this post was submitted on
14 points (71% like it)
23 up votes 9 down votes
all 72 comments

[–]saywhaaaaat 11 points12 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

US military spending = $680 billion
Aus Military spending = $26.8 billion
The US is also Australia's 2nd largest import market and 5th largest export market.
Also $394 billion of Foreign Direct Investment into Australia.
And from ANZUS - "Each Party recognizes that an armed attack in the Pacific Area on any of the Parties would be dangerous to its own peace and safety and declares that it would act to meet the common danger in accordance with its constitutional processes."
Obviously this is not a guarantee that the US will come to our aid but it does provide for potential assistance. I really can't imagine the US not coming to our assistance. The US is prepared to invade states such as Afghanistan and Iraq so I really can't see there being significant opposition to protecting a close ally such as Australia.

[–]phranticsnr 7 points8 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

[–]Beetle559 0 points1 point ago*

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Yep and they'd lose a lot more than money if they didn't help us in a conflict. It's a safe bet that all of the Commonwealth countries would help us so the US simply can't sit on the sidelines because they'd lose a lot more than one small ally. The US may be a Super Power but it still needs friends like the UK on its side.

And lets not forget they already saved our asses during WWII! I know they were already at war with Japan and you could argue that saving us was incidental but that doesn't change the fact that US marines died and we were safer for it.

[–]saywhaaaaat 8 points9 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Do you have any source for saying that "The US has previously indicated that it would not fight for us if we were invaded"?

[–]Retrorat 6 points7 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I don't think they've ever quite said that, but the OP might be referring to the loopholes in the ANZUS treaty. Technically,they would only look into helping us if somebody invades the east coast, facing the pacific. At least thats how I read it.

[–]Sbend 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Those are modern military equipment purchases you mention. Check out the F-111 debacle, and the F-86 debacle during the Korean war (we ended up building them ourselves).

As far as I know, we have never received a major US military equipment order on time or budget. (someone please correct me if I am wrong).

The M1 tanks deal as far as I know was basically a gift... old but solid DEFENSIVE equipment that we purchased very cheaply, but not easily deployed overseas.

[–]romansand 6 points7 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Isn't it better if we don't buy equipment to deploy overseas?

[–]davidsmeaton -2 points-1 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

THIS!

[–]LuckyBdx4Pulling chains since 1994 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Actually they have to transport them by ship as some of our railway bridges are not wide enough or strong enough to take them...

[–]Legs11 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

C-17 Globemaster III and F/A-18F Super Hornet were both delivered on time and on or under budget. They are kind of a special case however, being essentially picked straight from the production lines without modifications.

[–]derekaw 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I say we bail on a strong US alliance, I say we are better off without them.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

That last paragraph looks as if you are blaming them for what our government decided to purchase off them, is that what you were trying to claim?

[–]PyrominonMelbourne 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

The ANZUS treaty exists as a check against Chinese and Indonesian influence in the pacific. That said, it also benefits Australia to suck up to both China and the U.S in international relations.

[–]Jaklz 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

What happens if/when the U.S. and China get nasty with each other? Who do we choose?

[–]AussieScepticSurprisingly gullible 13 points14 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

If war breaks out, I say we wait a week and see who's winning.

[–]PyrominonMelbourne 5 points6 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

We'd probably go the way of the Swiss.

[–]Jaklz 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

As in neutrality? Would the U.S. 'let' us do that? We'd be under very intense pressure to side with them, given our common culture, history of supporting them, alliance relationship etc.

[–]davidsmeaton 5 points6 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

you know ... a smart country like australia could "pre-empt" that by holding a referendum to vote in constitutional neutrality. rather than the politicians doing it, they say it's the will of the people.

so we would get to defend our country, and call on usa/england etc to help if we were invaded ... but then we can say that we're legally bound to be neutral in conflicts between other countries.

win/win!

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Ourselves. Fuck em both off.

[–]shortbaldman 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

In my opinion, we should back the chinese. This is purely cynical and self-serving, because the chinese are on the way up back to their traditional historical position as the world's superpower while the US is about to collapse as spectacularly as did the Soviets.

[–]AzMoo 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

People, explain your downvotes! Empires crumble spectacularly just as others grow. History has shown us this time and time again. Perhaps the short bald man (or should I say ... Mao!) is on to something.

[–]BrokenDex -1 points0 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

You got downvoted by others but I understand where you're coming from. However I don't know if I'm comfortable agreeing 100% but I do understand how you got your conclusion.

[–]BrokenDex 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

US doesn't need you they already have a bitch. Canada.

[–]OccultoBender of Wookies -1 points0 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

They need somewhere to put what's currently at Pine Gap.

And resupplying the Indian Ocean fleet from Canada would be a tad impractical.

[–]BrokenDex 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I was being sarcastic. The USA uses every country for different things. The world is it's bitch unfortunately.

[–]Jaklz 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Sheltering under the U.S. defence umbrella means we can keep our defence spending lower than it would otherwise be, and spend the difference in more productive areas. Also, if we didn't have the U.S. as an ally, we'd most likely have to develop nukes, as it would be the only other way to guarantee our security.

I'm no expert, and I'd like us to be a bit more independent than we are, but I think we get a fair bit out of our alliance with the U.S. despite the downsides.

[–]AussieScepticSurprisingly gullible 5 points6 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Is that really the case though? Afghanistan, Iraq 1&2 were not our wars and we've spent heaps on them.

[–]Jaklz 6 points7 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

You could add Vietnam and Korea to that list. The people who decide whether or not we should be there obviously think we get at least as much out of it as we put in. Some would say trading our 'niche' (not to belittle the service of those on the ground) commitments in Afghanistan and Iraq for continued U.S. protection is a good deal. Plus in the meantime we get access to U.S. intel, cross-training with their forces, a fair bit of tech (I know we don't get the really cool stuff) and I'm sure there's other things.

I think that's a big part of why we're there, our involvement is a payment on an 'insurance policy'. We may never have to use it, but it wouldn't be good to be behind on payments if the time comes. We just have to hope our insurer pays out if we ever put in a claim...

[–]slashc 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Are deployment to each of those conflicts was token at best and probably doesn't actually cost that much in real terms. Also our soldiers volunteer to go, they aren't being forced to go, most of them are quite eager to go. Compared to other countries commitments ours are a bit of a joke really.

[–]spiris 3 points4 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Nukes should NEVER be considered.

[–]occer -1 points0 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Nukes are the only method of not getting nuked eh? Good thing you'll never be in power.

[–]Jaklz 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Developing nukes wouldn't just be about avoiding getting nuked ourselves. As I said, if we didn't have the U.S.' defence umbrella to shelter under, we'd have to come up a way of guaranteeing our security on our own. The cost of a conventional army strong enough to effectively defend the entire country would be pretty damn high, I imagine. Nuclear weapons would be a cost-effective alternative, as no one wants to mess with a nuclear-capable nation (hence why North Korea and Iran got/are keen to get nukes).

Don't get me wrong, I'd love for no one to have nukes. I'm mostly a hopeless idealist in real life. But in a hypothetical world where we didn't have the U.S. to back us up, nuclear weapons would be a relatively cheap way to ensure our security.

[–]occer 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Doing nothing would seem to be equally effective.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

or not up to the same specs as our closest ally (F-35s).

Remember our former defense minister bedding a Chinese government official? The US has every right to be paranoid.

The have even refused to sell us top line equipment (F-22) at various points.

It's virtually impossible due to the law preventing it, not because they don't want us to have it.

[–]dredd 1 point2 points ago*

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

The last sentence makes no sense at all. If the US wanted us to have the F-22 they'd legislate so we could have it. Who writes those laws anyway? They don't want us to have it, so we're saddled with a non-existent low-spec fighter. We should be buying Sukhois if we want to continue to have a credible air force.

[–]LuckyBdx4Pulling chains since 1994 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I believe India is buying 250 5th generation fighters from Russia...

[–]Legs11 0 points1 point ago*

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I can only imagine the potential problems with any MAPO/Sukhoi purchase.

While the airframes themselves have some amazing capabilities, the planes would be completely incompatible with the existing networking infrastructure within the RAAF/Defense, necessitating a costly modification program that I have doubts about the Australian industry's capability to accomplish (caveat: I work in said Australian Defense Aviation industry). We would have to get the cockpits completely relabeled/modified into English, and having to translate all the technical publications into a form acceptable to the various departments would be a nightmare. I also would have grave concerns about the logistics tail behind the aircraft, it is hard enough to organise spare parts as is.

Those issues are just off the top of my head. While they may be amazing airframes, and they are, purchasing them is just not an option.

I don't think Australia should get F-22's either, they are way too expensive. As is, the government would never authorise enough funds to build a credible F-22 fleet, and operating the Raptor is a tremendously expensive undertaking.

[–]occer -1 points0 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

My history lecturer is of the opinion that ANZUS means shit all and if we ever were in true peril, the US would find a way out of it.

I would be of the same opinion. Fuck their multiple wars.

[–]cl3fttastes like cocks 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Depends if there was anything worth saving us for. Maybe the uranium exports or Iron/Copper ore exports. I depends who was attacking too.

[–]xoctor -1 points0 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Australia's natural resources per head of population make us the envy of an increasingly resource constrained world. Such wealth needs to be protected, or Australia will be "discovered" again. There is no way our small population and GDP could defend such large and open borders. If we weren't in an alliance with the USA, or someone, then it wouldn't be a question of whether or not we are invaded, it would just be a question of whether it was Indonesia, China, or India who got here first, and what pretext they would use. I'd put my money on China. They have the most form, the biggest military, and the greatest need for resources.

[–]token78 5 points6 points ago*

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Paranoid bunkum.

There's no need to rely on fear of a yellow, or any other peril to justify Australia's alliance with the United States. The best case for the alliance is one framed in positive terms, focusing on values, and our common cultural heritage.

While in recent times, especially under the auspices of George W. Bush, America has more than drifted, the fact remains that the U.S. is a fellow New World nation who has always espoused, and occasionally lived up to a set of values that shares much with what we hold to be dear in Australia.

Acknowledging that like our own nation, the U.S. governs with self-interest in mind, I reckon that if Australia wants to advance the values of democracy, justice and fairness in the world, as our leaders claim to, then we could do with far worse allies in that project than the United States. As Allies too, this places us in a far better position to gently remind our American friends, when and if they lose sight of the importance of such principles.

[–]xoctor 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

if Australian wants to advance the values of democracy, justice and fairness in the world,

This such a blind-spot in the West.

It is deeply arrogant for one nation to try and force other nations to change their values. Its arrogant when people do it, so why would it be OK for nations to do it? It is no different from Mormons hassling you to read Watchtower, or Scientologists demanding that you stop taking you schizophrenic relative to a psychiatrist.

The only fair and just way to advance Western values like democracy is to model them in such a successful and compelling way that other people's of the world rise up and demand them for themselves. Iraq and Afghanistan continue to provide a tragic example of what happens when you try to force a culture to Westernise.

I may prefer the Australian way over the Chinese way for myself, but they are entitled to their own values. They have their own history, culture and challenges, and you've got to admit, they've done incredibly well, despite a few major mis-steps. Its not like the West hasn't made any comparable mis-steps.

If they break international law, then the UN should deal with it. Other than that, provided they don't impinge on our rights, we have no right to stand in judgement of their choices. We are certainly not pure enough to be casting any stones.

this places us in a far better position to gently remind our American friends

How much evidence of the ineffectiveness of this do you need?

[–]token78 -1 points0 points ago*

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

"It is deeply arrogant for one nation to try and force other nations to change their values."

And to be clear about it. NOW I'm going to start being rude. But not without justification. Here goes...

FUCK YOU and fuck all the moral relativists who have the temerity to call me, or those who think like me arrogant because we think that China's leadership, or that of the Saddam regime is just as accountable to the same moral standard as ourselves. And ESPECIALLY FUCK YOU for your special heights of arrogance in presuming to limit the scope of democracy to be, as you put it, a "western value".

The fact is that right now Iraq's government is a democratically elected one that doesn't gas its Kurdish population, or kill those of it's citizens who dissent. I for one think that's fucking brilliant and I don't care that it took military force to do it. In fact, military dictators tend to kill, torture and maim their population when they, "rise up and demand" democracy. Sometimes simply leading by example is not enough.

And as for Afghanistan, for all the failings of that campaign, right now there are young girls who are going to school. Think about that for a moment. Their lives are not confined to living in a potato sack. Where once there flourished ignorance, we find young girls seeking knowledge. In fact, right now, Afghanistan's legislature has more sitting females than our own parliament. That's not something we "imposed" upon that nation - that's just Afghanistan being Afghanistan. That's not "western values" being forced upon people. This is simply what happens if nations like Australia and the U.S. stand up, intervene and give democracy and human rights a little room to breathe in.

[–]Soluite 2 points3 points ago*

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Capitalism and democracy are not compatible. What we brought to Iraq and Afghanistan was not really democracy so much as unfettered capitalism dressed up in democratic clothing.

Edit: If kids being in school is what you want then here's a quote from what Adam Bandt had to say:

"The Greens believe a withdrawal of Australian military forces from Afghanistan could enable additional aid to be directed to the country, targeted in particular to civil society institutions that foster democracy, sustainable development and human rights.

It is time to look at countries like Oman. Unlike its neighbouring conflict-racked terrorist base of Yemen, it has transformed itself. It was a society where only a few decades ago not one girl in Oman was attending school. Now all children are expected to finish high school and the place of women has been transformed, with 3 of the country’s Cabinet Ministers being women.

The Prime Minister yesterday noted the rise in Afghani girls getting an education. Well in Oman, girls attend school, read books and surf the internet, without the need for an expensive, unsustainable foreign occupying military force and without the life-shattering effects war can have on children, their education and upbringing." source

He also quoted Malalai Joya, one of those women from the Afghan parliament: "We are inbetween two evils. The warlords and the Taliban on one side and the occupation on the other. The first step is to fight against the occupation..."

I don't disagree about education being a good thing. I just reckon there are better ways to get it.

[–]xoctor 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

You clearly believe that when you think you are in the right, you can be as aggressive and rude as you like.

You are not providing a very compelling argument for your ability to arbitrate on moral standards.

[–]xoctor 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

There's no need to be rude. You could try framing your opinion in positive terms.

I am not afraid of the Chinese. The Americans scare me at least as much. I am suspicious of all forms of power because I know human nature. Humans have a beautiful side, but they also have an insane side, and you never know when the insane side is going to take control. The invasion of Iraq is a perfect example of this insanity.

Its not paranoid to fear power. It is naive not to. While the USA is still the biggest bully on the block, I suppose its better to be friends with them than enemies. I suppose. I kind of wish we had the guts and independence of the Kiwis, but I suspect that is a luxury born largely of not having an unreasonably rich endowment of natural resources.

You can dress it up as a touchy-feelly thing, but the alliance is fundamentally about geopolitics, not heritage. The alliance doesn't guarantee the Americans will send us DVDs and apple pies. We have the alliance because we hope they present a credible deterrent to covetous neighbours. They have it because they like having a deputy they can trust to keep the world "free for American interests", and they need a secure and defensible staging area if it ever comes to that. We are to the Asia Pacific as Israel is to the Middle East... except Israel is infinitely better at playing geopolitcs. Israel's attitude is that getting the best deal is life or death. Australia's attitude is "she'll be right, mate". I prefer Australia's approach, but you can't deny that Israel gets a lot more value from their US alliance than we do.

[–]token78 3 points4 points ago*

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

" it would just be a question of whether it was Indonesia, China, or India who got here first, and what pretext they would use"

"There's no need to be rude."

No. I'm sorry. That really is paranoid bunkum. And I'd actually call that polite language. Incredibly antiquated perhaps, but certainly not "rude". You want rude? Rude would have been calling out that sentiment as bullshit.

[–]occer 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Which it most obviously is.

[–]AussieScepticSurprisingly gullible 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

The only country who would have a chance at succeeding in a war against Australia (have you seen how big we are?) is the US themselves. The US is responsible for something like 45% of the world's military spending.

Look at Iraq and how long the US has been there. Australia is no cakewalk.

[–]xoctor 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Our size is the reason invading us would be a cakewalk. Any nation on Earth could land as many troupes as they liked, with whatever equipment they needed. Our military could barely defend one landfall. The Chinese could easily breach our borders in 50 locations simultaneously.

[–]AussieScepticSurprisingly gullible 3 points4 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I think you underestimate how large we are and how much of a challenge it would be. War isn't like playing Age of Empires. Only the US has a military capable of anything close to what would be required, and a successful occupation would take DECADES.

[–]Maxious 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I seem to recall from high school history that there was talk of a scorched earth policy if Japan tried to invade via PNG; just run like hell and hopefully it'll take them so long to build up enough infrastructure to invade Sydney that the war would be over :P

[–]xoctor 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

You have got to be kidding me! The Chinese could parachute in 2 reservist for every Australian man, woman and child, and still have 1.3 billion citizens at home to run the war machine. They could come armed only with toy light-sabres and still defeat us.

I have virtually circumnavigated entire coastline of Australia at 80 km/h, as well as driven through the dead centre, so I think my estimation of her size is reasonably well informed. Whether I under-estimate or over-estimate the size, it is irrelevant. I think you overestimate the value of wide expanses of low economic value desert. Anyone invading Australia would be more than happy for us waste time defending that desert. They would concentrate on the major population centres and the resources they came here to get.

The vast majority of Australians are absolutely dependent on long and undefendable supply-lines. City dwellers cannot produce their own food. The Australian military couldn't even keep 2 of our ports open if we were under siege. A few dozen guided missiles could take out all irrigation and cropping infrastructure, not to mention power, water and sanitation. They could starve us into surrender almost entirely by remote control. Within a year or two we would be begging them to let us surrender.

Australia isn't Afghanistan or Russia, where the culture and the terrain facilitate an indefinite and effective insurgency. Australians as a whole are not self-sufficient, hardened and able to fend for themselves. There is a very good reason why we need an alliance: we don't have the population or income required to defend all our wealth by ourselves.

[–]slashc 3 points4 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

The Chinese could parachute in maybe 10,000 paratroops in one go. That's being very generous in allowances, more realistic would be 4-5,000. Then they have to fly back and get more. That's flying all the way from China or Burma. Even that fleet of 60 ancient and slow soviet era transport planes would be easy to spot and probably at least 8 hours advance warning and that's if they could organise that many troops and aircraft without anyone becoming suspicious.

They could build or buy more transport aircraft but that would take a long time, be very expensive and also be very obvious. You just can shift that amount of troops that far in anyway short of some teleportation method without a shitload of advance warning one way or another. Not to mention they'd have to go over quite a few countries first, most of which are technically our allies.

China's military is mostly structured around defence and making any regional conflict very painful for the US Navy and allied countries like Japan, Korea and Taiwan. Also China has potential threats in India and Russia on it's borders, Pakistan is a mess, Afghanistan even worse, even the other SE asian countries dont particularly like China that much, the Chinese even tried to invade Vietnam in 1979 and got a dose of pain that made them think twice. The only two allies China really has are Burma and North Korea, both of whom are basically useless and serve to piss off other countries. China would have a hard time invading anyone without pretty much pissing off all or most of it's neighbours and in fact most of the world.

Now of course if China really wanted to invade Australia, they probably could, but they aren't idiots, it's just not worth it, not while we happy sell them all the resources they want a reasonable enough price and then they can make shit out of it and sell it right back to us and most people are making money so everyones happy. They get to use their money to boss around some crappy african countries so they still feel important, they know they can have the Americans at least thinking twice about intervening in something like Taiwan, but they also know going to war over it would basically make it pointless to own.

Also I think you underestimate Australians ability to be guerrilla fighters, especially if you tell them there are foreign immigrants trying to jump the queue ;)

[–]xoctor 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Yes, the Chinese would want to gear up before starting an invasion. They could do that far quicker than we could. Even if they gave us 2 years notice, our only hope would be diplomacy. India or Indonesia would probably be sufficiently alarmed at an expansionist China if the USA and Europe decided we weren't worth the trouble.

of course if China really wanted to invade Australia, they probably could, but they aren't idiots, it's just not worth it, not while we happy sell them all the resources they want a reasonable enough price

Exactly. They are not preparing to do it because there is no need or advantage while we are happy to sell to them, but we weren't discussing if they would, we were discussing if the could.

Also I think you underestimate Australians ability to be guerrilla fighters, especially if you tell them there are foreign immigrants trying to jump the queue ;)

I think you are very patriotic, but not very realistic. 20 million Australians versus 1,320 million Chinese. I'm sure we would toughen up quickly, and there are significant home soil and defence versus attack advantages, but the numbers are overwhelming, the economic power base is overwhelming, and the lack of natural aids to defence and the huge indefensible area is overwhelming. Either way, I hope we never find out.

[–]trouserwowser 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Troops, not troupes. Troupes contain monkeys or clowns.

Errr, wait. Maybe you do have a point there, you could land anything you liked if in sufficient number.

[–]xoctor 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Clowns are scary. An army of monkeys dressed as clowns would definitely be an intimidatingly mischievous force, which is exactly what I had in mind.

[–]token78 -2 points-1 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Dude. You best read up on Douglas MacArthur's plan in the event of Australian invasion during WW2, and the successive Australian defence strategies since then before you open your mouth and sound like a complete goose.

Our size is the reason invading Australia would NOT be a cakewalk. You know how, from Napoleon's failed invasion of Russia, to Hitler's abortive campaign there, the Russians used the size of their country and it's extreme climate to draw out and overextend the German supply lines, simply letting them get fucked up by the weather?

Well same principle applies here. Invading from our north would be a fucking costly exercise. Invading by sea from the east still means extremely long and vulnerable supply lines by sea.

It's funny when demonstrably ignorant people are so sure of their assertions, without even taking the time to educate themselves just a little bit. It's funny too, that in an earlier post here, you tried to tell me you weren't afraid of the "yellow peril". LOL - now listen to you!

[–]xoctor 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

If you were confident in your viewpoint you wouldn't need to be so rude.

I don't need to be afraid of being invaded to recognise it as militarily easy for a nation with 60 times the population and a booming GDP to do so. Australia could invade NZ, but it's not going to happen, is it?

As for the military specifics, there is no reason why an invasion has to hold the entire landmass of Australia in one go. Our population could be decimated without at invasion, but if you wanted a kinder, gentler "liberation style" invasion, you could start with controlling Darwin and the northern agriculture, uranium, oil and gas reserves and work your way down at you leisure. They could use our military bases up there to manage their missile and drone strikes. If they offered a tax free zone, half of Sydney would defect without a shot fired.

The Russian invasions failed because of extreme cold and mud - far more difficult problems than heat and dust, and I doubt even Russia would present the same kind of difficulty now that technology has moved on so much.

[–]Vexxt -1 points0 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

This is very true, to win a war is easy, to conquer a nation is exceptionally difficult. Australia is not worth pillaging, so it would be a matter of long term occupation, which is unfeasible.

[–]Wunt 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Not really, if Indonesia invaded Australia and moved 20% of their population over there would be 2 Indonesians for every Australian. There would be no shortages of Indonesians wanting to come to Australia.

[–]Vexxt 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Moving 20% of their population would cost a fortune. More money than it is worth. Integrating them into our industry, also incredibly hard. And the majority of our industry is privately owned, so unless you think they would risk taking everything from the multinationals they wouldn't get so much out of it.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I heard we are nuclear capable within 90 minutes as a result.

I hate the US/Australian alliance, but only because of the US's agressive stance recently. If they chill out a bit on the world stage I'd be much more positive about it.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Can you elaborate? The US news is 90% propaganda so we don't get a clear idea of how our international presence is perceived. I know we are pretty big jerks as a whole, but I always thought we had a decent standing with most English speaking countries at least.

[–]Jaklz 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

You do. America did and still does have a lot of cultural appeal, many people here still really admire the U.S. But Bush-era policies (regime change, preemptive strikes, the way the 'War on Terror' was/is conducted, the refusal to play by the global 'rules' the U.S. itself largely created etc.) really turned a lot of public opinion against the U.S., especially once Bush was returned for a second term.

Obama's election helped undo a fair bit of that ill-feeling, but the wars and so on still generate some anti-American sentiment.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

In all fairness, Bush didn't win by popular vote the first term. It was due to our electoral system that he got into office. How he won the second, I still have no idea.

I was reading up on some of the going ons in Australia from abc.net.au today and saw an article about a debate of bringing your Australian troops home. As an American, it really pisses me off that there are troops over there that have even less reason than we do to be there. But what upsets me more is knowing that there is nothing I can do to help at all. I find it hard to believe that we have turned down help during the hurricane that hit Louisiana a few years ago, but our politicians have no problem asking for lives being put on the line.

I don't like the idea of others being put in harms way for our problems. I like even less that things will get a lot worse before getting better. But I think what bugs me the most is that the people in power are tarnishing the names of those that do their best to prevent bad things from happening. All we can do as individuals is to live by our own ethics. It is truly unfortunate that the ethics of the country as a whole have shifted so much that these people can get into power.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Please don't take it as a personal thing - as an individual I have lots of intelligent american friends from all over - Albuquerque, boston, san fran, etc.

In my opinion, it's a great thing you guys elected Obama. The bad thing is that the system doesn't afford a great man the power to change many of the problems he faces. The pentagon isn't going to change due to Obama's policies - even the guy he has in charge of defence has a hard time.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I understand. The problem is, when does it become personal? It is a trend that is being set and it is one that I don't want to see continue. And it isn't solely because I feel it reflects badly on the individual. It is that things are changing to the point where there are that many people that have the belief set that our actions are not wrong.

Something is happening that makes them feel that they are in the right. The more often that happens, the more they feel that they were never wrong. I guess my concern isn't about where we are now as a nation, but the direction that we are heading. We have a history of learning from our mistakes, but this is something that needs proactive action to recover from.

Honestly, we need a wake up call. The problem is that both sides of our media filters out a lot of the same things. Most of us are not aware of the indirect harms that we are causing. There is so much internal bickering that we only get a glimpse at the outside world.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

There shouldn't even be two sides to the media. Journalism should have a hippocratic oath.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Nuclear capable within 90 minutes? How exactly do you mean? :S

[–][deleted] ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

[deleted]

[–]occer 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Was agreeing with you until you got to the US having low trade barriers part.

As an economics student, I heartily disagree.

[–][deleted] ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

[deleted]

[–]occer 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

As a lowly high school student, I back down my previous heartiness.

We've learned a little about it but what I've heard is that it isn't greatly beneficial to us.