The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > General Discussion > Can Australia ever be self-reliant for national defence?

Can Australia ever be self-reliant for national defence?

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. All
No Mise, food is not good aid...the fishing line is better aid. Food aid is only of value in disaster settings. The rest of the time people need help to feed themselves...it also keeps them occupied.
Posted by Communicat, Wednesday, 1 August 2007 8:34:42 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I will have to put the argument on the issue of Australia's defence capabilities back in 1941 on hold until I am able to get hold of a copy Andrew Ross's book except to note that:

1. the Authors of "National Insecurity" support Andrew Ross's claims,

2. None of the arguments presented on this forum against Andrew Ross's claims are new and Andrew Ross would have been well aware of them at the time he wrote his book.

3. I have not found, at least on the 'Net, any attempt by academics to dispute Andrew Ross's claims.

The fact that Australia's armed forces were under-equipped at the outset of the war does not definitively refute Andrew Ross's thesis. The same was also true, to an extent of the United States, which explains the disaster of Pearl Harbour, why the U.S. were driven out out of the Philippines and lost many island strongholds in the pacific Ocean including Wake Island and even lost at least two islands off the coast of Alaska. However, the issue with the U.S. as we know, was not the preparedness of the U.S. for attack in 1941, but the underlying industrial/military capacity. That is why the commanders of the Japanese Navy wanted to avoid a war with the U.S.

That neither the U.S. or Australia were well prepared on the ground to meet the initial thrust of the Japanese (or Nazi Germany for that matter) could possibly be explained by other political and social economic priorities.

I think if the Japanese had decided to launch an all-out attack on Australian soil, the may have succeeded if they were not fighting the U.S. at the same time, but the cost compared to the benefits would have been unlikely to have been unacceptable to the Japanese. That is why the Japanese Army was opposed to invading Australia.

(tobecontinued)
Posted by daggett, Wednesday, 1 August 2007 11:32:22 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
(continuedfromabove)

The same could have been said of Switzerland. In fact, there were aerial clashes between the Swiss Air Force and the Luftwaffe in 1940 in which the Luftwaffe was roundly defeated, ironically by German supplied Messerschmidt 109 fighters. After that the Germans decided to do business with the Swiss became effectively integrated into the German Military industrial financial complex whilst retaining their political independence. (Canadian author Paul Erdman wrote of this in his fictional work "The Crash of '79" in 1976)

---

I agree that Australia behaving decently in international affairs would considerably reduce further military threats to this country.

Perhaps we should take a closer look at Australia's behaviour as an international citizen in recent years under John Howard's stewardship. Consider

* sabotage of efforts at the 1997 London conference to ratify the Kyoto Protocol by John Howard so that Australia could go on exporting ever higher volumes of global-warming coal(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol#Australia). Precious time in the fight against climate change was loss and now many regions of the world face inundation with sea water.

* AU$300 million in bribes paid to Saddam Hussein's regime in the years prior to the 2003 invasion in order to secure Australia's share of wheat sales to Iraq.

* Australia's participation in invasion to overthrow the same regime propped up with Australian bribe money, against the wishes of the UN, world public opinion and the warnings of informed experts including intelligence officers and the UN weapons inspectors on the ground in Iraq at the time.

John Howard's reckless actions have helped to make the world more dangerous for everyone, yet he has undermined Australia's military defences by his "Buy American" policy and discrimination against Australian and European defence equipment manufacturers as shown in the book "National Insecurity" (I gave some examples in a review of the book at:http://candobetter.org/node/96).
Posted by daggett, Wednesday, 1 August 2007 11:35:22 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Daggett,

Your comments about the actions of Australia under the Howard government appear a little off topic and demonstrate a general left wing bias.

You appear to be under the impression "behaving decently" is the key to protecting Australia, whereas decency is, unfortunately, hardly an issue given the apparent ammorality of most nations. Our behaviour no doubt should reflect sound morality, but moral positions, of themselves, do not protect us.

In relation to your points, and morality aside, I make the following observations:

Kyoto - although not a pleasing position to most contries in the region and elsewhere it was VERY PLEASING to our most important ally the US. In that sense it improves the likelihood the US would intervene in our favour were we threatened and probably helps secure our access to superior military hardware, and intelligence.

AWB/Iraq scandal - a terrible defence disaster because we lost public respect from the rest of the world and had the exact opposite effect on our US relations as Kyoto above.

Iraq war - For the same reasons as with Kyoto, but to a MUCH, MUCH, greater degree, our invovlement in the Iraq war improves Australia's defence position. Almost certainly the reason Australian troops are there now, (and under Hawke Keating in the previous showdown) is to show our solidarity with the US.

While many think we simply are led by a bunch of grovelling US lackeys, the truth is there are very good reasons why our leaders (Labor or Liberal) try to keep the US happy. Our leader's may not like to admit it, but we DEPEND on the US for our national defence.

Does it have to be this way? Probably not any more. We are big enough and have a sufficiently sizeable economy to maintain a sufficiently credible defence so as to dissuade aggression, but of course that would cost big $$$ and perhaps require us dirty options like maintaining own nuclear weapons arsenal. Better to outsource our defence requirements to the US.

Defence is one of the US' biggest exports didn't you know?
Posted by Kalin1, Wednesday, 1 August 2007 3:22:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Daggett,
You and the authors have got to be joking.

(Quote)."...Yet a close look at the most carefully assembled evidence reveals these to be a baseless assumption. As path-breaking archival research now shows, Australia had been preparing for a possible confrontation with Japan for most of the 1930's and had built a credible threat in terms of industrial military capability through these years under a policy label of military/national 'self-containment'..."(unquote)

We couldn't make enough rifles despite the fact that we had had the manufactory at Lithgow since WW.I.
We couldn't make enough light machine guns.
We couldn't make enough Medium MGs hence the conversions of trophies.
We didn't have more than a dozen or so Snipers' Rifles.
We couldn't manufacture pistols. The few that we did were never reliable and are now collectors items as most were destroyed.

As an aside a friend of mine carried an 1878 Colt 'Lightning' Revolver throughout WW.II He had supplied his own pistol when called up.

We had no Sub-Machine guns and as I posted earlier didn't want any.
For a good read on this and the attitude of certain military figures during the war see:

Wardell, G.S. 1982,'The Development and Manufacture of the Owen Gun', private printing. (but freely available).

G.S. Wardell was Chief Engineer at Lysaght's, Port Kembla from Jan. 1939 to 1965.

It was not until 20/11/1941 that the first substantial order for Owens was placed, 2000 guns, and it was not until 3/3/1942 that a further order for 17,900 guns was placed.

At the outbreak of war there were no plans for the production of sub-machine guns in Australia.

However one must admit that there were more than enough Swords, Cavalry in Ordnance stores to equip a sizeable army.
However the remount stations could not hope to provide sufficient horses.
Posted by Is Mise, Wednesday, 1 August 2007 4:51:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Is Mise wrote:

"You and the authors have got to be joking."

Commendations printed on the back of "Armed and Ready"(1995) include:

"Ross' book will not only serve as a memorial to the wartime contribution of Australian scientists, technicians and workers but will enhance in lasting form our understanding of the evolution of Australin industry and its involvement in the Second World War."

- Dr Peter Stanley, Head, Historical Research Section, Australian War Memorial

"Dr Ross is one of the best analysts in the defence field"

- Associate Professor John MacCarthy, Australian Defence Force Academy

"De Ross' work triggers the industrialists to believe that here we have an academic who understands."

- Jeff Moran, Immediate past President, Institue of Industrial Engineers Australia

Of the Decision by the Japanese High command not to invade Australia made in March 1942, that is, before the Japanese defeat at the Battle of the Coral Sea from 4-8 May 1942, Ross writes:

"The basis for this Japanese decision (not to invade) was a proposal put forward in February/March 1942 by the Japanese Navy for a joint operation with the Army for the invasion and occupation of Australia. The Navy saw that Australia would become a US Base for a counter-attack along the Southern flank of Japanese conquests. The seizure of Australia would confront the US with huge logistical problemns in coming to grips with Japanese forces. However, the Japanese Army claimed that it would need at least 12 divisions for the operation and that it did not have the forces available. It refused to participate, which led to the proposal being droped." (p 408)

Ross then explained why the Japanese Army's objections were soundly based and not just an excuse that would have allowed it to save its strength for operations in China or against the USSR should the success of German offensive have provided them with oppurtinities to attack form the East.

Regarding all the stories of cock-ups posted earlier, Ross, writes in the concluding chapter:

"These achievements were gained with many mistakes in administration and engineering design, ..." (tobecontinued)
Posted by daggett, Thursday, 2 August 2007 3:03:07 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy