Oceania a new UN SC region?
- Thread starter Brycec
- Start date
Exactly, that's what I am thinking. Australia is far to small in term of manpower, MIC infrastructures, but rich in resource. To gain a UNSC perm seat, as previously pointed out by Grand Dinois, we must have atleast a substantial "global influence". We are only a regional power, in a region where other people's navy are merely canoes. I am not putting ourself down, but we, have to be realistic.
In term of manpower, in an all out war, they could easily penetrate our defense. Their fishermen are in and out of our territorial water daily and a lot of them are even living in the deserted part of coastline. Our defense here are filmsy at best. If you have any idea, turn to google earth. Just look at how much coastline we have to cover and how much manpower currently we have.
Indonesia itself has TEN TIMES the manpower compare to us, even Malaysia has more people than us. And if you apply Lanchester's laws, unless our military technological advantages are TEN TIMES BETTER (which certainly is not the case here compare to Indonesia.. unless we compare to islanders). We don't stand a chance in a formal confrontation against Indonesia.
Last edited:
abramsteve
New Member
Mate Im not sure I would agree with you on that. Capability wise Australia is miles ahead of both Indonesia and Malaysia.Without american around, Australia can't even defend itself against Indonesia if they decided to attack Australia. I wouldn't even rank Australia on the same term as Malaysia militarily. The issue of Australia to get a permanent UNSC seat is akin to a baby asking to be seated in the adult's table instead of kids table.
Be realistic mate.
Puting the military aspect aside, Im not sure if Oceania is a realistic member region. But I would put Australia in a list for possible future members, along with India, Japan and Germany.
I think even the indonesians would rank the Australian Navy and Airforce far above their own. Malaysia is better off but not really comparible. Ground forces are a different matter from sheer numbers. I personally belive that the Indonesian ground forces could be delt with by current ADF.
I agree there are a whole lot of nations that could put up arguments for UNSC. There is a big pool at that level which includes, Brazil, Australia, India Italy, Germany, Japan, Korea, Spain, Canada, South Africa etc. Which is why they haven't really opened it up.
Do they really need a voice at the UNSC? Who aren't covered by existing voices?
Break down the existing perment members:
The Republic of China (Covers asia)
The French Republic (Covers continential europe)
The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (covers eastern europe)
The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (covers europe and its empire reminence)
The United States of America (covers the americas)
The G4 nations (Brazil, Germany, Japan and India) all support each others bid for UNSC. They also promote 2 seats from africa with key nations being South Africa, Nigeria or Egypt.
However this agreement looks to be weakening. There are alot of countries that don't want to see each one of these countries getting a seat.
Who would oppose Australia getting a chair at the table?
I agree there are a whole lot of nations that could put up arguments for UNSC. There is a big pool at that level which includes, Brazil, Australia, India Italy, Germany, Japan, Korea, Spain, Canada, South Africa etc. Which is why they haven't really opened it up.
Do they really need a voice at the UNSC? Who aren't covered by existing voices?
Break down the existing perment members:
The Republic of China (Covers asia)
The French Republic (Covers continential europe)
The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (covers eastern europe)
The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (covers europe and its empire reminence)
The United States of America (covers the americas)
The G4 nations (Brazil, Germany, Japan and India) all support each others bid for UNSC. They also promote 2 seats from africa with key nations being South Africa, Nigeria or Egypt.
However this agreement looks to be weakening. There are alot of countries that don't want to see each one of these countries getting a seat.
Who would oppose Australia getting a chair at the table?
Read my previous post about Lanchester's law.
The 2 countries I just mentioned (Malaysia, Indonesia) would most likely voice their opposition.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #27
Once an officer I know said "There was a plane flying over my company one day and I turned to a mate and said, 'watch out, the Indonesians are invading!' he turned to me and said 'Don't joke about that!'
"You see, he was a man on the ground. He's payed to kill people and get dirty. He doesn't have any idea about force projection or what it takes to wage war."
Look mate, I'm sure you're great at whatever you do, but in all honesty you have no idea what you're talking about.
Lets start from stage one. Indonesia would have to actually get to Australia to attack us. Now, with what transport ships would they achieve this?
What support ships do they have? What ships to defend the transport ships? The answer is that the Indonesians have next to no Navy.
The next thing. If somehow, Indonesia managed to muster a fleet large enough to launch a sizable invasion, we would know about it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Scanrange.jpg
Next thing, we have an airforce capable of hitting back, dropping bombs, and causing hell on the clustered Indonesian infrastructure. Indonesia does not have the capability to retaliate in kind.
So already, we have a far superior Navy, which operates fourteen frigates (six Oliver Hazard Perry-class frigates that have been modernized to carry SM-2 and Evolved Sea Sparrow Missiles and eight Anzac-class frigates, which will be modernized to carry Evolved Sea Sparrows and Harpoons).
Ans we have an Airforce that is miles ahead of Indonesia's. We have more aircraft, and better aircraft. I wont even mention how much better training our pilots get.
Our Army will be outnumbered, true, but since Indonesia will have zero air cover, we could expect to see a result similar to Israel in the 1967 6 day war, where the Israeli army defeated 3 Arab nations in 6 days due to the Israeli air superiority. No to mention the fact that out Navy would cut their supply lines before they have gotten off their transport ships.
And Indonesian troops receive training that is barely comparable to Australian troops training. Mostly Indonesians sit around at roadblocks searching drivers with dodgy licenses.
So mate, next time you look at the numbers and so "Oh shit, they outnumber us 4 to 1 dewd!!11" Take a look realistically at the situation.
I could write a book on all the ways we would kick Indonesias ass if they tried to take us on. It would be a joke.
Next to no navy??
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_frigate_classes_by_country
Australia, I counted 14, Indonesia, I counted 21.
I think they can fully overwhelm us with fishing boats if they wish!
I am fully aware of JORN. But JORN is an OTH radar, it does not give targeting info, and it can detect movement, but I highly doubt it can differentiate types of craft without satellite imaging info.
I agree, airforce is where we have the upper hand. RAF currently have :
71 F-18
28 F-111, but the F-111 are going to be decommission soon.
Total : 99
Compare this to Indonesian's inventory :
2 SU-27SK
8 Su-30MK2
10 F-16
9 F-5
41 BAE Hawk
Total : 70
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_Indonesia
They have a bit more naval asset than us. Read previous paragraph. Although ours are technologically superior.
Haha.. well, I am glad you are so optimistic.
But we are talking about a country with 10 TIMES the population compare to ours.
And the current australian demographic trends are expected to put pressure on the Australian Defence Force in the future. The aging of the australian population is predicted to result in smaller numbers of potential recruits entering the australian labour market each year. Meaning we will see much smaller arm forces than we currently have.
The ADF is currently already experiencing quite a drop in recruitment in recent years. The "good economy" is fueling the drop in recruitment compound that with the effect of demographic trend, I predict we will see much more severe manpower shortage for ADF in near future.
So, what's the ADF going to do when we have nobody to fly our planes?
Last edited:
I personally believe that in the case of the UNSC, it's not the raw power of the nation that should count but it's power within it's own region.Waylander said:
For the countries you mention, most have their regions represented in the UNSC.
And if Oceania will be considered as a new region, it needs to be properly represented by it's regional power that in this case is Australia.
A lot of countries. All of them thinking "Why they and not we?".
You just cannot say that Europe is for example covered by the UK and France and you are not.
You are covered by the US and by the UK (I mean the queen is still your head of state) which makes you probably more covered than for example Germany.
I would not understand it if Australia would get a seat and several other nations.
As to Oceania again.
There you have one 1st world nation with the economical might of for example 1/3 of Italy, with 50.000 soldiers in you armed forces. Another 1st world nation with nearly no economic or military might above regional theater and even there not that much.
Then comes a 2nd world nation and a bunch of really small nations.
Compare this to other regions of the world...
Good one, I forget that.
Doesn't Australia refuse to give up their Queen in a poll sometime around the 2000?
Is Australia important? I say yes, and very. Is Australia that important? I say no . But it is clear that Australia government have an ambition over the Asia - Pacific region as a regional or even world power. because Australia never have a bad historical record(rarely in case I am innocent, they seem never invaded anyone), and growing influence, they will get what they want。 Although not in a short time
Sorry for this off topic reply but I feel it has to be made.Without american around, Australia can't even defend itself against Indonesia if they decided to attack Australia. I wouldn't even rank Australia on the same term as Malaysia militarily. The issue of Australia to get a permanent UNSC seat is akin to a baby asking to be seated in the adult's table instead of kids table.
Be realistic mate.
Dioditto, Australia can't defend itself from Indonesia?
This is a view I have heard quite a lot over the years, and it is a view that is completely wrong and without even the remotest foundation.
Looking on paper the Indonesian military looks large and impressive, but in reality it is an internal military spread all over the country. It has poor training, poor equipment maintenance, and no real modern weapons or modern force multipliers.
As it stands now and in the immediate future Indonesia can not gain any sort of air or sea dominance and cannot maintain the logistics to even remotely consider an actual invasion.
The standing joke I heard that Australian Officers tell goes like this:
What do we do if Indonesia invades?
Answer: Go to the pub, their logistics will break down within 48 hours.
Indonesia has some fine servicemen, but the reality is they are just not trained, equipped, or orientated for offensive military operations. They are geared for internal operations.
Spot on Whiskeyjack!
IMO, Australian naval and air forces are far stronger than those of Indonesia.
I think Dioditto has made the mistake of looking only at numbers of personnel and the quantity of equipment in the Indonesian inventory. He also hasn't considered the impact of assets like the Collins class submarines in a naval conflict with Indonesia. He takes no account of the experience and expertise Australia has gained from actually deploying and using its navy and air force in combat throughout the world in conflicts going back to WW1. He also ignores the actual state of the Indonesian navy and air force compared to Australia's.
The Indonesian army is much larger but, as you have said, it is geared for internal operations whilst the Australian army has a century of tradition and expertise fighting both overseas and in the direct defence of Australia (e.g. New Guinea from 1942). The Australian army could also be expanded significantly, as has been the case in two world wars, if the need arises. Australia clearly has the financial ability to expand all of its forces.
Having said that I don't believe there is the remotest possibility of Indonesia being at war with Australia without any other country being involved. I think both countries are making efforts to improve relationships and work together co-operatively. Australia has even provided technical assistance to the Indonesian Air Force to get its C130 transports operational!
Back OT I really can't see a realistic case for Australia to be given a permanent seat on the Security Council unless every geographical region of the world was similarly represented (i.e. South America, Africa and the Sub Continent).
Cheers
abramsteve
New Member
If wars were won based on figures, we'd just weigh up the order of battle and decide who won without the need for blood and destruction.
I have to agree with Waylander, there are too many other nations of a similar, if not greater, world status than us on a list of potential members. However we should never be considered as being 'covered' by anyone, least of all the UK, just look back to early 1942 to tell us that.
I have to agree with Waylander, there are too many other nations of a similar, if not greater, world status than us on a list of potential members. However we should never be considered as being 'covered' by anyone, least of all the UK, just look back to early 1942 to tell us that.
Whilst I agree it isn't justified to give Australia a seat, I don't think the importance of Australia's regional influence and massive natural resource "power" is considered enough by many.
There certainly is a big problem looking at that map though (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:UNblocs.PNG), it does appear to indicate our representation as being part of the commonwealth - I personally think we ought to address this first.
P.S. The stupid country A versus country B popping up in threads from time to time really annoys the crap out of me. Please refrain from doing so, the ability may influence this argument but the methods, should you wish to discuss them, could be left to another thread couldn't it? (yes i know this thread is a few days old, caught my eye as an interesting topic however)
There certainly is a big problem looking at that map though (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:UNblocs.PNG), it does appear to indicate our representation as being part of the commonwealth - I personally think we ought to address this first.
P.S. The stupid country A versus country B popping up in threads from time to time really annoys the crap out of me. Please refrain from doing so, the ability may influence this argument but the methods, should you wish to discuss them, could be left to another thread couldn't it? (yes i know this thread is a few days old, caught my eye as an interesting topic however)
I think the UN is going to have to address the regional representation issue sooner rather than later if it wants to avoid a situation like the 3rd and 2nd world nations declaring war on the 1st.
I fail to see how Europe country A - Europe country B - Europe country C D E F G etc etc each having seats at the security councel is doing any good - There should be One representative for Europe - One North America - One South America, Africa, Asia, Subcontinent, One for Oceania.
Europeans tend to think the world revolves around them as do the Americans however there is more to life than a dollar bill, it doesnt matter how many banks you own when half a billion starving pissed off people turn up on your doorstep demanding their share or else.
Europeans are only now for instance putting in in a remotely practical military fashion to do some good for the world that they have taken so much from, and in an extremely limited envelope for their size and economic compacity indeed man for man Australia and New Zealand have done far more over the last 50 years.
I would like to see Australia have a chair but I would also like to see India - Brazil and Sth Africa/Egypt have a chair this would be far more fair and in the long run will save the world a lot of tears.
I fail to see how Europe country A - Europe country B - Europe country C D E F G etc etc each having seats at the security councel is doing any good - There should be One representative for Europe - One North America - One South America, Africa, Asia, Subcontinent, One for Oceania.
Europeans tend to think the world revolves around them as do the Americans however there is more to life than a dollar bill, it doesnt matter how many banks you own when half a billion starving pissed off people turn up on your doorstep demanding their share or else.
Europeans are only now for instance putting in in a remotely practical military fashion to do some good for the world that they have taken so much from, and in an extremely limited envelope for their size and economic compacity indeed man for man Australia and New Zealand have done far more over the last 50 years.
I would like to see Australia have a chair but I would also like to see India - Brazil and Sth Africa/Egypt have a chair this would be far more fair and in the long run will save the world a lot of tears.
The fear of the 2nd and 3rd world declaring war on the 1st World?
You mean practically declaring war on NATO and US tier one partners?
Ahem, with what?
In the end there are more important countries than others. I don't want to say that there are more important people than others but just countries which have much more influence on the world stage.
And Europe does not think that the world revolves around them. But you just have too look at the economical data to see why europe is one of the most important regions out there.
And it might not be fair but economic might is one of the most important things on this globalised planet.
And with Germany alone having a GDP which is roughly 2,5 times as big as the whole of Oceania I don't see a parity in importance with europe compared to most other areas of the world.
This has nothing to do with me not granting anything to others than europeans (In the end I don't believe that for example germany is ready for such a seat) but I include the reality of world powers. This is not a perfect world and for sure not a fair one.
BTW, what do you mean with Australia and NZ having done much more than the western european countries?
You mean practically declaring war on NATO and US tier one partners?
Ahem, with what?
In the end there are more important countries than others. I don't want to say that there are more important people than others but just countries which have much more influence on the world stage.
And Europe does not think that the world revolves around them. But you just have too look at the economical data to see why europe is one of the most important regions out there.
And it might not be fair but economic might is one of the most important things on this globalised planet.
And with Germany alone having a GDP which is roughly 2,5 times as big as the whole of Oceania I don't see a parity in importance with europe compared to most other areas of the world.
This has nothing to do with me not granting anything to others than europeans (In the end I don't believe that for example germany is ready for such a seat) but I include the reality of world powers. This is not a perfect world and for sure not a fair one.
BTW, what do you mean with Australia and NZ having done much more than the western european countries?
What im trying to say is that a fairer more realistic world representation at the security councel level of world affairs would help things not hinder them.
Pushing money around in circles making more money is certainly something the Europeans excel at and since its their game that they invented its no supprise, however it doesnt really matter how much money you have if you wont put in and fight ie the dilemma in Afghanistan.
Other countries will and arguably have more influence than the Europeans sitting back counting their dollars, if economic activity is the prime factor behind Security Councel membership Japan most certainly should have a seat but the fact is although economic power is important there are other factors involved.
Europe and America are in slow decline, other powers are slowly coming to the fore and the balance of world power is changing.
The world in 30 years time will be vastly different from what it is today just as today is from 30 years ago although very probably with a lot more uncertanty, population and dwindling resources so as the old Chinese curse goes we are in for interesting times and.
Europe certainly needs a representative but probably only a single Eu representitive would suffice in my opinion there are other more important areas of the world than Europe strategicly and economicly and they need a voice or we risk a catastrophy.
It looks inevitable that Americas prestige is in for another blow after they leave Iraq and Americas traditional response to a blow in prestige or a setback is to become more isolationist although with her global web of corperates im not sure if this will occure this time but either way Iraq is seen as a loss and the Europeans are viewed as impotent and largely irrelivent anywhere else other than Europe, this will set the stage for the new generation of powers to fill the vacume and if the UN clings to old concepts of whos important and who isnt its going to mean tears for the world.
At this stage if Australia got a seat China and many other countries would see us as an American/western lacky and would be criticised I think India, Japan, Brazil etc need a voice and I think we do to but maybee not right now.
Pushing money around in circles making more money is certainly something the Europeans excel at and since its their game that they invented its no supprise, however it doesnt really matter how much money you have if you wont put in and fight ie the dilemma in Afghanistan.
Other countries will and arguably have more influence than the Europeans sitting back counting their dollars, if economic activity is the prime factor behind Security Councel membership Japan most certainly should have a seat but the fact is although economic power is important there are other factors involved.
Europe and America are in slow decline, other powers are slowly coming to the fore and the balance of world power is changing.
The world in 30 years time will be vastly different from what it is today just as today is from 30 years ago although very probably with a lot more uncertanty, population and dwindling resources so as the old Chinese curse goes we are in for interesting times and.
Europe certainly needs a representative but probably only a single Eu representitive would suffice in my opinion there are other more important areas of the world than Europe strategicly and economicly and they need a voice or we risk a catastrophy.
It looks inevitable that Americas prestige is in for another blow after they leave Iraq and Americas traditional response to a blow in prestige or a setback is to become more isolationist although with her global web of corperates im not sure if this will occure this time but either way Iraq is seen as a loss and the Europeans are viewed as impotent and largely irrelivent anywhere else other than Europe, this will set the stage for the new generation of powers to fill the vacume and if the UN clings to old concepts of whos important and who isnt its going to mean tears for the world.
At this stage if Australia got a seat China and many other countries would see us as an American/western lacky and would be criticised I think India, Japan, Brazil etc need a voice and I think we do to but maybee not right now.
Grand Danois
Entertainer
Could you elaborate on this?
Both regions have the growth you could expect from highly developed economies. And though there will be a decline in population numbers in Europe, it will not impact at this level. EU and North America still represent 70% of the world economy in nominal terms.