It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

If Australia was Invaded

page: 2
8
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 8 2016 @ 07:24 AM
link   
a reply to: Chadwickus

You obviously never watched Prisoner Cell Block H.....Wentworth and its wobbly walls, lol. Quality program, used to love that.

To the OP: Australia has already been invaded, somewhere between 1770 and 1788....by us Brits, we spawned you, so no doubt we would help protect you, as would most of the rest of the English speaking world and its allies.

Besides....any wouldbe invaders need to deal with the multitude of deadly animals livings there, and I don't mean the Aussies themselves, lol.




posted on May, 8 2016 @ 07:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: Chadwickus
a reply to: mazzroth

Is this show Australian?

Australian television is atrocious, I have very little faith in it being any good, even with a good story behind it
As I recall, there was a movie about this a few years ago. It was actually a good movie tho I don't think it was ever revealed who invaded.



posted on May, 8 2016 @ 07:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: tommo39
a reply to: mazzroth

Well, i live in Indonesia and it certainly wouldn't be them. If it was, their navy consists of hand me down's boats from Aussie, rowboats, rubber duckies, skiffs and the like. The airforce is outdated with few planes because they crash all the time. The army, well now your talking with 385,000 troops, but how would they get to Australia, swim?....the mind boggles friends. BUT, now China is another matter, with 2.3 million active military personel. But China buys their iron ore from the Aussie's so if it was them they would not be able to replace their armament destroyed by the Aussies, SO WHO?.......


Isn't that one of the main reasons countries get invaded? Control of resources. They wouldn't have to worry about losing out on iron ore if they control the country.



posted on May, 8 2016 @ 08:22 AM
link   
a reply to: mazzroth


It is politically incorrect to point this out by any western military, BUT, the simplicity of future invasion/occupation is infrastructure....

Both China and the U.S. has very exposed infrastructure. Food supplies, transportation systems, electrical....on and on.

Knock out infrastructure and one's military is reduced to controlling the local population to avoid riots and a general collapse of the nation.

Key dams, electrical grids, ports, railroad bridges....knock those out and the game is largely over-outside of counter insurgent gambit.

These can be achieved in what(?) 48 hours? 72? Long before allies could react. Food supplies in the U.S. major cities, AT BEST, will last 72 hours. I assume not any better down under....

Not one invading soldier would have to hit the ground to achieve this.There is no effective missile defense and GPS assures accurate targeting and results.


It would be over before anyone could help......



posted on May, 8 2016 @ 08:31 AM
link   
a reply to: nwtrucker

This guy isn't wrong- it's laughable how easily today "first world" countries could be toppled.

We're essentially all living in powder kegs. A big enough power outage alone would be enough to tip the scale- who remembers when the whole US northeast was dark for a week because the clocks at the power stations weren't synchronized? They went offline like dominoes due to poor design.

IIRC, They couldn't coordinate powering up any single power station because the grid demands would instantly overload it and shut it back down.

This was back when most business could still operate without power. The water and food kept flowing because the problem was contained to a relatively small portion of the country- water stations were able to haul in fuel to run generators, food trucks kept moving... but if that problem had spread to the rest of the east coast, or the northern border, it would be a very different memory.



posted on May, 8 2016 @ 08:31 AM
link   
a reply to: sg1642


Gee, so serious....IT was a tongue in cheek comment mate. can't you see that.....another beer for me, you want one too? lol,



posted on May, 8 2016 @ 08:34 AM
link   
a reply to: mazzroth
Wasn´t there a movie too, maybe it was the pilot, thought about an australien copy of Red Dawn when i watched it.
And sure nowadays, in the movies, the invaders aren´t russians anymore(like in Red Dawn the original, not the cheap remake), they are asian, but it is never said which asian country they come from.
Maybe the west propaganda machine is to scared to call those asians by nations right now? Because of the echo, maybe? xD

Next thing is, australia became invaded, by criminals that were sent there, ask the native australians, the aboriginies...



posted on May, 8 2016 @ 08:41 AM
link   
Realistically it would be very hard to get together enough troops in one place without pinging someones interest, add to that the resources required and you start to resemble D-day and think how much planning that took just to pop from blighty to france.

The Aussies would have the entire commonwealth behind them along with NATO/US it wouldn't be a fight worth doing, better off buying the place out bit by bit.



posted on May, 8 2016 @ 09:05 AM
link   
a reply to: mazzroth

The UK would be there in there in a heart beat. I would volunteer to go too!

Nobody touchs our Aussie cousins. Plus you did the same for us in two world wars we owe you and new Zealand.
edit on 8-5-2016 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 8 2016 @ 09:09 AM
link   
Australia's fearless great statesman stands ready to lead the resistance.
Sir Les Patterson, his finest hour.



posted on May, 8 2016 @ 09:12 AM
link   
Australia is covered under three main military defense treaties.
ANZUS - Australia, New Zealand and the US - an armed attack on any member requires the others to act

Southeast Asia Collective Defense Treaty - Australia, New Zealand, Phillipines, Thailand, United States, UK, and France This treaty was basis of the now defunct SEATO, SEATO is gone however the original treaty remains active.

The Five Power Defense Arrangement - Australia, UK, New Zealand, Malaysia and Singapore.

Australia is also a NATO contact country and while not covered under the treaty would likely be aided by the alliance and vice versa.

Australia also has been rebuilding defense ties with Japan and India and is likely to rejoin the Trilateral US/India/Japan restating the Quadrilateral.

So by treaty you could expect the US, New Zealand, UK, France, Philippines, Thailand, Malaysia and Singapore to all be required to act in the event of an attack on Austria. And although not bound by treaty Australia could expect aid from NATO, Japan, India, Chile, South Korea, and the Gulf States all of whom have defense ties to Australia.



posted on May, 8 2016 @ 09:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: mazzroth


It is politically incorrect to point this out by any western military, BUT, the simplicity of future invasion/occupation is infrastructure....

Both China and the U.S. has very exposed infrastructure. Food supplies, transportation systems, electrical....on and on.

Knock out infrastructure and one's military is reduced to controlling the local population to avoid riots and a general collapse of the nation.

Key dams, electrical grids, ports, railroad bridges....knock those out and the game is largely over-outside of counter insurgent gambit.

These can be achieved in what(?) 48 hours? 72? Long before allies could react. Food supplies in the U.S. major cities, AT BEST, will last 72 hours. I assume not any better down under....

Not one invading soldier would have to hit the ground to achieve this.There is no effective missile defense and GPS assures accurate targeting and results.


It would be over before anyone could help......


Talking of gps the first place I would hit if I was China wouldn't be on the land or sea. I'd target US satellites. They have the means to do it and it would cause widespread confusion to say the least. Modern militaries rely heavily on them for navigation, communication, targeting systems ISTAR etc. It's one way you could leave an enemy in the dark.



posted on May, 8 2016 @ 09:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: tommo39
a reply to: sg1642


Gee, so serious....IT was a tongue in cheek comment mate. can't you see that.....another beer for me, you want one too? lol,


Mines a bud



posted on May, 8 2016 @ 09:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: Chadwickus
a reply to: mazzroth

Is this show Australian?

Australian television is atrocious, I have very little faith in it being any good, even with a good story behind it


Who do you think you are, how dare you, we have had fifty years of "play school"



posted on May, 8 2016 @ 10:20 AM
link   
The US. Not that you would need any more help (currently), but much more would be forthcoming.
en.wikipedia.org...



posted on May, 8 2016 @ 10:21 AM
link   
So in the show/book who comes to help?



posted on May, 8 2016 @ 10:41 AM
link   
Who ever it was wouldn't be there long. I was there recently and the price of beer was outrageous



posted on May, 8 2016 @ 11:15 AM
link   
The Queen is commander in chief of the armed forces wherever she reigns.

That means that servicemen in UK, Australia, Canada, New Zealand etc all swear allegiance to Queen Elizabeth herself when they join up. The oaths of allegiance might differ slightly from one country to another, but servicemen all swear to defend the Queen & repel her enemies, to obey her Generals & Officers, that kind of thing.

An enemy of the Queen in one conflict is generally her enemy wherever she reigns. Declarations of War and military orders would be issued in her name, war powers enacted by her authority. That's why UK, Australia, Canada and NZ all hang tight when it comes to defending each other & the making of war, subject to Parliamentary approval once hostilities have commenced. Treaties exist too, as others point out.

i haven't the slightest doubt UK would rally to Australia's aid in the unlikely event of an invasion of Australia. NATO would too, as would the vast majority of the Commonwealth countries. It's not even beyond the realms of possibility in this scenario that a British Prime Minister would authorise the use of nuclear weapons in the defence of Australia, so tight are the bonds.

Any potential invader should tread warily.



posted on May, 8 2016 @ 11:19 AM
link   
America for sure. Not going let anyone have PineGap.



posted on May, 8 2016 @ 11:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheShippingForecast
The Queen is commander in chief of the armed forces wherever she reigns.

That means that servicemen in UK, Australia, Canada, New Zealand etc all swear allegiance to Queen Elizabeth herself when they join up. The oaths of allegiance might differ slightly from one country to another, but servicemen all swear to defend the Queen & repel her enemies, to obey her Generals & Officers, that kind of thing.

An enemy of the Queen in one conflict is generally her enemy wherever she reigns. Declarations of War and military orders would be issued in her name, war powers enacted by her authority. That's why UK, Australia, Canada and NZ all hang tight when it comes to defending each other & the making of war, subject to Parliamentary approval once hostilities have commenced. Treaties exist too, as others point out.

i haven't the slightest doubt UK would rally to Australia's aid in the unlikely event of an invasion of Australia. NATO would too, as would the vast majority of the Commonwealth countries. It's not even beyond the realms of possibility in this scenario that a British Prime Minister would authorise the use of nuclear weapons in the defence of Australia, so tight are the bonds.

Any potential invader should tread warily.


I'd sign back up for that one no questions asked. I'm sure the Australians would do the same for us.




top topics



 
8
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join