"What this policy document does is it starts to increase the hitting power of the Defence Force in the short term, rather than being focused on building submarines that will be ready in the late 2030s and into the 2040s," Mr Jennings told ABC RN. "We've got to be worried about 2020 and the next 12 to 24 months or so." Australia to build larger and more aggressive military to prepare for post-pandemic disorder
Im happy with it...it's difficult to argue against given China's current mood...money to go also to US defence industries. The long range ordnance is a rarity for Australia...
China is clearly a bad actor and incrementally increasing aggression, with a lot of attention being paid to Australia nowadays. It seems a sensible response.
Canada has some f18's for sale. china ... after the beat down on china/ india border, maybe some martial arts training is neccessary. did anyone see the border beatdown? at least they didnt start shooting. Australia needs to protect itself and Canada, because we love each other.
China is expanding its country...the South China Sea...would be a likely spot. But this is also about preventing conflict...can you imagine the embarrassment if little backward Australia sinks a major Chinese warship? Bullies only pick on those they think can’t hurt them...
Korea, Nam, PG1 and 2, War on Terrorists,etc ..the HUGE military of the US did not stop the North Vietnamese from fighting the US/etc ..did not stop the US from being attacked on 9-11--in the US..more deaths than Pearl Harbor caps for emphasis only
..there has always been conflicts and wars...Britain had the ''biggest military/navy'''..that didn't stop countries/tribes/groups from attacking and fighting them --and Britain lost sometimes
The US also got itself into most of those wars...outside of 9/11, where was the US directly attacked? Australia also does not stick it's nose in other peoples business like the US does. India is becoming a major player, China all ready is, Indonesia is a potential threat, and, in my opinion, the Philippines is also becoming a potential threat to Australia. But, first and foremost are the Chinese aircraft carriers.
Australia is not Super power...the psychology is different...most of those conflicts have been initiated by the US...once hostilities start of course it’s on for young and old. Australia won’t initiate hostilities, but WILL defend itself. If we don’t want to be pushed around and threatened, we need to have a credible reaction to what China can do...it’s actually a way of calming the waters...but if China has gone rogue (which is looking increasingly likely) then all bets are off...
A force in being, large enough to make a enemy question victory, does tend to deter a rational player from acting, but then again not everyone in the region (I'm looking at you Kim) always act rationally.
For as long as I’ve been alive, Australia’s defence plan hasn’t been rooted in victory...instead, more realistically, the plan has been to make victory so costly that it’s barely worth it*...as far as I can see, that is still our plan. * if the enemy is weakened sufficiently, other players may step in to take advantage of it...
hahahhah 1. we had every right to go into PG1 and 2 and Korea..... a. hitler invaded a tiny country and started a war saddam invaded a tiny country and started TWO wars b. hitler gassed his own people saddam gassed his own people c. hitler violated the cease fire terms/etc saddam violated the cease fire terms --however --you still did not address the major point---having a huge military does not stop conflicts Germany invaded Russia France and the UK had a huge military--but still fought in WW2 the US had atomic bombs, naval and air superiority, and China entered the Korean War here's a key = most wars are not total--the conflicts start whether the other side had a huge military or not
1. you argue against Takao--Britain had no reason to go into the Falklands 2. Britain had a great military--but they still went to war!
But when those wars happen a larger military ensures you survive the initial onslaught and the eventual victory less costly.
Argentine naval forces in the Falklands War - Wikipedia ....the Brits lost the Atlantic Conveyor--losing their choppers/etc--and they still beat the Argentines...the Argentines were losers compared to the Brits--and they still invaded the Falklands = military power does not stop conflicts