As monse mentioned (when talking about the ships) it's not just strategic. It's also tactical.
The ABL (airborne laser) is a good example of this- while other anti missile systems have had lukewarm to good results (depending on who you ask), the tactical high energy laser system has PROVEN to be able to take down even tiny weapons (katusha(sp?) artillery rockets). Yes, individual artillery shells- a target that's generally smaller, and in the air for a much shorter period of time.
The ABL, carrying a proven system, can go on station and give theatre wide ABM protection (including SRBM, ICBM and IRBMs, even artillery if it gets close enough) to not only troops, but civilians as well. This means if there ever IS a threat of a "rogue nation" deciding to launch against anyone, not just america but also the countries we've decided to defend, we can stop it. If not, we still have a useful tool because there is always the threat of artillery- it could replace or suppliment the patriot SAM.
It HAS happened before. 39 times in 1991, Saddam launched scuds into israel- they could have easily been laden with chemical weapons. It's not likely that these would carry WMD's because saddam would get plastered right? That being said, I'd rather destroy them and not take the chance mkay? While saddam may not be stupid enough to use WMD's, he's not on the field with them. The officer in charge may have some beef with jews, and decide to use his absolute authority of the soldiers under him to give the order. Maybe this guy is hell bent to meet allah and doesnt' give a damn about the repercussions, as long as some israelis die. Don't say that hasn't happened either, because it DOES happen every time a suicide bomber blows himself up in a cafe. Does he care that the repercussions may mean the deaths of innocent palestinians and comrades? Nope. It's only a matter of time before one of these nuts decides to attain a high position of authority before becoming a martyr. Such as the commander in charge of the NBC weapons. Because they could do so much more damage....
I don't buy this "It'll never happen because it hasn't happened before" response, because it's only a matter of time, motives, and opportunity. And they have motives and opportunity.
<!--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-->So if the tensions got high in the area with North Korea, and the US 7th fleet offered a couple of anti-ICBM Aegis cruisers to hang out in the bay in Melbourne, you'd say no because it would escalate tensions? I sense a double-standard coming... <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If the US decided to help us out during a time of regional crisis, why would we say no? However, if the US can do that, why should we develop our own program that will annoy other South East Asian nations? If the US goes ahead with the program, Australia catches some flak, due to some of the systems being based here and because of our close alliance with the US, but not too much. If we build a shield ourselves, it places us in the same league as the US and regional powers are now much more annoyed at us as well. Why draw unnessessary attention to ourselves?
We can't afford it. We don't need it. It upsets our neighbours.
<!--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--> You keep thinking that the threat of nuclear attack has no bearing. Explain the Cuban Missile Crisis to me then... <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
A time of increased tensions that was resolved diplomatically. No attack occured. No nukes were used. The situation was defused peacefully. Yes, it could have gone wrong. But it didn't. I see no reason why things all of a sudden have changed lately.
<!--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 can't afford it. We don't need it. It upsets our neighbours. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> And thusly, you don't deserve it. Talk about a great racket you're running over there - all the protection of America and none of the sacrifice. A continent on the dole, as it were. I'm a bit shocked - is this a common Australian attitude? Sure defies the cliches of rugged individualism...
<!--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-->A time of increased tensions that was resolved diplomatically. No attack occured. No nukes were used. The situation was defused peacefully. Yes, it could have gone wrong. But it didn't. I see no reason why things all of a sudden have changed lately. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> You, uhhh, missed the point there. The <i>threat</i> of nuclear weapons - without it, there was no crisis. With a defense system, there is no way to be threatened, and a crisis is not managed but instead averted from ever happening at all. The Cuban Missile Crisis could easily have gone the other way - with a missile defense system, it never would have even gotten going.
<!--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 thusly, you don't deserve it. Talk about a great racket you're running over there - all the protection of America and none of the sacrifice. A continent on the dole, as it were. I'm a bit shocked - is this a common Australian attitude? Sure defies the cliches of rugged individualism... <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What do you want us to do? Seriously. We don't have a choice. We have to ally ourselves with larger nations or we will get crushed. The Australian people have no illusions about our strength; we're sitting below Indonesia, India and China, three nations which could mobilise armies that outnumber our total population. We have thousands of kilometres of borders to defend. There is no way that a nation of 20 million people can do that by itself.
Though by the same token, we don't really feel threatened. China and Indonesia both lack the amphibious capacity to invade us, and India is preoccupied with Pakistan. We don't really ask for much from the US alliance; just a hope that if we do get attacked, the US will help. This has never been put to the test I might add.
America does get something out of this. They must. If the US wasn't getting anything at all, then there wouldn't be an alliance. The US gets military bases in the South Pacific, shared intelligance with Australian agencies such as ASIO, facilities such as Woomera that help with the space program or Lone Pine which is part of the early warning system designed to detect nuclear launches. Australia supplies a quite considerable amount of uranium to the world, and I'm sure the US would rather such materials remain in the hands of a friendly nation. Plus there is the fact that the US probably does not want to see a continent as large as Australia in the hands of India, Indonesia or China. It would represent a power shift in the region that the US does not want.
And what cost does the US pay? In the event of a conflict, the US might help us out. They don't give us huge subsidies. They don't give us free trade (heck, they have a virtual embargo of Australian lamb). They don't pay for our military. They don't have a few divisions stationed here or even a few ships. All they give is a vague promise of support. Sometimes I look at the whole thing and wonder if Australia is the one getting ripped off.
<!--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-->You, uhhh, missed the point there. The threat of nuclear weapons - without it, there was no crisis. With a defense system, there is no way to be threatened, and a crisis is not managed but instead averted from ever happening at all. The Cuban Missile Crisis could easily have gone the other way - with a missile defense system, it never would have even gotten going. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yeah. Instead, the USSR would have invaded Western Europe and we would have had a conventional conflict that would make WWII look like a child's picnic. If the Cuban Missile Crisis was the price we paid for nuclear deterrance, then I reckon we got ourselves one hell of a bargin.
That's what I'm worried about Monse. This system, the whole Star Wars thing, is taking us down a path that I'm not sure we want to tread down. Because we've been down that path before. A path where there is no longer deterrance, and nations once again are free to go to war whenever they want. Sure this program is just starting out as defense against a few missiles. But it will go further than that. And sooner or later, the US, or China, or Russia is going to have a defense system that can protect against a full scale nuclear attack. And then what? We're back to WWI and WWII, because what history has shown us is that nations will go to war if there are no checks in place. No nuclear deterrant, and a UN that is powerless, means that there are no checks. Which means war.
EDIT: I really don't want this last part of my post here to be in violation of the forum rules. I am attempted to extrapolate on the ideas that have been discussed, arguing that whilst the program being suggested is a limited defense, it has the potential to grow and eventually supercede deterrance stratagy. If this is in violation of the aforementioned forum rules, please inform me and I will remove this section of my post. My apologies for any confusion or rule breaking.
<!--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 don't really ask for much from the US alliance; just a hope that if we do get attacked, the US will help. This has never been put to the test I might add. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Ehhh, we most certainly did defend you from the Japanese in WW2. Hence the beginning of our relationship - when the UK left you swinging in the wind, we picked up the slack. In fact, the Battle of the Coral Sea was fought in defense of Australia by the US and Aussie navies. Darwin was bombed by hundreds of Japanese aircraft who's bases were later eliminated by the US counter-attacks. And so on. We have actually been the only ones ever to really defend you, from what I recall.
<!--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-->America does get something out of this. They must.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Not really. Our bases in Okinawa, Korea, and Japan are much more useful to us geographically and militarily - your continent is waaaaayyyyy out of the way. A great fallback position, and certainly a reliable one, but not a particularly necessary one in the grand scheme.
<!--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-->Australia supplies a quite considerable amount of uranium to the world, and I'm sure the US would rather such materials remain in the hands of a friendly nation. Plus there is the fact that the US probably does not want to see a continent as large as Australia in the hands of India, Indonesia or China. It would represent a power shift in the region that the US does not want. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Surely. But it didn't stop north Korea from making weapons, nor any other smallish nuclear weapon powers. And we mine our own as best I can tell. As you say, there's pretty much no way for any of those countries to physically invade you right now, unless they embarked on quite a lot of naval construction over the next few years. Which leaves them only nuclear weapons as a real threat to you. The nukes that you do not want to defend yourself from.
You miss a side issue here, in your repeated statement that the US will simply step in and defend you. If North Korea begins seriously threatening the US and her allies with nuclear attack, and we only have a few Aegis cruisers and flying lasers built that can be sent to defend the US west coast (which is a large portion of our population, manufacturing, R&D, etc.), do you think that we'll jeopardize San Francisco to save Melbourne, if we have to choose? I might, but a politician certainly will not. Do you think that as an ICBM comes down on Perth that anyone will care if they saved some money which ultimately did not eliminate your poverty, educational gaps, or anything else you listed?
<!--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-->Sure this program is just starting out as defense against a few missiles. But it will go further than that. And sooner or later, the US, or China, or Russia is going to have a defense system that can protect against a full scale nuclear attack. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> This just tells me you have not done enough research of the links I provided. We're talking a MASSIVE investment (many many trillions of dollars) and decades and decades of full-steam manufacturing. And when it's all done, you have a world where it is impossible to have a successful nuclear strike. You're saying that's bad?
Not in the mood to engage full-scale into this, but I'd like to make a little correction here. Mons, when you say that "And when it's all done, you have a world where it is impossible to have a successful nuclear strike.", you should add a 'as long as the people at the levers are opposed to it'...
I'm not sure I follow you. Why would you allow yourself to be atomized? My theory is that with all technology, eventually everyone has it. Which means that eventually everyone is impervious to nuclear attack. I ask again - is that bad?
I should know by now that the only way for me not to be dragged into a discussion is not to post in it. Well, let's see...
A nuclear defense shield of any significance will always require two things: Up to date know-how - consider that the technology we're looking at today will sooner than later be made obsolete by some sort of enhancements to ICBM technology - and money, <i>lots</i> of money. Seeing these two requisites, I doubt sincerely that we'll arrive at a point where <i>every</i> nation could afford a missle shield within any sensible timeframe. This in turn means that the system will lie in the hands of one or a number of parties economically strong enough to maintain such projects. And <i>this</i>, in turn, means an ultimate power position for these parties towards anyone far enough away to make the immediate effects of radiation and fallout neglectable.
Also, seeing the technological and economical head-start of the US, you'll agree that they will be the only such party for quite some time - and this, in the end, is the only point I tried to make. I'll leave further conclusions to others at this point because I intended to relax and take a day off Disc. today, darnit! <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
I suppose you have an idea of the cost of SDI structures. You know , not every country is able to launch satellites... So when the M.A.D. is gone , the future of entire countries would depend on the nuclear power's kindness and desire to please the UN. Considering the behavior of GW Bush towards the UN , I'm pretty worried. If he can decide to kill individuals as a governer , then attack other countries for mostly arbitrary reasons as a president , will he refrain from using "tactical" nuclear missiles on North Korea or even China ? It may seem all right to use the "EMP effect" of the new "tactical" nukes but if it means radioactive rain on the biggest chinese cities...
Blocking missile attacks, nuclear or otherwise, does not make a country impervious to the devastation of these warheads. ICBM's are expensive to develop, and leave a tell-tale signature of the point of origin. If I was a rogue nation, I would greatly prefer perhaps smuggling components and assembling within the country, or simply detonating at port before an inspection could take place. That way a finger couldn't be pointed at me immediately, and I have a greater chance of the attack being successful. The shield seems to be responding to a threat from a communist Russia-like aggressor - highly industrialized, and strong in convential military. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't see any country (with the possible exception of China) that poses that type of threat. Also, IIRC, the tests done on missile interception were under idealized conditions on well defined targets. More research should be done on the feasability of missile shields before any serious consideration of budget spending should be made.
Lets not bring Texas capital punishment into this. It is a state decision to allow such a thing ( yes, he COULD do something to delay stuff, but once again it is a state decision so he shouldn't )... And a personal opinion about whether its barbaric or not. As such, that is not something to bring into this, as Texas is not the only state to allow capital punishment, nor is GWB the only governor to actually let the courts decide if a convicted murderer should die.
Attacking Afghanistan was far from an arbitrary reason.
There are issues with WMD being used as a major reason to attack Iraq... But in the end what has occurred leaves the world in a better place. Also, people should pay closer attention to his State of the Union address ( you know, the one that is extremely controversial for mentioning some British intelligence that the British still stand behind ).
Why bring China into this? Relations with China are better than they have been in quite a while. China could still be considered an "enemy", but times when that was a black and white are in the past. China will not be attacked by the US at any time in the near future.
NK is, and always has been, a rogue state since the cease fire. Is there a chance that we would use tactical nukes on NK? Yeah... But very remote. All that has been said about such things really, is that we will not rule out the use of such weapons. This doesnt mean we will use them, it just means that they are always a possibility. It was said to put more backing behind our words. NK has threatened to use its few nukes numerous times... So now we've said that ours are also able to be used. It was just a statement that prevents our hands from being tied behind our backs. It gives us, or helps to maintain, an advantage. In all likelihood, they would never be used. It was just bluster.
In the end, no one has an idea of how much SDI will cost. We all know it will cost a lot, but that is no different than any previous big military projects. Once again, the US military cannot just sit back and wait for other countries to develop their militaries. The US military must be at the forefront of new technology. Trying to limit that ability assumes that the US has no enemies or that our enemies will never catch up to us in military might... Both naive and short-sighted thoughts.
<!--QuoteBegin--Nemesis Zero+Jan 15 2004, 03:18 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Nemesis Zero @ Jan 15 2004, 03:18 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Also, seeing the technological and economical head-start of the US, you'll agree that they will be the only such party for quite some time <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Timeline for gaining nuclear weapons or making a serious effort to do so:
US in 1945 USSR in 1949 UK, France , and China in the 1950's. Israel and India in the 60's South Africa, Pakistan, North Korea, Algeria, Libya, Argentina, Iran, and Brazil. Plus many others with programs that were officialy dismantled but still capable of restarting due to them having nuclear reactors.
See the trend - more and more, faster and faster? And yes, Iraq had one in the 80's until the Israelis bombed it out of existence (thank you, France). The point is that Moore's Law is a easily applied to most kinds of technology as well - things get faster and cheaper as time goes by. Saying that 'no one will have a valid ABM system for quite some time' is the same as American's saying 'those commie Soviet peasants won't have the bomb for decades'.
And an interesting sidenote, that I just came across as I was gathering sources and was unaware of:
<!--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-->There are indications that Japan had a more sizable program than is commonly understood, and that there was close cooperation among the Axis powers, including a secretive exchange of war materiel. The German submarine U-234, which surrendered to US forces in May 1945, was found to be carrying 560 kilograms of Uranium oxide destined for Japan's own atomic program. The oxide contained about 3.5 kilograms of the isotope U-235, which would have been about a fifth of the total U-235 needed to make one bomb. After Japan surrendered on 15 August 1945, the occupying US Army found five Japanese cyclotrons, which could be used to separate fissionable material from ordinary uranium. The Americans smashed the cyclotrons and dumped them into Tokyo Harbor. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I was watching the History Channel the other night, and it was having a number of shows about secret German and Japanese planes. Well, in the midst of talking about Germany's desire for a bomber that could make it to the US and back, they happened to mention that German scientists had been able to make an a-bomb, but they never deployed/used it because they wanted to perfect it first. Man, would that have changed things if they hadn't been typical scientists....
Just a little side note to go along with Monse's Japanese bit...
<!--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-->Ehhh, we most certainly did defend you from the Japanese in WW2. Hence the beginning of our relationship - when the UK left you swinging in the wind, we picked up the slack. In fact, the Battle of the Coral Sea was fought in defense of Australia by the US and Aussie navies. Darwin was bombed by hundreds of Japanese aircraft who's bases were later eliminated by the US counter-attacks. And so on. We have actually been the only ones ever to really defend you, from what I recall. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You defended us in WWII because you needed a place to fall back to. Most of South East Asia was over-run, and yes, whilst the Battle of Coral Sea did save Australia from invasion, the US was already at war with Japan anyway and it happened to be a good place to strike at the Japanese fleet. Australia provided a good place to land troops and also to resupply and refuel ships. You needed us and we needed you. Happily, the alliance which was born in such circumstances remained strong after the war.
<!--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-->Not really. Our bases in Okinawa, Korea, and Japan are much more useful to us geographically and militarily - your continent is waaaaayyyyy out of the way. A great fallback position, and certainly a reliable one, but not a particularly necessary one in the grand scheme. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Those bases are all too far north. Sure, the Indian ocean and South Pacific arn't high on the list of the world's hotspots, but having bases in Australia does provide intelligance services that would be difficult to base elsewhere in the region. We're right next to Indonesia, the world's largest muslim nation and home to some terrorist groups with links to Al Qaeda. You can monitor the Indian Ocean from Australia as well, especially with the co-operation of our military. Keeping tabs on various Pacific Island states is also much easier with our help. Part of the US early-warning systems for nuclear attacks are based in Australia. In addition to those military benefits though, your shuttle aircraft just happen to have a re-entry pattern that takes them directly over Australia. Without our base at Woomera, you'd be blind for a vital part of your space program.
Cutting Australia out of the picture would cause the US to lose intelligance for a large section of the South East Asian region. Now I know it's not the most important region in the world. But does that mean the US doesn't want to keep tabs on what goes on around here?
<!--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-->You miss a side issue here, in your repeated statement that the US will simply step in and defend you. If North Korea begins seriously threatening the US and her allies with nuclear attack, and we only have a few Aegis cruisers and flying lasers built that can be sent to defend the US west coast (which is a large portion of our population, manufacturing, R&D, etc.), do you think that we'll jeopardize San Francisco to save Melbourne, if we have to choose? I might, but a politician certainly will not. Do you think that as an ICBM comes down on Perth that anyone will care if they saved some money which ultimately did not eliminate your poverty, educational gaps, or anything else you listed? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't think you'd step in to defend us against a nuclear attack. But we don't think we'll suffer a nuclear attack. Put yourself in the shoes of the North Korean leaders: they know that they can get off a few missiles before their entire country is destroyed. If Australia does get hit by a nuclear attack, the US would retaliate, regardless of if we were an ally or not, as the US obviously would not tolerate North Korea throwing nukes around. hat does North Korea get? A few million Aussies killed, and their entire country obliterated. Now why would they do this? North Korea hates the US far, far more than they dislike Australia. The only possible reason for North Korea launching their nukes would be to take some Yanks down with them. Even that is incredibly far fetched.
<!--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-->Which leaves them only nuclear weapons as a real threat to you. The nukes that you do not want to defend yourself from. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
They're not a threat. What possible use would Australia be if someone nuked the major population centres? We're not worth the absolutly enormous political consequences that come with the use of nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons exist as deterrance weapons; they're not there to be used.
<!--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 just tells me you have not done enough research of the links I provided. We're talking a MASSIVE investment (many many trillions of dollars) and decades and decades of full-steam manufacturing. And when it's all done, you have a world where it is impossible to have a successful nuclear strike. You're saying that's bad? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I know what's involved. And I never said it would happen overnight. But Monse you surely understand that once you start down a path like this, the logical conclusion is a full-scale SDI system that can block incomming nuclear attacks.
And do I think that's bad? Damn straight I do! I'll tell you why. Remove nuclear deterrance, and we're back to the times before 1945. The one thing that has been holding back large scale nation conflict gone. You and I both know what nations do in such circumstances Monse; history shows us that. Nations go to war. Look what we managed to do between 1939 and 1945, with weapons that can't hold a candle to the stuff we have today. The last world war cost us 50 million people, how many would the next one cost? I never, ever want to know the answer to that question. I like a world where nuclear weapons prevent conflicts like WWI or WWII from happening. What is going to prevent that from happening when nuclear deterrance is gone, and nuclear weapons simply become another battlefield weapon?
Weary people attack others. A stab from the light is a stab back; A stab from the dark causes wearyness.
[edit - what i'm saying is that a nuke can still go off, even if it isn't shot up into the air. all that has to be done is brought in by truck and detonated. No amount of "Star Wars" will stop it, either. It takes people on the ground to press the button and to kill the people trying to press the button... get it? As well, if you dont know where the shot came from, where do you know to fire back? you might injure someone you dont want to injure if you fire blindly into the dark. and so what if it isn't a haiku? kiss my a..]
Just a lil snippet Science is the future, and it may defend against more than missiles. Plus we could recoup money by building and selling the system to other countries.... at a large cost and only to trusted nations. i.e. no shields for n. korea
<!--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-->You defended us in WWII <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> If you have just said, "you know what, you're right, I misspoke" I'd be fine with the rest of your statement. Instead you go on endlessly about why we defended you, after saying previously that we did not defend you. Which is it?
<!--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-->Those bases are all too far north<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> If they were too far north, we'd still have bases in and near Australia like we used to. You are just plain incorrect here, strategically. Having our bases in Japan and Korea puts us close to our biggest threats - Russia and China. Period. And we have plenty of bases in the Mideast, as well as a large staging are at Diego Garcia, which area what we use for the Persian Gulf Region. Of course we keep some small pieces in Australia - but if we lost them we have plenty of replacements in the region, as well as islands we still own. I'm not trying to denigrate you, but you are certainly making yourself out to be more important than reality.
<!--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 don't think you'd step in to defend us against a nuclear attack<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Your entire last few posts said that the threat of our nuclear defenses (via retaliation) were your defense. Which is it?
<!--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-->They're not a threat. What possible use would Australia be if someone nuked the major population centres? We're not worth the absolutly enormous political consequences that come with the use of nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons exist as deterrance weapons; they're not there to be used.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> And if all of the above changed and we started using your country as a major staging point again, like we have at least 3 times int he past 50 years? What then?
<!--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 never said it would happen overnight. But Monse you surely understand that once you start down a path like this, the logical conclusion is a full-scale SDI system that can block incomming nuclear attacks.
And do I think that's bad? Damn straight I do!<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> You are subconciously talking only about America. Even after you've made a dozen posts about America being incapable of dictatorship, you now somehow think we're capable of annihilating the entire earth on a whim. You're all over the place today and extremely contradictory, my friend. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
I'd like to point out that north korea does not have to expose itself to strike the US with nuclear weapons. Of course they won't hit us directly and openly, with something like an ICBM. But that doesn't mean they can't get a nuke over here if they wanted to. These people aren't stupid.
As I pointed out in my little essay on the subject on the north korean thread- in a time of political instability and uprising, it wouldn't be difficult to lose tracks of, say, nuclear weapons.
North Korea: "Give us aid. We have nukes."
America: "No, you can't threaten us. You won't nuke us, you'd get plastered"
North Korea: "You're right. I'm sorry. OMG someone stole a nuke!!!"
*ahem* whoops.
THAT'S what we're trying to avoid. Rogue/Martyr generals who don't care if we plaster their country in retaliation. I don't mean the leaders of the country itself (although it could apply to them too). There are people like that- luckily few martyrs are ever patient enough to attain a position of power before suicide- such as an officer in charge of the NBC weapons. We're also trying to avoid nukes getting out on the black market. Not so far fetched in an unstable country.
Next thing you know, a terrorist group claims responsibility for the nuke detonated in a US harbor.
Plausable deniability... Korea gets to see a nuked america while they can truthfully say they didn't do it. .
Or heck, korea could just do it themselves, sending it via ship.
Granted, a anti ballistic missile system wouldn't help at all in situations like that, but the ABM system in general would still be useful to have, as I pointed out.
Besides, things like ABL are in the final stages essentially. No point in stopping now after it's 90% paid off. Thats what they did to the X-38 CRV. The thing was in it's final stages, most of the R&D (the expensive stuff) is behind them.... and they cancel it. GG government, GG.
<!--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-->You are subconciously talking only about America. Even after you've made a dozen posts about America being incapable of dictatorship, you now somehow think we're capable of annihilating the entire earth on a whim. .<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm referring to every major power around the globe. Yes, the US does fall into that catagory, though I believe that there's a far greater chance for major conflict between Russia and China. Do you honestly believe that if the US builds a shield, other nations won't follow? The US may have a head start in the technology stakes, but others will catch up. Then what?
<!--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 you have just said, "you know what, you're right, I misspoke" I'd be fine with the rest of your statement. Instead you go on endlessly about why we defended you, after saying previously that we did not defend you. Which is it? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Monse, I'll try and explain where I'm coming from here. 1942. Japanese forces plough through South East Asia, taking Singapore and defeating most of the Commenwealth forces in the region. US fleets begin to gather near Australia, hoping for a decisive counter-attack. The Australian government, abandoned by the UK, allows the US to base forces in Australia. For both the US and Australia, it's a conveniant and nessessary union.
The important thing to note is that this isn't a formal alliance. It's two countries that happen to be on the same side in a war and who need one another's help. It's only after the fighting is over that the <a href='http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australia,_New_Zealand,_United_States_security_treaty' target='_blank'>ANZUS</a> treaty was drawn up and a formal alliance between the US and Australia / New Zealand is formed. That's what I'm referring to when I say it's never been put to the test. However I do understand that I may not have been absolutly clear about this. I apologise for any misunderstandings that may have resulted from my lack of sufficient explaination.
<!--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 they were too far north, we'd still have bases in and near Australia like we used to. You are just plain incorrect here, strategically. Having our bases in Japan and Korea puts us close to our biggest threats - Russia and China. Period. And we have plenty of bases in the Mideast, as well as a large staging are at Diego Garcia, which area what we use for the Persian Gulf Region. Of course we keep some small pieces in Australia - but if we lost them we have plenty of replacements in the region, as well as islands we still own. I'm not trying to denigrate you, but you are certainly making yourself out to be more important than reality. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I simply stated what the US has here. The question must be Monse: if there's nothing here, why bother with an alliance? Nations only have alliances when there is something to be gained by both parties.
<!--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-->Your entire last few posts said that the threat of our nuclear defenses (via retaliation) were your defense. Which is it?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The statement prior to the one you quoted was a response to your claim that the US would probably not send elemants of it's own nuclear interception capability to Australia in the event of regional tensions. I was agreeing with that. However, I was not disputing that Australia falls under the US nuclear umbrella and as such is subject to US deterrance forces. Again, I should have reworded this as "I don't think that the US would send ICBM interception forces in to defend us against nuclear attack". My apologies again to all involved parties for this error in communication.
<!--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 if all of the above changed and we started using your country as a major staging point again, like we have at least 3 times int he past 50 years? What then? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm not 100% sure what you mean by this Monse. Could I possibly recieve some clarification here? As a side note though, the fact that you say what Australia has been used as a major staging point 3 times over the past 50 years does seem to indicate that we are important, which would be contradicting what you said earlier.
<!--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-->You're all over the place today and extremely contradictory, my friend. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yeah tell me about it. Man I must have been half asleep or partially drunk when I wrote that post. Or both. I was re-reading that and saying to myself "Wow, this guy has no clue!". I was half hoping I could reply to it so I could rebutt his arguements <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--Ryo-Ohki+Jan 16 2004, 11:29 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Ryo-Ohki @ Jan 16 2004, 11:29 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Yeah tell me about it. Man I must have been half asleep or partially drunk when I wrote that post. Or both. I was re-reading that and saying to myself "Wow, this guy has no clue!". I was half hoping I could reply to it so I could rebutt his arguements <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.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-->The US may have a head start in the technology stakes, but others will catch up. Then what?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Theeeennnn... well, nuclear war becomes impossible between any of the nuclear powers. You will say 'oh well, then all those nuclear powers can dominate the non-nuke countries!'. But they can do that now.
For all the defense stuff, I'm still not sure where you're coming from, as you said:
<!--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--> just a hope that if we do get attacked, the US will help. This has never been put to the test I might add. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> To which I replied with a bunch of times we have come to your defense, then you agreed with me, al the while explaining to me how I was wrong! ARRGGG!!!! Stop the insanity!
<!--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 important thing to note is that this isn't a formal alliance<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> The US had a formal alliance with the UK in WW2, which was known as the United Nations (hence why the WW2 allies form the security council component). As you were a commonwealth of the United Kingdom, we did in fact have a formal alliance with you, by proxy.
And besides ANZUS, we're also members of SEATO, so of course we'll come to your aid. Name any time we have ever been allied with a country in our history and not come to their aid? The point I keep trying to make is, you can't use the argument of "well, having a superior armed forces will antagonize our neighbors" - I ask again, what invites more attack, strength or weakness? You ducked it last time.
<!--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'm not 100% sure what you mean by this Monse. Could I possibly recieve some clarification here? As a side note though, the fact that you say what Australia has been used as a major staging point 3 times over the past 50 years does seem to indicate that we are important, which would be contradicting what you said earlier. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Oh come now. You've not learned about WW2, Korea, and Vietnam and how Australia was used as a transshipment point, R&R center, naval base, etc? And of course you're important - my point was you're not indispensible.
<!--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-->Theeeennnn... well, nuclear war becomes impossible between any of the nuclear powers. You will say 'oh well, then all those nuclear powers can dominate the non-nuke countries!'. But they can do that now. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No, I believe that conventional war will occur between the nuclear powers without deterrance. Well, conventional war to the extent that it may include nukes as battlefield weapons.
<!--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 US had a formal alliance with the UK in WW2, which was known as the United Nations (hence why the WW2 allies form the security council component). As you were a commonwealth of the United Kingdom, we did in fact have a formal alliance with you, by proxy. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hmm, good point. Very well, I accept your arguement that the US-Australian treaty has been tested and found to hold. Good news for us really <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.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-->The point I keep trying to make is, you can't use the argument of "well, having a superior armed forces will antagonize our neighbors" - I ask again, what invites more attack, strength or weakness? You ducked it last time. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
One could argue that if a nation becomes too strong, others will seek to undermine it (such as Germany and France opposing the US, or the alliance against Napolonic France, the NATO alliance against the USSR). A weak nation may very well run the risk of being over-run of dominated by hostile forces, but Australia is in a rather unique position.
- We share no land borders with any other nation. This lowers the risk of invasion significantly, as a potential invader would have to stage an amphibious attack, one of the most difficult of military tactics.
- The nations near us that have the land based potential to invade us don't have the amphibious capacity to undertake such an invasion. In addition to this, the 3 main contenders (Indonesia, China and India) are all focused on other issues (Internal troubles, Taiwan and Pakistan respectively)
- We have a firm alliance with the United States that places us under the umbrella of nuclear deterrance and ensures that our regular military forces are backed up by the vastly larger and better equiped military forces of the US. This final point ensures that no invader would use nuclear weapons due to the inevitable response from the US, and any conventional invasion would most likely be doomed due to the US intervening.
When you look at all this, why does Australia need a missile shield? I do not think that our nation is too weak without one (on the contrary, Australia occupies a dominant role in South East Asia), and with one it's wasted money as we're strong enough without one. I ask you Monse, as I have to others in the past, why would any nation launch a nuclear attack on the US or any of it's allies knowing full well that the response from the US would result in the anhillation of their entire country?
<!--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-->Oh come now. You've not learned about WW2, Korea, and Vietnam and how Australia was used as a transshipment point, R&R center, naval base, etc? And of course you're important - my point was you're not indispensible. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It was more the "and if all the above changed" that I was confused about. And yes, Australia is no more indispensible than any other US base around the world; the question is does the US want to give any of them up? I don't thnk the US wishes to abandon Australia any time soon, and as such, Australia's defense policy will still be based around the alliance with the US. Which, as I've stated above, means we have no need for a shield.
Ah, well. I think the main disconnect is that as an American military man, I cannot imagine having to rely on other nations for assistance. As an Aussie military historian, you cannot imagine NOT having to rely on them. We'll never agree, so let's have some cookies. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
Hmm, maybe I could help find some common ground. The US revolutionaries did enlist the help of France during the revolutionary war, and without their aid it would have been much more difficult for the US to win their independance. Likewise the South during the Civil War tried to gain the help of Britian and France, though ultimatly the failure of Southern armies to strike a decisive victory over their northern counterparts doomed that.
Looking at Australia after WWII, the government tried quite hard to bolster Australia's population so that we could better defend ourselves. They ditched the "White Australia Policy" and allowed large scale immigration, which in turn produced the very multicultural nature of Australia today, plus a population of 20 million people up from 7 million in 1945.
In the end, most of it all comes down to geography. If Australia had the same massive river systems and fertile plains that make America able to produce so much food, our continent today would likely be home to five or six times as many people as live here today. If we didn't periodically suffer massive droughts, or the dreaded El Nino effects.
We're allied with larger nations not by choice, but by nessessity. Australians are, on the whole, quite independant people (it's very interesting for example seeing the reactions of the ANZAC troops and American troops meeting up for the first time in WWI. Men from both nations were amazed at how similar they were to each other), though at the same time we're locked into pseudo-colonial relationships with larger nations.
Comments
The ABL (airborne laser) is a good example of this- while other anti missile systems have had lukewarm to good results (depending on who you ask), the tactical high energy laser system has PROVEN to be able to take down even tiny weapons (katusha(sp?) artillery rockets). Yes, individual artillery shells- a target that's generally smaller, and in the air for a much shorter period of time.
The ABL, carrying a proven system, can go on station and give theatre wide ABM protection (including SRBM, ICBM and IRBMs, even artillery if it gets close enough) to not only troops, but civilians as well. This means if there ever IS a threat of a "rogue nation" deciding to launch against anyone, not just america but also the countries we've decided to defend, we can stop it. If not, we still have a useful tool because there is always the threat of artillery- it could replace or suppliment the patriot SAM.
It HAS happened before. 39 times in 1991, Saddam launched scuds into israel- they could have easily been laden with chemical weapons. It's not likely that these would carry WMD's because saddam would get plastered right? That being said, I'd rather destroy them and not take the chance mkay?
While saddam may not be stupid enough to use WMD's, he's not on the field with them. The officer in charge may have some beef with jews, and decide to use his absolute authority of the soldiers under him to give the order. Maybe this guy is hell bent to meet allah and doesnt' give a damn about the repercussions, as long as some israelis die. Don't say that hasn't happened either, because it DOES happen every time a suicide bomber blows himself up in a cafe. Does he care that the repercussions may mean the deaths of innocent palestinians and comrades? Nope. It's only a matter of time before one of these nuts decides to attain a high position of authority before becoming a martyr. Such as the commander in charge of the NBC weapons. Because they could do so much more damage....
I don't buy this "It'll never happen because it hasn't happened before" response, because it's only a matter of time, motives, and opportunity. And they have motives and opportunity.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If the US decided to help us out during a time of regional crisis, why would we say no? However, if the US can do that, why should we develop our own program that will annoy other South East Asian nations? If the US goes ahead with the program, Australia catches some flak, due to some of the systems being based here and because of our close alliance with the US, but not too much. If we build a shield ourselves, it places us in the same league as the US and regional powers are now much more annoyed at us as well. Why draw unnessessary attention to ourselves?
We can't afford it. We don't need it. It upsets our neighbours.
<!--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-->
You keep thinking that the threat of nuclear attack has no bearing. Explain the Cuban Missile Crisis to me then...
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
A time of increased tensions that was resolved diplomatically. No attack occured. No nukes were used. The situation was defused peacefully. Yes, it could have gone wrong. But it didn't. I see no reason why things all of a sudden have changed lately.
And thusly, you don't deserve it. Talk about a great racket you're running over there - all the protection of America and none of the sacrifice. A continent on the dole, as it were. I'm a bit shocked - is this a common Australian attitude? Sure defies the cliches of rugged individualism...
<!--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-->A time of increased tensions that was resolved diplomatically. No attack occured. No nukes were used. The situation was defused peacefully. Yes, it could have gone wrong. But it didn't. I see no reason why things all of a sudden have changed lately. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You, uhhh, missed the point there. The <i>threat</i> of nuclear weapons - without it, there was no crisis. With a defense system, there is no way to be threatened, and a crisis is not managed but instead averted from ever happening at all. The Cuban Missile Crisis could easily have gone the other way - with a missile defense system, it never would have even gotten going.
Which is more provocative: strength, or weakness?
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What do you want us to do? Seriously. We don't have a choice. We have to ally ourselves with larger nations or we will get crushed. The Australian people have no illusions about our strength; we're sitting below Indonesia, India and China, three nations which could mobilise armies that outnumber our total population. We have thousands of kilometres of borders to defend. There is no way that a nation of 20 million people can do that by itself.
Though by the same token, we don't really feel threatened. China and Indonesia both lack the amphibious capacity to invade us, and India is preoccupied with Pakistan. We don't really ask for much from the US alliance; just a hope that if we do get attacked, the US will help. This has never been put to the test I might add.
America does get something out of this. They must. If the US wasn't getting anything at all, then there wouldn't be an alliance. The US gets military bases in the South Pacific, shared intelligance with Australian agencies such as ASIO, facilities such as Woomera that help with the space program or Lone Pine which is part of the early warning system designed to detect nuclear launches. Australia supplies a quite considerable amount of uranium to the world, and I'm sure the US would rather such materials remain in the hands of a friendly nation. Plus there is the fact that the US probably does not want to see a continent as large as Australia in the hands of India, Indonesia or China. It would represent a power shift in the region that the US does not want.
And what cost does the US pay? In the event of a conflict, the US might help us out. They don't give us huge subsidies. They don't give us free trade (heck, they have a virtual embargo of Australian lamb). They don't pay for our military. They don't have a few divisions stationed here or even a few ships. All they give is a vague promise of support. Sometimes I look at the whole thing and wonder if Australia is the one getting ripped off.
<!--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-->You, uhhh, missed the point there. The threat of nuclear weapons - without it, there was no crisis. With a defense system, there is no way to be threatened, and a crisis is not managed but instead averted from ever happening at all. The Cuban Missile Crisis could easily have gone the other way - with a missile defense system, it never would have even gotten going.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yeah. Instead, the USSR would have invaded Western Europe and we would have had a conventional conflict that would make WWII look like a child's picnic. If the Cuban Missile Crisis was the price we paid for nuclear deterrance, then I reckon we got ourselves one hell of a bargin.
That's what I'm worried about Monse. This system, the whole Star Wars thing, is taking us down a path that I'm not sure we want to tread down. Because we've been down that path before. A path where there is no longer deterrance, and nations once again are free to go to war whenever they want. Sure this program is just starting out as defense against a few missiles. But it will go further than that. And sooner or later, the US, or China, or Russia is going to have a defense system that can protect against a full scale nuclear attack. And then what? We're back to WWI and WWII, because what history has shown us is that nations will go to war if there are no checks in place. No nuclear deterrant, and a UN that is powerless, means that there are no checks. Which means war.
EDIT: I really don't want this last part of my post here to be in violation of the forum rules. I am attempted to extrapolate on the ideas that have been discussed, arguing that whilst the program being suggested is a limited defense, it has the potential to grow and eventually supercede deterrance stratagy. If this is in violation of the aforementioned forum rules, please inform me and I will remove this section of my post. My apologies for any confusion or rule breaking.
Ehhh, we most certainly did defend you from the Japanese in WW2. Hence the beginning of our relationship - when the UK left you swinging in the wind, we picked up the slack. In fact, the Battle of the Coral Sea was fought in defense of Australia by the US and Aussie navies. Darwin was bombed by hundreds of Japanese aircraft who's bases were later eliminated by the US counter-attacks. And so on. We have actually been the only ones ever to really defend you, from what I recall.
<!--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-->America does get something out of this. They must.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Not really. Our bases in Okinawa, Korea, and Japan are much more useful to us geographically and militarily - your continent is waaaaayyyyy out of the way. A great fallback position, and certainly a reliable one, but not a particularly necessary one in the grand scheme.
<!--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-->Australia supplies a quite considerable amount of uranium to the world, and I'm sure the US would rather such materials remain in the hands of a friendly nation. Plus there is the fact that the US probably does not want to see a continent as large as Australia in the hands of India, Indonesia or China. It would represent a power shift in the region that the US does not want.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Surely. But it didn't stop north Korea from making weapons, nor any other smallish nuclear weapon powers. And we mine our own as best I can tell. As you say, there's pretty much no way for any of those countries to physically invade you right now, unless they embarked on quite a lot of naval construction over the next few years. Which leaves them only nuclear weapons as a real threat to you. The nukes that you do not want to defend yourself from.
You miss a side issue here, in your repeated statement that the US will simply step in and defend you. If North Korea begins seriously threatening the US and her allies with nuclear attack, and we only have a few Aegis cruisers and flying lasers built that can be sent to defend the US west coast (which is a large portion of our population, manufacturing, R&D, etc.), do you think that we'll jeopardize San Francisco to save Melbourne, if we have to choose? I might, but a politician certainly will not. Do you think that as an ICBM comes down on Perth that anyone will care if they saved some money which ultimately did not eliminate your poverty, educational gaps, or anything else you listed?
<!--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-->Sure this program is just starting out as defense against a few missiles. But it will go further than that. And sooner or later, the US, or China, or Russia is going to have a defense system that can protect against a full scale nuclear attack. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This just tells me you have not done enough research of the links I provided. We're talking a MASSIVE investment (many many trillions of dollars) and decades and decades of full-steam manufacturing. And when it's all done, you have a world where it is impossible to have a successful nuclear strike. You're saying that's bad?
A nuclear defense shield of any significance will always require two things: Up to date know-how - consider that the technology we're looking at today will sooner than later be made obsolete by some sort of enhancements to ICBM technology - and money, <i>lots</i> of money. Seeing these two requisites, I doubt sincerely that we'll arrive at a point where <i>every</i> nation could afford a missle shield within any sensible timeframe. This in turn means that the system will lie in the hands of one or a number of parties economically strong enough to maintain such projects. And <i>this</i>, in turn, means an ultimate power position for these parties towards anyone far enough away to make the immediate effects of radiation and fallout neglectable.
Also, seeing the technological and economical head-start of the US, you'll agree that they will be the only such party for quite some time - and this, in the end, is the only point I tried to make. I'll leave further conclusions to others at this point because I intended to relax and take a day off Disc. today, darnit! <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
So when the M.A.D. is gone , the future of entire countries would depend on the nuclear power's kindness and desire to please the UN. Considering the behavior of GW Bush towards the UN , I'm pretty worried. If he can decide to kill individuals as a governer , then attack other countries for mostly arbitrary reasons as a president , will he refrain from using "tactical" nuclear missiles on North Korea or even China ? It may seem all right to use the "EMP effect" of the new "tactical" nukes but if it means radioactive rain on the biggest chinese cities...
The shield seems to be responding to a threat from a communist Russia-like aggressor - highly industrialized, and strong in convential military. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't see any country (with the possible exception of China) that poses that type of threat.
Also, IIRC, the tests done on missile interception were under idealized conditions on well defined targets. More research should be done on the feasability of missile shields before any serious consideration of budget spending should be made.
Attacking Afghanistan was far from an arbitrary reason.
There are issues with WMD being used as a major reason to attack Iraq... But in the end what has occurred leaves the world in a better place. Also, people should pay closer attention to his State of the Union address ( you know, the one that is extremely controversial for mentioning some British intelligence that the British still stand behind ).
Why bring China into this? Relations with China are better than they have been in quite a while. China could still be considered an "enemy", but times when that was a black and white are in the past. China will not be attacked by the US at any time in the near future.
NK is, and always has been, a rogue state since the cease fire. Is there a chance that we would use tactical nukes on NK? Yeah... But very remote. All that has been said about such things really, is that we will not rule out the use of such weapons. This doesnt mean we will use them, it just means that they are always a possibility. It was said to put more backing behind our words. NK has threatened to use its few nukes numerous times... So now we've said that ours are also able to be used. It was just a statement that prevents our hands from being tied behind our backs. It gives us, or helps to maintain, an advantage. In all likelihood, they would never be used. It was just bluster.
In the end, no one has an idea of how much SDI will cost. We all know it will cost a lot, but that is no different than any previous big military projects. Once again, the US military cannot just sit back and wait for other countries to develop their militaries. The US military must be at the forefront of new technology. Trying to limit that ability assumes that the US has no enemies or that our enemies will never catch up to us in military might... Both naive and short-sighted thoughts.
Timeline for gaining nuclear weapons or making a serious effort to do so:
US in 1945
USSR in 1949
UK, France , and China in the 1950's.
Israel and India in the 60's
South Africa, Pakistan, North Korea, Algeria, Libya, Argentina, Iran, and Brazil. Plus many others with programs that were officialy dismantled but still capable of restarting due to them having nuclear reactors.
See the trend - more and more, faster and faster? And yes, Iraq had one in the 80's until the Israelis bombed it out of existence (thank you, France). The point is that Moore's Law is a easily applied to most kinds of technology as well - things get faster and cheaper as time goes by. Saying that 'no one will have a valid ABM system for quite some time' is the same as American's saying 'those commie Soviet peasants won't have the bomb for decades'.
And an interesting sidenote, that I just came across as I was gathering sources and was unaware of:
<!--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-->There are indications that Japan had a more sizable program than is commonly understood, and that there was close cooperation among the Axis powers, including a secretive exchange of war materiel. The German submarine U-234, which surrendered to US forces in May 1945, was found to be carrying 560 kilograms of Uranium oxide destined for Japan's own atomic program. The oxide contained about 3.5 kilograms of the isotope U-235, which would have been about a fifth of the total U-235 needed to make one bomb. After Japan surrendered on 15 August 1945, the occupying US Army found five Japanese cyclotrons, which could be used to separate fissionable material from ordinary uranium. The Americans smashed the cyclotrons and dumped them into Tokyo Harbor. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sources: <a href='http://www.fas.org/nuke/index.html' target='_blank'>http://www.fas.org/nuke/index.html</a>
Just a little side note to go along with Monse's Japanese bit...
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You defended us in WWII because you needed a place to fall back to. Most of South East Asia was over-run, and yes, whilst the Battle of Coral Sea did save Australia from invasion, the US was already at war with Japan anyway and it happened to be a good place to strike at the Japanese fleet. Australia provided a good place to land troops and also to resupply and refuel ships. You needed us and we needed you. Happily, the alliance which was born in such circumstances remained strong after the war.
<!--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-->Not really. Our bases in Okinawa, Korea, and Japan are much more useful to us geographically and militarily - your continent is waaaaayyyyy out of the way. A great fallback position, and certainly a reliable one, but not a particularly necessary one in the grand scheme.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Those bases are all too far north. Sure, the Indian ocean and South Pacific arn't high on the list of the world's hotspots, but having bases in Australia does provide intelligance services that would be difficult to base elsewhere in the region. We're right next to Indonesia, the world's largest muslim nation and home to some terrorist groups with links to Al Qaeda. You can monitor the Indian Ocean from Australia as well, especially with the co-operation of our military. Keeping tabs on various Pacific Island states is also much easier with our help. Part of the US early-warning systems for nuclear attacks are based in Australia. In addition to those military benefits though, your shuttle aircraft just happen to have a re-entry pattern that takes them directly over Australia. Without our base at Woomera, you'd be blind for a vital part of your space program.
Cutting Australia out of the picture would cause the US to lose intelligance for a large section of the South East Asian region. Now I know it's not the most important region in the world. But does that mean the US doesn't want to keep tabs on what goes on around here?
<!--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-->You miss a side issue here, in your repeated statement that the US will simply step in and defend you. If North Korea begins seriously threatening the US and her allies with nuclear attack, and we only have a few Aegis cruisers and flying lasers built that can be sent to defend the US west coast (which is a large portion of our population, manufacturing, R&D, etc.), do you think that we'll jeopardize San Francisco to save Melbourne, if we have to choose? I might, but a politician certainly will not. Do you think that as an ICBM comes down on Perth that anyone will care if they saved some money which ultimately did not eliminate your poverty, educational gaps, or anything else you listed?
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't think you'd step in to defend us against a nuclear attack. But we don't think we'll suffer a nuclear attack. Put yourself in the shoes of the North Korean leaders: they know that they can get off a few missiles before their entire country is destroyed. If Australia does get hit by a nuclear attack, the US would retaliate, regardless of if we were an ally or not, as the US obviously would not tolerate North Korea throwing nukes around. hat does North Korea get? A few million Aussies killed, and their entire country obliterated. Now why would they do this? North Korea hates the US far, far more than they dislike Australia. The only possible reason for North Korea launching their nukes would be to take some Yanks down with them. Even that is incredibly far fetched.
<!--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-->Which leaves them only nuclear weapons as a real threat to you. The nukes that you do not want to defend yourself from.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
They're not a threat. What possible use would Australia be if someone nuked the major population centres? We're not worth the absolutly enormous political consequences that come with the use of nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons exist as deterrance weapons; they're not there to be used.
<!--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 just tells me you have not done enough research of the links I provided. We're talking a MASSIVE investment (many many trillions of dollars) and decades and decades of full-steam manufacturing. And when it's all done, you have a world where it is impossible to have a successful nuclear strike. You're saying that's bad? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I know what's involved. And I never said it would happen overnight. But Monse you surely understand that once you start down a path like this, the logical conclusion is a full-scale SDI system that can block incomming nuclear attacks.
And do I think that's bad? Damn straight I do! I'll tell you why. Remove nuclear deterrance, and we're back to the times before 1945. The one thing that has been holding back large scale nation conflict gone. You and I both know what nations do in such circumstances Monse; history shows us that. Nations go to war. Look what we managed to do between 1939 and 1945, with weapons that can't hold a candle to the stuff we have today. The last world war cost us 50 million people, how many would the next one cost? I never, ever want to know the answer to that question. I like a world where nuclear weapons prevent conflicts like WWI or WWII from happening. What is going to prevent that from happening when nuclear deterrance is gone, and nuclear weapons simply become another battlefield weapon?
A stab from the light is a stab back;
A stab from the dark causes wearyness.
[edit - what i'm saying is that a nuke can still go off, even if it isn't shot up into the air. all that has to be done is brought in by truck and detonated. No amount of "Star Wars" will stop it, either. It takes people on the ground to press the button and to kill the people trying to press the button... get it? As well, if you dont know where the shot came from, where do you know to fire back? you might injure someone you dont want to injure if you fire blindly into the dark. and so what if it isn't a haiku? kiss my a..]
Science is the future, and it may defend against more than missiles. Plus we could recoup money by building and selling the system to other countries.... at a large cost and only to trusted nations. i.e. no shields for n. korea
If you have just said, "you know what, you're right, I misspoke" I'd be fine with the rest of your statement. Instead you go on endlessly about why we defended you, after saying previously that we did not defend you. Which is it?
<!--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-->Those bases are all too far north<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If they were too far north, we'd still have bases in and near Australia like we used to. You are just plain incorrect here, strategically. Having our bases in Japan and Korea puts us close to our biggest threats - Russia and China. Period. And we have plenty of bases in the Mideast, as well as a large staging are at Diego Garcia, which area what we use for the Persian Gulf Region. Of course we keep some small pieces in Australia - but if we lost them we have plenty of replacements in the region, as well as islands we still own. I'm not trying to denigrate you, but you are certainly making yourself out to be more important than reality.
<!--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 don't think you'd step in to defend us against a nuclear attack<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Your entire last few posts said that the threat of our nuclear defenses (via retaliation) were your defense. Which is it?
<!--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-->They're not a threat. What possible use would Australia be if someone nuked the major population centres? We're not worth the absolutly enormous political consequences that come with the use of nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons exist as deterrance weapons; they're not there to be used.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And if all of the above changed and we started using your country as a major staging point again, like we have at least 3 times int he past 50 years? What then?
<!--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 never said it would happen overnight. But Monse you surely understand that once you start down a path like this, the logical conclusion is a full-scale SDI system that can block incomming nuclear attacks.
And do I think that's bad? Damn straight I do!<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You are subconciously talking only about America. Even after you've made a dozen posts about America being incapable of dictatorship, you now somehow think we're capable of annihilating the entire earth on a whim. You're all over the place today and extremely contradictory, my friend. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
As I pointed out in my little essay on the subject on the north korean thread- in a time of political instability and uprising, it wouldn't be difficult to lose tracks of, say, nuclear weapons.
North Korea: "Give us aid. We have nukes."
America: "No, you can't threaten us. You won't nuke us, you'd get plastered"
North Korea: "You're right. I'm sorry. OMG someone stole a nuke!!!"
*ahem* whoops.
THAT'S what we're trying to avoid. Rogue/Martyr generals who don't care if we plaster their country in retaliation. I don't mean the leaders of the country itself (although it could apply to them too).
There are people like that- luckily few martyrs are ever patient enough to attain a position of power before suicide- such as an officer in charge of the NBC weapons. We're also trying to avoid nukes getting out on the black market. Not so far fetched in an unstable country.
Next thing you know, a terrorist group claims responsibility for the nuke detonated in a US harbor.
Plausable deniability... Korea gets to see a nuked america while they can truthfully say they didn't do it. .
Or heck, korea could just do it themselves, sending it via ship.
Granted, a anti ballistic missile system wouldn't help at all in situations like that, but the ABM system in general would still be useful to have, as I pointed out.
Besides, things like ABL are in the final stages essentially. No point in stopping now after it's 90% paid off. Thats what they did to the X-38 CRV. The thing was in it's final stages, most of the R&D (the expensive stuff) is behind them.... and they cancel it. GG government, GG.
I'm referring to every major power around the globe. Yes, the US does fall into that catagory, though I believe that there's a far greater chance for major conflict between Russia and China. Do you honestly believe that if the US builds a shield, other nations won't follow? The US may have a head start in the technology stakes, but others will catch up. Then what?
<!--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 you have just said, "you know what, you're right, I misspoke" I'd be fine with the rest of your statement. Instead you go on endlessly about why we defended you, after saying previously that we did not defend you. Which is it?
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Monse, I'll try and explain where I'm coming from here. 1942. Japanese forces plough through South East Asia, taking Singapore and defeating most of the Commenwealth forces in the region. US fleets begin to gather near Australia, hoping for a decisive counter-attack. The Australian government, abandoned by the UK, allows the US to base forces in Australia. For both the US and Australia, it's a conveniant and nessessary union.
The important thing to note is that this isn't a formal alliance. It's two countries that happen to be on the same side in a war and who need one another's help. It's only after the fighting is over that the <a href='http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australia,_New_Zealand,_United_States_security_treaty' target='_blank'>ANZUS</a> treaty was drawn up and a formal alliance between the US and Australia / New Zealand is formed. That's what I'm referring to when I say it's never been put to the test. However I do understand that I may not have been absolutly clear about this. I apologise for any misunderstandings that may have resulted from my lack of sufficient explaination.
<!--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 they were too far north, we'd still have bases in and near Australia like we used to. You are just plain incorrect here, strategically. Having our bases in Japan and Korea puts us close to our biggest threats - Russia and China. Period. And we have plenty of bases in the Mideast, as well as a large staging are at Diego Garcia, which area what we use for the Persian Gulf Region. Of course we keep some small pieces in Australia - but if we lost them we have plenty of replacements in the region, as well as islands we still own. I'm not trying to denigrate you, but you are certainly making yourself out to be more important than reality.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I simply stated what the US has here. The question must be Monse: if there's nothing here, why bother with an alliance? Nations only have alliances when there is something to be gained by both parties.
<!--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-->Your entire last few posts said that the threat of our nuclear defenses (via retaliation) were your defense. Which is it?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The statement prior to the one you quoted was a response to your claim that the US would probably not send elemants of it's own nuclear interception capability to Australia in the event of regional tensions. I was agreeing with that. However, I was not disputing that Australia falls under the US nuclear umbrella and as such is subject to US deterrance forces. Again, I should have reworded this as "I don't think that the US would send ICBM interception forces in to defend us against nuclear attack". My apologies again to all involved parties for this error in communication.
<!--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 if all of the above changed and we started using your country as a major staging point again, like we have at least 3 times int he past 50 years? What then?
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm not 100% sure what you mean by this Monse. Could I possibly recieve some clarification here? As a side note though, the fact that you say what Australia has been used as a major staging point 3 times over the past 50 years does seem to indicate that we are important, which would be contradicting what you said earlier.
<!--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-->You're all over the place today and extremely contradictory, my friend. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yeah tell me about it. Man I must have been half asleep or partially drunk when I wrote that post. Or both. I was re-reading that and saying to myself "Wow, this guy has no clue!". I was half hoping I could reply to it so I could rebutt his arguements <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.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-->The US may have a head start in the technology stakes, but others will catch up. Then what?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Theeeennnn... well, nuclear war becomes impossible between any of the nuclear powers. You will say 'oh well, then all those nuclear powers can dominate the non-nuke countries!'. But they can do that now.
For all the defense stuff, I'm still not sure where you're coming from, as you said:
<!--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--> just a hope that if we do get attacked, the US will help. This has never been put to the test I might add. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
To which I replied with a bunch of times we have come to your defense, then you agreed with me, al the while explaining to me how I was wrong! ARRGGG!!!! Stop the insanity!
<!--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 important thing to note is that this isn't a formal alliance<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The US had a formal alliance with the UK in WW2, which was known as the United Nations (hence why the WW2 allies form the security council component). As you were a commonwealth of the United Kingdom, we did in fact have a formal alliance with you, by proxy.
And besides ANZUS, we're also members of SEATO, so of course we'll come to your aid. Name any time we have ever been allied with a country in our history and not come to their aid? The point I keep trying to make is, you can't use the argument of "well, having a superior armed forces will antagonize our neighbors" - I ask again, what invites more attack, strength or weakness? You ducked it last time.
<!--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'm not 100% sure what you mean by this Monse. Could I possibly recieve some clarification here? As a side note though, the fact that you say what Australia has been used as a major staging point 3 times over the past 50 years does seem to indicate that we are important, which would be contradicting what you said earlier. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Oh come now. You've not learned about WW2, Korea, and Vietnam and how Australia was used as a transshipment point, R&R center, naval base, etc? And of course you're important - my point was you're not indispensible.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No, I believe that conventional war will occur between the nuclear powers without deterrance. Well, conventional war to the extent that it may include nukes as battlefield weapons.
<!--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 US had a formal alliance with the UK in WW2, which was known as the United Nations (hence why the WW2 allies form the security council component). As you were a commonwealth of the United Kingdom, we did in fact have a formal alliance with you, by proxy.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hmm, good point. Very well, I accept your arguement that the US-Australian treaty has been tested and found to hold. Good news for us really <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.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-->The point I keep trying to make is, you can't use the argument of "well, having a superior armed forces will antagonize our neighbors" - I ask again, what invites more attack, strength or weakness? You ducked it last time.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
One could argue that if a nation becomes too strong, others will seek to undermine it (such as Germany and France opposing the US, or the alliance against Napolonic France, the NATO alliance against the USSR). A weak nation may very well run the risk of being over-run of dominated by hostile forces, but Australia is in a rather unique position.
- We share no land borders with any other nation. This lowers the risk of invasion significantly, as a potential invader would have to stage an amphibious attack, one of the most difficult of military tactics.
- The nations near us that have the land based potential to invade us don't have the amphibious capacity to undertake such an invasion. In addition to this, the 3 main contenders (Indonesia, China and India) are all focused on other issues (Internal troubles, Taiwan and Pakistan respectively)
- We have a firm alliance with the United States that places us under the umbrella of nuclear deterrance and ensures that our regular military forces are backed up by the vastly larger and better equiped military forces of the US. This final point ensures that no invader would use nuclear weapons due to the inevitable response from the US, and any conventional invasion would most likely be doomed due to the US intervening.
When you look at all this, why does Australia need a missile shield? I do not think that our nation is too weak without one (on the contrary, Australia occupies a dominant role in South East Asia), and with one it's wasted money as we're strong enough without one. I ask you Monse, as I have to others in the past, why would any nation launch a nuclear attack on the US or any of it's allies knowing full well that the response from the US would result in the anhillation of their entire country?
<!--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-->Oh come now. You've not learned about WW2, Korea, and Vietnam and how Australia was used as a transshipment point, R&R center, naval base, etc? And of course you're important - my point was you're not indispensible.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It was more the "and if all the above changed" that I was confused about. And yes, Australia is no more indispensible than any other US base around the world; the question is does the US want to give any of them up? I don't thnk the US wishes to abandon Australia any time soon, and as such, Australia's defense policy will still be based around the alliance with the US. Which, as I've stated above, means we have no need for a shield.
Looking at Australia after WWII, the government tried quite hard to bolster Australia's population so that we could better defend ourselves. They ditched the "White Australia Policy" and allowed large scale immigration, which in turn produced the very multicultural nature of Australia today, plus a population of 20 million people up from 7 million in 1945.
In the end, most of it all comes down to geography. If Australia had the same massive river systems and fertile plains that make America able to produce so much food, our continent today would likely be home to five or six times as many people as live here today. If we didn't periodically suffer massive droughts, or the dreaded El Nino effects.
We're allied with larger nations not by choice, but by nessessity. Australians are, on the whole, quite independant people (it's very interesting for example seeing the reactions of the ANZAC troops and American troops meeting up for the first time in WWI. Men from both nations were amazed at how similar they were to each other), though at the same time we're locked into pseudo-colonial relationships with larger nations.