Mark Stapleton Posted May 3, 2009 Share Posted May 3, 2009 http://sydwalker.info/blog/2009/05/02/kais...ink-submarines/ Not limited to just Evan Burton of course, but Evan is the only other Australian who regularly contributes here, to my knowledge. Well Evan, are we going the right way or has Rudd misread regional intentions and ambitions? I appreciate you can't be totally unbiased on an issue like this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Simkin Posted May 4, 2009 Share Posted May 4, 2009 http://sydwalker.info/blog/2009/05/02/kais...ink-submarines/Not limited to just Evan Burton of course, but Evan is the only other Australian who regularly contributes here, to my knowledge. Well Evan, are we going the right way or has Rudd misread regional intentions and ambitions? I appreciate you can't be totally unbiased on an issue like this. Is this the same Syd Walker who used to post on this forum? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted May 4, 2009 Share Posted May 4, 2009 Yeah Mark, you are right. I am biased as all get out on this subject. I'll always support a strong military. Anyway, my comments: The threat. There are two factors I would say are important to consider. Firstly is the lead time required to build up military forces. If you wait until you have an clearly identifiable threat, then you'll be playing catch up. It takes quite a time from when you order a ship or an aircraft until they are delivered and ready as a combat system. You have to plan to fight tomorrow's war today. The second factor is to remember the best weapon system is the one that doesn't have to be used, that deters an potential adversary from committing a hostile act. The military is an insurance policy: you hope you'll never need it, but if you do you want full coverage. The submarines? Garbage - total garbage. Submarines are some of the best defensive and offensive weapon systems available to a maritime nation - and Australia is a major maritime nation. A major portion of our military has one objective: keeping the sea lines of communication open. That's ships - cargo ships, bulk carriers, tankers, etc. Sub marines are essential to Australia and they represent great value for money. Let's consider a potential adversary maritime force. Maybe they are going after shipping. Maybe they want to stage a blockade. Perhaps they have an invasion force. The simple fact that we have submarines affects how the adversary conducts their operations. Unless they can say for certain that we do not have any submarines operating in that area, they have to expend force in countering the submarine threat. We may have nothing there... but the simple possibility of them being there provides a threat that must be countered. They'll have to stand an anti-submarine watch, have aircraft flying anti-submarine patrols, etc. They have to devote valuable and limited resources against something that may not even be there. That's value. Likewise, they can help protect our own ships against an enemy submarine or surface ship. They can sneak into areas and conduct intel gathering missions, normally providing extremely valuable information. The author of that blog seems to have forgotten about the vital role played by submarines on all sides during WWII. Remember the sinking of KUTTABUL? Three Japanese two-man minisubs caused havoc on the Australian east coast. Three cheap subs with six people, and just how much resources were expended in protecting ourselves against them, and trying to locate them? Resources which could have been deployed elsewhere? Think about it: which sea-faring nations operate submarines? Argentina Brazil Canada Chile China Colombia Egypt UK France Italy Spain Germany Sweden Norway Greece South Korea North Korea Iran India Indonesia Japan Malaysia Pakistan Russia South Africa Singapore Taiwan etc etc No, Australia will always need a capable submarine fleet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Stapleton Posted May 4, 2009 Author Share Posted May 4, 2009 Is this the same Syd Walker who used to post on this forum? Yes it is, John. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Stapleton Posted May 4, 2009 Author Share Posted May 4, 2009 (edited) Yeah Mark, you are right. I am biased as all get out on this subject. I'll always support a strong military. Anyway, my comments:The threat. There are two factors I would say are important to consider. Firstly is the lead time required to build up military forces. If you wait until you have an clearly identifiable threat, then you'll be playing catch up. It takes quite a time from when you order a ship or an aircraft until they are delivered and ready as a combat system. You have to plan to fight tomorrow's war today. The second factor is to remember the best weapon system is the one that doesn't have to be used, that deters an potential adversary from committing a hostile act. The military is an insurance policy: you hope you'll never need it, but if you do you want full coverage. I understand what you say about lead time, Evan. And I agree the primary purpose of an efficient military should be deterrence but history shows that it doesn't always work like that, especially if nations believe they have the advantage or are evenly or closely matched. Personally, I believe the most efficient deterent is a nuclear capacity. Even at the height of the cold war, the BOP being that point imo, the leadership of the US (with the exception of a psychotic general or two) and the Soviets understood the nihilistic folly of nuclear warfare. The nuclear question aside, doesn't the establishment of a military strike force sufficiently superior to deter a potential adversary that you speak of require Australia to maintain regional military superiority ad infinitum, at a massive cost to a mere ten million taxpayers? The submarines? Garbage - total garbage. Submarines are some of the best defensive and offensive weapon systems available to a maritime nation - and Australia is a major maritime nation. A major portion of our military has one objective: keeping the sea lines of communication open. That's ships - cargo ships, bulk carriers, tankers, etc. Sub marines are essential to Australia and they represent great value for money. Let's consider a potential adversary maritime force. Maybe they are going after shipping. Maybe they want to stage a blockade. Perhaps they have an invasion force. The simple fact that we have submarines affects how the adversary conducts their operations. Unless they can say for certain that we do not have any submarines operating in that area, they have to expend force in countering the submarine threat. We may have nothing there... but the simple possibility of them being there provides a threat that must be countered. They'll have to stand an anti-submarine watch, have aircraft flying anti-submarine patrols, etc. They have to devote valuable and limited resources against something that may not even be there. That's value. Likewise, they can help protect our own ships against an enemy submarine or surface ship. They can sneak into areas and conduct intel gathering missions, normally providing extremely valuable information. The author of that blog seems to have forgotten about the vital role played by submarines on all sides during WWII. Remember the sinking of KUTTABUL? Three Japanese two-man minisubs caused havoc on the Australian east coast. Three cheap subs with six people, and just how much resources were expended in protecting ourselves against them, and trying to locate them? Resources which could have been deployed elsewhere? Yes but it's peacetime now. Why must we simultaneously impoverish ourselves and enrich arms manufacturers by invoking nightmarish memories from WW11? And do you think it's plausible to assume that the US would allow another force within the region to attack its close ally and home to several US military bases? Don't you trust America? Isn't our security the primary purpose for our strong alliance with the US? Why the urgent and costly need for additional layers of security? Think about it: which sea-faring nations operate submarines? Argentina Brazil Canada Chile China Colombia Egypt UK France Italy Spain Germany Sweden Norway Greece South Korea North Korea Iran India Indonesia Japan Malaysia Pakistan Russia South Africa Singapore Taiwan etc etc No, Australia will always need a capable submarine fleet. Edited May 4, 2009 by Mark Stapleton Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 4, 2009 Share Posted May 4, 2009 Is this the same Syd Walker who used to post on this forum? Yes it is, John. Yes - if you scroll down his blog you will find a huge array of anti semitic links Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Stapleton Posted May 5, 2009 Author Share Posted May 5, 2009 Is this the same Syd Walker who used to post on this forum? Yes it is, John. Yes - if you scroll down his blog you will find a huge array of anti semitic links Not exactly on-topic but yes, he has quite a few links to sites highly critical of Israel and its all-powerful Lobby. You remember the Israel Lobby, Andy--it's the one that until recently you claimed didn't exist, it was all just rampant anti-Semitism or something. In fact, I remember that until recently even mentioning the menace of Zionism was enough to earn one that well worn and very tired epithet. How rapidly things have changed. Don't worry, when it comes to bowing and scraping to Zionist murderers and racists you're in good company--Tony Blair, Angela Merkel, Stephen Harper, the BBC, Washington Post etc etc. Zionists love slow learners. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tom Scully Posted May 5, 2009 Share Posted May 5, 2009 (edited) ....Not exactly on-topic but yes, he has quite a few links to sites highly critical of Israel and its all-powerful Lobby. You remember the Israel Lobby, Andy--it's the one that until recently you claimed didn't exist, it was all just rampant anti-Semitism or something.In fact, I remember that until recently even mentioning the menace of Zionism was enough to earn one that well worn and very tired epithet. How rapidly things have changed. Don't worry, when it comes to bowing and scraping to Zionist murderers and racists you're in good company--Tony Blair, Angela Merkel, Stephen Harper, the BBC, Washington Post etc etc. Zionists love slow learners. Cui bono? Take a look at the Australian ship and submarine manufacturing and maintenance conglomerate, gearing up now for the coming increasing "investment" in the Australian defense forces....especially the middle link of the three, detailing the backgrounds and connections of the conglomerate's directors: http://www.asc.com.au/aspx/facilities_ships.aspx http://www.asc.com.au/aspx/about_us_board_of_directors.aspx http://www.asc.com.au/aspx/about_us_executive_group.aspx Consider the annual military expenditures of the selected nations, and the direction Australia is heading...and ask why? Syd's blog piece was shrill and mocking, but he mentioned the consequence of the opportunity cost of military buildup.... and there is the problem to consider that the present Australian force numbers under 100,000. Compare that number to the number of Chinese who reach military conscription age annually. Look at how much Israel spends attempting to offset what it lacks in military personnel numbers. Can Australia sustain an expenditure as high as Israel's or muster the additional US aid that Israel extracts, due to AIPAC? Military expenditures: 2.4% of GDP (2006) Australia https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/th...s.html#Military Military expenditures: 2.6% of GDP (2006 est.) Brazil https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/th...r.html#Military Military expenditures: 1.1% of GDP (2005 est.) Canada https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/th...a.html#Military Military expenditures: 4.3% of GDP (2006) China https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/th...h.html#Military Military expenditures: 2.6% of GDP (2005 est.) France https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/th...r.html#Military Military expenditures: 7.3% of GDP (2006) Israel https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/th...s.html#Military Military expenditures: 2.5% of GDP (2006) India https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/th...n.html#Military Military expenditures: 3% of GDP (2005 est.) Indonesia https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/th...d.html#Military Military expenditures: 0.8% of GDP (2006) Japan https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/th...a.html#Military Military expenditures: 1.7% of GDP South Africa (2006) https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/th...f.html#Military Military expenditures: 2.4% of GDP (2005 est.) U.K. https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/th...k.html#Military Military expenditures: 4.06% of GDP (2005 est.) USA https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/th...s.html#Military Military expenditures: 1.2% of GDP (2005 est.) Venezuela https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/th...e.html#Military The influence on the US elected government by the Israeli lobby, AIPAC, is an embarassment and a serious concern for everyone in the US, and it is counterproductive to US foreign policy, and that is a condition having little to do with semitism or objection to it, no matter the indoctrination http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/200...berg/index.html The need of the most powerful to turn themselves into victims Edited May 5, 2009 by Tom Scully Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 5, 2009 Share Posted May 5, 2009 Don't worry, when it comes to bowing and scraping to Zionist murderers and racists you're in good company--Tony Blair, Angela Merkel, Stephen Harper, the BBC, Washington Post etc etc.Zionists love slow learners. What a curious repsonse. Syd, supported by you, as you may choose not to remember, used this forum to deny the holocaust. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Tribe Posted May 5, 2009 Share Posted May 5, 2009 He who sups with the Devil should have a long spoon... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Stapleton Posted May 5, 2009 Author Share Posted May 5, 2009 The influence on the US elected government by the Israeli lobby, AIPAC, is an embarassment and a serious concern for everyone in the US,and it is counterproductive to US foreign policy, and that is a condition having little to do with semitism or objection to it, no matter the indoctrination http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/200...berg/index.html The need of the most powerful to turn themselves into victims Memo to Andy Walker (and the other galah trying to pretend he's Confucius): Please read and understand, if possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Stapleton Posted May 5, 2009 Author Share Posted May 5, 2009 Cui bono?Take a look at the Australian ship and submarine manufacturing and maintenance conglomerate, gearing up now for the coming increasing "investment" in the Australian defense forces....especially the middle link of the three, detailing the backgrounds and connections of the conglomerate's directors: http://www.asc.com.au/aspx/facilities_ships.aspx http://www.asc.com.au/aspx/about_us_board_of_directors.aspx http://www.asc.com.au/aspx/about_us_executive_group.aspx Consider the annual military expenditures of the selected nations, and the direction Australia is heading...and ask why? Syd's blog piece was shrill and mocking, but he mentioned the consequence of the opportunity cost of military buildup.... and there is the problem to consider that the present Australian force numbers under 100,000. Compare that number to the number of Chinese who reach military conscription age annually. Look at how much Israel spends attempting to offset what it lacks in military personnel numbers. Can Australia sustain an expenditure as high as Israel's or muster the additional US aid that Israel extracts, due to AIPAC? Military expenditures: 2.4% of GDP (2006) Australia https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/th...s.html#Military Military expenditures: 2.6% of GDP (2006 est.) Brazil https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/th...r.html#Military Military expenditures: 1.1% of GDP (2005 est.) Canada https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/th...a.html#Military Military expenditures: 4.3% of GDP (2006) China https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/th...h.html#Military Military expenditures: 2.6% of GDP (2005 est.) France https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/th...r.html#Military Military expenditures: 7.3% of GDP (2006) Israel https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/th...s.html#Military Military expenditures: 2.5% of GDP (2006) India https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/th...n.html#Military Military expenditures: 3% of GDP (2005 est.) Indonesia https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/th...d.html#Military Military expenditures: 0.8% of GDP (2006) Japan https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/th...a.html#Military Military expenditures: 1.7% of GDP South Africa (2006) https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/th...f.html#Military Military expenditures: 2.4% of GDP (2005 est.) U.K. https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/th...k.html#Military Military expenditures: 4.06% of GDP (2005 est.) USA https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/th...s.html#Military Military expenditures: 1.2% of GDP (2005 est.) Venezuela https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/th...e.html#Military Exactly. Australia is way short of having the required revenue base to embark on such high minded military folly. The only winners will be the arms manufacturers and the defence establishment. Unless of course Australia can secure unlimited financial support from US taxpayers, as Israel does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted May 6, 2009 Share Posted May 6, 2009 I think that traditionally our military spending has been around 2.0-2.2%. I don't believe it to be some "arms race" - I think it is a slight increase because of a number of major capitol purchases rolling around at the same time. That is simply a (biased) opinion at the moment. Let me do some research and see if I can support my opinion with some facts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tom Scully Posted May 6, 2009 Share Posted May 6, 2009 (edited) The greater the share of GDP devoted to defence, the greater the tendency for emerging challenges in international relations to be perceived as "nails". Considering China's growth rate and defence spending, and geographical proximity, is it more practical to consider Australia in the future as akin to a larger version of Hong Kong, or a smaller version of the United States? http://www.janes.com/news/defence/business...90223_1_n.shtmlGoing with the flow: Australia's defence industry By Julian Kerr 23 February 2009 ...The Australian defence market is currently ranked eighth in the world by Jane's Defence Budgets in terms of its growth rate, market size and accessibility for international defence companies. In absolute terms, it has the 14th largest defence budget, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. While the centre-left government of Prime Minister Kevin Rudd has reaffirmed its intention to increase the AUD22 billion (USD14.5 billion) defence budget by three per cent in real terms each year until at least 2017-18, this pledge may yet fall a victim, in whole or in part, to the global financial crisis. With the Australian Department of Defence also facing spiralling operating costs that are unlikely to be offset by internal savings, the funding of big-ticket items such as up to 100 Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightening II Joint Strike Fighters (JSFs) and a possible fourth Air Warfare Destroyer (AWD) now seems likely to threaten the finance available for other capabilities. Publication of the White Paper, originally scheduled for December 2008 but now expected in April-May, will be followed closely by a new rolling 10-year Defence Capability Plan (DCP) detailing major equipment purchases up to 2019.... Edited May 6, 2009 by Tom Scully Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted May 6, 2009 Share Posted May 6, 2009 The 'savings' the departments have to make are the killer. We've already had our group's budget by 60%, and that was well prior to the White Paper. I think we'll lose the fourth AWD, and the number of F-35 might drop a little (down to about 70-80?). I can't see them cutting the number of ASW helos unless they want to accept the capability loss. I would prefer to see the existing two LPAs kept along with the new LHDs, but they'll probably retire the LPAs and double-hat the LHDs as C2 platforms. The Caribou replacement will get delayed - again. Perhaps cut the number of subs by 2? Some base closures would free up some money but there is always the political element - no pollie want to lose a base in their electorate. I don't know what savings could be made by Army... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now