Well yes i sort of see what your saying but still, in all those cases the UN and US would be jumping up and down about it within days and plenty of others ide bet because of the environmental side of destroyiing oil infastructure. I guess if they did it secretly with no proof of who did it, but otherwise they would end up under sanctions and be worse off then us.
Australia's Defence Future.
- Thread starter DEFENCEMASTER05
- Start date
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
As opposed to the threat of full scale invasion? I imagine the hullabulloo created by a full scale invasion of Australia, would be significantly more than low level military operations conducted against us...
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
As AD indicated, if this is a concern for limited raids, imagine the impact of a full invasion. Also, while you seemed to think we did not understand the situation in a decade or two, we do indeed understand that.
In order to carry out a successful invasion of Australia, the invading force would need to belong to a world power with a power projection capability sustainable on an intercontinental scale at a minimum. As a practical matter, the only current power able to do so is the US. In the next two decades, the UK might also regain sustainable intercontinental reach.
If China and/or India chose to develop such capabilities now, they might (emphasis Might) be start achieving something like that at then end of two decades. One key component of being able to project power at such long ranges, is that one also needs to leave sufficient assets at home to provide for training and home defence needs. Again using India/the Indian Navy as an example, to assemble such a force at present would effectively strip the Indian naval presence in the Indian Ocean. Not something that would be wise given the relationship between India and Pakistan.
-Cheers
Last edited:
to conduct and effective war against australia requires a country to fulfill 3 of the 5 "P's" of warfare
project
persist
provision
india and china if they had intent (and they don't) - cannot do any of them - and certainly not at extended warfighting range.
logistics is always the key - its never just about what you think can be achieved at first contact.
project
persist
provision
india and china if they had intent (and they don't) - cannot do any of them - and certainly not at extended warfighting range.
logistics is always the key - its never just about what you think can be achieved at first contact.
Interesting piece from an economist's perspective.
God give us better armed forces, but not yet
"The author of the institute's review, Dr Mark Thomson, says that, on the face of it, defence was let off lightly in this year's budget. There were no further spending deferrals (not within the period of the forward estimates, anyway).
And defence was given a $1.6 billion ''supplementation'' to cover the cost of overseas deployments over the next four years, although it was required to absorb almost all of the $1.1 billion cost of enhanced protection for our forces in Afghanistan.
Defence spending is budgeted to increase by 3.6 per cent in real terms in the coming financial year, reaching almost $27 billion. What's wrong with that?
Just that the job done on defence spending in last year's budget was so thorough it didn't need further adjustment this year. For the following two years, spending is planned to fall in real terms, before recovering in 2013-14 (which just happens to be the year after we're now projected to have the budget back in wafer-thin surplus).
Thomson points out that the now-expected budget surplus of $1 billion in 2012-13 would not have been possible had last year's budget not deferred $3.4 billion of defence funding in that year.
The government now has a lot of credibility riding on the achievement of a surplus that year. If this looked in doubt, how reluctant do you reckon the purse-string ministers would be to push a bit more defence spending off into the future?
But Thomson notes that defence is already holding a lot of IOUs. Real spending is projected to recover the following year, 2013-14. After that, the catch-up needed to deliver the promised average 3 per cent real growth in spending should see defence funding increase by 29 per cent over five years.
Perhaps by then the resuming resources boom will be so well entrenched that Treasury's coffers will again be overflowing, so accommodating such huge real growth in defence spending will be no probs. Failing that, however, I don't find it hard to imagine the government welching on some of those IOUs.
The record spending budgeted for in the coming financial year sounds more comfortable than it is. Thomson says money available to initiate new equipment projects will have fallen by 55 per cent on the forward estimates in last year's budget, with further falls of 42 per cent and 36 per cent in the following two years. Only some of that could be explained by a higher Aussie dollar.
When Lindsay Tanner was shadow finance minister before the 2007 election he invited various worthies (including yours truly) to offer suggestions on ways the budget papers could be made more transparent and generally more informative to people on the outside of government.
These suggestions were developed into the Operation Sunlight policy Labor took to the election and has, we're assured, been implemented now it's in government. But Thomson complains of a lot of newly darkened corners in the defence budget.
He says the government ceased disclosing funding deferrals in its first budget. And this year, ''in a marked departure from previous years, the budget papers do not list the projects planned for approval in the coming 12 months. Instead we get an omnibus listing of projects under development which will be approved in the next two to three years.''
I have my own beef about lack of sunlight. There are two budget languages, ''accrual'' and ''cash''. The budget papers are written in accrual (which I think of as French), but Treasury and the government have encouraged us to continue the macro policy debate in cash (English). Trouble is, the government doesn't provide a full English translation. We get the key totals, but not much else, which means that as soon as you start trying to hold the government to account on some specific issue, you run into the language barrier.
When people tried to use the budget papers to establish how much the government saved by abandoning its emissions trading scheme, they were told their figures were quite wrong because they were in French, not English. Then, when people asked for an English translation of budget figures in another part of the debate, the government refused to supply it.
I guess all governments engage in this sort of budgetary obfuscation, but I confess I had hoped for better from that nice Mr Rudd."
*********************
What bothers me is that the previous federal government appeared to be slowly reversing decades of funding neglect for defence. Now that paring back of funding appears to have started again. Actually I believe that it has been going on for the last few years...
hwell
Interesting image - defence holding a fistfull of IOUs. Unfortunately you can't send the debt collectors in with an iron bar when it's the government that welches on a funding promise.
Being an election year I have been underwhelmed by the shadow minister for defence, David Johnston. He has not appeared on my radar much at all, nor google news for that matter.
rb
God give us better armed forces, but not yet
"The author of the institute's review, Dr Mark Thomson, says that, on the face of it, defence was let off lightly in this year's budget. There were no further spending deferrals (not within the period of the forward estimates, anyway).
And defence was given a $1.6 billion ''supplementation'' to cover the cost of overseas deployments over the next four years, although it was required to absorb almost all of the $1.1 billion cost of enhanced protection for our forces in Afghanistan.
Defence spending is budgeted to increase by 3.6 per cent in real terms in the coming financial year, reaching almost $27 billion. What's wrong with that?
Just that the job done on defence spending in last year's budget was so thorough it didn't need further adjustment this year. For the following two years, spending is planned to fall in real terms, before recovering in 2013-14 (which just happens to be the year after we're now projected to have the budget back in wafer-thin surplus).
Thomson points out that the now-expected budget surplus of $1 billion in 2012-13 would not have been possible had last year's budget not deferred $3.4 billion of defence funding in that year.
The government now has a lot of credibility riding on the achievement of a surplus that year. If this looked in doubt, how reluctant do you reckon the purse-string ministers would be to push a bit more defence spending off into the future?
But Thomson notes that defence is already holding a lot of IOUs. Real spending is projected to recover the following year, 2013-14. After that, the catch-up needed to deliver the promised average 3 per cent real growth in spending should see defence funding increase by 29 per cent over five years.
Perhaps by then the resuming resources boom will be so well entrenched that Treasury's coffers will again be overflowing, so accommodating such huge real growth in defence spending will be no probs. Failing that, however, I don't find it hard to imagine the government welching on some of those IOUs.
The record spending budgeted for in the coming financial year sounds more comfortable than it is. Thomson says money available to initiate new equipment projects will have fallen by 55 per cent on the forward estimates in last year's budget, with further falls of 42 per cent and 36 per cent in the following two years. Only some of that could be explained by a higher Aussie dollar.
When Lindsay Tanner was shadow finance minister before the 2007 election he invited various worthies (including yours truly) to offer suggestions on ways the budget papers could be made more transparent and generally more informative to people on the outside of government.
These suggestions were developed into the Operation Sunlight policy Labor took to the election and has, we're assured, been implemented now it's in government. But Thomson complains of a lot of newly darkened corners in the defence budget.
He says the government ceased disclosing funding deferrals in its first budget. And this year, ''in a marked departure from previous years, the budget papers do not list the projects planned for approval in the coming 12 months. Instead we get an omnibus listing of projects under development which will be approved in the next two to three years.''
I have my own beef about lack of sunlight. There are two budget languages, ''accrual'' and ''cash''. The budget papers are written in accrual (which I think of as French), but Treasury and the government have encouraged us to continue the macro policy debate in cash (English). Trouble is, the government doesn't provide a full English translation. We get the key totals, but not much else, which means that as soon as you start trying to hold the government to account on some specific issue, you run into the language barrier.
When people tried to use the budget papers to establish how much the government saved by abandoning its emissions trading scheme, they were told their figures were quite wrong because they were in French, not English. Then, when people asked for an English translation of budget figures in another part of the debate, the government refused to supply it.
I guess all governments engage in this sort of budgetary obfuscation, but I confess I had hoped for better from that nice Mr Rudd."
*********************
What bothers me is that the previous federal government appeared to be slowly reversing decades of funding neglect for defence. Now that paring back of funding appears to have started again. Actually I believe that it has been going on for the last few years...
hwellInteresting image - defence holding a fistfull of IOUs. Unfortunately you can't send the debt collectors in with an iron bar when it's the government that welches on a funding promise.
Being an election year I have been underwhelmed by the shadow minister for defence, David Johnston. He has not appeared on my radar much at all, nor google news for that matter.
rb
I reckon after today, that Australia,s defence future is looking up!
Our PM was ousted in a bloodless coup,(party coup) and I reckon that labour wont survivw the next election. I forsee a much brighter future for the ADF, under a liberal government.
Our PM was ousted in a bloodless coup,(party coup) and I reckon that labour wont survivw the next election. I forsee a much brighter future for the ADF, under a liberal government.
A Labour Wimmin PM. God knows what she will get up too! :shudder I'd bolt those F-18's down if I was you!I reckon after today, that Australia,s defence future is looking up!
Our PM was ousted in a bloodless coup,(party coup) and I reckon that labour wont survivw the next election. I forsee a much brighter future for the ADF, under a liberal government.
Last edited:
Dont think she,ll be there long. the labor party is as unstable as a drunk in a kayak at the moment.A Labour Wimmin PM. Good knows what she will get up too! :shudder I'd bolt those F-18's down if I was you!
My first reaction was that it was a bit of a drastic over reaction to us being knocked out of the World Cup!
Unfortunately, I think you may be wrong here though - the coalition had a much better chance of toppling uncle kev (he was the drunk in the kayak with all his random decisions and backflips) than auntie julia.
Bloody swift and well executed operation though - it shouldn't be Julia for PM, rather Julia for MajGen - queen of the blitzkreig!
OpinionNoted
Banned Member
I reckon after today, that Australia,s defence future is looking up!
Our PM was ousted in a bloodless coup,(party coup) and I reckon that labour wont survivw the next election. I forsee a much brighter future for the ADF, under a liberal government.
Stategic strike on prime minister by domestic and foreign mining interests(mostly foreign owned aus mining industry)
.result...prime minister gone.
how dare an australian pm want better economic results for his nation from his nations very own natural resources.
Bearing on aus defence future?...enter physical strike and for 1 the labour caucus has shown that as long as they can keep their jobs and perks then they wont be difficult about it.
conclusion...we are F@&#D
OpinionNoted
Banned Member
I reckon after today, that Australia,s defence future is looking up!
Our PM was ousted in a bloodless coup,(party coup) and I reckon that labour wont survivw the next election. I forsee a much brighter future for the ADF, under a liberal government.
ahh the liberals...whitlam dismissal...ring a bell?
no need for a concerted foreign effort against aus,just get on the phone to who evers in power(well their caucus anyway)
australias defence future...lol
Stay off the politics as much as poss people. It can turn to custard very quickly which I'm sure we don't want to see.