cz515 wrote:Thanks Mick
But then question is what do they do land a hundred thousand ppl and try and defend against a couple of American ships.
I read an interesting old article. Basically in Afghanistan it was costing the US Army $400 per Gallon to fuel a front line vehicle. Obama administration calculated they spent 1 billion dollars to deploy 1000 troops.
More reason that we don't need a huge army to defend Australia.
cz515 wrote:Far out OB, How about you give us a reason or proof that China is planning to attack us. And what will you do to defend. Instead of taking pot shots.
And having a bunch of nukes is not an option... only because the people and parliament of Australia will not allow it. But even if they did you have two problems firstly is taken most countries 20/30 years to build one, and secondly about same to build a rocket to deliver it.
But more importantly if you lob a nuke at China pre-emptively what do you think they will do? Fire everything they got at us. And I dunno about you I rather be Xi slave then dead and my children and their children mutated by radiation poisoning. Do you know even after 80 years children in Nagasaki and Hiroshima have defects resulting from the nuke thrown on them. And a far higher incidence of cancer even if they haven't lived there, just cuz their parents etc were there and their cells got mutated
And before you say in the 1980s they were just going to give us some nukes, it didn't happen then so forget about it, it's the same as I saying, last month i was going to buy the ticket that won 120 million dollar powerball.... just I didn't buy it.
mickb wrote:Smaller countries survive, be it Australia, Denmark or Austria- through alliances, period. We have enough of an army to look like we are pulling our weight, we sign up for any international skirmishes the big boys require of us, and in return we get their protection, or rather they defend their interests in our mining and agricultural resources. Increasing spend to defend a continent like ours from a large opponent is pure fantasy. it would be like owning a cattle property and putting up a brick wall around it to keep theives oout
mickb wrote:Smaller countries survive, be it Australia, Denmark or Austria- through alliances, period. We have enough of an army to look like we are pulling our weight, we sign up for any international skirmishes the big boys require of us, and in return we get their protection, or rather they defend their interests in our mining and agricultural resources. Increasing spend to defend a continent like ours from a large opponent is pure fantasy. it would be like owning a cattle property and putting up a brick wall around it to keep theives oout
bladeracer wrote:mickb wrote:Smaller countries survive, be it Australia, Denmark or Austria- through alliances, period. We have enough of an army to look like we are pulling our weight, we sign up for any international skirmishes the big boys require of us, and in return we get their protection, or rather they defend their interests in our mining and agricultural resources. Increasing spend to defend a continent like ours from a large opponent is pure fantasy. it would be like owning a cattle property and putting up a brick wall around it to keep theives oout
Being reliant on the protection of somebody else is akin to calling the Police when some druggie has a gun to your head.
Didn't work for Poland or other European countries in '39, won't work for us.
Blade
I think you'll find that the Jindalee over the Horizon Surveillance System may do some of the work you are looking at (have a look at wikipedia). That and a gazillion satellites. The other thing to consider is that the US does not have to disclose what capabilities they possess here. They wouldn't put near on a Marine Division in AS without a reasonable 'OH s**t' plan.
We keep foxes out of our rabbit cages using electric mesh fencing.
We keep our cattle in their paddocks with a single electric fence wire.
It's far more cost-effective than building a steel or timber fence, or patrolling the fencelines 24/7.
No reason we couldn't do the same with our country.
Electronic defences are the way to go. We only need assets on standby 24/7 if we don't have effective long-range warning systems or intelligence sources. Put electronic surveillance measures up so we have effective warning of impending attack.
But, an enemy doesn't need a big opening to infiltrate many, many thousands of assets into the heart of the country, and our military has no hope of doing anything to prevent it. Even thirty years ago, putting 1000 troops into an area required supply columns hundreds of kilometers long, with air and sea ports and masses of supporting infrastructure to keep the attack rolling. Modern military's now plan for putting troops into an area with no outside support, or very little immediate support (Russia obviously didn't get that memo). They take and consolidate an area and build the infrastructure to allow future resupply. Look at any of the recent wars, small protected enclaves of troops, self-contained and able to defend themselves for long periods (decades). Any enemy coming here would do the same thing, just on a much larger scale. Supply has always been the killer of offensives, so modern planners try to avoid the issue entirely by inserting a _lot_ of supply with the initial forces.
womble wrote:What now Haniball ?
Well i suppose we just take our elephants go the f*ck home.
That tight mountain pass over there seems like the quickest route.
*elephants taken out by javelins *