOl8TuBUM?si=gCwQPfNHQm3yNAwC

Victoria Nuland US has invested $5 billion in Ukraine (USAID)
http://youtu.be/rPVs5VuI8XI

F* the EU: Alleged audio of US diplomat Victoria Nuland swearing
http://youtu.be/L2XNN0Yt6D8

Tell me, after 2014 was Ukraine still politically independent, and if not - then they shouldn't have nukes.
This is about them becoming a vassal state of the west, enlarging NATO borders and Blackrock bankers making a fortune buying the country at pennies on the dollar, but only if Russia doesn't win.

So everyone of us have to pay for it so the money men can get a return on their investment with everyone else funding all financial and military assistance as well the cost as immigrants and loss in global GDP.

Friedrich Merz
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Merz
He has served on the boards of numerous companies, including BlackRock Germany.

http://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cpw7vllepx7o
German chancellor promises to help Ukraine produce long-range weapons

Its all about the money, have to keep the war going to defend the banksters interests.

'Betrayed by Obama, Biden and Trump.'
- They all played a part in either overthrowing the country and putting the NAZIs in power, rearming it and providing military training to a NATO standard, fighting the separatists, continuing the war, maligning any peace process and providing weapons to fight Russia.

Reds under the beds yellow peril garbage. Stinks of white Australia regressive racism.
This is 2025 not 1950. Albanese is PM not menzies.
Australia needs a DEFENSE force not a help the septics attack force.

Fester

We all know there has never been a nuclear war. What is the point you are trying to make?

Hi AC,

Good to hear from you. Truth be told, I think that the greatest threat Australia faces currently is from windmills and solar panels. All made in China, so maybe that is a communist plot? So poor economically, but I amazed that so many are still sucked in by the con.

mikk

A defence force is what we are talking about, you ninny.

.

Dear ttbn,

.

Well, if the Chinese take us over by persuasion or by force, with their 1.4 billion population, they could easily capitalise on that by transferring 100 million or so of their people to us initially as permanent settlers and gradually build on that.

That extra 100 million or so would certainly dwarf our current population of 27 million.

Maybe we should invite Trump to Australia to see if he thinks it’s worth saving.

He has never been here, neither in his first term as president nor in his second term.

It’s obviously not one of his priorities.

A pity, really. Maybe we should send him a kangaroo or a koala bear (or both) as a present.

.

.

If that doesn’t work, we could get my fellow Queenslander, Kevin Rudd, to apologize to Trump (he’s very good at that) and maybe kiss his ring or something.

.

Hi Banjo,

Does it surprise you that there are many Australians ready and willing to sell the country out to Trump and his Trumpism. Not since the Vietnam War and the visit of Johnson, have we see crass Americanism, to the extent it is now. Back in the 1960's when the Tories sold out Australia to America with the bloody of young men, there were the old women from the 'blue rinse set' crying out; "All the way with LBJ" and "Please make us your 51st state"! It sickened me then, and it sickens me now. Good on the people of Canada, telling Trump to "piss off, we don't want you here" as did the Greenlanders.

ttbn

"We all know there has never been a nuclear war. What is the point you are trying to make?"

Well, you began your comment quoting Blainey:

"“Australia was ill-prepared for war in 1941. In 2025, we’re making the same grave mistake”. (historian Geoffrey Blainey)."

A nuclear ally changes Australia's sovereign risk. We didn't have one before 1945. We do now. Trump seems to be treating the US nuclear arsenal less as a means of protecting democracy and more as a protection racket. Throwing Ukraine under a bus (Is he being bribed/blackmailed by China and/or Russia?) is not a good look.

Fester,

Are you saying that the US's nuclear capability will protect us? How about China's nuclear capability that could wipe us out in a flash?

“Protection racket”? Well, nuclear weapons and the threat of their use is what is keeping opposing sides from using them, is it not? Pretty good protection.

As for our nuclear equipped US ally protecting Australia from our nuclear equipped China enemy, well, if that stuff is loosed, there won't be anything left to protect.

The reason for being well armed is to stop war, not start it. Nuclear weapons make the US and China scared enough of each other to keep them from conflict,

Australia has nothing to scare anyone.

Ukraine? Nothing to do with us; at least it wasn't until the idiot Albanese started yapping that “we” stand by it, and made sure that Russia, no threat to us previously, now is.

ASPI has responded to Albanese's hissy fit, saying the public deserves to know what politicians are not telling them. The dangerous geopolitical climate demands more spending on defence.

We face a “perilous strategic environment”, with multiple conflicts around the world, evolving terrorism, foreign interference, and cyberwarfare.

Australia is ill-prepared for threats coming in the next decade. “Given that most of the major acquisitions won’t arrive until well into the 2030s and 2040s, we must ask the unnerving question of whether the ADF is too hollow for military operations”.

ttbn

"Are you saying that the US's nuclear capability will protect us?"

It has in the past, but with that schmuck in power we might get told to stop causing trouble and do a deal with Donald's good friend Xi, and in any case we've got no cards.

Thank goodness for the two term limit.

A US enquiry has concluded that even America would be challenged beating China because of their lack of defence spending in the past. Under President Trump they are doing something about. As an ally, Australia will be expected to do the same.

In fact, yesterday, US defence secretary, Pete Hegseth, urged Australia to boost our defence spending to 3% of GDP now, not some time in the future. 2.23% in 2034 doesn't cut the mustard.

Only the defensive Richard Marles was interviewed. He defended the government's pathetic efforts, of course. That’s all Australian politicians are capable of defending: themselves, their poor performance, and their stupidity.

The warmongering ttbn claims our military spending doesn't "cut the mustard". Some unelected Trumpster has ordered Australia to increase military spending immediately to 3% of GDP. Its only another order 'to pay the Piper', as Australia has been doing since WWII. Pray tell ttbn, where will the money come from, and where should it be spent? COULD WE CUT AGED WELFARE!

Indyvidual

Most taxpayers’ money seems to go on freebies for the brainwashed helpless youngsters and on bribes to get votes for politicians whom only the thickest of people think should be there in the first place.

The freebie phenomenon took off with Howard's Family Tax Benefit. Then free universities that the Left wants reinstated now. As it is, taxpayers cop the bill for the unpaid debts of people who should never have been let into university in the first place.

Middle-class welfare and massive subsidies for unreliable energy carpetbaggers is another very expensive rort.

Economist Judith Sloan notes that the ‘free stuff’ dates back to the second half of the century:

. Taxpayer Contributions to the costs of child sport
. Back to school grants
. Free pre-school
. Energy rebates
. Free public transport

Now, the added cost of subsidies for having kids 'parented' by strangers during the day and other gifts too numerous to mention, usually without any means testing. Kids going to very expensive private schools travel for nothing, too.

All bribes to keep people under the thumb of the tyrannical uniparty.

Hand out subsidies, help people to buy a house, and all the prices go up.

How about the free “pads and tampons” (Victoria) for under-18 year olds! Girls are “reported” as staying home from school because they can't afford to buy them.

Women have been menstruating since Eve, and they have managed. And, let's not hear about ‘cost of living’. The re-election of the Albanese Labor party proved that one to be a lie.

Maximising free stuff has been ingrained into the younger generations. So things will only get worse as us old folk die out, leaving the young ones to deal with it. All this stuff about us oldies leaving the bill to future generations is bullsh.t; they, the young, are the ones expecting, and voting for, free stuff. There will be even less available to defend the country. Of course, it probably won't be worth defending by then. Problem solved.