An aircraft carrier? Wouldn't it be smarter to get something to put on it first? Like some aircraft.

Spending money on arms is a waste of time and money. It is impossible to defend a country the size of Australia with around 50,000 active military personnel.

Future wars will be fought over water and arable land. Neither of which are in abundance in Australia. So is there any real risk of invasion?

Spacscilib, true words mate.
National service, thats how it should be. those who leave school, that are not going to university or an apprenticeship should be immediatly placed in national service, in the service of their choice.
And as an addition to this, people who have been unemployed for more than 6 months should be conscripted. this will please the taxpayer, their money no longer going to bludgers, but to a good cause, the defense of their country. also watch crime and obeisety drop dramatically as people become disiplined and fit.
We should have some Nukes, i agree.
And of every one owning a gun with ammo, i say yes to the gun but NO to ammo, store the ammo at police stations and should something happen, the citizens may go to the police station to pick up their ammo. warehouse it in a massive underground dump in each major town.
Well, i suppose aircraft carriers are'nt absolutely nessesary for Aus, but it would be nice to have one just as a show of naval strength. Submarines are the way to go!  

No, i have never been to university nor been an apprentice.
But i WAS in the army reserve.
Building up our armed forces IS a nationalistic approach.
Perhaps i was a bit liberal there, ive noticed my error.
ALL school leavers to have national service!
Afterall, you can serve an apprenticeship in the armed forces and attend uni at duntroon.

Oh and it wasnt Ausholes opinion about re-armament, Spascilib said it.

Quote:


Aus Nasho, you have twice acknowledged my opinion, even though you said it was not worth a response. I don't think you have one. Typical nationalistic rant. Lots of opinions, but no logic to an argument.

I ask you all again, why would Indonesia invade Australia? We have nothing here except for rocks and desert. We struggle to sustain 20m people, how would we help a country with a population over 250m?

Nuclear weapons are not a defence. They are a device for aggressive posturing. The thought of North Korea holding a nuke sent the world into disaster control. Why? Because it would force its neighbours to consider holding similar weapons. Next thing you know, every country in south Asia has a nuclear weapon. And the original deterrent has evaporated. There would be no offer of help from larger military powers (such as US or China) because they know that those nuclear weapons could be unleashed on them. Raises the stakes considerably, don't you think?

If you dropped a nuke on Jakarta, what would it achieve? I can tell you one thing, it would really piss the Indonesians off. Then they WOULD invade Australia. And because they are so pissed, they would massacre every last person. Those wonderful military arms you are spruiking now become the property of Indonesia.

The only way to defend Australia is to train our military personnel in guerilla warfare. An invading force may quickly overrun the country, but then they have to govern it. And then comes the opportunity for counter attack. Insurgency. Guerilla warfare. Iraq is a prime example of what happens when you invade a country with poor military weaponry. Invade in 7 days, and 4 years later you are spending one billion dollars a week defending against primitive bombs made out of chlorine and fertiliser.

I do agree with the concept of national service, but would call it something less polarising, like social service. And the service shouldn't be limited to military training, it can be widened to improve Australia in other ways. Switzerland have a good working example.

Aushole, true words about guerilla training.
About indonesia, one reason for invasion is our mineral resources.
Another is, their motive would be idealogical.
Anyhow lets put aside the bickering and discuss things in a civilised manner, im interested to discuss things with someone who is idealogically opposed.
What kind of system does switzerland have in place?
What does AusHOLE mean anyhow.

''Indonesia will not invade for ideology. Religious wars haven't been fought for centuries. I can't  think of any wars in the last 100 years that have been declared on the basis of ideology. Have there been any?''

Yes, WW2, Korea and vietnam.

''As far as I see it, the only reason Indonesia would invade Australia is if someone came into power who wanted to conquer its neighbours for personal reasons. A megalomaniac. Some examples... Hussein, Hitler, Napoleon, Mugabe. Is there a deterrent to insanity?''

Thats my worry, if someone like Bakar Bashir of Jemaah Islamiah takes over, such as by election or coup.

As for my big army, it is for defence not offence.

Technicality! he did'nt mention religion in the second sentence.
so i was right there..... there was indeed an idealogical part of the war, operation Barbarossa- the german invasion of the soviet union to destroy communism.
And of religious wars, there is on raging right now............. IRAQ.