placebo
Likes Dirt
Last edited:
General Geopolitics (for Armchair Generals)
- Thread starter PINT of Stella. mate!
- Start date
Calvin27
Eats Squid
Our presence in indopacific is virtually non-existent. We can't even stop a few boats or find a missing plane even with our awesome Jindalee. The JSF is a waste of cash. We don't have carriers to make them truly effective which limits them to pretty much launching off our coastline - in which case there are a lot more fighters that are capable at a cheaper price. Don't mention the manufacturing capability because I can say firsthand we do not have the capability to build the entire thing in Aus even if we diverted all of our efforts to building it. Unfortunately we are an economy of houses and holes.
The budget constraint is a real deal - this probably explains why our politicians are both in equal support of a big Australia even though the general population thinks this will erode quality of life. However, I don't see how buying expensive JSFs and subs is going to solve our problems. At the moment any of our SE Asian neighbours could easily overwhelm us with just sheer numbers. Indonesia does not have better tech than us, but they have got a crapload of people, boats and planes. While our JSF is being serviced on the ground, they will have 10 planes heading towards it. What we really need is the capability to scale up rapidly. It's pretty stupid to waste money on a handful of planes and then when we are getting screwed sign all sorts of crap just to get supplies. The best defence is a strong economy that can rapidly change to a military economy.
As for Antarctica, I accept it is probably a stretch for us until we get a bigger population, but its pretty clear all the treaty has done for us is continuously reduce our stake at Antarctica. Prior to the treaty, we only had a very small chunk that was contested - the rest was between other countries. Now look at the situation where everyone has built bases everywhere in preparation for the day claims start again.
scblack
Leucocholic
This sounds like my father-in-law. He's a pom.
He argues that we should be defending the W.A. coast WAY more than we do. He thinks Indonesia can easily land their tanks on the coast around Kimberley or Pilbara - and thinks we are then screwed.
When you then ask him about HOW those tanks are going to traverse the desert for thousands of kilometres to major population centres - his argument starts to run out of puff.
This pretty much what I was saying as well. We can't fund the development and building of any serious fighter/bomber aircraft in Australia.
Sorry, that is not accurate. Singapore is the only Southeast Asian nation that has the logistical capability to land any real offensive force on Australian soil. Indonesia most definitely does not have the logistical capability to land a proper fighting force on Australian mainland soil. Here, read this to understand how bad a state of repair the Indo military is in: https://www.aspi.org.au/publications/moving-beyond-ambitions-indonesias-military-modernisation
Exactly, they couldn't even get them across the water or achieve air superiority as they made their way here either. Even if they did have the logistical capability to get them here and then support them they'd be picked off as they traversed the maritime divide.
placebo
Likes Dirt
You mean enough heavy sea-lift for tanks with amphibious landing capability on opposed beaches, with a navy able to provide sufficient air cover, strike power, and anti-submarine capability? Indonesia doesn't have it, isn't budgeting to aquire it, and couldn't hide it if it was. It's a lot of big ships. We aren't capable of it either, or going to be.
Calvin27
Eats Squid
I would call a landing in Aus soil a massive loss already let alone getting across the desert. Sure, we are not screwed but it's a loss nonetheless. I mean look at all the fright when a new boat arrives let alone a military force.
By taking the north-west, they get a crap load of our ports and access to a huge chunk of our commodities exports.
I don't think Indonesia has it in them right now but, trending forward, they will definitely bulk up in this regard - that is the risk we need to manage.
Personally, I think we should lighten up our sea and focus on short range air for defensive purposes.
By taking the north-west, they get a crap load of our ports and access to a huge chunk of our commodities exports.
I don't think Indonesia has it in them right now but, trending forward, they will definitely bulk up in this regard - that is the risk we need to manage.
Personally, I think we should lighten up our sea and focus on short range air for defensive purposes.
Last edited:
But I'm saying they cannot even get to our coastline. Singapore may be able to but they are an alliance partner. Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand, Philippines, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar and Brunei don't stand a hope in hell in transferring any realistic force on to Australian soil.
Secondly, as Placebo points out, any attempts to do such a thing would be noticed even just in the planning stages, should any of these countries even ever think invading Australia is a good idea to them.
* this was written before the post above me was edited. In response to that edit, Indonesia is likely to construct its military modernisation to defending its own territory and maritime environment with asymmetric conventional capabilities rather than creating expeditionary and long-range offensive forces. Not to say that we should be sanguine about our neighbour, more so that invasion of the mainland is not the top issue we need to worry about. We need to concern ourselves with being able to secure our own maritime environemnt and also protect our interests abroad in the maritime environment as well as in support of our alliance partners.
Secondly, as Placebo points out, any attempts to do such a thing would be noticed even just in the planning stages, should any of these countries even ever think invading Australia is a good idea to them.
* this was written before the post above me was edited. In response to that edit, Indonesia is likely to construct its military modernisation to defending its own territory and maritime environment with asymmetric conventional capabilities rather than creating expeditionary and long-range offensive forces. Not to say that we should be sanguine about our neighbour, more so that invasion of the mainland is not the top issue we need to worry about. We need to concern ourselves with being able to secure our own maritime environemnt and also protect our interests abroad in the maritime environment as well as in support of our alliance partners.
Last edited:
placebo
Likes Dirt
There's only one country with that capability, who are continuing to develop that proven capability in the next twenty years insteaded of trying to develop it from scratch, and they've already landed marines here.
Calvin27
Eats Squid
And they are taking away our uncontested claims to Antarctica, screwing us through Trans-Pacific partnerships, trying to stop us downloading game of thrones and worst of all have stupidly high postage rates and won't ship fox parts directly!
I don't get why Aussies are not more pissed off about the Antarctic treaty. It was pretty much uncontested and yet I feel we have lost it.
pharmaboy
Eats Squid
Surely part of defence spending and also partnerships is to discourage military spending by our neighbours on any other capability apart from defence?
I think there is a balance between treaties and what and how you spend, that influences your neighbours (both friendly and temporary friends).
There is surely far more strategy going on than how it appears to the joe public.
I think there is a balance between treaties and what and how you spend, that influences your neighbours (both friendly and temporary friends).
There is surely far more strategy going on than how it appears to the joe public.
Jeffgre_6163
Likes Dirt
Yes it has.
In actual fact the world in 2014 is a more peaceful place than it was for the majority of the 20th century.
If you need reminding in the 20th century we had WW1, The Great depression, WWII, Vietnam, Korea, The long march from Mao, The six days war, The Khmer Rouge etc etc
What people seem to fail to take in to account when talikng about the current state of unrest is the role the media play in promoting the "Action"
With every phone a vidoe camera, instant uploads, 24hr news cycles we get it rammed down our throats.
More than half of the crap that goes on now would not have made headlines 50, 60, 70 years ago. It still happened but there was simply no way for it to be desseminated to the masses.
Ignorance was bliss.
No longer are we ignorant so the world no longer seems as blissful as it once may have been apart from the truely global calamities
Bermshot
Banned
:second: Joe Public knows fuck all.
Bermshot
Banned
True mate & I like your glib. But I must converse on the "ancient media." Whilst now we have great knowledge at our fingertips, it was the lack of instant knowledge, (and how the serpents worked it out once the printing press was created) once they had their filthy mauls all over that design, it was easy to get into a mass consciousness yeah?
Last edited:
scblack
Leucocholic
At least we have you to show us the light, and the true story.
We are eternally thankful.
Bermshot
Banned
I know you are, so you really don't have to give a pat on the back.
Grundos
Likes Dirt
Did the US also orchestrate the Black Death and the Spanish Flu? Seriously though, I'd be surprised if a big epidemic like the current Ebola crisis didn't pop up every now and then.
----
http://www.sbs.com.au/news/storystr...-action-after-russia-accused-ukraine-invasion
If this article is anything to go by, sounds like Ukraine is starting to slip away from the EU/US.