other developing nations are growing and international trade is diversifying.

Military power is used to prevent attacks when negociations have failed, so a well armed Australia means China will think twice before bulling the Australians whom can simply diversify their commerce and buy from other sources under more convinient terms and with more reliable allies and trading partners

For China to take over of Australlia needs that the Australian population be willing to be a Chinese protectorate and that the EU and the US give up on Australia under economic pressure.

That could happen if the amount of Asian population in Australia swells to larger percentage than what today stands promting the willingness to increase links with China and forget it`s western oriented foreign and migratory policies.

An Australian Economy uncapable of founding military programs and purchasing weapons.

OK this is the 21st century. No-one bullies anyone openly , especially if you are a number 1 bumbuddy with the USA. China can only militarily bully Taiwan becuase it has a claim on that province/country/whatever. Even the USA does not openly threaten Iran. You use subtlety.

China has no reason to bully Australia. And any bullying of Australia would require China to invade Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Thailand, Malaysia, Singapore, Indonesia and the PNG in order to be effectively able to threaten Australia. Sure the Chinese could use Submarine launched missiles, but this would be insanity (given that SSBm’s are usually nuclear tipped).

The EU does not give a rats arse about Australia. As mentioned prevoiusly Australia’s trade with the EU is low (other than the UK who’s EU membership appears to often hang by a thread). The EU generally doesn’t even care about its own backyard. Kosovo was a mainly American idea and most of Europe had to be dragged in kick and screaming. So why would the insanely bureaucratic, inward looking EU care about some country in the Pacific?

Just out of curiosity, do you live in Australia?

At least we agree that Australia is not a serious military threat to China or India.

My point was that Australia should be engaging the Asian region and not turning it into an enemy. The current Howard government has sent mixed feelings towards Asia. It has signed free trade agreements with Thailand and Singapore, and has donated large amounts of money to Asia for both the 1990’s financial crisis and the tsunami relief effort. The Howard government has also been supportive of establishing a dialogue with North Korea.

At the same time it has irritated Asia by proclaiming Australia to be the US’ deputy sheriff in Asia, has refused to sign a non-aggression treaty with the ASEAN countries and has infuriated Indonesia by getting involved in the East Timor issue (Australia tactily supported the 1975 invasion anyway and supplied arms to the TNI),. Australia has also angered (or at least disappointed) some Asian countries (primarily Indonesia and Malaysia) by becoming militarily involved in US attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq.

As for the RAAF it has has a mere 35 F-111’s. 4 of these are recce birds, about a dozen are training G models (ex-USAF F-111’s). They also have a poor maintennance record and tend to spend a lot of the time grounded. Apparently at least a couple of the 35 aircraft are simply hulks that have been cannibalised for spares and will probably never fly again (this was in the Financial Review several years ago).

There are also 71 F/A-18A/B’s. These have been upgraded but are apparently not up to C/D standard. There were also issues with spares in late-1990’s concerning engines. Apparently the RAAF did not consider ground runs into engine life and when it was apparent that the engines needed new parts, it was near impossible to get them because of USN and USMC demands. I am not sure whether these issues have been resolved.

The RAAF has also (again apparently) suffered from a lack of skilled pilots. One news report I read a couple of years ago said that there were approximately 2 fighter aircraft for every fighter pilot. The Australian military in general struggles to attract recruits. Many people stay for the free education and then leave for civilian careers.

The F-22 is overkill for Australian needs. Most of Australia’s neighbours are small Pacific countries that pose no threat. PNG is politically unstable but poses no military threat (their army consists of a couple of thousand troops). Indonesia has a huge population, but most of its army is dedicated to maintaining internal order or making a buck through military businesses or drug smuggling or whatever other capitalist endavour they think is appropriate (military businesses are justified on the fact that the national defence budget can’t pay for everything that is needed to defend the country). The same applies to the Indonesian airforce and navy. They are poorly equipped forces mainly dedicated to domestic needs and not taking over Australia.

So all that Australia really needs is a couple of squadrons of middle wieght fighters with A2A and anti-ship capabilities, some AEW and maritime patrol aircraft and that’s about it!

The army can keep its helos as I’m all for UN peace keeping ops.

But the Yanks can keep their pointless US$260 million a piece F-22’s.

[B]

The Australians know that a powerful China means a bully in the making so they need to be armed to prevent to be push overs in Asia

And a powerful USA also means a bully (anything from the Indian Wars to the Amero-Spanish War to intervention in South America and SE Asia to Iraq and Afghanisatan).

A powerful Britain is also a bully (wholesale colonial expansion, etc etc).

The same applies to Russia (anything from Manchuria and Mongolia to the Caucausus to E. Europe).

And so on and on and on…

Big powers are almost always bullies. That is why they are big powers. The US may appear benign but it has engaged (and still is) in a lot of scummy non-democratic activities that only serve the US interest.

China will be like all other big powers that preceded it. It will use soft power because war is a costly affair. It will only engage militarily when it is necessary.

And Australia should embrace the fact that iti is slowly becoming less Anglo-Celtic and more multi-cultural. Many Australians have no cultural link with the USA or with England or even with Western Europe. Many new Australians are of Asian. Middle Eastern and African descent.

Sucking up to the US is a hangover from the Cold War and is only maintained in place because the political elite is still dominated by Anglo-Celts.

The current John Howard government is a throwback to the 1950’s (lil Johhny aspires to be the next Robert Menzies who ruled from 1949 to 1966 and who was an extremely old fashioned monarchist, liked to send young Australians to die in a variety of foreign conflicts (Korea, Malaysia, Vietnam)).

Paul Keating was the last Australian PM to realise that Australia’s destiny lies with Asia and not some archaic allegiance to the past. Australia needs to engage more effectively with the Asian community. Security in the modern era is not based on how many battleships or aircraft one owns but on creating interdependencies between states.

And getting back to the point. If the PRC all of a sudden goes bonkers and comes storming down through Asia what would a couple of dozen F-22’s accomplish other than be destroyed on the ground by CHinese long range missiles (if they have aircraft carriers surely they have long range missiles)? 😀

Obviously I would take the $6 billion and excape to a country that has no extradition treaty with my country.

I would then spend the money on being obnoxiously rich. This would include:

– getting a gold plated sedan chair, from which I’d spit on plebs.
– buying several midgets (they bring good luck if you rub their stomachs)
– doing lines of coke off the bodies of my lovely concubines
– supportting Henry Winkler (aka The Fonze) for next Prez of the USA. His platform would be: “Vote for me cause I’m da Fonze.”
– getting plastic surgery so I look like Brad Pitt, only more rugged.
– marrying Angelina Jolie (as i now look like Brad Pitt).
– buying a black costume with a mask that makes me breathe heavy and sound like James Earl Jones.
– destroying any memory of the Ewoks and Jar jar Binks.

Unfortunately your profile doesn’t say where you are from, so I’ll assume not Australia. Now before I start I do not believe in a potential SEA invasion of Australia.

Actually I do live in Australia, and in particular Tazmania – home of the Tassie Devil, tree hugging hippies and good beer. 😀

Funnily enough though even though I’ll class myself as well informed I failed to notice any “considerable political uproar”. Now I am very well aware of the TNI/AU Flankers and I don’t know what Indonesia is thinking as 4 will never be an effective force.

The Flanker purchase by the TNI/AU was debated in parliament and recieved coverage by the media. The main gist of the debate was that Australia’s security is threatened by 4 Flankers. I admit I over-emphasised the scope of coverage by claiming it was extensive. But it did get coverage on even regional media who usually even struggle to report national affairs unless they are related to the budget or Kylie Minogue.

The TNI/AU is planning more Flankers. The last I heard was that a plan to acquire 12 more to create a full squadron was scrapped in favour of Aceh relief funding. However even 16 Flankers is not a considerable threat to Australia by any standard.

However when Australia took delivery of 15 F-111G aircraft the screams from the Indonesian Government could be heard all the way from Melbourne.

This is because the original F-111’s were brought only to counter Indonesia during the Konfrontasi period prior to 1965. The F-111’s only serve to deter Asian countries. They have never been deployed in coalition actions and just about every analyst or politician always raves about how it is necessary to maintain Australia’s long range strike capabilities, despite Australia’s increasing emphasis on coalition warfare where mulit-role aircraft like the Hornet are much more useful.

But the long range strike capabilities are needed, mainly because Australian strategic policy requires some sort of deterence against Asian aggression (this is tacitly implied and not stated out in the open as it was in past years).

On another note, about 15 years ago, I think Paul Dibbs wrote a report stating that the only country with the capability to invade Australia was the U.S. So why keep the F-111’s?

Now as far as Dr Kopp is concerned please don’t tar all Australians with the CK brush. Most people here and particularily in the knowning circle treat him as a joke too.

But many ordinary Australians do fear Asian countries. The reason why Pauline Hanson was popular in the mid to late 1990’s was because of this fear. Even though Pauline Hanson is long gone as a political force, both sides of the Government still maintain that Asia is the most likely source of an invasion of Australia. Hence the extensive American a$$ kissing that has been a cornerstone of Australian foreign policy since the 1940’s. Australians die for the USA so that the USA will come and save Australia’s butt once the Asians come flowing into Australia. Fearing Asian hordes is one of the main reasons the country was federated. Australia pi$$ed the Japanese off after WWI for not allowing a racial equality clause in the League of Nations charter.

The recent refusal by the Howard government to sign a non-aggression pact with Asian countries is proof that a racist streak still exists in Australian foreign policy (BTW New Zealand signed the charter).

Go to any University political science class and if the topic of national security comes up, most people will maintain that the Asians are out to get us and that is why we need the US alliance, why Aussies need to die for America and why we need F-111’s.

This guy’s a freakin joke. He’s been preaching that the RAAF needs the F-22 for at least a decade now (I remember articles published in the mid 1990’s).

But his logic is common among many Australians. Australians fear Asian countries. There was considerable political uproar about the TNI/AU buying 4 Flankers!

Even many so-called “educated” people at universities believe that the Asian hordes are coming. For some reason they think that all Asian countries are intent on taking over Australia. A common argument I hear from Uni students is that Indonesia has hundreds of million of people, or that China has over 1 billion people. This is why they are going to invade us.

Even the current government seems to take this approach by threatening to be the U.S.’ deputy sherriff in the region or refusing to sign a symbolic non-aggression treaty with Asian countries that would give Australia access to various ASEAN sponsored talks and negotiations.

Correct me if I’m wrong but I thought the AIM-120s part of the deal was if Brazil bought the Falcons from the US. Will the US sell their AIM-120s even if Brazil buys their Falcons from Holland? Another question couldn’t the US beat Hollands offer or does the US want Brazil to buy the aircraft from them? Thanks

If a country wants to sell a piece of US built hardware, it must get US approval for the sale.

So if the Dutch want to sell F-16’s they must get permission to do so from the US. If they get permission, I’m sure the US will most likely support the sale and provide weapons, spares etc, Frankly I don’t see why the US would refuse such a sale (despite President Lula’s somewhat lefty stance).