Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Sheb]

Yeah, there is nothing menacing Australia. If in the future someone build an army up, well, you'll have time to build yours up too.

[kingfisher1112]

Yeah, there is nothing menacing Australia. If in the future someone build an army up, well, you'll have time to build yours up too.

Except that our government won't because of people saying " Oh, they won't hurt us!"
And again, the defence funding also goes into funding for Cadets, a very good youth organisation. Cutting back on that funding would cut back on youth funding, which is never a good thing.

[Reelya]

Denmark, Belgium, The Netherlands. All swallowed up in WW2. All had little military strength. Plenty of people in history have been steamrolled thinking that they needed next to no standing army. What happens when, say, China decides Taiwan has been independent for too long? Hmm? We will sit by as the world dips into war? What about NK right now?

What? it's silly to talk about Denmark, Belgium, The Netherlands as being unprepared because they thought they "needed next to no standing army". Those countries also had "next to no population" compared to Germany. Just the 3 million-strong Wehrmacht outnumbered any one of those nations entire populations. Even 100% mobilization wouldn't have stopped Germany. Plus, there's the fact that they were geographically small countries sharing land borders with large empires. The situation just isn't comparable to Australia.

Even the Japanese in WWII knew they weren't able to successfully invade Australia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposed_Japanese_invasion_of_Australia_during_World_War_II

We never had enough troops to [invade Australia]. We had already far out-stretched our lines of communication. We did not have the armed strength or the supply facilities to mount such a terrific extension of our already over-strained and too thinly spread forces. We expected to occupy all New Guinea, to maintain Rabaul as a holding base, and to raid Northern Australia by air. But actual physical invasion—no, at no time.

[Max White]

Yeah, there is nothing menacing Australia. If in the future someone build an army up, well, you'll have time to build yours up too.

Except that our government won't because of people saying " Oh, they won't hurt us!"
And again, the defence funding also goes into funding for Cadets, a very good youth organisation. Cutting back on that funding would cut back on youth funding, which is never a good thing.

Can we get a tad less pathos and a heap more logos?

[kingfisher1112]

Yeah, there is nothing menacing Australia. If in the future someone build an army up, well, you'll have time to build yours up too.

Except that our government won't because of people saying " Oh, they won't hurt us!"
And again, the defence funding also goes into funding for Cadets, a very good youth organisation. Cutting back on that funding would cut back on youth funding, which is never a good thing.

Can we get a tad less pathos and a heap more logos?

What?

[Max White]

A little bit less appeal to emotion, and a heap more logical argument.
Seriously, not your strong point...

[kingfisher1112]

A little bit less appeal to emotion, and a heap more logical argument.
Seriously, not your strong point...

No, it isn't. I will admit that. Emotional engagement has, and will, always be my strong point.

Alright then. Cadets. A very good organistation. Teaches good life skills, and other shit that I would never would have seeked myself. First aid was a big one. I now have a very good grasp of it now, and probably could save a person now because of that education. It taught me social skills. I went from being friendless to truly having a grasp of what the fuck to do in a social situation. Leadership. I understand how to lead people, to treat them right. And I know many people had the same transformation.

Cutting defence budgets just has too many far reaching consequences. It is a good supplement to wages being in the Reserves, and cutting that, well, would certainly reduce that benefit.

Denmark, Belgium, The Netherlands. All swallowed up in WW2. All had little military strength. Plenty of people in history have been steamrolled thinking that they needed next to no standing army. What happens when, say, China decides Taiwan has been independent for too long? Hmm? We will sit by as the world dips into war? What about NK right now?

What? it's silly to talk about Denmark, Belgium, The Netherlands as being unprepared because they thought they "needed next to no standing army". Those countries also had "next to no population" compared to Germany. Just the 3 million-strong Wehrmacht outnumbered any one of those nations entire populations. Even 100% mobilization wouldn't have stopped Germany. Plus, there's the fact that they were geographically small countries sharing land borders with large empires. The situation just isn't comparable to Australia.

Even the Japanese in WWII knew they weren't able to successfully invade Australia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposed_Japanese_invasion_of_Australia_during_World_War_II

We never had enough troops to [invade Australia]. We had already far out-stretched our lines of communication. We did not have the armed strength or the supply facilities to mount such a terrific extension of our already over-strained and too thinly spread forces. We expected to occupy all New Guinea, to maintain Rabaul as a holding base, and to raid Northern Australia by air. But actual physical invasion—no, at no time.

And any future war could be relatable to those nations. If 100% mobilisation wouldn't of helped, well then why didn't they mobilise anyway? They had underestimated the Wermacht. Everyone underestimated them. The reason they didn't mobilise is because they believed Germany wouldn't attack them. In addition, if an army attacked us, and was larger than our population, then we should... Have less of an army?

[Reelya]

They did have armies, but their entire populations were less than the number of men Germany had, just in the army. It's not logical to ask why those small countries weren't able to fight off the NAZI's. If they'd mobilized 100%, that would have just meant more dead people in body-bags.

You can't really draw any sort of conclusion about the loss of those 3 small nations, when a country with quite a powerful military - France was defeated (and the Germans took 2 million French soldiers as prisoners), and even the Russians barely stopped them.

When you're a small nation facing a large army with air superiority, tanks etc, advanced technology, you might as well talk about the Zulus vs the Dutch in South Africa. What was it? 10000 dead Zulus per Dutchman, or something? Maybe the Zulus didn't mobilize enough men ...

[kingfisher1112]

They did have armies, but their entire populations were less than the number of men Germany had, just in the army. It's not logical to ask why those small countries weren't able to fight off the NAZI's. If they'd mobilized 100%, that would have just meant more dead people in body-bags.

You can't really draw any sort of conclusion about the loss of those 3 small nations, when a country with quite a powerful military - France was defeated (and the Germans took 2 million French soldiers as prisoners), and even the Russians barely stopped them.

Alright then. We won't try when an enemy is knocking at our doors. We'll just surrender.

[Reelya]

That's not even logical. We don't have "doors" we have a 1000 kilometre-wide moat. Unless it's someone bringing aircraft carriers (e.g. USA or China or India, in which case we're screwed whatever we do) we have a clear advantage defending our home turf against almost anyone.

And whoever attacks us has to go either through, or around a lot of other countries. Like it says in the url i linked, not even the Japanese in WWII favored their chances to invade us directly.

[kingfisher1112]

That's not even logical. We don't have "doors" we have a 1000 kilometre-wide moat.

Unless it's someone bringing aircraft carriers (e.g. USA or China or India, in which case we're screwed whatever we do) we have a clear advantage defending our home turf gainst almost anyone.

Try spreading troops all across that moat. Oh, wait, we can stop them with our powerful navy! Oh wait, we only have frigates. At least our bigger buddies will save us! Oh wait, Poland!

[Sheb]

Kingfisher, lots of good things you say about defense are things that shouldn't be ru by the army anyway. I'm sure the Cadets are great, but why should a youth organization be run by the army? You can do all the things you said in the Boy Scouts or something. To give an extreme exemple, in Sri Lanka the army is running resorts for exemple. Should the Sri Lankan refrain from reducing their army size to protect those resorts?

An army's core business is to fight. Anything else it does is either overreach and would be better handled by specialized civilian agencies, or stuff they do to keep busy.

Now, who does Australia need to fight? China? Indonesia? None of those powers has any reason to attack Australia, and doesn't have the capabilities to do it anyway.

[Blargityblarg]

...How do you live, expecting anyone and everyone to wake up in the morning and think 'Hm, Y'know Australia, yeah, fuck those guys'?

[kingfisher1112]

...How do you live, expecting anyone and everyone to wake up in the morning and think 'Hm, Y'know Australia, yeah, fuck those guys'?

I don't expect that. I do know that we have an abundance of natural resources, space, a small armed forces, and large amounts of fertile farmland. Please tell me a country who wouldn't want this.

Kingfisher, lots of good things you say about defense are things that shouldn't be ru by the army anyway. I'm sure the Cadets are great, but why should a youth organization be run by the army? You can do all the things you said in the Boy Scouts or something. To give an extreme exemple, in Sri Lanka the army is running resorts for exemple. Should the Sri Lankan refrain from reducing their army size to protect those resorts?

An army's core business is to fight. Anything else it does is either overreach and would be better handled by specialized civilian agencies, or stuff they do to keep busy.

Now, who does Australia need to fight? China? Indonesia? None of those powers has any reason to attack Australia, and doesn't have the capabilities to do it anyway.

No. Cadets is the only place one could learn those skills. You learn how to act in a system, where you are in that system. Scouts? You swing on ropes, tie knots. There is no leadership. No brotherhood. Scouts do not march 60+ kms in a weekend. Scouts do not do anything of the sort. The military needs stuff like cadets. You know why? I have seen actual hate of the military in a lot of places. They need outreach. They need the country to take pride in them once more.
And Indonesia do not like us at all. East Timor, for example.

[Reelya]

And Indonesia do not like us at all. East Timor, for example.

Well, East Timor shows exactly how much they were able to resist Australia's military, right? i.e. not at all. East Timor is an island though, so it's not like they could focus force (as would happen if Indonesia tried to invade mainland Australia).

That's not even logical. We don't have "doors" we have a 1000 kilometre-wide moat.

Unless it's someone bringing aircraft carriers (e.g. USA or China or India, in which case we're screwed whatever we do) we have a clear advantage defending our home turf gainst almost anyone.

Try spreading troops all across that moat. Oh, wait, we can stop them with our powerful navy! Oh wait, we only have frigates. At least our bigger buddies will save us! Oh wait, Poland!

Logistics hampers both sides not just one. Specifically who do you expect to surround Australia with their powerful navy? Indonesia is hardly a naval powerhouse, and India / China don't have the logistics to spearhead this far south. Like I said before, even the Japanese at the height of their WWII naval power realized they didn't have a chance of holding Australia militarily.

And it's really crazy to compare Australia, out in the middle of the Ocean, far separated from any hostile nation, to Poland, which was sandwiched with LAND BORDERS between Russia and Germany.