Oceania a new UN SC region?

[StingrayOZ]

So europe and US have the bigger economy. Fine, give them bigger chairs on the world bank..

How many wars are there in africa at the moment? How effective is the UN there? Not very. Whats the UN for? Is a organisation of the richest and most powerful nations to belittle smaller nations and sit them in smaller chairs as they dictate how the world is run?

How about oceania? Australia is almost synomous as the UN in the region. And if the UN for some reason is too slow, or doesn't have the will, Australia will act on its own. I can forsee a case with Pupa where this could happen and we could end up with Indonesia fighting with Australia. Even as a peace keeping issue, this would build tension and result in further conflicts.

With so little connection to the UN in Oceania, Africa, South America, these regions are going to start breaking away from the world community thats ignoring them and sort things out for themselves.

 

[Grand Danois]

So europe and US have the bigger economy. Fine, give them bigger chairs on the world bank..

I answered a different comment. The decline of Europe and the US. Figures was pulled up to illustrate that this is not the case. The 'shift' comes from growth in new economies.

It also doesn't work that way. Economic power both as absolute GDP, but most importantly GDP/capita translates directly into industrial, political, cultural and military power. Ability.

How many wars are there in africa at the moment? How effective is the UN there? Not very. Whats the UN for?

There a way to many. UN is not responsible for those wars. And currently no one want to intervene in those. Ultimate culpability lies with the trigger pullers and their leaders.

You're making the UN into something it is not.

Is a organisation of the richest and most powerful nations to belittle smaller nations and sit them in smaller chairs as they dictate how the world is run?

So Luxembourg is the equal of the US in international affairs? If that was the case, no nation but those of little import would join. Ability.

How about oceania? Australia is almost synomous as the UN in the region. And if the UN for some reason is too slow, or doesn't have the will, Australia will act on its own. I can forsee a case with Pupa where this could happen and we could end up with Indonesia fighting with Australia. Even as a peace keeping issue, this would build tension and result in further conflicts.

So, Australia doesn't need a SC seat to do that. Covered earlier in the thread.

With so little connection to the UN in Oceania, Africa, South America, these regions are going to start breaking away from the world community thats ignoring them and sort things out for themselves.

That is on your tab.

 

[Waylander]

Oceania breaking away? And what happens than? Fiji is starting a crusade in Melanesia like never seen before and Samoa conquers the rest of Polynesia?

As to Africa. When I look at how the african union works I don't see how Africa would be able to vote for one representative out of the whole of Africa. What do you think would exactly change with 1 or 2 countries from africa having a seat?

The same goes for other regions. Do you think Japan is a good representative of Asia? Just ask the other Asian nations if they think Japan works in their favor...

And your comments about Europeans sitting back and counting their money are "interesting".
As if Australia and NZ are not as much part of this industrialized world like every other 1st world european country. It wonder why you think that you would not be included? :unknown

I agree that Brazil would be a good candidate for a seat as well as India. But of what other countries are you talking? The biggest possible future superpower already has a seat. Which other countries are on their way to let the declining european countries and the US behind?

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

I answered a different comment. The decline of Europe and the US. Figures was pulled up to illustrate that this is not the case. The 'shift' comes from growth in new economies.

It also doesn't work that way. Economic power both as absolute GDP, but most importantly GDP/capita translates directly into industrial, political, cultural and military power. Ability.

Agreed. Theres is no decline of eurpoe or the US, their both chuging along quite nicely. I'm not to sure why people even think this.

Economics is the signle greatest factor in a nations military and polictical strength, and has been since the industrial revoloution. Its the reson the USN, USAF & US Army are the fighting forces they are. Because the US can sustain them ecomonicaly. Its the same for the power of the British in the 19th century.

There a way to many. UN is not responsible for those wars. And currently no one want to intervene in those. Ultimate culpability lies with the trigger pullers and their leaders.

You're making the UN into something it is not.

Its something it was inteded to and bloody well should be! The UN was meant to be a place were ALL countries could work out their differences. The SC was intended to intervien in smaller wars to enforce peace and stop wholesale killing. But it doesent do that. It does deal with the concernes of its perminant members, and ONLY those concerns. Sure the SC will deal with Iran or NK because interests of the EU or the US are endangered. It sent a half hearted peacekeeping force to bosnia because the ethnic clensing was right on Europes doorstep. But does it take action to stop the wholesale murder of 600 000 innosant people in Ruwanda, when even a small deployment could have saved hundred of thousands of civilian lives? Did the civil war in (formaly) Zaiere even come up for discussion at the SC? well 3 million people died and no one noticed. Are there blue helmets partolling the border of the Sudan? No the African Union has taken matters into its own hands and sent in an coaltion of peacekeepers, because the SC is too busy looking after its own interests. The UN is becoming less relevant in Africa, Oceania and South America, because the SC is less interested in these area's. Thats what happens when you put the most "powerfull" nations in charge, they only look after their own agenda's.

So Luxembourg is the equal of the US in international affairs? If that was the case, no nation but those of little import would join. Ability.

Its not about who is strongest, or it shouldn't be anyway. The strong will only look after their own interests, which IMO is one of the major reasons why the SC has been so impotent in dealing with militiary crisis that happen outside Asia, Europe or the Mid east. how manny African conflicts would have been dealt with if there was a perminant african member? But since economicaly or militarily they are not as strong as france or brittan the problems of their region are somehow less important? The UN was designed to stop wars, and that meant stoping people being killed in conflicts. Millions have died in African wars because the G8 dominated SC has no interest in it, but they act desisively when Iraq invades oil rich Kuait. This domination of the SC by stronger nations indirectly states that african lives are worth less than european or arab lives. IMO this can directly attributed to the unequal membership of the security council that is dominated by the "strong" nations of this earth. The SC should be domiated by region, one for each. Then maybe it would deal with truely global concerns, not just those of the EU, US, Russia and China.

 

[vivekheron]

India deserves the seat.as it is has biggest Population ,biggest Democracy and it is building the biggest Economy .no reason to not including the india for UN SC seat.veto should be given to all or it should be dismanteled( there should be equality in the members).

 

[Simon9]

This thread is ridiculous IMHO. Oceania barely deserves a reserved place in the FIFA World Cup, let alone the PERMANENT Security Council! It is completely insignificant in terms of population, GDP and military power. Australia, with a population of 20 million, is the regional superpower.

As for the argument that Indonesia is capable of invading Australia, Carlo Kopp would be proud of his disciple, but that argument is just preposterous. Lanchester's Law of Modern Combat is being misapplied here. It applies in direct action - combat - but not in strategy, or even when maneouvre is considered. In fact the whole idea of maneouvre is to attain LOCAL superiority in numbers, which is where Lanchester's Law applies - locally, not globally. If Australia can bring more firepower to bear in the actual combat zone, (which it would) Lanchester's Law works in Australia's favour, not Indonesia's.

Indonesia would have a decent chance if they could assemble their entire military on Australian shores and keep it supplied, or if there was a theoretical way for both countries to agree to meet at a certain location and have at it until the victor was decided, but there is no way Indonesia has the strategic projection power required to invade an area so empty and void of infrastructure as northern Australia.

Having "ten times the numbers" of the ADF means nothing. For a start, traditional military theory states you need a three-to-one advantage as the bare minimum required to attack a defended position - and that's assuming qualitative parity, which Indonesia does not have. They are particularly deficient in night capabilities and combined arms. The entire ADF (including the Reserves) would be committed to repelling the invasion. Would every single Indonesian soldier be committed to the invasion? Of course not. They have enough internal problems as it is, plus they're distrustful of their own neighbours.

Further to that, the Indonesian air force and navy would almost certainly be unable to establish supremacy in the sea-air gap required to launch an invasion. Then they'd have to keep it supplied. If they managed to keep 10% of their military on Australian soil it would be a major achievement, in which case they would be on numerically equal terms with the ADF and no match for it.

In short, the possibility of Indonesia assembling and then sustaining enough combat power on Australian soil to challenge the ADF is remote. Even if they somehow managed that, and managed to keep it supplied, they would still have enormous trouble achieving the local superiority required to defeat the increasingly mobile ADF in combat on its home turf.

I'd go as far as to argue that there is only one country which has the strategic projection power to do that, and that's of course the US.

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

This thread is ridiculous IMHO. Oceania barely deserves a reserved place in the FIFA World Cup, let alone the PERMANENT Security Council! It is completely insignificant in terms of population, GDP and military power. Australia, with a population of 20 million, is the regional superpower.

This kind of thinking is EXACTLY whats wrong with the UN SC and why it is compleatly incapable of fulfilling its intended role. Its a G8 dominated organisation that only looks after its own interests. Look at its actions in the Middle aeast or the Balkans compared to Africa. Were was the SC in the Sudan, Zaiere or Ruanda. Oh they act decisively wenever an oil rich emerate is invaded or the war and ethic cleansing is on europes doorstep. 5 million people die in african wars and the SC does nothing, but they act decisively when saddam invades little kuate, with little bloodshed. Calling it a global security council is the hight of hipocracy! How do you think the SC would have reacted to african wars if there was a permanant african member? Simply judging the merits of an SC seat on economic and military power will only ensure one thing, the SC looks after G8's interests. If Oceana isn't worth considering then what about permanant African & South American members???? Then maybe the SC will actually act on a global scale and fulfill the roll it rightfully should.

As for the argument that Indonesia is capable of invading Australia, Carlo Kopp would be proud of his disciple,

I know olld koppie seems to be the but of everyones jokes and ridicule these days, but i'm not shure what your exacly refering to by this statement? That kopp thinks Indoneseia can invade mainlande Australia and defeat the ADF???

Heres a quote from one of his papers:

The very improbable scenario of a an invasion fleet 300 NMI off the coast could be dealt with decisively by the ADF - it is arguable how well even the USN could cope with a massive deluge of ASMs with concurrent harassment by submarines. A single carrier CVBG could find itself in much difficulty.

http://www.ausairpower.net/maritime-deterrence.html

Now i'm going to have to state my opinions on Kopps ideas for the RAAF's force structure so I dont get labled one of Kopps deciples too (which is a rediculos thing to have to do). F111 if beuttifull but she's old and the risks involved in upgrading it to F111S are huge. In that case we would be operating an orphan platform fro the next 40 yrs when they would be 80yrs old! Bad idea. F/A 22 is a better option that the F35 in most rolles and it has much more potential for growth, but due to cost constraints and the unavailability of the platform in the timeframe needed its just not feasable. If things change in the US then we might be able to replace the F/A 18F's with a squadron but thats about it.

but that argument is just preposterous. Lanchester's Law of Modern Combat is being misapplied here. It applies in direct action - combat - but not in strategy, or even when maneouvre is considered. In fact the whole idea of maneouvre is to attain LOCAL superiority in numbers, which is where Lanchester's Law applies - locally, not globally. If Australia can bring more firepower to bear in the actual combat zone, (which it would) Lanchester's Law works in Australia's favour, not Indonesia's.

Indonesia would have a decent chance if they could assemble their entire military on Australian shores and keep it supplied, or if there was a theoretical way for both countries to agree to meet at a certain location and have at it until the victor was decided, but there is no way Indonesia has the strategic projection power required to invade an area so empty and void of infrastructure as northern Australia.

Having "ten times the numbers" of the ADF means nothing. For a start, traditional military theory states you need a three-to-one advantage as the bare minimum required to attack a defended position - and that's assuming qualitative parity, which Indonesia does not have. They are particularly deficient in night capabilities and combined arms. The entire ADF (including the Reserves) would be committed to repelling the invasion. Would every single Indonesian soldier be committed to the invasion? Of course not. They have enough internal problems as it is, plus they're distrustful of their own neighbours.

Further to that, the Indonesian air force and navy would almost certainly be unable to establish supremacy in the sea-air gap required to launch an invasion. Then they'd have to keep it supplied. If they managed to keep 10% of their military on Australian soil it would be a major achievement, in which case they would be on numerically equal terms with the ADF and no match for it.

In short, the possibility of Indonesia assembling and then sustaining enough combat power on Australian soil to challenge the ADF is remote. Even if they somehow managed that, and managed to keep it supplied, they would still have enormous trouble achieving the local superiority required to defeat the increasingly mobile ADF in combat on its home turf.

I'd go as far as to argue that there is only one country which has the strategic projection power to do that, and that's of course the US.

i couldnt agree more, you just about covered all the problems the Indonesians would face. The whole idea is pretty much summed up by nfloorl:

But one thing you didnt really outline enough is the problems in the Sea Air gap itself. the Indonesian navy would have to controll, deploy and supply thier forces through maritime lines of communication which pass through battlespace with total EW capability from JORN, a feasome RAAF marritime strike capability with 4 squadrons of Harpoon equiped fighters, and deal with some of the best SSK's in the world. Note a hope in hell would be the best way to describe their chances facing that.

 

[Simon9]

I know olld koppie seems to be the but of everyones jokes and ridicule these days, but i'm not shure what your exacly refering to by this statement? That kopp thinks Indoneseia can invade mainlande Australia and defeat the ADF???

Lol actually I was just being facetious, sorry. Sometimes Kopp seems to suggest that SE Asia is this teeming, unstable mass of Yellow Hordes just waiting to descend on the resource-rich and totally defenseless Australian north. He doesn't actually ever directly state (that I've seen) that Indonesia can invade Australia and defeat the ADF, but he does like talking about the unstable region "saturated with 400+ Super Flankers" - that's a direct quote of his from a few years ago.

But one thing you didnt really outline enough is the problems in the Sea Air gap itself. the Indonesian navy would have to controll, deploy and supply thier forces through maritime lines of communication which pass through battlespace with total EW capability from JORN, a feasome RAAF marritime strike capability with 4 squadrons of Harpoon equiped fighters, and deal with some of the best SSK's in the world. Note a hope in hell would be the best way to describe their chances facing that.

Exactly right. I see the problems facing an invasion of Australia as similar to that facing Hitler's proposed invasion of Britain. It's simply not an option until the RAN and RAAF are destroyed as combat entities, or else there is just no way to land forces and keep them supplied. In the same way that with contested air and sea space in the English Channel, even the shattered British Army could have defeated the Germans in 1940, particularly once the RN's destroyers got amongst the resupply ships. Air and sea supremacy is vital for invasion.

I hate to agree with DoA doctrine but in such a situation the role of the Army really is just mopping up the survivors.

 

[Tasman]

This kind of thinking is EXACTLY whats wrong with the UN SC and why it is compleatly incapable of fulfilling its intended role. Its a G8 dominated organisation that only looks after its own interests. Look at its actions in the Middle aeast or the Balkans compared to Africa. Were was the SC in the Sudan, Zaiere or Ruanda. Oh they act decisively wenever an oil rich emerate is invaded or the war and ethic cleansing is on europes doorstep. 5 million people die in african wars and the SC does nothing, but they act decisively when saddam invades little kuate, with little bloodshed. Calling it a global security council is the hight of hipocracy! How do you think the SC would have reacted to african wars if there was a permanant african member? Simply judging the merits of an SC seat on economic and military power will only ensure one thing, the SC looks after G8's interests. If Oceana isn't worth considering then what about permanant African & South American members???? Then maybe the SC will actually act on a global scale and fulfill the roll it rightfully should.

I think you make some excellent points here Ozzy. IMHO, the SC certainly has a dismal record so far as conflicts in Africa are concerned.


Cheers


BTW, I agree with you that it would have been unwise to have pursued the proposals put forward for a major F111 upgrade program and I think your thoughts about the structure of the RAAF's future air combat force are sound. I also agree with your comments (and Simon9's) re the difficulties a country like Indonesia would have in attempting an invasion of Australia.