Who Do You Think Will Be Involved In World War 3?

[Jissy]

Well we will agree to disagree, particularly on the India issue, about them taking over Oz, and the USA doing nothing about the attempt...frankly ridiculous!

As for China, you say in ten to twenty years time China will be so much stronger.. well yes, of course, but just how much stronger, advanced weaponry wise, would you suppose the USA will be then? Right now, we only get to know what they want us to know, and that means, whatever the US Gov releases to the media as new state of art, is not, there is something much more sophisticated that is being developed and tested.

Then there is the more 'exotic' research areas. Anyway, I agree, taking on China in a grunts on the ground war would be a nightmare of gigantic proportions. A million highly trained Chinese soldiers with lots of hardware to go would be a very tough assignment.

But, if that ugly scenario came to be, my extremely uneducated guess would be, the US would launch a destabilising series of hits, eliminating China's missile counter measures and relevant sattelites first, then the military bases/ports and leadership, then begin psyops working on the huge numbers of students who already want a democracy right now. I can see China suffering very badly, without a US soldier stepping upon land in China.

Then there would come the other problems associated with a massive assault; the utilities taken out, break down of food supplies etc. Iraq and Afghanistan cannot compare to the China situation, because, as is well known, since the Tiananmen Square student demonstrations for a democracy and its subsequent suppression/massacre by the Chinese Gov., there is a very large yet tacit support for change of political system colours.

Well, let us just hope and pray it never comes to this, for if there are plans in their infancy, we would most likely see push come to shove a lot earlier than 20 years, because the US would not want to wait till China was fully prepared, would it...

 

[chrisdef]

Well, let us just hope and pray it never comes to this, for if there are plans in their infancy, we would most likely see push come to shove a lot earlier than 20 years, because the US would not want to wait till China was fully prepared, would it...

Again i know talk is easy and it may never happen but seems they are already openly doing some provacative things if they go ahead with there plans in both Fiji and East Timor.

 

[Jissy]

Again i know talk is easy and it may never happen but seems they are already openly doing some provacative things if they go ahead with there plans in both Fiji and East Timor.

Chris, hmmm, interesting, ... heard a little about this, what is happening there, do you know any details?

cheers

jay

 

[chrisdef]

Chris, hmmm, interesting, ... heard a little about this, what is happening there, do you know any details?

cheers

jay

Sorry i dont have time at moment to find external links so this will have to do for now. Basically from what ive read they are hoping to help build military bases and ports in exchange for the use of them for there own military.

http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/military-defense/australia-new-zealand-fiji-relations-china-question-10552/

They are trying to do the same in Timor too.

 

[Jissy]

Sorry i dont have time at moment to find external links so this will have to do for now. Basically from what ive read they are hoping to help build military bases and ports in exchange for the use of them for there own military.

http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/military-defense/australia-new-zealand-fiji-relations-china-question-10552/

They are trying to do the same in Timor too.

That link has been deactivated...

But, looking around, I found this interesting article, which although does not deal with our present discussion directly, port construction in Fiji, it gives strong indications that Fiji is actively seeking military and trade arrangements with China.

QUOTE:
But Australia's four-year attempt to isolate and penalise the government of Bainimarama has pushed Fiji more quickly and fully into Beijing's arms. Arms has a double meaning here; Fiji's President Ratu Epeli Nailatikau has just returned from a state visit to China, where he visited a major arms manufacturing plant. The military sanctions imposed on Fiji by its traditional friends (Australia, New Zealand, Britain and the US) have left Fiji's military with few options for resupply or modernisation. Speculation is rife in Suva that Fiji will soon decide to procure Chinese sourced armaments. This would likely be a long-term commitment to the Chinese supply chain. The Bainimarama government also has a significant military personnel training offer from China. There's every chance that a substantial commitment could soon be made to a five-year cadet officer training program that would at least equal the pre-2006 levels for Australia, New Zealand and Britain combined. UNQUOTE
Source: Islands Business - Islands Business

Looks like someone is dropping the foreign affairs ball in Canberra...

This situation needs to be addressed quickly by the looks of it.

PNG is also developing close ties with China and has now signed a gas supply contract with China.

And then there is influence in Port Vila;

QUOTE
PORT VILA, Jan 4 Asia Pulse - China has expressed its interest to fund the construction of the new Melanesian Spearhead Group (MSG) secretariat in Port Vila.

The Vanuatu Daily Post quoted the deputy director for international aid division in Beijing, Ms Gao Wung Yung as saying that China will assist Vanuatu in the construction of the building.

Ms Gao, who was on an official visit to the Vanuatu capital last week, said Chinese engineers and technicians will be in Vanuatu shortly to present to government the …
UNQUOTE. Source Research - Articles - Journals | Find research fast at HighBeam Research

And so on.....hmmmm...very interesting eh wot guvnah?

cheers
jay

 

[ron_leflore]

Night of the living sheep.... if only I could tell the jokes I know about sheep, here.....

WW3 starts with a Chinese invasion of Taiwan. 20,000 small fishing boats will land 50 men each with a GPS. Troops will assemble into units at specific geographic locations on the beaches in a mad dash.


My first post, just registered and I want to see some WWII photos.

 

[Feanor]

WW3 starts with a Chinese invasion of Taiwan. 20,000 small fishing boats will land 50 men each with a GPS. Troops will assemble into units at specific geographic locations on the beaches in a mad dash.


My first post, just registered and I want to see some WWII photos.

Oh no. Another fishing boat invasion. Indonesia will be jealous that someone stole their idea for invading Oz.

When will the worlds modern militaries ever learn that all their technology is useless against the small fishing boat and rusty AK.

 

[rip]

Well you response was long thoughtful and detailed. Never the less there are point where I disagree.

First you will find several spelling mistakes in my writing and if I could do something more about it than I have, I would. I ask that you overlook this deficiency and concentrate of the content.

As to you statement


(Actually, I understand a great deal about the mining industry, trade and development between countries. My father was involved in mining all his life. I am no expert in this area, but I can say this; company assets are valued, of course, but when they exist outside of the company's own country, they like to be sure they will keep control of, continue to profit from, and have unfettered access to their assets.)

If you pursue the idea that if a country dose not have absolute control of all of its needed natural resources under its direct control you are in effect promoting the idea of empire and colonialisms as an economic model if you realize it or not. I think we would both agree that model dose not work anymore. If the free market model championed by the US for all of its existence fails then we may see the call for empire again. I hope not and so wish emprises its merits when ever I can for all of us have much too lose both for Producers and Consumers alike.

As to your statement

(Furthermore, your idealized version of why the 'free market' was developed seems a trifle naïve. The so-called 'free market' was not developed just as an assurance against conflict, or to help the developing nations, it was also promoted by powerful self serving interests to control other countries through investment, trade and development, and in concert with the IMF and World Bank loans, the big boardrooms in the world, of the transnational company variety, can now dictate/influence a country to alter its work place conditions to favor the foreign company, not the rights of the workers.)

I have some experience with this type of misguided economic theory which you rightfully put forward as a popular one in much of the developing world. A theory that there a powerful external forces plotting to keep the poor, poor and the rich, rich, by the manipulation of financial markets through unfair means. As just one example, the price of coffee beans is said to be unfairly so low that the poor original producers who grow them can not made a decent living for themselves and their families after working so hard in terrible conditions ect, ect, ect. The value of something is no more and no less than what someone is willing to pay for it, as unfair and cruel as that may be. But regardless of how unsentimental a free market system is, it is fair so long as everybody operates by the same rules and it has proven to be the most efficient method to allocating resources in the world. A different system, one based on sentiment or some theory of social justice (as defines as unfair competition i.e. Competition you can not match) might suit some, anger others, but would be less efficient and the world in total would be poorer as a result

As to your statement

(I have been given first hand information on that specific subject, that Japan has instructed its children to never read Western accounts of the Second World War, because they are told we lie about Japan's role in the war and their despicable behavior in SE Asia. The Japanese children of today are taught that Japan was the victim entirely, not the instigator, nor an aggressor.)

Sad but true.

As to your statement

(Your conclusion, that it is a false premise, that commodities are in short supply globally, so are not a potential cause for war, does not take into account that some commodities are cheap because of their location, and when that supply route is cut off, as you point out the potential of, with Japan and China, then the country denied access gets very annoyed. Lee Kwan Yew once said, of Japan, never deny her access to resources, or she will go to war.)


Once again I would like to make the case, that maintaining the world’s free trade economic system if far more important than many would at first think for the very same reasons that you have stated. And once again I must restate my case, by using you example of the sacristy of Rare Earths as a cause of economic warfare is a flawed one. The reason that there is very little supply of Rare Earths available today is not because they are that rare. It is because until recently there was no significant market for them to be produced. I will give you an example. South Africa is the world’s greatest producer of Gold, every body knows this, but not everybody knows that it is the world’s greatest producer of Platinum. Why? Because Platinum (a far more useful industrial material than Gold) is found in small quantities within Gold deposits just like Rare Earths. In the ore refining process they make the addition effort to separate the Platinum out of the ore because of its value. If they took the same trouble to do the same for Rare Earth the world would be awash in them. There are enough Rear Earths to the tailings of South African Gold mines, if it was profitable to do so, to supply the worlds need for a hundred years.

 

[Jissy]

First you will find several spelling mistakes in my writing and if I could do something more about it than I have, I would. I ask that you overlook this deficiency and concentrate of the content.

[Actually, it was not spelling or a typographical errata, it was an incorrect word use, I just thought it best to tell you as a courtesy, and so there was no confusion, no offense intended.]

If you pursue the idea that if a country dose not have absolute control of all of its needed natural resources under its direct control you are in effect promoting the idea of empire and colonialisms as an economic model if you realize it or not. I think we would both agree that model dose not work anymore. If the free market model championed by the US for all of its existence fails then we may see the call for empire again. I hope not and so wish emprises its merits when ever I can for all of us have much too lose both for Producers and Consumers alike.

[I do realize that I am talking about a ‘new age’ imperialism; I am not supporting the concept, but see economic imperialism as a potential threat to peace. As for the ‘free’ trade system, yes it does work in some areas, of course. ASEAN is further developing its internal trade network, the EU has theirs, and the USA, currently globally engaging, is looking like it may head towards an Americas trade block. However, I do not agree that this ‘free’ trade system is as free and pure as you purport. Trading blocks are developing within it, in order to produce more weight internationally, to combat the richer more powerful nations.

Trouble is, the richer more powerful nations are too. Demand and supply are the two essential fulcrums upon which capitalism exists, no problem with that. But, the more powerful and richer nations can dictate terms and access to markets much more than poorer nations. This, and the trading blocs, can lead the world into more fragile international relations, in some respects and instances. China’s current expanding influence throughout SE Asia and now Polynesia is a case in point of that potential for future conflict, through its economic measures; China’s self serving economic demands cannot but help, tacitly, dictate terms to ‘sovereign’ governments of small nations.]

I have some experience with this type of misguided economic theory which you rightfully put forward as a popular one in much of the developing world. A theory that there a powerful external forces plotting to keep the poor, poor and the rich, rich, by the manipulation of financial markets through unfair means. As just one example, the price of coffee beans is said to be unfairly so low that the poor original producers who grow them can not made a decent living for themselves and their families after working so hard in terrible conditions ect, ect, ect. The value of something is no more and no less than what someone is willing to pay for it, as unfair and cruel as that may be. But regardless of how unsentimental a free market system is, it is fair so long as everybody operates by the same rules and it has proven to be the most efficient method to allocating resources in the world. A different system, one based on sentiment or some theory of social justice (as defines as unfair competition i.e. Competition you cannot match) might suit some, anger others, but would be less efficient and the world in total would be poorer as a result

“it has proven to be the most efficient method to allocating resources in the world.”

[The subtext of your statement supports the argument that the richer and more powerful will always take advantage of the poorer. “Efficiency” in trade means the most profit for the least outlay, and in turn that manifests in poorer nations as unsafe work practices and conditions and very low wages, also, money leant to locals for costs of business setup, being such, that the ‘profit’ cannot pay off the principle of the loan in a lot of cases.

There are several instances of this in Central and South American countries, some of the paper debts of which were eventually written off, but only after mounting protest internationally in the UN etc. The problem with unadulterated capitalism is, it does lead to massive social inequalities that can, and has, caused huge social upheaval. The new international imperialism is not in the form of military domination, but economic dependency and therefore control, through control of suppliers and access to markets, and the internal subsidization of industries within the rich nations own markets.

As I say, it is economic imperialism. It does not require a weekly meeting of some hooded cabal of CEOs around a cauldron, (as amusing as that concept sounds, although I suggest the secretive Bilderberg Group almost fits that description! ) as control of market advantage is inherent in the nature of capitalism. As long as transnational companies have the tacit approval of their ‘free world’ home countries to do what they like in the developing world, there will be the dormant seeds of future conflict. But I do support capitalism, just my preferred version is ‘capitalism with a conscience’, as we have in Oz. Our social security system, although costly to the nation, ensures we do not have the urban nightmare that plagues America. It helps insulate a society against revolt and social disturbance.]

Once again I would like to make the case, that maintaining the world’s free trade economic system if far more important than many would at first think for the very same reasons that you have stated. And once again I must restate my case, by using you example of the sacristy of Rare Earths as a cause of economic warfare is a flawed one. The reason that there is very little supply of Rare Earths available today is not because they are that rare. It is because until recently there was no significant market for them to be produced. I will give you an example. South Africa is the world’s greatest producer of Gold, every body knows this, but not everybody knows that it is the world’s greatest producer of Platinum. Why? Because Platinum (a far more useful industrial material than Gold) is found in small quantities within Gold deposits just like Rare Earths. In the ore refining process they make the addition effort to separate the Platinum out of the ore because of its value. If they took the same trouble to do the same for Rare Earth the world would be awash in them. There are enough Rear Earths to the tailings of South African Gold mines, if it was profitable to do so, to supply the worlds need for a hundred years.

[‘Rare’ earth is regarded as such, by the major players, as being based on its economic viability entailing numerous factors; lack abundance in numerous geographic places, where deposits are discovered the recovery of it must be economically viable, and the need must be great.
In some instances, a ‘rare’ earth might be required in advanced weaponry systems, in which case the other criteria do not apply, but a national security issue overrides economic reality. This last fact, more than any other, can lead to corruption of local officials and turning a blind eye to the terrible conditions of local workers, and even the support of dictatorship style governments masquerading as ‘democracies’. Once again, this can lead to conflict.

From my reading of history, all wars originated from a multiplicity of reasons of causation. The economic meltdown in the USA recently was only prevented by a ‘social’ action of public money bailing out some of the perpetrators and some victims. If it went its full course, as happened in the Great Depression, the global upheaval would have been long lasting, massive, and an extremely potent ingredient for war.

The future for major multinational conflict within the SE Asia and South Pacific regions remains of some concern, to me personally, as the direct economic influence of China becomes much more omnipresent.]

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

Am I hearing this right? People are actually advocating the notion that the Indian armed forces will be either willing or able to not only project power into Australian territorial waters but, invading!?! What TF have you people been smoking?

What we have to accept in Oz is, we are not the absolute master of our own destiny

No nation is the absolute master of its own destiny; every national actor is constrained by external factors, so what?

we do need outside military support and backup, and that diplomacy is by far the best alternative. We need to be more humble outwardly, yet not kowtowing.

Name a single nation which will have the capability to project significant power into the sea air gap, even uncontested, to actually threaten Australian security, bar the United States. I think you significantly underestimate Australia's geopolitical position, a common disease amongst Australians.

Why not India and Australia, we arent exactly best buddies basically our relationship is based on trading, check back through history and plenty of trading partners have gone to war. I think as resources dwindle and become more expensive it would become more likely.

There are economic, political, geographical and strategic reasons (i.e. geopolitical) why India and Australia will go closer over the next 20 years. I’ll have to agree with Jissy and regard the notion of India initiating aggressive expeditionary warfare on Australia as utterly absurd.

Given 10-20 years with the way there military is building up i seriously doubt China will care one bit what the US thinks.

Well they will have to care what the US thinks, as even after 20 years the United States holds the economic and military tools to crush China. Remember, the USN holds the keys to the global trading system - no one else - and without access to global markets China's economic "miracle" becomes a disaster overnight (if it isn't already).

And im not even certain the US would help anyway, if you look at the costs involved in fighting its 2 current wars a war with China would just about send them bankrupt, and again looking back at history the US was happy to stay out of WW2 untill it was attacked itself, if not for Pearl Harbour they may never of got involved.

The Washington of 1935 and 2010 are so far from analogous in this respect that the above is not even funny. The US is a global hegemonic power and its wealth and security are underpinned by said global dominance. It is a CORE STRATEGIC IMPERATIVE that said global dominance, and specifically global naval dominance, is maintained. Also the entire US alliance system which provides it with unprecedented soft power is underpinned by the dependability of a US security guarantee. If the US allowed China to attack and invade one of its allies and it did not intervene simply because it was "too expensive" (which is false BTW) its entire global position would be compromised. It actually made the decision to enter WW2, a far more costly conflict, with much less to lose.

 

[JoeMcFriday]

Poor Georgia, if only it had had a treaty with the US, all would have been well and the naughty Ruskis would have stayed at home.
Seriously the view that the USA would aid Australia, or any allied nation, unconditionally and immediately is [IMO] fundamentally flawed. The US, as in the history of Great Powers, will act first and foremost in its best interests, when a crisis comes along the minor ally should hope and pray it's plight is concurrent to those best interests.
On another point, Australia has only got a large sea/air gap on three major compass points hasn't it?
Cheers,
Mac

 

[chrisdef]

Am I hearing this right? People are actually advocating the notion that the Indian armed forces will be either willing or able to not only project power into Australian territorial waters but, invading!?! What TF have you people been smoking?

And what great evidence do you bring to back up your conclusion?
India is claiming they will have 3 carriers built in the next 20 years with the supporting ships to use them in any ocean around the world.

Name a single nation which will have the capability to project significant power into the sea air gap, even uncontested, to actually threaten Australian security, bar the United States. I think you significantly underestimate Australia's geopolitical position, a common disease amongst Australians.

None yet, hence why i clearly said in 10-20 years when both India and China will have multiple carriers and the support ships needed to operate them.

There are economic, political, geographical and strategic reasons (i.e. geopolitical) why India and Australia will go closer over the next 20 years. I’ll have to agree with Jissy and regard the notion of India initiating aggressive expeditionary warfare on Australia as utterly absurd.

Again such as? Making claims without any evidence means nothing.

Well they will have to care what the US thinks, as even after 20 years the United States holds the economic and military tools to crush China. Remember, the USN holds the keys to the global trading system - no one else - and without access to global markets China's economic "miracle" becomes a disaster overnight (if it isn't already).

I think your way overestimating the US's capabilities. They are trillions in debt and and alot of countries are slowly switching to trade in Euro's (unless ofcourse they are attacked like Iraq was when it wanted to change).
As ive already said too they have taken 9 and 7 years respectively in Afghanistan and Iraq China would be hundreds of times harder and more costly then that.


And as Joe said above Goergia is a great modern example, while i agree we are probably much closer allies its proof the US wont intervene against another major power to help its allies.

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

Poor Georgia, if only it had had a treaty with the US, all would have been well and the naughty Ruskis would have stayed at home.
Seriously the view that the USA would aid Australia, or any allied nation, unconditionally and immediately is [IMO] fundamentally flawed. The US, as in the history of Great Powers, will act first and foremost in its best interests, when a crisis comes along the minor ally should hope and pray it's plight is concurrent to those best interests.

I underlined the critical element in that post.

Here's where i see flaws in your line of logic:

a) AFAIK Georgia lacked any security guarantee from the Unites States; I’m not sure why everyone expected the US to enter a war on Georgia's side.

b) The US lacked the capability to appropriately intervene in the Georgian war in any case, bar acting on a strategic level. Not so in the South West Pacific.

c) Australia has a formal security agreement with the United States.

d) Australia is a core US ally i.e. ABC, closer in many ways than most NATO allies.

e) Who ever argued that the United States would come to Australia's aid "unconditionally" or out of some sort of moral obligation? That is a straw man and totally ignores my previous post.

f) The Australian alliance provides many significant basing, technological, military, political and geostrategic benefits to the United States.

g) The abandonment of a core US ally would destroy the credibility of a US security guarantee and thus Washington's global political position.

h) Any attack on Australia by a major power would be a challenge to US global hegemony and a US dominated security order, both CRITICAL US INTERSTS. Thus its virtually impossible to see a scenario where allowing an attack on Australia by a great power would not be in conflict with the United States "best interests".

On another point, Australia has only got a large sea/air gap on three major compass points hasn't it?
Cheers,
Mac

Yes and the fourth major compass point heads to Antarctica. We have massive sensor coverage throughout out northern approaches, which are thousands of kilometres away from any major East Asian power. Currently no nation possesses the logistical assets to project significant forces into that sea/air gap, bar of course the US, and anyone that tried would be operating within the ADF's sensor footprint with very long and tenuous lines of communication.

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

Ok, I'll try to play nice.

And what great evidence do you bring to back up your conclusion?
India is claiming they will have 3 carriers built in the next 20 years with the supporting ships to use them in any ocean around the world.

First of all you are making the positive claim, the burden of proof lays upon you, not me. Why don’t YOU provide some evidence for these great power projection capabilities the Indian Navy are in the process of acquiring? Simply having a carrier does not mean you have global or extra regional reach. In the words of GF enthusiasts talk about platforms and things that go bang, professionals talk logistics. Do you have any idea how many logistical assets are required to sustain a carrier battlegroup extra regionally in a high threat/high intensity environment? How many fleet oilers are in the pipeline? How many extra regional bases to they have or could they use? What strategic ISTAR assets do they have? How much experience do they have at expeditionary warfare?

This isn’t the same as sending a carrier and a couple of escorts into the pacific on a hearts and minds cruise, operating in a high threat environment means 24/7 CAP, battle, constant expenditure of stores (ASW buoys ext), high speeds (not cruising), with lines of communications some 4000km which have to be defended from a credible SSG threat. Right now they only have three heavy oilers with two Deepak's in construction, all slow. Following the general rule of thumb that only 2 major oilers (out of three) would be available practically all of the IN's logistical assets would be required to sustain a single carrier battle group conducting high tempo ops in the sea/air gap.

All that effort simply to put a single carrier and its escorts, one squadron of MiG-29K's and a few LCA's, into theatre, yet you want to initiate an amphibious invasion of the Australian continent!?! Even forgetting the fact that the RAAF will have a massive qualitative, quantitative, geographical and informational advantage, AND forgetting the local superiority of the RAN surface fleet AND forgetting 12 Collins MKII, the IN would have to deploy at least 3 divisions and then supply that across 4000km of open ocean; all with what, 5 major amphib vessels and about as many major logistical assets (which are all tied up supplying your CBG). They would need 5 times that and the escorts to protect it. Purely from a logistical standpoint, totally forgetting about the ADF, it’s less than a joke. It’s utterly ridiculous.

None yet, hence why i clearly said in 10-20 years when both India and China will have multiple carriers and the support ships needed to operate them.

No champ, they won’t, not on a global scale.

Again such as? Making claims without any evidence means nothing.

Pot meet kettle.

http://www.securitychallenges.org.au/ArticlePDFs/vol6no1Brewster.pdf

Ministerial Statement on the Australia-India Relationship - Minister for Foreign Affairs

http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/jfadt/india/indiach2.pdf

India-Japan-Australia-USA Quadrilateral Axis: Is it Possible?

Try Google and a little common sense.

I think your way overestimating the US's capabilities. They are trillions in debt and and alot of countries are slowly switching to trade in Euro's (unless ofcourse they are attacked like Iraq was when it wanted to change).

No you just have a poor understanding of the way the global economic system actually works. If you are interested in understanding more read "The writing on the wall; China and the West in the 21st Century" by Will Hutton if you want an understanding of the economic relationship between the United States and China and the nature of the Chinese growth model itself. US debt is a reasonably superficial element in the relationship, access to the US market is VITAL to economic growth and internal stability in China. Have no illusions, China is the weak one in the relationship, not the other way around.

As ive already said too they have taken 9 and 7 years respectively in Afghanistan and Iraq China would be hundreds of times harder and more costly then that.

So you don’t understand the difference between a counterinsurgency campaign and a high intensity peer conflict yet you claim you understand the requirements of expeditionary warfare?

And as Joe said above Goergia is a great modern example, while i agree we are probably much closer allies its proof the US wont intervene against another major power to help its allies.

I've addressed this above.

 

[Jissy]

Am I hearing this right? People are actually advocating the notion that the Indian armed forces will be either willing or able to not only project power into Australian territorial waters but, invading!?! What TF have you people been smoking?

Actually, it is another person here who is promulgating that idea, I am not.

No nation is the absolute master of its own destiny; every national actor is constrained by external factors, so what?

Not just "external" factors, internal ones too. The inference of what I stated is implicit as a response to the stance taken by the person I was responding to. Maybe you should take the context more into account before shooting off an agressive reaction that does not contribute to dispassionate debate?

Name a single nation which will have the capability to project significant power into the sea air gap, even uncontested, to actually threaten Australian security, bar the United States. I think you significantly underestimate Australia's geopolitical position, a common disease amongst Australians.

I guess any nation that has numerous subs that work, and are not sitting along side a dock waiting for repairs... a nation whose subs are armed with missles, nuke ones too, I guess that alone would mean there are a number of nations capable of rendering Oz a basket case before we could react, and what with, if we did...Super Hornets? How many do we have again... oh that's right, no where near enough to protect our coastlines...

I do not agree with the premise we will be invaded, but do see problems within our region, inter-nation, and how we will respond to requests for help. As for nations in particular, regarding attacking us, as I said, any nation with numerous subs armed with missiles will certainly pose a tremendous threat to our bases and our national stability.

There are economic, political, geographical and strategic reasons (i.e. geopolitical) why India and Australia will go closer over the next 20 years. I’ll have to agree with Jissy and regard the notion of India initiating aggressive expeditionary warfare on Australia as utterly absurd.

I think, in additon to this, that we will develop a much stronger military relationship with India, as India develops same with China and Russia, as we also shall with China, maybe to a lesser degree.

 

[JoeMcFriday]

Ok, I'll try to play nice.

So will I Qzzy.

My post was not directed at your posting per se., I don't know why you thought it was.
I didn't claim Georgia had any treaty with the US, quite the opposite. You however made the point that the US couldn't have intervened even if had wanted too and this was in the context of supporting allies worldwide. A global context which you proposed as being critical to US influence, therefore must be defended. So if Georgia had a treaty, they couldn't or wouldn't have been helped, we'll never know which so any continuance would be purely conjecture and not fact.

As to the main body of my short post, it is that a Great Power will always act as Great Powers always have that I was cautioning against. As to my flawed logic, it is you who failed to see the point, it was the next line down that is the key to "Major and Minor Ally" relationships, always has been and I see no reason why it will not always be so.

The fourth compass point I had in mind is to the North, South is nought but a huge sea/air gap, with a small bump at NZ, so is the east and the west the same but no bump.

I don't understand why the only scenario that comes to many peoples minds is of a Normandy style, direct invasion across the Indian Ocean, as you have clearly pointed out this would be impossible to achieve against a fully prepared and forewarned ADF, especially if augmented by any USAF/USN major assets. Even the re-supply of a surprise landing force would be nightmare.

Like you, I cannot see any nation projecting sufficient sea, air and sea-lift power to succeed in such a strategy unless the defenders were already decimated.

I know it was another time but one only has to look at the size of the USN's seatrains required to supply the invasion force of small Pacific Islands in WW2 for an historicalexample of the logistics capability required for such a long distance enterprise.
A potential enemy would know all you, and others, have listed as defensive assets and not come knocking on the front door, that could/would be way too expensive to consider. That is why I'd look to the North, however unlikely that may be to some and not for sudden moves either.

Cheers,
Mac

 

[Feanor]

a) AFAIK Georgia lacked any security guarantee from the Unites States; I’m not sure why everyone expected the US to enter a war on Georgia's side.

The same reason the Georgians themselves cried for Western help publicly, when Russian tanks rolled through Gori. The international community created in Saakashvili the impression that he had the support and blessing of the west, in particular America. When it turned out that it was still Russia's playground, and the west was only prodding Russia, rather then outright confronting, Georgia got badly burned.

To those of you advocating it as a test case, it is. But only in the ex-USSR states. It's not an expression of US indecisiveness but of Russian assertiveness, and not a matter of capability in the case of the US, but of lack of gain coupled with a high risk. The US didn't have the immediate capability to help Georgia because over a period of years it systematically chose not to develop said capability, and instead spend resources elsewhere.

 

[chrisdef]

First of all you are making the positive claim, the burden of proof lays upon you, not me. Why don’t YOU provide some evidence for these great power projection capabilities the Indian Navy are in the process of acquiring? Simply having a carrier does not mean you have global or extra regional reach. In the words of GF enthusiasts talk about platforms and things that go bang, professionals talk logistics. Do you have any idea how many logistical assets are required to sustain a carrier battlegroup extra regionally in a high threat/high intensity environment? How many fleet oilers are in the pipeline? How many extra regional bases to they have or could they use? What strategic ISTAR assets do they have? How much experience do they have at expeditionary warfare?

This isn’t the same as sending a carrier and a couple of escorts into the pacific on a hearts and minds cruise, operating in a high threat environment means 24/7 CAP, battle, constant expenditure of stores (ASW buoys ext), high speeds (not cruising), with lines of communications some 4000km which have to be defended from a credible SSG threat. Right now they only have three heavy oilers with two Deepak's in construction, all slow. Following the general rule of thumb that only 2 major oilers (out of three) would be available practically all of the IN's logistical assets would be required to sustain a single carrier battle group conducting high tempo ops in the sea/air gap.

All that effort simply to put a single carrier and its escorts, one squadron of MiG-29K's and a few LCA's, into theatre, yet you want to initiate an amphibious invasion of the Australian continent!?! Even forgetting the fact that the RAAF will have a massive qualitative, quantitative, geographical and informational advantage, AND forgetting the local superiority of the RAN surface fleet AND forgetting 12 Collins MKII, the IN would have to deploy at least 3 divisions and then supply that across 4000km of open ocean; all with what, 5 major amphib vessels and about as many major logistical assets (which are all tied up supplying your CBG). They would need 5 times that and the escorts to protect it. Purely from a logistical standpoint, totally forgetting about the ADF, it’s less than a joke. It’s utterly ridiculous.

Just as you said a simple google search will find you plenty of evidence of India's claims of its carrier fleet. i do admit untill they are a reality they are only claims and still very likely it wont happen.

I dont think you know exactly what India has now let alone what they are already building or planning to build. I know we have much better quality but they have much more of everything.

And with an Amphibious invasion specifically India supposedly currently has 20 Amphibious warfare ships and 10 replenishment tankers. With 2 more replenishment ships under construction and plans for 18 more amphibious warfare ships to be built.

No champ, they won’t, not on a global scale.

Again according to India yes they will and judging by there planned fleet i dont see why not.

Pot meet kettle.

http://www.securitychallenges.org.au/ArticlePDFs/vol6no1Brewster.pdf

Ministerial Statement on the Australia-India Relationship - Minister for Foreign Affairs

http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/jfadt/india/indiach2.pdf

India-Japan-Australia-USA Quadrilateral Axis: Is it Possible?

Try Google and a little common sense.

None of that is any guarantee of anything, its all based on economic reasons which could change at any time. As had been said earlier simple supply and demand will mean resources are only going to get more expensive which would be as good a reason as any for someone to decide to just come and take them instead.

No you just have a poor understanding of the way the global economic system actually works. If you are interested in understanding more read "The writing on the wall; China and the West in the 21st Century" by Will Hutton if you want an understanding of the economic relationship between the United States and China and the nature of the Chinese growth model itself. US debt is a reasonably superficial element in the relationship, access to the US market is VITAL to economic growth and internal stability in China. Have no illusions, China is the weak one in the relationship, not the other way around.

You seem very shortsighted, yes NOW it is important, as ive already said alot of counties have turned away from trading in US dollars and are trading in Euro's. As that number rises both US wealth and influence are going to diminish.

So you don’t understand the difference between a counterinsurgency campaign and a high intensity peer conflict yet you claim you understand the requirements of expeditionary warfare?

Im no expert but yes i understand the basics and you just helped make my point for me, a high intensity peer conflict is going to be many many times more expensive (in both dollars and US lives) then fighting the counterinsurgencies the US is currently involved in.
Judging by the Chinese nationalism we have seen recently ide say if the US tried to fight on the Chinese maninland they would also be stuck fighting an insugency there.

 

[Feanor]

Im no expert but yes i understand the basics and you just helped make my point for me, a high intensity peer conflict is going to be many many times more expensive (in both dollars and US lives) then fighting the counterinsurgencies the US is currently involved in.
Judging by the Chinese nationalism we have seen recently ide say if the US tried to fight on the Chinese maninland they would also be stuck fighting an insugency there.

Actually it's quite the opposite, provided the conventional conflict is resolved relatively quickly. What makes insurgencies so expensive is that you're essentially involved in a hearts and minds campaign, and in the case of Iraq straight up nation building, where as in a conventional high-tempo conflict none of that matters.

 

[Waylander]

I don't even get what a land war against China or India has to do with coming up to Australia's help.
The US doesn't need to land on chinese soil to engage their fleet assets just as they don't need to land in China to cripple it's trade.

Seriously, Australias position is so remote, there are so many other countries between them and potential foes, their security is directly linked to the security of the US and they field a relatively good military for this region.

Before anybody attemps to invade it for resources one could occupy half a dozen African countries and call it a day.