-
@kirwan said in Aussie Politics:
@chimoaus said in Aussie Politics:
@majorrage Maybe I'm ignorant but I find it farcical to think in 2021 that a developed nation would "invade" another developed nation, it's not 1939.
The world economy is so intertwined that we are all reliant on one another, it makes no sense, I really cannot see why China would invade any nation for their resources when they can just buy them. Yes, there are long standing tensions between certain nations but that is very much localised land disputes, and they are not going to blitzkrieg the world.
Wouldn't it be great if the world could somehow come together and agree to drastically reduce military spending, very much like the Paris climate agreement.
I noticed that Costa Rica has not had an army since 1949. "Costa Rica's track record of 72 years without a standing army demonstrates in a convincing way that it is possible, as well as positive, to organize a state on the principles of mutual trust, peace and non-violence." https://www.canberratimes.com.au/story/7038431/costa-rica-abolished-its-military-other-countries-can-too/
Crimea says hi. 2.5 million people invaded by Russia.
This post reminds me of Helen Clark talking about the end of war, a few short years before 9/11.
Yep, the League of Nations and the Washington Naval Treaty also came to mind for having all the right intentions... yet all the best intentions around agreements for disarmament seem to work right up until one party changes their mind...
-
@antipodean said in Aussie Politics:
@chimoaus said in Aussie Politics:
@majorrage Maybe I'm ignorant but I find it farcical to think in 2021 that a developed nation would "invade" another developed nation, it's not 1939.
The world economy is so intertwined that we are all reliant on one another, it makes no sense, I really cannot see why China would invade any nation for their resources when they can just buy them. Yes, there are long standing tensions between certain nations but that is very much localised land disputes, and they are not going to blitzkrieg the world.
Wouldn't it be great if the world could somehow come together and agree to drastically reduce military spending, very much like the Paris climate agreement.
I noticed that Costa Rica has not had an army since 1949. "Costa Rica's track record of 72 years without a standing army demonstrates in a convincing way that it is possible, as well as positive, to organize a state on the principles of mutual trust, peace and non-violence." https://www.canberratimes.com.au/story/7038431/costa-rica-abolished-its-military-other-countries-can-too/
Costa Rica's relationship with the USA underscores their ability to forego a military. In much the same way NZ and Ireland are military mendicant States; dependent on others. Any invading force really has to go through someone else first.
Australia is dependent on maritime trade for its prosperity and the wealth corridor is threatened by a dictatorship that thinks nothing of the rule of law, or the rights of its own citizens.
I had to giggle a bit at China's attitude yesterday i.e. "Instead of this aggressive destabilisation they should do more to assist their neighbours and promote peace like we do - buying entire countries so we can have forward operating bases everywhere int eh South Pacific"
One journo on twitter yesterday pointed out that China's leverage in getting angry is extremely limited - they're always angry
-
@nta said in Aussie Politics:
@antipodean said in Aussie Politics:
@chimoaus said in Aussie Politics:
@majorrage Maybe I'm ignorant but I find it farcical to think in 2021 that a developed nation would "invade" another developed nation, it's not 1939.
The world economy is so intertwined that we are all reliant on one another, it makes no sense, I really cannot see why China would invade any nation for their resources when they can just buy them. Yes, there are long standing tensions between certain nations but that is very much localised land disputes, and they are not going to blitzkrieg the world.
Wouldn't it be great if the world could somehow come together and agree to drastically reduce military spending, very much like the Paris climate agreement.
I noticed that Costa Rica has not had an army since 1949. "Costa Rica's track record of 72 years without a standing army demonstrates in a convincing way that it is possible, as well as positive, to organize a state on the principles of mutual trust, peace and non-violence." https://www.canberratimes.com.au/story/7038431/costa-rica-abolished-its-military-other-countries-can-too/
Costa Rica's relationship with the USA underscores their ability to forego a military. In much the same way NZ and Ireland are military mendicant States; dependent on others. Any invading force really has to go through someone else first.
Australia is dependent on maritime trade for its prosperity and the wealth corridor is threatened by a dictatorship that thinks nothing of the rule of law, or the rights of its own citizens.
I had to giggle a bit at China's attitude yesterday i.e. "Instead of this aggressive destabilisation they should do more to assist their neighbours and promote peace like we do - buying entire countries so we can have forward operating bases everywhere int eh South Pacific"
One journo on twitter yesterday pointed out that China's leverage in getting angry is extremely limited - they're always angry
Yep, the best response IMO is for our Foreign Minister to act surprised they'd even comment by saying "not sure why they're upset. It has nothing to do with them"
-
@antipodean unfortunately have the aus and us ministers come out and specifically named china over night?
-
@kirwan said in Aussie Politics:
@chimoaus said in Aussie Politics:
@majorrage Maybe I'm ignorant but I find it farcical to think in 2021 that a developed nation would "invade" another developed nation, it's not 1939.
The world economy is so intertwined that we are all reliant on one another, it makes no sense, I really cannot see why China would invade any nation for their resources when they can just buy them. Yes, there are long standing tensions between certain nations but that is very much localised land disputes, and they are not going to blitzkrieg the world.
Wouldn't it be great if the world could somehow come together and agree to drastically reduce military spending, very much like the Paris climate agreement.
I noticed that Costa Rica has not had an army since 1949. "Costa Rica's track record of 72 years without a standing army demonstrates in a convincing way that it is possible, as well as positive, to organize a state on the principles of mutual trust, peace and non-violence." https://www.canberratimes.com.au/story/7038431/costa-rica-abolished-its-military-other-countries-can-too/
Crimea says hi. 2.5 million people invaded by Russia.
This post reminds me of Helen Clark talking about the end of war, a few short years before 9/11.
Yep the 100's of billions the US spends on military definitely helped prevent 9/11 and I would hardly call that an invasion.
I did mention that land/religious disputes between neighbours was a reality but what is the likelihood any nation would invade Australia? Very few nations have a naval force and China is the only obvious concern, the question is would China ever invade Australia in the WW2 sense, I highly doubt it, what would be the benefit for them?
Am I the only one who thinks the billions we spend is a gross waste of expenditure when the risk of lifes lost from pandemics, climate change and wellbeing are significantly higher.
It just seems like a giant pissing contest and instead of urine we are pissing taxpayers money.
-
@chimoaus IMO it's not about invasion per se, although that could happen, it's about trade and the ability for our region to not be subject to the whims of a dictatorship.
The United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) estimates that roughly 80 percent of global trade by volume and 70 percent by value is transported by sea. Of that volume, 60 percent of maritime trade passes through Asia, with the South China Sea carrying an estimated one-third of global shipping.1 Its waters are particularly critical for China, Taiwan, Japan, and South Korea, all of which rely on the Strait of Malacca, which connects the South China Sea and, by extension, the Pacific Ocean with the Indian Ocean. As the second-largest economy in the world with over 60 percent of its trade in value traveling by sea, China’s economic security is closely tied to the South China Sea.
-
@nta said in Aussie Politics:
@chimoaus not to mention if China were serious, they could crush our military through sheer numbers alone.
/cough Battle of Kapyong /cough
-
I agree with @antipodean its not about invasion. Re drawing maps from to fit in your forward operating bases and claiming its yours is much easier to do than go to war. Just calll it fake news when someone disagrees, Those waters are crucial for trade and if you control the trade...
-
@chimoaus said in Aussie Politics:
@kirwan said in Aussie Politics:
@chimoaus said in Aussie Politics:
@majorrage Maybe I'm ignorant but I find it farcical to think in 2021 that a developed nation would "invade" another developed nation, it's not 1939.
The world economy is so intertwined that we are all reliant on one another, it makes no sense, I really cannot see why China would invade any nation for their resources when they can just buy them. Yes, there are long standing tensions between certain nations but that is very much localised land disputes, and they are not going to blitzkrieg the world.
Wouldn't it be great if the world could somehow come together and agree to drastically reduce military spending, very much like the Paris climate agreement.
I noticed that Costa Rica has not had an army since 1949. "Costa Rica's track record of 72 years without a standing army demonstrates in a convincing way that it is possible, as well as positive, to organize a state on the principles of mutual trust, peace and non-violence." https://www.canberratimes.com.au/story/7038431/costa-rica-abolished-its-military-other-countries-can-too/
Crimea says hi. 2.5 million people invaded by Russia.
This post reminds me of Helen Clark talking about the end of war, a few short years before 9/11.
Yep the 100's of billions the US spends on military definitely helped prevent 9/11 and I would hardly call that an invasion.
I did mention that land/religious disputes between neighbours was a reality but what is the likelihood any nation would invade Australia? Very few nations have a naval force and China is the only obvious concern, the question is would China ever invade Australia in the WW2 sense, I highly doubt it, what would be the benefit for them?
Am I the only one who thinks the billions we spend is a gross waste of expenditure when the risk of lifes lost from pandemics, climate change and wellbeing are significantly higher.
It just seems like a giant pissing contest and instead of urine we are pissing taxpayers money.
Indonesia must look south at all that empty Aussie land being under population strain and be tempted.
I'm not sure if you have noticed, but there are a shit load of conflicts going on around the world. Not having a capable miltary is negligence IMO.
-
@kirwan said in Aussie Politics:
@chimoaus said in Aussie Politics:
@kirwan said in Aussie Politics:
@chimoaus said in Aussie Politics:
@majorrage Maybe I'm ignorant but I find it farcical to think in 2021 that a developed nation would "invade" another developed nation, it's not 1939.
The world economy is so intertwined that we are all reliant on one another, it makes no sense, I really cannot see why China would invade any nation for their resources when they can just buy them. Yes, there are long standing tensions between certain nations but that is very much localised land disputes, and they are not going to blitzkrieg the world.
Wouldn't it be great if the world could somehow come together and agree to drastically reduce military spending, very much like the Paris climate agreement.
I noticed that Costa Rica has not had an army since 1949. "Costa Rica's track record of 72 years without a standing army demonstrates in a convincing way that it is possible, as well as positive, to organize a state on the principles of mutual trust, peace and non-violence." https://www.canberratimes.com.au/story/7038431/costa-rica-abolished-its-military-other-countries-can-too/
Crimea says hi. 2.5 million people invaded by Russia.
This post reminds me of Helen Clark talking about the end of war, a few short years before 9/11.
Yep the 100's of billions the US spends on military definitely helped prevent 9/11 and I would hardly call that an invasion.
I did mention that land/religious disputes between neighbours was a reality but what is the likelihood any nation would invade Australia? Very few nations have a naval force and China is the only obvious concern, the question is would China ever invade Australia in the WW2 sense, I highly doubt it, what would be the benefit for them?
Am I the only one who thinks the billions we spend is a gross waste of expenditure when the risk of lifes lost from pandemics, climate change and wellbeing are significantly higher.
It just seems like a giant pissing contest and instead of urine we are pissing taxpayers money.
Indonesia must look south at all that empty Aussie land being under population strain and be tempted.
I'm not sure if you have noticed, but there are a shit load of conflicts going on around the world. Not having a capable miltary is negligence IMO.
I am not saying not to spend anything I am questioning if spending 90 billion on submarines and billions on fighter planes is going to make any significant difference to the thoughts of these dictators and enemies. I want our politicians to be responsible and realistic about it, it seems we can waste 2 billion on these failed subs and billions more on boats that don't work properly etc and write it off as "being prepared". I fully support the expenditure on Hercules and Helicopters etc that are actually used in humanitarian operations etc. But nuclear subs, their usefulness is a stretch.
-
@antipodean said in Aussie Politics:
@nta said in Aussie Politics:
@chimoaus not to mention if China were serious, they could crush our military through sheer numbers alone.
/cough Battle of Kapyong /cough
Fair point. Bit different these days tho - not saying Chinese military thinking is any more sophisticated than ours* but we're not talking Chinese farmer conscripts in the freezing cold.
*A mate from the rugby club is a SWO in the RAN and told some amusing stories about a little dance between his ship and some Chinese vessels up north. Reckons he probably got a couple of Chinese boat commanders reprimanded when they were outsmarted.
-
@kirwan said in Aussie Politics:
@chimoaus How to you propose to protect trade routes without jets or subs?
hopefully, the same way NZ does it or any other country that does not have subs and fighter planes? Clearly, I am ignorant when it comes to the risk China poses in taking over the world and enforcing communism on us all.
-
@chimoaus said in Aussie Politics:
@kirwan said in Aussie Politics:
@chimoaus said in Aussie Politics:
@kirwan said in Aussie Politics:
@chimoaus said in Aussie Politics:
@majorrage Maybe I'm ignorant but I find it farcical to think in 2021 that a developed nation would "invade" another developed nation, it's not 1939.
The world economy is so intertwined that we are all reliant on one another, it makes no sense, I really cannot see why China would invade any nation for their resources when they can just buy them. Yes, there are long standing tensions between certain nations but that is very much localised land disputes, and they are not going to blitzkrieg the world.
Wouldn't it be great if the world could somehow come together and agree to drastically reduce military spending, very much like the Paris climate agreement.
I noticed that Costa Rica has not had an army since 1949. "Costa Rica's track record of 72 years without a standing army demonstrates in a convincing way that it is possible, as well as positive, to organize a state on the principles of mutual trust, peace and non-violence." https://www.canberratimes.com.au/story/7038431/costa-rica-abolished-its-military-other-countries-can-too/
Crimea says hi. 2.5 million people invaded by Russia.
This post reminds me of Helen Clark talking about the end of war, a few short years before 9/11.
Yep the 100's of billions the US spends on military definitely helped prevent 9/11 and I would hardly call that an invasion.
I did mention that land/religious disputes between neighbours was a reality but what is the likelihood any nation would invade Australia? Very few nations have a naval force and China is the only obvious concern, the question is would China ever invade Australia in the WW2 sense, I highly doubt it, what would be the benefit for them?
Am I the only one who thinks the billions we spend is a gross waste of expenditure when the risk of lifes lost from pandemics, climate change and wellbeing are significantly higher.
It just seems like a giant pissing contest and instead of urine we are pissing taxpayers money.
Indonesia must look south at all that empty Aussie land being under population strain and be tempted.
I'm not sure if you have noticed, but there are a shit load of conflicts going on around the world. Not having a capable miltary is negligence IMO.
I am not saying not to spend anything I am questioning if spending 90 billion on submarines and billions on fighter planes is going to make any significant difference to the thoughts of these dictators and enemies. I want our politicians to be responsible and realistic about it, it seems we can waste 2 billion on these failed subs and billions more on boats that don't work properly etc and write it off as "being prepared". I fully support the expenditure on Hercules and Helicopters etc that are actually used in humanitarian operations etc. But nuclear subs, their usefulness is a stretch.
I definitely get the use of subs, theyre a hell of a lot harder to track and so the "bad guys" have to assume the could be anywhere, having a carrier or something they can easily see is on the other side of the world is much less of a deterrent
I'm sure i heard several times over the last decade that south china sea is by far the most likely location for large scale conflict
-
@chimoaus said in Aussie Politics:
@kirwan said in Aussie Politics:
@chimoaus How to you propose to protect trade routes without jets or subs?
hopefully, the same way NZ does it or any other country that does not have subs and fighter planes? Clearly, I am ignorant when it comes to the risk China poses in taking over the world and enforcing communism on us all.
NZ does it by relying on the US, UK and Oz. That line of dominos relies on other people spending money.
-
@kirwan said in Aussie Politics:
@chimoaus said in Aussie Politics:
@kirwan said in Aussie Politics:
@chimoaus How to you propose to protect trade routes without jets or subs?
hopefully, the same way NZ does it or any other country that does not have subs and fighter planes? Clearly, I am ignorant when it comes to the risk China poses in taking over the world and enforcing communism on us all.
NZ does it by relying on the US, UK and Oz. That line of dominos relies on other people spending money.
Hope all the billionaires bring private armies when they bunker down in the societal collapse.
-
@kirwan said in Aussie Politics:
@chimoaus said in Aussie Politics:
@kirwan said in Aussie Politics:
@chimoaus How to you propose to protect trade routes without jets or subs?
hopefully, the same way NZ does it or any other country that does not have subs and fighter planes? Clearly, I am ignorant when it comes to the risk China poses in taking over the world and enforcing communism on us all.
NZ does it by relying on the US, UK and Oz. That line of dominos relies on other people spending money.
I appreciate the debate and I do grasp the concept of military spending it just seems there is very little scrutiny in terms of value for money. In most business and other forms of Govt the budgets are very tight, and it can be very difficult to get funding. But when it comes to Military spending there seems to be so many fuck ups and billions wasted that we just accept it as part of being prepared.
-
@victor-meldrew @tim such a fine line between Sleepy Joe and Morrison's complete lack of presence.
-
US military spending on the Afghanistan war is approx $2.2 Trillion. (Direct spend is less than $1T, but it was all spent on credit, so with interest is more than double).
That's $300M per day, for 20 years.
Doesn't matter if you're a dove or a hawk, that is a catastrophic failure of government.
I'm not sure whether this AUKUS thing is a good idea or not, but we should all be very sceptical of our governments' decisions around military spending.
Aussie Politics