Son Of Star Wars
RyoOhki
Join Date: 2003-01-26 Member: 12789Members
Join Date: 2003-01-26 Member: 12789Members
in Discussions
<div class="IPBDescription">Should we go ahead with a missile shield</div> Some little snippets from my local news site:
<a href='http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,8387909%255E2,00.html' target='_blank'>Asian arms race?</a>
<a href='http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,8385962%255E421,00.html' target='_blank'>Backlash from China?</a>
Looking at the whole missile defense shield that is being proposed and developed, let's try and get into the meat of what it is actually trying to do and what the costs will be.
Firstly, is the defense against terrorist threats? I must question this one. The chances of a terrorist actually getting their hands on an ICBM and successfully managing to arm the warhead inside and then launch it are so remote as to be in the rhelm of fantasy. The only really plausible nuclear terrorism scenario would involve a device smuggled into the target country and then detonated on the ground.
Is the defense against rogue states? Perhaps, though one must wonder why North Korea for example would ever launch a missile. They would have to be completely and utterly insane as their country would be annhilated seconds after a launch. Weird though Kim is, I doubt he really wants to sacrifice everything he has.
So is the goal to end deterrance and MAD? If it is, countries such as China and Russia are going to get annoyed. Especially China, as they don't have sufficient missiles to overwhelm a shields' defenses. But here's the catch: even if the aim is not ending deterrance, some countries are still going to see it as just that. They are going to be angry that the weapons they poured billions of dollars into now serve no purpose. Naturally, they are going to want to maintain that deterrance against attack. Which means an arms race, either to develop new weapons that can overcome the shield, or to build more nukes to overwhelm the shield.
Which brings us to cost. Numbers in the multi trillion dollar department have been thrown around. Can such spending really be justified? Here in Australia, education and health are crying out for increased spending, and in the US, I'm certain that the trillions going towards Star Wars could be better spend elsewhere. In the face of what seems to be a very vague threat, and coupled with the prospect of an Asian arms race which would lead to a new Eastern Cold War, I really can't understand why such a project should go ahead.
Discuss please.
<a href='http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,8387909%255E2,00.html' target='_blank'>Asian arms race?</a>
<a href='http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,8385962%255E421,00.html' target='_blank'>Backlash from China?</a>
Looking at the whole missile defense shield that is being proposed and developed, let's try and get into the meat of what it is actually trying to do and what the costs will be.
Firstly, is the defense against terrorist threats? I must question this one. The chances of a terrorist actually getting their hands on an ICBM and successfully managing to arm the warhead inside and then launch it are so remote as to be in the rhelm of fantasy. The only really plausible nuclear terrorism scenario would involve a device smuggled into the target country and then detonated on the ground.
Is the defense against rogue states? Perhaps, though one must wonder why North Korea for example would ever launch a missile. They would have to be completely and utterly insane as their country would be annhilated seconds after a launch. Weird though Kim is, I doubt he really wants to sacrifice everything he has.
So is the goal to end deterrance and MAD? If it is, countries such as China and Russia are going to get annoyed. Especially China, as they don't have sufficient missiles to overwhelm a shields' defenses. But here's the catch: even if the aim is not ending deterrance, some countries are still going to see it as just that. They are going to be angry that the weapons they poured billions of dollars into now serve no purpose. Naturally, they are going to want to maintain that deterrance against attack. Which means an arms race, either to develop new weapons that can overcome the shield, or to build more nukes to overwhelm the shield.
Which brings us to cost. Numbers in the multi trillion dollar department have been thrown around. Can such spending really be justified? Here in Australia, education and health are crying out for increased spending, and in the US, I'm certain that the trillions going towards Star Wars could be better spend elsewhere. In the face of what seems to be a very vague threat, and coupled with the prospect of an Asian arms race which would lead to a new Eastern Cold War, I really can't understand why such a project should go ahead.
Discuss please.
Comments
No terrorist organization is EVER going to launch ICBMs. They do not have the money, technology, and facilities for it. There is a greater chance of a computer malfunction causing the launch of Russian missles than there is of N. Korea or any other nation commencing a nuclear attack.
And saying 'oh, it never worked in the past' is exactly what Orville and Wilbur Wright heard all the way up to the day they flew at Kitty Hawk. It's a specious argument.
Diplomacy is simply saying "Good doggie until you find a rock to smash him with."
Large armies have been useless since ancent times. Take the Persian army. It starved itself to retreat.
I still question why North Korea would ever launch it's missiles. As I've said, the nation's leaders would have to be insane. Retaliation would be swift and devestating. Kim knows that, which is why I believe he'll only ever use these weapons as a deterrance force. Now sure, you could say that's not a guareentee. Well China and Russia were both ruled by men with a less then firm grip on reality (Mao and Stalin for starters) and they both had nukes. Yet they never used them.
We've gotten through almost 55 years of nuclear weapons without a single accidental launch. The safeguards that are in place for everyone's ICBMs are so strong that the sheer possibility of an accidental launch is unthinkable.
Is it really worth risking a new Cold War and an Asian arms race for the sake of "protecting" people against a threat that is extreamly remote at best? There isn't even a precident for doing this; there have been no accidental launches of ICBMs and only one nation has ever used nuclear weapons, and that is America. Should we really be pouring billions and billions into a project like this when millions of American and Australian citizens desperatly need that cash in public services such as education and health care?
We're not a target. We have no nukes (none that we know of in any case) and we're certainly not a military threat.
95% of the continent is easily Desert, and people, the desert is growing. The only resources we have of note are Coal, a bit of Gas (that has little if any heavier fractions) and some aluminium, maybe agriculture as well.
The major cities and the capital are the only major targets that I can think of, even then, whats the point? Australia poses no true threat to Asia militarily. Economically we might but even then the asian markets can outperform us simply by sheer size.
Nuking Australia only seals an aggressors fate. The US will counter attack with a nuclear strike and whats done is done.
I agree with Ryo. A country would have to be completely insane if they decided to nuke us. Even then there are other more important targets then us.
Although Australia is a good country to live in, it just isnt important enough to justify a nuclear strike what with the retaliation capabilities of the US.
No sane country would nuke us. Therefore, there is no need for a missile defense shield.
Heck the whole concept behind a missile defense shield is shaky.
"We want to launch missiles that MIGHT take out a nuke if it's in transit from an insane aggressor that MIGHT exist"
Small chance of hitting missile + Little to no chance that anyone is idiodic enough to launch a nuke in the first place + Damned expensive program + Small Budget + Small population = Errrr, what was that about the hospitals and education again?
Austrailia... that's a far stretch... but still one you can get to... imagine, a country large enough to house whatever and whoever you want, that can be devestated by 3-4 large bombs... after the bombs, it's yours for the taking... nothing but desert, and small-towns after that. It would be a nice large self-sustainable country to take over, something which North Korea and Tajikstan want... they are tired of being in the middle of long lost brothers. the political oppression from inside a local attackable distance is too great.
-) Korea wants a new home, something that they can use to NOT starve to death living on...
-) Tajikstan, well, i'm assuming that since they don't have news, there is an equally oppresive government there that also wants to get away from the Kajikistan/India/Russia love triangle. (if i got that wrong, i'm sorry, but i don't have my atlas handy)
The cost of building this "sheild" is something the US will stomach, Our money isn't actually backed by something, therefore, we just slap some more ink on paper, and call it even.
The austrailian money, i'm not too sure about, i'm american, therefore, more-or-less ignorant on the matter... i'm sorry.
ohh, and as an Edit....
who's to say chow ISN'T crazy enough to take a more-or-less "un-defended" country?
Yet even if you managed to do all of that, defeat the US forces, avoid getting nuked and take over the country what are you going to do? Nuking the largets population centres also would pollute the richest farmlands in Australia, so you're only going to be able to support a paltry few million people. Australia can't support many people; we're far too arid for that.
I can't see us getting attacked by anyone any time soon.
While the site is obviously in favour of it,it does have some good information on the issue
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->It would be a nice large self-sustainable country to take over, something which North Korea and Tajikstan want... they are tired of being in the middle of long lost brothers. the political oppression from inside a local attackable distance is too great.
-) Korea wants a new home, something that they can use to NOT starve to death living on...<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The population of North Korea is 26 million and Australia's is 19 million. After nuking the major population centres and contaminating most of the farmland i don't think the would be able to be self sustaining over there. Regardless of the fact that the logistics of transporting the population over there is almost impossible and the economy would be none exsistent. Although the retiliatory strike would probably reduce the population into the 100,000's before anyone packed their bags....
Edit: Fixed some spelling errors, had to rush supposed to be working..<!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
Of course, the fact that it's not that North korea can't support that many people, but that horrendous communist mismanagement of the land has lead to widespread starvation.
But that's getting OT.
Turning to the news, we see that <a href='http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,8387909%255E2,00.html' target='_blank'>Indonesia is getting annoyed</a> . One thing Australia does NOT need to do is make Indonesia angry. Destabilisation in South East Asia is nothing but bad news for Australia, and if the price for a missile shield is worse relations with Indonesia, or indeed the rest of South East Asia, then I say we scrap any involvement in the project.
I really truly dont know how Howard managed to stay PM for so long. I'd rather vote for the greens rather then the Liberals or Labor right now...
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The Howard Government has so far opted for a more affordable version known as Theatre Missile Defence, which involves arming a future generation of navy warships with interceptor missiles to provide an umbrella over Australia's deployed forces.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If we did attempt to create a shield for our population, I still cant see whats so bad about that. We dont have nukes ourselves, we're really nice guys once you get to know us, our military is still laughable, so why cant we have our own nifty little Missile Defence System to look good on Johhnies resume.
I dont wonder how Howard got to stay for so long. Seen the polls? The man is popular, damn popular. He made the tough calls (Iraq, Telstra, boatpeople, GST etc) and has come out looking good. The economy is moving forward, massive Labour debt is being paid off, he's doing a good job basically.
For all the crying about "Howard does everything Bush wants him to", "Bush's little lackey" etc, Howard acts in what he believes to be the best interest of Australia. IMO, he hasnt let us down yet.
I thought the missile shield consists of defensive missiles <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Nuking Australia only seals an aggressors fate. The US will counter attack with a nuclear strike and whats done is done. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's interesting, don't you think? Basically, 'why should we spend out own money, let the American's protect us for free'. I'm starting have a better understanding of why you're still under the umbrella of the UK - you've become an institutionalized colony (no pun intended - well, sorta <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo--> ) and cannot imagine not having a protector come to your rescue. I'm not sure if I'm on topic, but after many talks with Ryo as I try to gain an understanding of Australia, this was a very interesting epiphany for me. It explains the Whitlam affair, the lack of withdrawl from the commonwealth, and more.
I think people have gotten very used to the idea of America riding in like the cavalry and saving everyone in the nick of time. It's certainly been true for the past 60 or so years. What they forget is that for the previous 160 years, it was mostly not true. And that after the last few and next few years of Global Policing take their toll, our people are apt to get more and more isolationist as the pendulum swings back. But that's just my opinion...
As for Kim Il Nutso not being capable of launching nukes, let's try and keep our feet planted on the ground. His country has been attacking South Korea without the least provocation for 54 years straight. Until the pseudo-commies are gone and the country repaired, I wouldn't put anything past them. As for saying 'there's never been an accidental launch of a missile in 50 years', there's also never been as many nuclear powers (of varying degrees of competence) as there are now. This argument is similar to saying 'well, we've not had an outbreak of bubonic plague in 50 years, so let's not bother making any vaccine anymore'.
<a href='http://www.cdi.org/missile-defense/systems.cfm' target='_blank'>http://www.cdi.org/missile-defense/systems.cfm</a>
<a href='http://www.acq.osd.mil/bmdo/bmdolink/html/midcrse.html' target='_blank'>http://www.acq.osd.mil/bmdo/bmdolink/html/midcrse.html</a>
<a href='http://www.fas.org/nsp/bmd/' target='_blank'>http://www.fas.org/nsp/bmd/</a>
All good technical reads and very interesting.
ps: Ryo, you are psychic. I was putting together my materials to make this very same topic yesterday, and you beat me to it. Join uusssss, we all float down here! <!--emo&:0--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wow.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wow.gif'><!--endemo-->
We're still under the UK's umbrella?! They abandoned us in '42 and we havn't forgiven them for that yet. True, they might help us, but we jumped firmly into the US camp then and we're still there now.
It's true that we do attach ourselves, rather like a parasitic lifeform, to larger countries. The answer may lie in the nature of our nation itself and it's history. We faced no regional threats really until WWII, and prior to that, a strong British presense in the region deterred any potential threats, such as German influences from Papua New Guniea. Our population at the end of WWII was only around 7 million, and a great percentage of our population was, and still is, concentrated in a few urban centres along the eastern seaboard. Today, we have nearly 20 million people here, on a continent that is roughly the same size as the continental United States.
Lacking any outstanding natural resources, such as large amounts of oil, and with a very small population compared to land mass, Australia really can't defend itself. if we were attacked by any serious force (e.g. Indonesia), we'd lose (though Indonesia doesn't have the anphibious capacity to invade us). Australia has gotten by in the past by forging firm alliances with stronger nations; firstly the UK after we achieved Federation in 1901, and secondly with the US during WWII. Our fervent hope is that these alliances will hold true should they ever be put to the test (the British one sort of broke in WWII).
Howard's government has done one thing right: they've tried to keep the US alliance strong. Unfortunatly, this has also had the negative affect of hurting our relations with South East Asian nations like Malaysia and Indonesia. I can only hope that the US alliance does hold true and that the damage it is causing us won't have any major adverse effects on our region. A few weeks ago there were interesting talks underway with China. I wonder what effect this will have on that.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I dont wonder how Howard got to stay for so long. Seen the polls? The man is popular, damn popular. He made the tough calls (Iraq, Telstra, boatpeople, GST etc) and has come out looking good. The economy is moving forward, massive Labour debt is being paid off, he's doing a good job basically.
For all the crying about "Howard does everything Bush wants him to", "Bush's little lackey" etc, Howard acts in what he believes to be the best interest of Australia. IMO, he hasnt let us down yet. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yeah my university is doing great under Howard! Funding cuts left right and centre plus university fees being deregulated PLUS giving full-fee paying students preferential treatment! I tell you what, if I had rich parents and and $150,000 bank balance I'd be laughing! Unfortunatly, that's not the case, and I must instead face the very real prospect of losing my university degree because of this.
Howard's popularity has slipped heaps since Latham took over. A lot of support Howard was getting was based around the fact that there was no serious competition from Labor. Now that there is someone who actually offers a feasble alternative, voters are slipping away from Howard. I reckon Labor has a good chance next election. The Iraq affair did upset a lot of Australians (2 million of us marched against that war). Yeah, Howard has come out looking ok, but now the questions are being asked: where are the WMD, which was the sole basis for our involvement in the war, along with terrorists which have also failed to show up. Telstra going fully privatised? Say goodbye to bush services and a big chunk of the National's vote. The GST I still question; prices didn't go down and I'm yet to see any tax cuts as a result. The whole boatpeople issue just sickens me; there was never a problem to begin with yet the government made it into an issue. It really broke my faith in the country that the population followed Howard on that one.
This missile shield, in any way, shape or form is not in Australia's best interests:
1) It costs us money we simply do not have. Our defense budget is already climbing rapidly; how much more money will have be diverted away from health, education and social security if this shield goes ahead?
2) It upsets our regional neighbours, especially China and Indonesia. Having these guys annoyed with us hurts us economically and politically.
3) It's protecting us from a vague and remote threat.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->This argument is similar to saying 'well, we've not had an outbreak of bubonic plague in 50 years, so let's not bother making any vaccine anymore'. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Not quite Monse. Bubonic plague in the past killed millions and is a known and definite threat. Nuclear weapons have been used once, during a time of war, by a nation who was the only one with them. During the entire nuclear age from 1946 to 2004, nuclear weapons have never been accidently launched, seized by terrorist groups or been used at all. If they'd been flying around and killing people all over the place just like the bubonic plague then yeah, a missile defense would be a good idea. But against a threat which has never materialised once, a shield must be considered a case of severe paranoia.
Ahhh but we can flip that argument around, Tuberculosis vaccine development is back on the rise now because we've realised we're about to be in the ****.
Let's make a little comparison (I'm not stating my opinion, for OR against incidently). With the advent of antibiotics we basically eliminated tuberculosis as a serious human pathogen in much of the world. All was good and tuberculosis infection rates dropped with the odd speed bump. But we were naughty, and eventually enough people who didn't really understand how antibiotics worked (we didn't either at the time) abused those antibiotics. Today we have a new form of resistant tuberculosis running through african populations (3 million a year die on average, it actually tops the pathogens for amount of people killed a year). So now we are trying to develop a new vaccine to counteract the increased threat that antibiotic resistant tuberculosis makes to us (already in the US, rampant in mexico).
Replace terms as needed to make the paragraph gibber off about nuclear weapons and new defence systems as appropriate. I'm highly suspicious of how fast and how many countries now have nuclear arms.
Then again, I'm not sure if I should be more worried about the guy holding a gun, or the fellow immune to bullets.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Nuking Australia only seals an aggressors fate. The US will counter attack with a nuclear strike and whats done is done. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Wooo! I just found something interesting and worthy of my precious reply. I can't understand the nerve some people have(not talking about people here) when they are against USA world policy but at the same time they expect USA to protect them from all harm. Hell, pick one but you can't get isolated USA that acts only when you want it to.
I don't expect USA to help Finland if Russia were to attack us. Seriously, it's not USAs problem so why should it care? Besides that it causes some instability in the world, I wouldn't blame USA if it decided not to interfere. However, I also reserve the right to b**ch about the current high-handed world policing <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
Uh, Missile Shields rule because they make small stacks obsolete! *whew* saved my arse from OT punishment <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
And I wouldn't be worried about Asian arms race. China is a superpower getting stronger all the time. Eventually it would get a lot of nukes anyway, missile shield or not. However, one interesting thing I see in the future is that if missile shields would ever become effecient enough to block _all_ enemy ICBM's, world nations would have to start boosting their conventional armies again because there's no MAD deterrance. Anyone up to WW3?
Turn to nuclear arms though and we see that there isn't a precedent. They simply havn't been used. There isn't a threat here to defend against. Deterrance stratagy has worked just fine for over 50 years; did S-11 change all that? Of course not. If there was a clear and present threat from nuclear weapons, then yeah, a shield probably isn't a bad idea. But such a threat does not exist.
EDIT:
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I can't understand the nerve some people have(not talking about people here) when they are against USA world policy but at the same time they expect USA to protect them from all harm.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm opposed to certain elemants of US foreign policy, just like a lot of fellow Australians. That's our right to free speech (though we actually don't have that right <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo--> ) and political expression. The alliance side of things we leave up to the government. It's worth mentioning that though we may not like some things the US does, it doesn't mean we don't like them or don't have strong ties with them economically and politically. I don't have any illusions that the US would defend Australia because they're such nice people; I believe that it's in the best interests of the US to defend Australia. That's why alliances are forged: mutual benefit for the involved parties.
EDIT Mark II:
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->And I wouldn't be worried about Asian arms race. China is a superpower getting stronger all the time. Eventually it would get a lot of nukes anyway, missile shield or not.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, China is getting stronger all the time. Which is precisely why getting on China's bad side is a really bad idea. Forging closer links with China is in the best interests of Australia I believe. China is fast becoming a very major regional power in Asia whilst the US seems to be fading. Perhaps it's time we began focusing on the superpower in our back yard.
Saying 'let's not defend ourselves, because it will only anger our neighbors' is an interesting way to run a railroad - you are relying on a highly volatile area to act in an non-volatile manner, something Asia has never managed to do, ever, in tens of thousands of years. Adding 'and because who cares, our butts will be pulled out of the fire like always by our bigger neighbors' compounds the issue. If we get a more isolationist Congress or president here, that theory may not be any more valid than when the UK abandoned you in WW2 (all the while expecting all your ANZAC troops to heed the trumpet's call for some far-off unelected monarchy, no less). Why do you have an Army, Navy or Air Force at all right now - you presuppose that they are irrelevant due to American intervention, after all? As for being in our best interest - you admit that we have no real vested interest in you. Nothing of consequence comes to us economically from your country, and any defense will be treaty-based or historical, for now.
Finally, Australia and Japan are in no way economically capable of standing up to China. Do you also want to grant them complete military supremacy as well, and leave them their ace-in-the-hole nuclear card should a standoff occur? You cannot say you have any deterrence capability otherwise - which is how nuclear warfare works. You are just a completely utterly helpless target, nothing more. Being able to stop missiles will be signifigantly cheaper than creating them, and the more countries that have that capability to stop limited attack, the more likely countries will be to dismantle or not bother creating limited attack capabilities.
PS: I have now agreed with Aegeri twice in one day. Nuclear annihilation is the least of our worries. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
Saying 'let's not defend ourselves, because it will only anger our neighbors' is an interesting way to run a railroad - you are relying on a highly volatile area to act in an non-volatile manner, something Asia has never managed to do, ever, in tens of thousands of years. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So we should try and antagonise them? Throw away multi-billion dollar trade deals with China so we can sink more billions into a defense against a threat that isn't even remotely feasible?
We've never been invaded once in 200 years. Closest we got was WWII, and hey, our alliances saved us. Australian foreign policy is based around alliances; we understand that we don't have the population or conventional forepower to defend ourselves on our own. But we don't go looking for trouble.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Why do you have an Army, Navy or Air Force at all right now - you presuppose that they are irrelevant due to American intervention, after all?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Check out this <a href='http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/01/05/1073267964061.html?from=storyrhs' target='_blank'>article</a> , it is pretty clear on the whole issue. Defense from foreign invasion isn't the primary role of the ADF, and in the roles that the ADF does undertake it does extreamly well. We didn't lose a single soldier in the Iraq war for example.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->If we get a more isolationist Congress or president here, that theory may not be any more valid than when the UK abandoned you in WW2 (all the while expecting all your ANZAC troops to heed the trumpet's call for some far-off unelected monarchy, no less).<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's not, however, my theory. It's what 100 years of post-Federation Australian foreign policy has been based around. We rely on our alliances with stronger nations to defend ourselves. Now yes, it could all come crashing down, and frankly the only time it was put to the test (WWII), our major ally did desert us. But I'm not the one in Canberra making these decisions.
Yet what are our options? We don't have the population to defend our vast borders. Nor do we have the money to field a massive army. We rely on foreign alliances because that's our only option.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Finally, Australia and Japan are in no way economically capable of standing up to China. Do you also want to grant them complete military supremacy as well, and leave them their ace-in-the-hole nuclear card should a standoff occur? You cannot say you have any deterrence capability otherwise - which is how nuclear warfare works.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Australia does have deterrance capability. We're allied with the US, and as such we fall under the US nuclear umbrella. I fail to see how us getting a missile shield would stop China; as you have already pointed out, in a conventional fight Australia loses no questions asked. How is a shield going to stop China? "Don't invade us or we'll shoot down your ICBMs that you have no intention of launching because you'll just send in your vastly numerically superiour conventional forces". China doesn't NEED an ace-in-the-hole against us; in fact using them against us would be a tremendous error as the targeted population centres are situated near the best farmland in Australia, thus poisoning colonisation efforts.
You keep thinking that the <u>threat</u> of nuclear attack has no bearing. Explain the Cuban Missile Crisis to me then...
PS:
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->We're still under the UK's umbrella?! <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes. A little thing called the Governor-General, as you have explained it to me, makes you basically Britain's beyotch. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo-->
This is what Australia needs to prepare for ( i.e. the US not always being supportive militarily ). Australia may not have any nukes, and probably wont ever if we're lucky ( that is just so there is less proliferation ), but that does not mean Australia should not be prepared to defend itself from nukes. Having such an option would be a bargining chip with countries such as China... As China's ability to "bully" because of its military would be severly limited ( as you've said yourself, no one but the US has the ability for amphibious assaults on the scale needed ). And since the missile shield being proposed is supposed to primarily be for troops, and not Australia itself, then the idea of such a missile shield is even more appealing.
Besides, chances are someone would not want to invade Australia, as you've said numerous times, there is really little there worthy of an invasion. With that in mind, nuking Australia is an option if just to remove Australia from the playing field.
It seems to me that the entire idea of a 'missile shield' is to make the threat of nuclear attack usefull to the US again. At the present it doesn't make sense to nuke anybody with nukes, or who has alies with nukes, because the retaliation would surely be unjustifiably devestating. With some sort of missile defense however, it suddenly becomes possible to win a nuclear war by taking much more acceptable losses. In other words, its actually an offensive move, which is what we've come to expect from the current administration isn't it?
<span style='color:red'>And please, for the love of god, READ THE WHOLE TOPIC NEXT TIME. No one, including the Dept. of Defense, has claimed or designed this system for the purposes of withstanding a sull-scale, soviet-style nuclear assault.
Everyone here is now on notice - Nem and I have discussed it, and we're going to start handing out temp suspensions for people that have obviously failed to read other people's previous posts. There are no more warnings, no more second chances. If I feel that you have broken rule #6, I will cut your access to this forum for at least 7 days. Skulkbait is now on the shortlist - who's next?</span>
<span style='color:red'>And please, for the love of god, READ THE WHOLE TOPIC NEXT TIME. No one, including the Dept. of Defense, has claimed or designed this system for the purposes of withstanding a sull-scale, soviet-style nuclear assault.
Everyone here is now on notice - Nem and I have discussed it, and we're going to start handing out temp suspensions for people that have obviously failed to read other people's previous posts. There are no more warnings, no more second chances. If I feel that you have broken rule #6, I will cut your access to this forum for at least 7 days. Skulkbait is now on the shortlist - who's next?</span> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well sorry, but I had a class and there were alot of words.