Australia & US Military Co-operation

[Abraham Gubler]

The issue is not that China is a direct threat to Australia. China’s economic growth is of a huge benefit to Australia, the USA and the rest of the world. The Chinese can also buy as much farmland and mines as they want AFAIC because they can’t take them home with them, it invests more wealth into our national and we can always confiscate them if there is any security crisis. Also China is a long, long way from being able to challenge the USA and allies militarily.

The concern with China is a range of unresolved geostrategic issues around its periphery may lead to local and/or global wars. Any such war would be disastrous economically for China but because of the fundamentally dictatorship nature of her government can’t be ruled out. So the best security policy is deterrence of China from aggression and continued integration of China politically, socially and economically with the rest of the world.

 

[tphuang]

The issue is not that China is a direct threat to Australia. China’s economic growth is of a huge benefit to Australia, the USA and the rest of the world. The Chinese can also buy as much farmland and mines as they want AFAIC because they can’t take them home with them, it invests more wealth into our national and we can always confiscate them if there is any security crisis. Also China is a long, long way from being able to challenge the USA and allies militarily.

The concern with China is a range of unresolved geostrategic issues around its periphery may lead to local and/or global wars. Any such war would be disastrous economically for China but because of the fundamentally dictatorship nature of her government can’t be ruled out. So the best security policy is deterrence of China from aggression and continued integration of China politically, socially and economically with the rest of the world.

It has nothing to do with single party rule. The domestic policy in China is heavily influenced by the public. In many aspects, the country could more unstable in foreign policy if under democratic rule. I do think that US influence in ASEAN will continue to decrease regardless of how the US political elites desire due to the structural non-avoidable problems in the US economy. And eventually, most ASEAN countries will accept Chinese leadership in this area. There are going to be countries like Vietnam that will really not like that, but there are also many countries in the Americas that don't like American power over the region either (including countries like Cuba, Venezuela and Bolivia that openly oppose US). And I'm not saying that this is going to be immediate, but it will happen in the next 20 years. And I think the Chinese governance will get better over that time. And I think Australia will have to make a choice of moving away from US and closer to China. Most people in Australia seems to make future projection on sustained American power + growing Chinese power. I'm simply saying that is not going to happen based on the American economic direction. It will be growing Chinese power + steadily declining American power. Just some thoughts.

 

[Australian.Jack]

Hello, i'm new here

Just signed up to this forum, so this is my first post. I am an Australian, have been all my life, and am Australian going back six generations and three generations respectively.

I believe that while i would prefer to not have the Americans stationed in Australia, i see no other alternative, A few hours away from the mainland of Australia we have Indonesia, which is home to the world's largest Muslim demographic.

Politicians can keep telling us that Indonesia is our friend, but we can see through this, they are not our friends and they never will be. And wasting tax payers dollars on them is a complete waste, as corruption is and always has been rampant in that nation.

Furthermore we have Japan, (who may be one of our major trading partners) but has also shown complete disregard for our territorial waters by entering them illegally and poaching whales from our waters, and whale sanctuaries. I am a nationalist and a patriot but that by no means means that i am not and cannot be an environmentalist too.

To finish, having US forces here wil be benneficial, but not neccesarily popular. The main problem with the Australian military is not that it is poorly equipped or managed, but that current and previous governments have all failed to put enough funding into the military, it is well trained and well equipped but sadly lacking in sufficient numbers to adequately defend Australia against the current and future threats we are and may face in the future. I look forward to replies.

Cheers Jack

 

[jeffb]

Why are you so afraid of Indonesia Jack? The notion that they're a threat to us is laughable to me. They simply don't have the capability to put any military pressure on us at all.

Regarding Japan, the majority of the world does not recognise our claim to the waters off the coast of the Australian Antarctic Territory. Its not as simple as saying they're violating our territorial waters. In fact I think Australia's claim to the AAT are only recognised by the UK, NZ, Norway and France.

Basing US troops in Australia is nothing more than trying to balance out China's rise to try and keep some degree of balance in the region as a whole. Its nothing to do with saving our whales or defending us from the Indos.

 

[Australian.Jack]

Why are you so afraid of Indonesia Jack? The notion that they're a threat to us is laughable to me. They simply don't have the capability to put any military pressure on us at all.

Regarding Japan, the majority of the world does not recognise our claim to the waters off the coast of the Australian Antarctic Territory. Its not as simple as saying they're violating our territorial waters. In fact I think Australia's claim to the AAT are only recognised by the UK, NZ, Norway and France.

Basing US troops in Australia is nothing more than trying to balance out China's rise to try and keep some degree of balance in the region as a whole. Its nothing to do with saving our whales or defending us from the Indos.

While you are right, Indonesia's military capability is not that great, all they would have to do is float here on boats and we would not be able to stop them, remember there are an estimated 240 million Indonesians, and only 22 million Australians that is a HUGE difference. The Australian government has alread proven itself to be highley ineffective at stopping boats, If the Indonesians were taking note of this they would see that we have already lost control of our borders.

Regardless of wether or not the AAT is recognized or not, it is illegal for any nation to poach any animal in Antarctica. It is also illegal for any nation to establish a military presence on Antarctica.

 

[Bonza]

So how do you amass enough boats for all those people to "float here"? Where do you get enough boats to accommodate the people, facilities and supplies for such a lengthy voyage? How do you concentrate this force of boats, equipment and personnel without setting off warning signals to every intelligence group that's paying even the slightest attention to this part of the world? It's not as though intelligence agencies don't pay attention to port activity, particularly on the scale you're implying. How do you traverse the air-sea gap without alerting JORN and maritime surveillance assets?

Given the warning signals in the lead up to such an event, such as the amassing of boats and the enormous logistics/personnel activity involved, you'd be sailing into the teeth of a modern and well-prepared navy and air force, able to sink everything in sight with virtual impunity. We're not talking about a few refugee boats here, we're talking about an invasion fleet. Those two things are very, very different, both in terms of their visibility and the avenues of government response.

And what do you do when you get here? Just trek on down the road from Darwin to Canberra and declare victory? How do you ensure control of a gigantic country with widely distributed population centres if all you've got is people and boats? How do you secure a logistics chain sufficient to support an invasion force of this size across a country as big as Australia?

You see, it isn't as simple as a bunch of people in boats at all...

 

[jeffb]

While you are right, Indonesia's military capability is not that great, all they would have to do is float here on boats and we would not be able to stop them, remember there are an estimated 240 million Indonesians, and only 22 million Australians that is a HUGE difference. The Australian government has alread proven itself to be highley ineffective at stopping boats, If the Indonesians were taking note of this they would see that we have already lost control of our borders.

Regardless of wether or not the AAT is recognized or not, it is illegal for any nation to poach any animal in Antarctica. It is also illegal for any nation to establish a military presence on Antarctica.

I'm pretty sure that RAN & RAAF wouldn't have that much trouble blowing up a heap of boats trying to stage an invasion of Australia, not to mention completely cut any survivors off from resupply. The idea of an invasion of Australia is ridiculous and everyone knows it. Populate or perish is a political idea from a century ago, its time to move on.

"Lost control of our borders" oh come on now ... you aren't really buying into that "armada of boats invading Australia" rubbish are you?

And that's just the thing with Japan's whaling program. They aren't poaching them, they're catching them under a treaty that Australia has also signed up to. Wether they are really catching them for scientific purposes is for a court to decide.

edit: To be fair, its a pretty common misconception though. People just look at the raw numbers to our north and get a little overwhelmed. In reality the people to our north are quiet happy where they are, their lifestyle doesn't revolve around trying to buy the biggest house you can afford. The last thing on their mind is abandoning their way of life and starting a new in Australia.

While Indonesia's Army is huge compared to ours its designed around policing their population not mounting amphibious landings. There's seriously nothing to fear here unless there are some huge changes that would be almost impossible to hide and would take significant time to complete.

 

[Australian.Jack]

Ok i concede that point, doesn't mean i'll start trusting the Indonesians though.

As for Japan, its not just the whales, its the Dolphins, its the fish its the sharks, they truly do rape and pillage the oceans. And when challenged on this by an Australian, the response is " well you cull Kangaroos " the difference is we cull kangaroos, only because there are far too many of them for the environment to sustain, it is far more humane to euthanize some of them so that the rest do not starve to death.

As for the so called " refugees " i like many Australians are getting fed up with boat after boat after boat coming here to leeche off the system, they are not refugees, they are economic migrants coming here to take advantage of the free healthcare, housing and benefits system. They make me sick, to think that people like my Great Grandfather fought and died so that politicians could turn Australia into a third world country, it realy does make me furious.

Furthermore Indonesia is the main staging post for the proxy invasion of Australia by thousands of so called Refugees.

 

[jeffb]

As for the so called " refugees " i like many Australians are getting fed up with boat after boat after boat coming here to leeche off the system, they are not refugees, they are economic migrants coming here to take advantage of the free healthcare, housing and benefits system. They make me sick, to think that people like my Great Grandfather fought and died so that politicians could turn Australia into a third world country, it realy does make me furious.

Furthermore Indonesia is the main staging post for the proxy invasion of Australia by thousands of so called Refugees.

Why are you bringing your xenophobia and complete ignorance of refugees into a thread about Australia & US military cooperation?

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Furthermore Indonesia is the main staging post for the proxy invasion of Australia by thousands of so called Refugees.

LOL. That photo is of Indian religious pilgrims crossing the Ganges in a river ferry... About as accurate depiction of Australia’s border problems as the claim it’s a proxy invasion.

 

[Bonza]

They make me sick, to think that people like my Great Grandfather fought and died so that politicians could turn Australia into a third world country, it realy does make me furious.

Furthermore Indonesia is the main staging post for the proxy invasion of Australia by thousands of so called Refugees.

This isn't a political forum, your posts are so off-base that it boggles the mind, and if you really believe that "politicians are turning Australia into a third world country" and "boat people are a proxy invasion force" then you're beyond all logic, and beyond all help.

In short, don't make any more posts like the above on this forum. You want to vent some misplaced anger and paranoid fantasies, go somewhere else.

 

[Australian.Jack]

Mod edit: You seem to have missed the post above where I told you to knock it off. Last chance. Keep up this behaviour and your tenure on the site will be very short indeed.

 

[Eeshaan]

LOL. That photo is of Indian religious pilgrims crossing the Ganges in a river ferry... About as accurate depiction of Australia’s border problems as the claim it’s a proxy invasion.

HAHAHA that was funny :lol2

Anyways, I have always wondered, why did Australia choose the Leopard over Abrams ? Would the Australians not have gotten a better deal from the USA ? Tanks like Abrams, Challenger etc. have a proven battle record in Desert environment, which if I'm not wrong, most of Central Australia is, and these tanks did quite well in the Gulf War...

 

[Bonza]

HAHAHA that was funny :lol2

Anyways, I have always wondered, why did Australia choose the Leopard over Abrams ? Would the Australians not have gotten a better deal from the USA ? Tanks like Abrams, Challenger etc. have a proven battle record in Desert environment, which if I'm not wrong, most of Central Australia is, and these tanks did quite well in the Gulf War...

Back when the Leopards were selected the Abrams wasn't yet in service, and from what I understand the only US tank on the table was the M60 Patton. However, Australia now operates the Abrams, which replaced the Leopard in 2006-2007 (I think).

 

[Todjaeger]

Back when the Leopards were selected the Abrams wasn't yet in service, and from what I understand the only US tank on the table was the M60 Patton. However, Australia now operates the Abrams, which replaced the Leopard in 2006-2007 (I think).

Not entirely accurate. The a version of the M-48 could also have been had, in place of the Leopard I tank. Honestly though, the M-48 would not have been particularly good candidate, since it was from roughly the same era as the Centurion tanks being replaced. In point of fact, the M-60 design entered production about 5 years before the Leo I. IMO what is more interesting, is why the ADF did not choose a British replacement for the British Centurion? The Chieftain tank started production about the same time as Leo I, and at the time had a reputation as having amongst the heaviest armour in the world.

Granted, that is all water/dam now. At present, the ADF is equipped with the M1A1 Abrams, but an upgraded version which AFAIK includes many of the TUSK features.

-Cheers

 

[Bonza]

Ahh right. Thanks for the info

Not sure re the Chieftain but someone else would probably know.

 

[StevoJH]

Ahh right. Thanks for the info

Not sure re the Chieftain but someone else would probably know.

Were they actually available for sale at the time? Especially since they were being produced for Iran at the time, they may not have been available until too late.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Not entirely accurate. The a version of the M-48 could also have been had, in place of the Leopard I tank. Honestly though, the M-48 would not have been particularly good candidate, since it was from roughly the same era as the Centurion tanks being replaced.

Australia wanted a new build tank back to replace the Centurion and the M48 was not new build, the last one had come of the production line in 1959. Also at this time – 1971, when the Centurion replacement program started - the M48 was only fitted with the 90mm gun. The M48A5 upgrade would come a few years later.

The M48 was designed and first built a full tank generation after the Centurion (~10 years) but the state of the art had not advanced so much during this time. The Australian Army used a few M48s during the VietNam War as part of the combat engineer squadrons.

To replace the Centurion Army reviewed the Chieftan, Vickers medium tank, M60A1, AMX30 and Leopard 1. The Chieftan was assessed by the Army but rejected because of its unreliable engine, higher weight and excessive 120mm gun. A pair each of M60A1s ad Leopard 1s were trialled in over the summer of 72/73 for the medium tank requirement. The Leopard 1 was chosen but the order was delayed a few years due to financing.

The Army does not realistically plan to fight in the centre of Australia because it’s just such an unlikely theatre of operations. The medium tank trial was carried out at Puckapunyal – typical Australian rural terrain – and Tully – high rainfall tropical forest.

 

[Eeshaan]

Hey thanks for the info guys, I thought Leo 2A5 was the only tank operational with ADF at the moment, didn't know that they had Abrams operational too.

 

[the road runner]

, I thought Leo 2A5 was the only tank operational with ADF at the moment.

The ADF dosent operate Leo 2,we did operate Leo 1,but they are being retired
The Abrams is the ADFs new Tank.

Regards