Australia to spend $270b building larger military

There were at least two good (enough) reasons to go...but I’m it here to educate people.
The lesson I am referring to is the Argentine air attack on the Royal Navy using anti ship missiles...incredibly effective and scared the crap out of the Royal Navy, and changed their tactics as a result...I’m not sure what your second point is but Britain (was) a super power also...

 

..if I'm not mistaken, the Brits even assaulted with less troops than the Argies had--instead of the 3-1 standard .....per a particular assault or total--

 

...could not have been too effective--the Brits won...
hey, there are going to losses in combat/wars---you expect no losses?

 

It doesn’t stop them but makes them far less likely...you are also forgetting the many reasons wars are started,
Particularly limited wars...

 

.....if it's ok with Takao, I'd like to mention I was with the Argies in 1988/89'.....we stayed at their base, and some of them stayed on our ship...they got ''big breakfasts'' on our ship...on their base, we got toast and coffee!!!

 

most wars are limited--not total....I believe the Iran-Iraq War was a total war.....WW2 and 1...any else?

..yes, give me a scenario of a how a conflict concerning Australia could start with China

 

As I said, the South China Sea...use your imagination. And the taking of any of the Pacific islands could bring about another ‘bay of pigs’
Look we have opposing opinions...let’s agree to disagree.

 

so---saddam started a war with Iran....then gassed his own people--this guy is dangerous/etc...then he goes into Kuwait...undeniably the US economy is at stake with the oil issue....so, Australia would not go to war if their economy was at stake?

 

well---
Vietnam--the US had naval and air superiority--B52s/etc and a loss--MASSIVE military

Arabs:
outnumbering the Israelis in all categories----troops/tanks/planes-MASSIVE military
Israel ''surrounded'' with a narrow front
Arabs lost all the wars

Britain and Russia--MASSIVE military---they lost in Afghanistan

 

Going to war is an admission of failure...as is all violence.
Australia has used its words and deeds to curb war in the first place...our diplomacy abilities are second to none. But we know, trust me we know, that sometimes it’s pointless arguing with an idiot...logic and good arguements don’t work...we have relied on the US umbrella for decades...and we have earned that protection by fighting beside our American brothers time and time again...we feel that relationship slipping away from us...China is taking advantage, Australia reacts by upping the budget and talking tough...we know we still need to do more, so I would watch that space...

 

Problem is though...How well did that work out for Japan?

I was always under the impression that the Australian plan was to weaken an amphibious invasion force sufficiently so that the landed remnant could be defeated by their ground forces.

 

I don't think he is.

The Falklands were British territory, and it's people were British subjects. If Hawaii or Alaska is invaded, would not the US defend/recapture them?

No, Britain had a very weak military. Britain was a world power in decline. The Tin Triangle was due to be shortly withdrawn from service, the Hermes was due to be paid off & placed out of service. IIRC, some of the warships had also been slated to be taken out of service. If anything, Argentina should have waited some months to invade, but I don't think their internal political climate would have allowed such a wait.

 

the numbers game has always been against us...even if one bullet took out one opponent, we would still run out of bullets...certainly against ‘some opponents’ the above is the plan...but against a China type force? The plan is to hang on to our arses long enough for help to arrive...

 

I would have to totally agree that having a strong military does not prevent wars-except nuclear war. By all historical measurements, the West and the USSR should, and probably would, have gone to war over Western Europe. However, neither side wanted to start trading nuclear BBs so both sides used proxies.

 

....wrong--- now you are talking about the reasons of going to war = we could argue that for years [ hahahahah--like the banzais ]
...it's like dealing with the '''problems/issues'' today in America---centuries old issues
...my god --look at a map! ---Britain '''stole'' that land ---just like they ''stole'' Egyptian artifacts and should give them back
--and like Hong Kong---
..so you are for imperialism/slavery/stealing land/might makes right/etc ?? Takao--I thought you were better than that

 

the map says it all

 

...so you are saying the Brits were/are weak? can't get the job done??
....hey--you should know and the Falklands War is proof of what I've said before:
a small, motivated, well trained unit is better than a big, '''unmotivated''', semi-trained unit
...so---weak?? but they won

 

..I've always said and I think I've said it on WW2F, the Brits are a$$ kickers ......the Aussies too..I think they can get the job done no matter what

..plus they have a lot of great entertainers --how the heck do they do that?

 

...also--don't forget Pakistan and India--they've been going at it and ''still'' are--- and both have nukes
..Israel has nukes--and Egypt still attacked in 1973....and the Pals/etc have been attacking/etc

 

The Vela Incident did not happen until 1979, thus would have no effect on Egypt in 1973. Also, it was a small blast, later reported as an artillery shell.

If Israel nuked the Pals, the whole world would come down on them...The same would happen to the US had the nuked Iraq, Iran, or Afghanistan.