Zap, your welcome. However my answer was given in good faith. You suggest that Australia has no natural enemy (can I assume at the moment or you assume this forever?). Therefore we should not have 'offensive' weapons (Is there any other type?). Are you suggesting if we ever needed these weapons we could acquire them, fit them, practice with them and become expert in their use in less than 5 yrs. It might interest you to know our airforce can't even pay for/figure out how to fit aircraft in the fleet with TCAS that don't already have it.
You also seem miffed that we might go somewhere and use them to help the US financial state. I still can't believe that rational people think that the US went to war in Iraq to save money/ secure oil. It would have been far more simple to let saddam kill anyone he want, sell any nasty toy he had and turn a blind eye (as everyone did before) and just buy oil of him and let him be.
A question for you. The media reports that there has been little evidence of WMD. Do you consider a terrorist training camp a weapon of (potential) mass destruction?

ozbiggles,

You don't have a very thorough understanding of what the war in Iraq was (IS) all about. Take a look at OPEC pricing policy, Petrodollars versus Euro, the difference between Gulf sweet crude and west Texas, the US current account deficit, the dependence on the US of maintaining the greenback as fiat currency and Saddams actions wrt the UN oil for food program, Iraqi Forex reserves - the list of factors goes on but to wrap it up with a simple "access to oil" argument is to let our politicians get away with far too much.

You say that the media reports that there are no WMD in Iraq. Are you aware that in early 2001, both Powell and Rice went on the record as saying that Iraq posed no military threat. I cant believe that rational people have fallen for the "we got our intelligence wrong" baloney being pedalled by Bush, Blair and Howard. There was so much to gain from invading Iraq.

You ask if I consider a terrorist training camp a WMD. I don't think there is a difference between weapons of destruction and weapons of MASS destruction. The most destructive military actions of our time have been committed with non WMD - the fire bombing of Japan killed hundreds of thousands of CIVILIANS each night (both LeMay and McNamarra admitted they were war crimes), the bombing of Laos, Vietnam and Cambodia used conventional weapons and caused untold damage and suffering. Even the economic sanctions against countries such as Iraq and North Korea have killed more than WMD.

I assume you are suggesting that there are terrorist training camps in Iraq. I have seen no credible reporting to suggest this to be the case at all - even the Sep 11 investigation could not link the sovereign state of Iraq with the terrorist attacks in NYC/DC?

Ozbiggles - What if that camp had trained terrorists that had gone on to murder thousands of innocent civillians. What if that camps host country had funded terrorist activities all over the world. Would you advocate sending in the B-52's. Invading the host country. Setting up a puppet government to be more compliant to trade deals of natural resources.

Afghanistan. Iraq.

What about Fort Benning.

SwingWing

Commendable of you to add to a thread that is off on the veritable tangent.

Is there not a considerable risk to the ADF, if regional forces add a similar capability?

Your post very diplomatic, but I consider a touch dismissive, as an Australian cruise missile capability understated somewhat. The capability significant regionally. An analogy being the Indonesians aquiring a Scud like capabiliy off North Korea say.

If all we are getting from cruise missiles, is the ability to replace the F111's range with a depleted force of fatigued Hornets and the Orion fleet, is it worth it?

If regional air forces acquire cruise missiles, there must be an enhanced defensive capability of the ADF to enable elemental offensive operations ( Timor etc ) around our near north. But we will be left hung out to dry with a small force of Hornets awaiting the introduction of JSF - and is this the right aircraft in a region with a proliferation of long range missiles?

Would an interim fighter, such as the F15, be more prudent? Far less contentious than cruise missiles. The cruise missile capability slapped on easlily if regional air arms aquired a more threatening posture.

Regional skirmishes aside, certainly a capability where the RAAF can participate with the Americans in the opening round of a future air war.

Macchi

As painful as it is, public interest in defence healthy. Unless you want to go down the road of the RNZAF!

Conversely, to see defence personnel and bueracrats continuously bungle tax funds painful too.

Staying with the long range missile issue, isn't there a hangar full of Israeli missiles at Amberley? First rule of business in the civilian world, try before you buy off the Israelis.:ok:


Zapatas Blood

The efficiency of reducing the Japanese war effort by dropping incendiary devices from hundreds of B29's at low level, only a war crime admission if we lost the war.

Another tangent, but I respect your belief that we do not need long range offensive weapons.

I believe we do. Firstly, in defence of our huge land mass with relatively small resources, such weapons the most efficient means of protection. Secondly, such weapons offer a stand off capability to keep our crews out of harms way in any future "adventure".

I advocate the re-invigoration of the ADF through the purchase of F-15cs for ADef plus F-15Es for strike. In addition, several squadrons of FA-18E/Fs to fatten it all out a little.

Keep the pigs too because the more types, the better. We can afford it, look at how much cash is wasted on dole-bludgers. Make the hobbits who come over to sun themselves and their big hairy feet on Bondi beach pay a little back.

Also some C-17s. Who wants to ride around in a J-model??? Ten should do it although how I arrived at that round figure I have no idea...

The pussers should be given a new carrier full of harriers to play with. Make it two, not much good having one on its own. We almost had one until the rotten stinkin bleedin poms double-crossed us on that HMS Ark Royal deal. Or was it the Hermes?? Anyway just shows you can't trust a pom.

Throw them a few cruise missiles while they're at it, and some for the subs.

And for the Yarmy, the latest Gen3 NVGs and some of those micro-UAVs to fly ahead of the troops. Screw the steyrs, it's G3s all around and yippee "Mobile Infantry"-type suits for the grunts.

Yeah I hear you, how to pay for it all. Sell the steyrs to the bikie gangs to raise more dough, for starters.

Shut down a few hospitals and send all the hypochondriacs to the Yarmy medic training schools to kill (oops) two birds with one stone.

Also, introduce a "Bingo Tax" at the old folks homes.

We'll need some of those great big f.**.k off MOAB fuel-air bombs to roll out the back of the Hercs because they look like a lot of fun. I reckon they'd be good for quelling riots.

Kiiiiiiiiiick Ass!!

What else??




NUKES!!!


:E

Zap, sorry for the delay in reply and thankyou for your response. Even though we disagree on a few things its always good for a debate. For the record I spent 4 months in the MEAO (not in Iraq but did visit) in a position that gave me a very good idea of what was going on. In addition (i'm not giving away anything here, it was reported in the Australian last year) I saw the removal of a terrorist camp in Iraq as it happened. If I told you how I knew it was, that would be giving stuff away.
Even before I went and probably much more now I know weapons are a horrible way to deal with things. However they are a neceesary evil. Appeasment doesn't work, diplomacy might, weapons won't but they will get you back to diplomacy one day when the other side doesn't want to listen.
Back to the topic. People seem to have forgotten or not realise that Australia was only one incident from major conflict in Timor. One shooting incident because of bad maps did happen and if it wasn't for the incredibly brave actions of a few soldiers who did negotiate it could have developed from that or any other incident. This would have seen Australian troops in a foreign land with limited air support (how many AAR assest did we have/will we have in the future). Diplomacy might have worked, the ability to strike back (with missiles/ F111)would have only helped that diplomacy to save lives.
As for the reasons for the Iraq war I'm still examining them myself. However in the meantime, Saddam is gone, at least one training camp is gone, the Iraq team can beat us at soccer and we love it, they can get beaten in the next game, but go home as heros and not get beaten by their 'president'. I feel better with that than buying cheap oil of a madman.

Question for anyone in the know, with regards to the alleged capability of North Korea's intercontinental missiles, what (or who) do they use for their guidance systems??
I am aware that Pakistan had (and still does) have a big problem in this department regarding their "glow in the dark" bombs!!:confused:

Now, was it true that there was a US carrier group stationed to the North of PNG during the E. Timor excercise?
This is a small fact that should be highlighted by the ADF more often. How easy it would've been for this to "blow up" out of all proportions. Does this prove training can beat superior numbers & firepower on occasion? Does it not prove that having a capability & being trained to know when to use the capability are two very different matters?

"Appeasement is a pejorative term for a strategic maneuver, based on either pragmatism, fear of war, or moral conviction, that leads to acceptance of imposed conditions in preference to defending against aggressors. Since World War II, the term has generally negative connotations of weakness and cowardice, and people rarely use it to describe policies they support and tend to use it to label policies that they oppose."

This is a spiffing definition of the word.

Biggles, we appease regimes all the time. To say it "doesn’t work" is nonsense. We let Saudi Arabia and Pakistan get away with - murder, literally considering the events of Sep 11. The cold war was a classic example of a "fear of war" that led to an acceptance of "imposed conditions". Had the Joint Chiefs been more influential during the Cuban missile crisis for example, we might not be sitting here today, conversing on pprune.

"People rarely use it to describe policies they support".

Washington’s cozy relationship with the "Butcher of Chechnya" is a fine example of this.

Oicur, excellent point. In certain scenarios/reality appeasment is used. If appeasement isn't applicable (ie people who murder kids/blow up planes) then something that goes bang might be needed ie a standoff missile/SAS/F111. Its all about options.
If you appease a terrorist they will want more. If you don't appease someone who wants something they will then consider becoming a terrorist. The fact that places that terrorists considered safe and friendly keep getting invaded gives notice that even they have a price to pay now. I don't like it, I'm sure you don't like it but governments need options which include hardware when diplomacy fails.

ozbiggles,

You say "If appeasement isn't applicable (ie people who murder kids/blow up planes) then something that goes bang might be needed."

Would you support using such a doctrine consistently? Against all nations that murder kids and blow up planes? Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Russia, Rwanda, China, Israel, Egypt, etc. Against the west's newest friend, Libya? Or against the US for downing an Iranian airliner?

Our "defence" forces would be awfully busy.

Oicur, No I wouldn't. As far as I know Rwanda hasn't threatened Australia. The shootdown of the Iranian jet is a very poor taste example as well. That was not a delibrate shootdown of a civilian jet. It was a tragic case of mistaken identity. I didn't see anyone hanging explosives over innocent kids there.
In addition I'm not advocating invading Indonesia because of what has happened in the last half hour. I am advocating having a number of deterrent capabilities (that our neighbours will get regardless of what we do/say). These capabilities also ensure that our aircrew will live to fight another day if they are called upon.

Great thread!!!

Some dumb points though....


and some well informed ones too.




I really like those who look through rose coloured glasses.


Never forget, there are some pretty bad guys out there. And some of them are smart!!!

.

Ay chance those missiles could face east and maybe reach Wellington? Possibly the Beehive... there's a couple of shady characters there who are not for regional secruity.....

Very interesting thread with varied and interesting comments from most posters with only one somewhat OTT post. I suspect he was only stirring the pot 'though.
However, I keep thinking of a quote from Tacitus.....
"Let he who desires peace prepare for war"
Comments anyone?

You only live twice. Once when
you're born. Once when
you've looked death in the face.

My Mum, who lived in LPL during the blitz, used to always shake her head when car factories were shut down. She used to say how they were the factories that built your tanks & planes etc.

Sometimes, being prepared for war, as with Pinky's quote, doesn't necissarily mean having 40,000 troops amassed near our borders. It can also include your contingency planning and preparedness should the unthinkable happen.

A standoff platform, such as the cruise missiles, could buy us just enough time to be better prepared. It may, just as easily not. One can only hope that the "visionaries" who concocted this plan have taken such contingencies into account.