The Forum > General Discussion > Can Australia ever be self-reliant for national defence?
Can Australia ever be self-reliant for national defence?
- Pages:
-
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Page 5
- 6
-
- All
Posted by Is Mise, Thursday, 2 August 2007 6:52:07 PM
| |
(continuedfromabove at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=860#14999) "... most of which have been outlined in previous chapters. Although projects such as the Wackett bomber, the Australian Cruiser tank, and the Owen gun and the earlier creation of coordination organisations could have been done better, they should not obscure the fact that all warring nations had similar experiences. Australia was not stopped from achieving the wartime industrial goals outlined by A.E.Leighton in 1920. The strategy was right, but the tactics were sometimes misguided.
"There were an astonishing number of technical and manufacturing successes as well. Australia succeeded in making all the major armaments categories used by the major combatants in the Second World War - excluding the atomic bomb. This was a clear indication that although the Australian economy was small in comparison to the great powers, it was well balanced and technically versatile. There was also an astonishing number of original contributions in major equipment design and manufacture. These included medium tanks, fighter aircraft, medium bombers, small arms, radar, field artillery, optical equipment, and the process of tropical proofing. ..."(p 433). --- Is Mise, as I wrote before, the Japanese army refused to participate in the planned invasion of Australia. They refused to participate because they understood the capabilities of the Australian military and Australian industry. Bear in mind that it would have been logistically impossible to have attempted to invade before June 1942 as Ross shows on page 409. On Page 410, he writes: "... there were more than enough munitions in Australia in June 1942, to fulfill the first line requirements of 8 AIF divisions organised into 4 corps. Furthermore, the surplus in equipment and ammunition was enough for training and sustained fighting, particularly when the rate of Australian production is taken into account ... " I would say that notwithstanding stories of problems face by Australia in common with all combatant nations, the evidence is overwhelming that Australia did have the technological, industrial and military capacity to resist an invasion.(tobecontinued) Posted by daggett, Friday, 3 August 2007 12:53:51 PM
| |
Whatever did or did not happen in the past, we can certainly defend ourselves now. Australia is a physically large country which would have very long supply chains for any potential invader. And if they invaded for our resources, we could certainly ensure that a significant amount doesn't get out. Look to Iraq for examples of this.
This sort of defence does not require large expenditures of money, or high technology, but simply willing and trained people. That used to be called "a militia". By such means, we can ensure that invading Australia for its resources would be counter-productive, they'd rather just buy them, much less hassle. Posted by Kyle Aaron, Friday, 3 August 2007 3:57:50 PM
| |
Now getting back to the question
well the answer is yes we could but if labor does get in there goes defence spending will more than likely downsize the defence force again. We can look back at the past and debate but we do create ammunition grenades we could reopen the lithgow small arms factory we could create a better force and at the same time create more employment. To be secure is one thing but to know that you are secure is much better. We could get all the illegal firearm users, send them north and use them. After that the legal gun owners and even put kevin rudd on the line, right up front and he can show us how it is done. With the rifle shooters at least you will get a kill for a round. We should work on Australian Produce Australian Eat Australian Every bit helps but we are becomeing a nation of cannot do that here, want higher wages to do that job. No farms no production just imports. When the people get fed up and what something done they will winge but this just goes to the liberal and labor party so its a neverending story off crap. When they say what they really mean and straight forward which will never happen, too much spin we might get somewhere. Better to B*lls**t the people than the truth. And if you do not like how I say it STIFF Stuart Ulrich Independent Candidate for Charlton Posted by tapp, Friday, 3 August 2007 4:16:35 PM
| |
My God, tapp, your'e surely not suggesting that the Government should trust the people with arms.
What will become of us all? Posted by Is Mise, Friday, 3 August 2007 6:22:52 PM
| |
No i was making a small point
The government trust us in cars, as we have noticed we still have people killing and maiming each other each day. But that isnt as sensational as crims at shootout. The other message was responsible gun ownnership is also by ex defence members. Posted by tapp, Friday, 3 August 2007 6:32:32 PM
|
You may have all the prepardness in production capacity and be able to make tanks and big guns and aeroplanes but if you haven't got sufficient rifles etc for your Infantry then all else is useless.
Wars are won by soldiers on the ground, by the PBI.