Mark Stapleton

I stand corrected, Evan. The 3% real term growth commitment comes from Howard's 2000 White Paper. However, others support the argument that if the real growth commitment is maintained, it will cause the GDP/Defence spending ratio to grow:

http://www.lowyinterpreter.org/post/2009/0...e-spending.aspx

Rudd's Garden Island speech still represents a major capability upgrade for defence, the largest ever undertaken:

http://www.pm.gov.au/media/Speech/2009/speech_0956.cfm

The White Paper assumes we face emerging threats, but it sounds like there's been input from right wing think tanks. Australia has no external miliary threat from SE Asia or its Pacific neighbours but the White Paper is assuming that will change. I hope their assumptions are wrong, but even if they are the defence contractors will still make big money at the expense of Aussie taxpayers, at a time we can least afford it.

Tom, sorry for the delay but I don't have a lot of time to do a lot of research at the moment. I'll do my best as I get the time.

Anyway, I've gone through the Australian Bureau of Statistics website and I think I'm right about Defence expenditure. As a percentage of GDP, here is the historical trend of Defence expenditure:

1960-61 2.6%

1961-62 2.6%

1962-63 2.5%

1963-64 2.8%

1964-65 2.4%

1965-66 2.5%

1966-67 2.4%

1967-68 2.5%

1968-69 2.5%

1969-70 2.4%

1970-71 2.4%

1971-72 2.5%

1972-73 2.6%

1973-74 2.4%

1974-75 2.4%

1975-76 2.3%

1976-77 2.4%

1977-78 2.4%

1978-79 2.3%

1979-80 2.3%

1980-81 2.4%

1981-82 2.5%

1982-83 2.6%

1983-84 2.6%

1984-85 2.6%

1985-86 2.6%

1986-87 2.6%

1987-88 2.3%

1988-89 2.1%

1989-90 2.1%

1990-91 2.2%

1991-92 2.3%

1992-93 2.4%

1993-94 2.3%

1994-95 2.1%

1995-96 2.0%

1996-97 1.9%

1997-98 1.9%

1998-99 1.9%

1999-00 1.9%

2000-01 1.8%

Source: http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.NSF/Pr...;num=&view=

The last few years can be shown in a graph:

There hasn't been a huge increase.

They're not facts supporting your opinion, Evan.

Those stats only prove that Australia has not yet had a military expansionist policy within Southeast Asia. Rudd said the military budget would grow by 3% in 'real terms' until 2016/17. Combined with the fact the GDP will contract in the next few years, those percentages will rocket.

Off-topic, but is there any reason for the UK - and for that matter, France - to maintain a nuclear force?

For security I guess.

Basically, countries don't trust each other.

Savings of $20 billion over the life of the project which covers till 2030.

I should correct myself here. The $20 billion savings drive covers a ten year period.

According to a story in today's AFR, the Defence Secretary Nick Warner and the Defence Force chief Air Chief Marshal Angus Houston have issued an ultimatum to the senior management of Defence to co-operate with the savings drive or quit:

http://www.afr.com/home/login.aspx?EDP://2...y-capital_goods

Sorry, the full online article is only available to subscribers. According to the article, the hit list includes $4.4 billion in savings by more efficient management of fleets as well as squeezing industry profit margins on maintenance, parts and fuel. Other targeted areas include surplus inventory holdings ($700 million), administration, equipment purchasing and travel budgets ($4.4 billion) and reducing data centres and computer applications to save $1.9 billion.

I haven't seen anything indicating a reduction in staffing, which would be a relief for Defence Force personnel. I guess we'll know the full details on Tuesday night.

The economic crisis will force all government to reconsider their military programs. Apparently, Gordon Brown is now discussing the possibility of ending the mad Trident program.

That's what I think too, John.

From what I read most of the big spending would kick in around 2015, so the Government is hoping the recession/depression will be a distant memory by then.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story...5013871,00.html

The authors of this article claim the proposed naval buildup is in response to China's recent naval buildup. They claim China's current defence budget is over $70 billion, more than triple our current spending. Even if the Rudd Government achieves its white paper goals, our naval power will still be dwarfed by that of China, Japan and India.

So what's the point of getting into an arms race we can't win? I think it's a reasonable question.

It means <expletive deleted> Andy, like you.

It's little wonder so many here and elsewhere disrespect you, except for crawlers like that other galah.

This is a discussion about Australia's military spending. You'll have to save your desperate jibes at Syd Walker for another time. Good luck with that as I believe he has earned far greater respect than you. Unlike yourself, Syd's not phony.

Moderation in red by Evan Burton. Reason: offensive word.

Savings of $20 billion over the life of the project which covers till 2030.

The details of the plan on Budget night will be interesting. There must be plenty of fat in Defence. Of course, it could all be a pea and thimble trick.

The bitching about who's getting the fat contract for building the submarines has begun, with the ASC likely to miss the boat:

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story...8-31477,00.html

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.

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.

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.

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.

Is this the same Syd Walker who used to post on this forum?

Yes it is, John.

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.

As we have seen, the idea of a commission was suggested to at least two people close to LBJ, Bill Moyers and Walter Jenkins, on the afternoon of the 24th. The suggestion was relayed to LBJ by someone before 10:30 A.M. the next day, November 25. This is clear from the transcript of Johnson's phone conversation with J. Edgar Hoover at 10:30.

Also Washington Post's Joe Alsop gave Moyers a call on the 25th and suggested the same thing.

It's one I hadn't heard before and quite interesting, imo.

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...op_11-25-63.htm

No surprise that Australia has just announced its withdrawal from this weeks Durban Review Conference in Geneva.

It joins the US, Germany, the Netherlands, Canada and other sycophantic worshippers of Zion.

But guess what--Israel will be there, with their own specialised propaganda teams.

Syd Walker explains it best:

http://sydwalker.info/blog/2009/04/20/aust...a-nasty-speech/

Read and learn.

What a blustery rant. Obama can't change the world in 60 days.

I'm very sorry to hear of your loss, John.

You're in my thoughts.

I was out of range of computers when this all happened, but they tell a slightly different tale than the 'official' EF version. I have also found that certain people are targeted more than others to 'conform' to the rules [i.e. they are not applied even-handed, at times]. At the risk of raising the 'ugly head' of yet one more 'breathing together', at times I and others have thought that a loss of energy in the political conspiracies section was just what some were long working toward. I'll not name names. They know who they are. Others do too. Some would like it to be the political anti-conspiracy section. I've long suggested there be one and they can play there in coincidental bliss.

I don't know the full details of what happened either and I don't really care, but your point is well made. This is a subforum of the controversial issues in history forum, so what's the point of having such a forum with a management which appears to be controversy averse? Maybe it should be known as the uncontroversial controversial issues in history forum.

Jan and Magda simply have to abide by the avatar rule - the same rule you and I and Andy and Jack and Daniel and Dawn and all the other people here abide by - and they can post freely.

Maybe--although it depends on what you mean by "freely".

In any case, they're gawn. Damn shame for the EF, because the political conspiracies forum has lost a lot of its former energy.

At the risk of sounding provocative, the absence of Jan, David and Magda is a big loss to the EF, particularly the political conspiracies section, imo. You only need to look at the DPF to know that.

"priesthood of all believers" you have joined at DPF.

That's a lovely quote. But what about the nuns?

This dispute is good theatre, but a waste of time.

Is this all beginning to sink in with you folks?

Yes, something is sinking in.

I think Borat should have the last word:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qRtL7l39DU8...feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QMMCuQ8JX50...feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rcCHFk7WZ8I...feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ngrZioymWic...feature=related

I think closing Gitmo is a symbolic gesture, designed to decieve the public into believing change is occuring. That was the catchphrase.

So Obama isn't a foreign radical with a fake birth certificate who took over the government, he's a neo-con in disquise and decieving the public with symbolic gestures and really isn't seeking change.

BK

Don't know.

But I think closing gitmo is small potatoes, although welcome.

Meaningful change in America's foreign and domestic agenda has yet to arrive, but it's still early in the life of the new administration.

One hopeful sign was yesterday when I heard Obama say that the current situation in Gaza is 'unacceptable'.