"This from the bloke who is still wiping the egg off his face over his decoy B-2s debacle. He even admitted he got it hopelessly wrong but now pretends otherwise."

I admitted I got it wrong when new info came to light.
What of it, I admit it when I'm wrong and then I move on.
You could've just presented a link to it when you stated it.

Trumpster,

I was referring to "bigger" in capacity, strength, fire power, capability, deployment. YOU were simply referring to the numerical number, which is of little value, I could say Tuvalu has the worlds biggest navy with its 10,000 canoes, that would be meaningless in the context when sensible people talk about such things. How can you equate a nuk sub to a row boat?

The poor Trumpster, when he goes shopping he always buys grapes instead of oranges he gets a bigger number of grapes than oranges for the same price. Ah, the blokes a fool!

Look, I'll tell you all something that these current conflicts should make apparent by now.

The United States CANNOT provide air defense capabilities to defend against large scale attacks from modern drones (either armed or decoy) ballistic, cruise and hypersonic missiles combined.

The U.S wants to sell us US$1 million + interceptors, and an enemy can flood the airspace with hundreds of drones, not only does the U.S. not have the industrial capacity to produce that many interceptors, (and nor can we afford to station that many along our coastline, even if it could, if they are used up defending the drone attack, they won't be able to reload fast enough to defend against incoming ballistic and cruise missiles, and IN ANY CASE, they can't stop the hypersonics from hitting their targets, which will knock out our air defenses either way, paving the way for an invasion.

So even IF an adversary has plans on invading us, there's nothing we can do to stop a determined adversary from doing so, WITH or WITHOUT U.S. weapons.

We are effectively counting of the U>S. nuclear deterrent.
Now on that score, lets say China decided to attack us, they could land troops on our shores if they send enough troop transports, we don't really have the means to stop them, we'd be in a long protracted war of attrition, and how long can we last without fuel, do you not think oil refinerites and shipments of crude would be targeted?
How much artillery and ammunition for small arms can we produce?
And if we are hit with a nuclear weapon, will the U.S. risk Washington being hit by more modern nuclear weapons that U.S. air defenses can defend against to retaliate?

And of U.S. nuclear weapons, which are 30 years old, can our adversaries not defend against those with their modern weapons, would they even be successful, and with their age would they even work.

[Cont.]
That's the ground war, as for Naval, China's shipbuilding industrial capacity is 200 times more than the U.S. our adversaries submarines would shadow any strike force and attack it before it ever got close enough to do real harm and the strike force would not last long with modern carrier-destroying hypersonics in a large attack, and could not be refuelled as all the refueling points would also be taken out.

Which leave nuclear subs, which can only do limited damage with existing weapons systems, as our adversaries have newer and better missiles to counter theirs with, which brings us to nuclear war, and 6 billion dead in 72 minutes.

And like I said our adversaries may be able to shoot ours down with their hypersonics, but we may not be able to defend against theirs.

So all in all, it's a fools errand.
We don't carry the big stick, our adversaries outmatch our capabilities on every level.

Militarily the country would be destroyed as would all our military, we'd be bankrupted and our kids would spend the new 50 years slaves to government debt and we'd still lose.

And finally, looking at the trade numbers, we're far better off worrying about jobs and selling our goods than the smaller trade we do with the U.S. and becoming entangled in wars they provoke to maintain hegemony, when they're a declining empire with ageing and outdated weapon systems and military industrial capacity, and BRICS accounts for more than half the global population and de-dollarisation continues.

So wake the hell up!

Present immigration policies make worrying about defending Australia pointless !

Hilariously we have dumb and dumber holding completely different views on China's forces but simultaneously thinking they are both right. AC keeps telling us that the PLA forces are so great and efficient that they'll easily defeat the US if it comes to that. Paul, OTOH, wanting to pretend his beloved CCP are pacificism personified and deny that they are spending hugely on armaments, thinks their navy are all rowboats. So rowboats will defeat the US navy and invade Australia...or something.

Yet the new BFFs both agree that each is right. In the same way that the issue of recognition of Taiwan's status went over their head, the illogicality of all this will do likewise.