-
@chimoaus said in Aussie Politics:
@hooroo I understand that, but the question is if "The Enemy" invaded Ireland would we all just do nothing because they clearly aren't spending much.
I guess it just annoys me that we spend so much on "Securing our future" when the likelihood of all-out war must be very slim. China seems to be taking over the world with their economy not their tanks.
There would be huge responsibilities on the United Kingdom if somebody was to invade Ireland. That why Ireland need not spend a dime on their military.
-
@rotated You could argue that Japan has a shitload more people to protect as well. There are also plenty of tiny countries that spend more than we do GDP wise. It just seems very random how some nations spend a lot more than others. I guess I am wondering if there is a set risk assessment or analysis done on military spending vs not spending and who decides how much money we spend just in case.
-
@majorrage Maybe I'm ignorant but I find it farcical to think in 2021 that a developed nation would "invade" another developed nation, it's not 1939.
The world economy is so intertwined that we are all reliant on one another, it makes no sense, I really cannot see why China would invade any nation for their resources when they can just buy them. Yes, there are long standing tensions between certain nations but that is very much localised land disputes, and they are not going to blitzkrieg the world.
Wouldn't it be great if the world could somehow come together and agree to drastically reduce military spending, very much like the Paris climate agreement.
I noticed that Costa Rica has not had an army since 1949. "Costa Rica's track record of 72 years without a standing army demonstrates in a convincing way that it is possible, as well as positive, to organize a state on the principles of mutual trust, peace and non-violence." https://www.canberratimes.com.au/story/7038431/costa-rica-abolished-its-military-other-countries-can-too/
-
in a super crowded field, yesterday saw what might be my favourite Betoota headline of all time
Chine Panics After Learning They've Only Got 25 Years Until Australia Gets 8 New Submarines
-
@mariner4life said in Aussie Politics:
in a super crowded field, yesterday saw what might be my favourite Betoota headline of all time
Chine Panics After Learning They've Only Got 25 Years Until Australia Gets 8 New Submarines
We will be up to Covid Zulu by then.
-
@chimoaus said in Aussie Politics:
@majorrage Maybe I'm ignorant but I find it farcical to think in 2021 that a developed nation would "invade" another developed nation, it's not 1939.
The world economy is so intertwined that we are all reliant on one another, it makes no sense, I really cannot see why China would invade any nation for their resources when they can just buy them. Yes, there are long standing tensions between certain nations but that is very much localised land disputes, and they are not going to blitzkrieg the world.
Wouldn't it be great if the world could somehow come together and agree to drastically reduce military spending, very much like the Paris climate agreement.
I noticed that Costa Rica has not had an army since 1949. "Costa Rica's track record of 72 years without a standing army demonstrates in a convincing way that it is possible, as well as positive, to organize a state on the principles of mutual trust, peace and non-violence." https://www.canberratimes.com.au/story/7038431/costa-rica-abolished-its-military-other-countries-can-too/
Crimea says hi. 2.5 million people invaded by Russia.
This post reminds me of Helen Clark talking about the end of war, a few short years before 9/11.
-
@kirwan said in Aussie Politics:
@chimoaus said in Aussie Politics:
@majorrage Maybe I'm ignorant but I find it farcical to think in 2021 that a developed nation would "invade" another developed nation, it's not 1939.
The world economy is so intertwined that we are all reliant on one another, it makes no sense, I really cannot see why China would invade any nation for their resources when they can just buy them. Yes, there are long standing tensions between certain nations but that is very much localised land disputes, and they are not going to blitzkrieg the world.
Wouldn't it be great if the world could somehow come together and agree to drastically reduce military spending, very much like the Paris climate agreement.
I noticed that Costa Rica has not had an army since 1949. "Costa Rica's track record of 72 years without a standing army demonstrates in a convincing way that it is possible, as well as positive, to organize a state on the principles of mutual trust, peace and non-violence." https://www.canberratimes.com.au/story/7038431/costa-rica-abolished-its-military-other-countries-can-too/
Crimea says hi. 2.5 million people invaded by Russia.
This post reminds me of Helen Clark talking about the end of war, a few short years before 9/11.
maybe the more pertinent question is, what should our military look like in 2021? or 2031
-
@chimoaus said in Aussie Politics:
@majorrage Maybe I'm ignorant but I find it farcical to think in 2021 that a developed nation would "invade" another developed nation, it's not 1939.
The world economy is so intertwined that we are all reliant on one another, it makes no sense, I really cannot see why China would invade any nation for their resources when they can just buy them. Yes, there are long standing tensions between certain nations but that is very much localised land disputes, and they are not going to blitzkrieg the world.
Wouldn't it be great if the world could somehow come together and agree to drastically reduce military spending, very much like the Paris climate agreement.
I noticed that Costa Rica has not had an army since 1949. "Costa Rica's track record of 72 years without a standing army demonstrates in a convincing way that it is possible, as well as positive, to organize a state on the principles of mutual trust, peace and non-violence." https://www.canberratimes.com.au/story/7038431/costa-rica-abolished-its-military-other-countries-can-too/
Costa Rica's relationship with the USA underscores their ability to forego a military. In much the same way NZ and Ireland are military mendicant States; dependent on others. Any invading force really has to go through someone else first.
Australia is dependent on maritime trade for its prosperity and the wealth corridor is threatened by a dictatorship that thinks nothing of the rule of law, or the rights of its own citizens.
-
@kirwan said in Aussie Politics:
@chimoaus said in Aussie Politics:
@majorrage Maybe I'm ignorant but I find it farcical to think in 2021 that a developed nation would "invade" another developed nation, it's not 1939.
The world economy is so intertwined that we are all reliant on one another, it makes no sense, I really cannot see why China would invade any nation for their resources when they can just buy them. Yes, there are long standing tensions between certain nations but that is very much localised land disputes, and they are not going to blitzkrieg the world.
Wouldn't it be great if the world could somehow come together and agree to drastically reduce military spending, very much like the Paris climate agreement.
I noticed that Costa Rica has not had an army since 1949. "Costa Rica's track record of 72 years without a standing army demonstrates in a convincing way that it is possible, as well as positive, to organize a state on the principles of mutual trust, peace and non-violence." https://www.canberratimes.com.au/story/7038431/costa-rica-abolished-its-military-other-countries-can-too/
Crimea says hi. 2.5 million people invaded by Russia.
This post reminds me of Helen Clark talking about the end of war, a few short years before 9/11.
Yep, the League of Nations and the Washington Naval Treaty also came to mind for having all the right intentions... yet all the best intentions around agreements for disarmament seem to work right up until one party changes their mind...
-
@antipodean said in Aussie Politics:
@chimoaus said in Aussie Politics:
@majorrage Maybe I'm ignorant but I find it farcical to think in 2021 that a developed nation would "invade" another developed nation, it's not 1939.
The world economy is so intertwined that we are all reliant on one another, it makes no sense, I really cannot see why China would invade any nation for their resources when they can just buy them. Yes, there are long standing tensions between certain nations but that is very much localised land disputes, and they are not going to blitzkrieg the world.
Wouldn't it be great if the world could somehow come together and agree to drastically reduce military spending, very much like the Paris climate agreement.
I noticed that Costa Rica has not had an army since 1949. "Costa Rica's track record of 72 years without a standing army demonstrates in a convincing way that it is possible, as well as positive, to organize a state on the principles of mutual trust, peace and non-violence." https://www.canberratimes.com.au/story/7038431/costa-rica-abolished-its-military-other-countries-can-too/
Costa Rica's relationship with the USA underscores their ability to forego a military. In much the same way NZ and Ireland are military mendicant States; dependent on others. Any invading force really has to go through someone else first.
Australia is dependent on maritime trade for its prosperity and the wealth corridor is threatened by a dictatorship that thinks nothing of the rule of law, or the rights of its own citizens.
I had to giggle a bit at China's attitude yesterday i.e. "Instead of this aggressive destabilisation they should do more to assist their neighbours and promote peace like we do - buying entire countries so we can have forward operating bases everywhere int eh South Pacific"
One journo on twitter yesterday pointed out that China's leverage in getting angry is extremely limited - they're always angry
-
@nta said in Aussie Politics:
@antipodean said in Aussie Politics:
@chimoaus said in Aussie Politics:
@majorrage Maybe I'm ignorant but I find it farcical to think in 2021 that a developed nation would "invade" another developed nation, it's not 1939.
The world economy is so intertwined that we are all reliant on one another, it makes no sense, I really cannot see why China would invade any nation for their resources when they can just buy them. Yes, there are long standing tensions between certain nations but that is very much localised land disputes, and they are not going to blitzkrieg the world.
Wouldn't it be great if the world could somehow come together and agree to drastically reduce military spending, very much like the Paris climate agreement.
I noticed that Costa Rica has not had an army since 1949. "Costa Rica's track record of 72 years without a standing army demonstrates in a convincing way that it is possible, as well as positive, to organize a state on the principles of mutual trust, peace and non-violence." https://www.canberratimes.com.au/story/7038431/costa-rica-abolished-its-military-other-countries-can-too/
Costa Rica's relationship with the USA underscores their ability to forego a military. In much the same way NZ and Ireland are military mendicant States; dependent on others. Any invading force really has to go through someone else first.
Australia is dependent on maritime trade for its prosperity and the wealth corridor is threatened by a dictatorship that thinks nothing of the rule of law, or the rights of its own citizens.
I had to giggle a bit at China's attitude yesterday i.e. "Instead of this aggressive destabilisation they should do more to assist their neighbours and promote peace like we do - buying entire countries so we can have forward operating bases everywhere int eh South Pacific"
One journo on twitter yesterday pointed out that China's leverage in getting angry is extremely limited - they're always angry
Yep, the best response IMO is for our Foreign Minister to act surprised they'd even comment by saying "not sure why they're upset. It has nothing to do with them"
-
@antipodean unfortunately have the aus and us ministers come out and specifically named china over night?
-
@kirwan said in Aussie Politics:
@chimoaus said in Aussie Politics:
@majorrage Maybe I'm ignorant but I find it farcical to think in 2021 that a developed nation would "invade" another developed nation, it's not 1939.
The world economy is so intertwined that we are all reliant on one another, it makes no sense, I really cannot see why China would invade any nation for their resources when they can just buy them. Yes, there are long standing tensions between certain nations but that is very much localised land disputes, and they are not going to blitzkrieg the world.
Wouldn't it be great if the world could somehow come together and agree to drastically reduce military spending, very much like the Paris climate agreement.
I noticed that Costa Rica has not had an army since 1949. "Costa Rica's track record of 72 years without a standing army demonstrates in a convincing way that it is possible, as well as positive, to organize a state on the principles of mutual trust, peace and non-violence." https://www.canberratimes.com.au/story/7038431/costa-rica-abolished-its-military-other-countries-can-too/
Crimea says hi. 2.5 million people invaded by Russia.
This post reminds me of Helen Clark talking about the end of war, a few short years before 9/11.
Yep the 100's of billions the US spends on military definitely helped prevent 9/11 and I would hardly call that an invasion.
I did mention that land/religious disputes between neighbours was a reality but what is the likelihood any nation would invade Australia? Very few nations have a naval force and China is the only obvious concern, the question is would China ever invade Australia in the WW2 sense, I highly doubt it, what would be the benefit for them?
Am I the only one who thinks the billions we spend is a gross waste of expenditure when the risk of lifes lost from pandemics, climate change and wellbeing are significantly higher.
It just seems like a giant pissing contest and instead of urine we are pissing taxpayers money.
-
@chimoaus IMO it's not about invasion per se, although that could happen, it's about trade and the ability for our region to not be subject to the whims of a dictatorship.
The United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) estimates that roughly 80 percent of global trade by volume and 70 percent by value is transported by sea. Of that volume, 60 percent of maritime trade passes through Asia, with the South China Sea carrying an estimated one-third of global shipping.1 Its waters are particularly critical for China, Taiwan, Japan, and South Korea, all of which rely on the Strait of Malacca, which connects the South China Sea and, by extension, the Pacific Ocean with the Indian Ocean. As the second-largest economy in the world with over 60 percent of its trade in value traveling by sea, China’s economic security is closely tied to the South China Sea.
-
@nta said in Aussie Politics:
@chimoaus not to mention if China were serious, they could crush our military through sheer numbers alone.
/cough Battle of Kapyong /cough
-
I agree with @antipodean its not about invasion. Re drawing maps from to fit in your forward operating bases and claiming its yours is much easier to do than go to war. Just calll it fake news when someone disagrees, Those waters are crucial for trade and if you control the trade...
-
@chimoaus said in Aussie Politics:
@kirwan said in Aussie Politics:
@chimoaus said in Aussie Politics:
@majorrage Maybe I'm ignorant but I find it farcical to think in 2021 that a developed nation would "invade" another developed nation, it's not 1939.
The world economy is so intertwined that we are all reliant on one another, it makes no sense, I really cannot see why China would invade any nation for their resources when they can just buy them. Yes, there are long standing tensions between certain nations but that is very much localised land disputes, and they are not going to blitzkrieg the world.
Wouldn't it be great if the world could somehow come together and agree to drastically reduce military spending, very much like the Paris climate agreement.
I noticed that Costa Rica has not had an army since 1949. "Costa Rica's track record of 72 years without a standing army demonstrates in a convincing way that it is possible, as well as positive, to organize a state on the principles of mutual trust, peace and non-violence." https://www.canberratimes.com.au/story/7038431/costa-rica-abolished-its-military-other-countries-can-too/
Crimea says hi. 2.5 million people invaded by Russia.
This post reminds me of Helen Clark talking about the end of war, a few short years before 9/11.
Yep the 100's of billions the US spends on military definitely helped prevent 9/11 and I would hardly call that an invasion.
I did mention that land/religious disputes between neighbours was a reality but what is the likelihood any nation would invade Australia? Very few nations have a naval force and China is the only obvious concern, the question is would China ever invade Australia in the WW2 sense, I highly doubt it, what would be the benefit for them?
Am I the only one who thinks the billions we spend is a gross waste of expenditure when the risk of lifes lost from pandemics, climate change and wellbeing are significantly higher.
It just seems like a giant pissing contest and instead of urine we are pissing taxpayers money.
Indonesia must look south at all that empty Aussie land being under population strain and be tempted.
I'm not sure if you have noticed, but there are a shit load of conflicts going on around the world. Not having a capable miltary is negligence IMO.
Aussie Politics