Australia in danger?

HisdaughterJen · #1 9th May 2009, 03:21 PM

I came across an article that said Australia is adding to it's military resources because Rudd feels he can't depend on America.

Kevin Rudd | China dominance

I agree with him. The current American government is doing everything it can to strip our military of its power and make the US "just like everybody else"...in other words, no longer a superpower.

Our common threats are not blind to what is happening and will take advantage of it given the opportunity. Not to be an alarmist, but it is my understanding that Australia only has about 25 million citizens. What if China invaded with a 50 million-man army with the goal of taking over and there's no nation able (or willing) to come to Australia's aid? It is my understanding that Australian citizens are unarmed. (Americans are armed and would fight to the death against any foreign army invasion)

Would the EU and the US just stand there and let it happen? Would we run to the UN and make sure China gets sanctioned? Would China get nothing but a reprimand while Australia, as it is known, is destroyed or taken over?

It looks like your government sees these possibilities and is adding resources but what do the citizens think about it?

ebia · #2 10th May 2009, 01:39 AM

Originally Posted by HisdaughterJen

I came across an article that said Australia is adding to it's military resources because Rudd feels he can't depend on America.

Kevin Rudd | China dominance

I agree with him. The current American government is doing everything it can to strip our military of its power and make the US "just like everybody else"...in other words, no longer a superpower.

Our common threats are not blind to what is happening and will take advantage of it given the opportunity. Not to be an alarmist, but it is my understanding that Australia only has about 25 million citizens. What if China invaded with a 50 million-man army with the goal of taking over and there's no nation able (or willing) to come to Australia's aid? It is my understanding that Australian citizens are unarmed. (Americans are armed and would fight to the death against any foreign army invasion)

Would the EU and the US just stand there and let it happen? Would we run to the UN and make sure China gets sanctioned? Would China get nothing but a reprimand while Australia, as it is known, is destroyed or taken over?

It looks like your government sees these possibilities and is adding resources but what do the citizens think about it?

If China really decided to invade just about anywhere nobody would be capable of stopping them providing they had the means to get there.

Australia's biggest defense is not and never will be armed forces, but the fact that it's an island, and the sheer distances between places once on does get here. Australia's armed forces really are for dealing with minor disagreements and potential incursions with it's near neighbours and for acting with those neighbours (most of whom are small but highly unstable) to try to maintain a degree of peace and stability in the region- particularly in countries like E. Timor, Fiji, PNG, the Solomons and potentially in the future (if we ever stop ignoring the elephant in the back garden) West Papua. And to enforce borders, fishing rights, etc.

Nobody is going to invade Australia - our big neighbours (India, China and Indonesia) have a vested interest in Australia as a stable trading partner.

Joachim · #3 10th May 2009, 02:17 AM

Originally Posted by HisdaughterJen

I came across an article that said Australia is adding to it's military resources because Rudd feels he can't depend on America.

Kevin Rudd | China dominance

I agree with him. The current American government is doing everything it can to strip our military of its power and make the US "just like everybody else"...in other words, no longer a superpower.

Our common threats are not blind to what is happening and will take advantage of it given the opportunity. Not to be an alarmist, but it is my understanding that Australia only has about 25 million citizens. What if China invaded with a 50 million-man army with the goal of taking over and there's no nation able (or willing) to come to Australia's aid? It is my understanding that Australian citizens are unarmed. (Americans are armed and would fight to the death against any foreign army invasion)

Would the EU and the US just stand there and let it happen? Would we run to the UN and make sure China gets sanctioned? Would China get nothing but a reprimand while Australia, as it is known, is destroyed or taken over?

It looks like your government sees these possibilities and is adding resources but what do the citizens think about it?

This is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard, and no offense, but I suspect that you have no knowledge of military tactics or of just military operations.

The safest areas in the world in terms of foreign invasion are North America and Australia. In order to invade North America as it is traditionally thought of (USA, Canada and Mexico) there are only a few points of entry where you can mount a land invasion. Alaska/Arctic Circle, Greenland into Canada, Guatamala and Belize into Mexico and Cuba into Florida.

China will never be invading the United States. Now, in order to invade Australia, China would basically have to use most of its navy and most of its air force in order to invade Australia because Australia is an entire continent. There is no ally that they can base out of and it is not simply a case of using carrier ships as it was for the invasion of Normandy. China would have to use probably 80% of its military capabilities in order to invade Australia, because simply put, how else are they going to have the manpower to invade the country. The only way they can get troops there is by air or sea, just like with the United States. It is the reason that the continental United States and Australia have never been invaded by a foreign power, its simply not possible to do so now that both are modern armed states.

Sorry to bust up the Rush inspired rant, but, it just ain't happening. Even if China could muster up a 50 million man army (and right now they have an active troop strength of 2.5 million), simply put, that kind of an army is really only useful if you have equipment for them, and 50 million infantry men won't mean squat if you don't have the capability to even reach your target.

And I also guarantee you if China did try and waste its time with an invasion of Australia you would immediately see armed revolts in certain parts of China that have seperatist ambitions because the entire force of the military would have to be used for such an invasion and the Russians would probably move in to help protect the breakaway states.

Basically, China will never invade Australia because it is a tactical error to do so.

Joachim · #4 10th May 2009, 02:21 AM

Originally Posted by ebia

If China really decided to invade just about anywhere nobody would be capable of stopping them providing they had the means to get there.

Australia's biggest defense is not and never will be armed forces, but the fact that it's an island, and the sheer distances between places once on does get here. Australia's armed forces really are for dealing with minor disagreements and potential incursions with it's near neighbours and for acting with those neighbours (most of whom are small but highly unstable) to try to maintain a degree of peace and stability in the region- particularly in countries like E. Timor, Fiji, PNG, the Solomons and potentially in the future (if we ever stop ignoring the elephant in the back garden) West Papua. And to enforce borders, fishing rights, etc.

Nobody is going to invade Australia - our big neighbours (India, China and Indonesia) have a vested interest in Australia as a stable trading partner.

A few of those statements are untrue, namely that China is unstoppable. Both Russia and the United States would be able to stop China. First, because of the tactical nuclear threat. Unlike China, both countries do have tactical nuclear weapons and will use them even if it will signal armageddon if they believe their national survival is threatened. The other reason is that China is a paper tiger. Russia could simply let China take Siberia and watch them die before they ever made it to Moscow. In America, the situation is simply that they do not have the capability to invade (and probably never will, no country will most likely) and even if they did, most American civilians are armed and any occupation of America would make Iraq look like a cakewalk.

ebia · #5 10th May 2009, 02:36 AM

Originally Posted by Joachim

A few of those statements are untrue, namely that China is unstoppable. Both Russia and the United States would be able to stop China. First, because of the tactical nuclear threat. Unlike China, both countries do have tactical nuclear weapons and will use them even if it will signal armageddon if they believe their national survival is threatened.

That's perfectly true - I deliberately left consideration of nuclear weapons out of my response. I'm not sure how bringing on armageddon ensures your national survival, but hey.

The other reason is that China is a paper tiger. Russia could simply let China take Siberia and watch them die before they ever made it to Moscow.
In America, the situation is simply that they do not have the capability to invade

Both those two considerations were intended to be read into my caveat - "providing they had the means to get there". Clearly they don't have the means to get sufficient forces to many places.

(and probably never will, no country will most likely) and even if they did, most American civilians are armed and any occupation of America would make Iraq look like a cakewalk.

Occupation tends to be the downfall of many invasions. Unless you are going to somehow win the people over to your cause or install local powers to do your occupying for you, you are going to need a damn good reason to invade anywhere except the smallest, most powerless of nations (like Tibet).

GodsoldierClintus · #6 10th May 2009, 02:39 AM

I can't really see anyone going on an 1940's Japanese style invasion of the Pacific...any power that has the military capability to do that will also have vast trading interests in the Pacific...it just wouldn't be worth it. And that is precisely what someone would have to do if they planned on an invasion of Australia. We are just too far away for a viable invasion. It's just laughable to even imagine China trying to establish a Pacific empire...what would they regions largest trading and miliatry power have to gain in invading the Pacific? They already dominate the trade, and it would be far more efficient for the Chinese to allow trading rather than to start a war. Not to mention the great social unrest it would cause.

We probably need a larger navy to enforce our ocean borders and police the vast ocean that surrounds Australia...but there just isn't any forseeable reason for any of our neighbours to attack us.

GodsoldierClintus · #7 10th May 2009, 02:46 AM

I don't see China as going out invading people...In fact a look a history shows that whilst China has been invaded firstly by western powers who forced their ports upon China prior to WW2, and then by the Japanese in WW2, China has not really gone and started any wars within recent history (talking about last 100 years)

ebia · #8 10th May 2009, 02:50 AM

Originally Posted by GodsoldierClintus

I don't see China as going out invading people...In fact a look a history shows that whilst China has been invaded firstly by western powers who forced their ports upon China prior to WW2, and then by the Japanese in WW2, China has not really gone and started any wars within recent history (talking about last 100 years)

Um, I'm not bashing China, but China has invaded another country relatively recently - Tibet.

GodsoldierClintus · #9 10th May 2009, 03:31 AM

I preface this by saying I'm a Hong Kong born Chinese and will be biased. But I can say the same for all of you.

I don't want to open up a can of worms but whilst I accept that there is probably a vast violation of human rights in Tibet (and mind you in China as well), the fact is for all intents and purposes Tibet is a part of China and as such it cannot qualify as an invasion. Not for one moment condoning murder of innocents and monks, but it's hard to see how when a massive military power parks there tanks into your country at will and opnely declares your country part of theirs, how you are not a part of their country.

In previous posts I was talking about an actual campaign to take over another country that has it's own recognised soverignty and standing army. And I stand by that, I don't see China starting a Chinese empire and invading other soverign countries.

ebia · #10 10th May 2009, 04:16 AM

Originally Posted by GodsoldierClintus

I preface this by saying I'm a Hong Kong born Chinese and will be biased. But I can say the same for all of you.

I don't want to open up a can of worms but whilst I accept that there is probably a vast violation of human rights in Tibet (and mind you in China as well), the fact is for all intents and purposes Tibet is a part of China and as such it cannot qualify as an invasion. Not for one moment condoning murder of innocents and monks, but it's hard to see how when a massive military power parks there tanks into your country at will and opnely declares your country part of theirs, how you are not a part of their country.

In previous posts I was talking about an actual campaign to take over another country that has it's own recognised soverignty and standing army. And I stand by that, I don't see China starting a Chinese empire and invading other soverign countries.

We can agree to disagree over Tibet - it's beside the point so far as the bigger picture is concerned; we agree China is not on the brink of 19th century style empire building - it's economic muscle that China is exerting in a variety of places around the world.