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.

 

Australian Military-Defense musings

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 9 2007 @ 02:49 AM
link   
The comment about buying tech off the Chinese was tongue in cheek as I am led to believe the US still uses the original gas diffuse system to enrich Uranium but the newer tech is based on centrifuges.

I would expect Australia ( if it desired to ) to have fully functioning missiles nuclear tipped in 2-3 years by adopting US/Brit nuclear technology.

We have copious quantities of Uranium and the technical ability to achieve this if it was desired, but I think there is strong opposition from the public not to go down this path.

[edit on 9-3-2007 by mazzroth]




posted on Mar, 9 2007 @ 02:55 AM
link   
Australia has the ability to produce just about anything you can think of when it comes to ICBM's, landwarrior technology, etc. but it comes down to the time it would take to roll it out and the cost to tax payers.

Also Australia probably doesn't want to be seen to spark a regional arms race... although with the recent purchases countries like Indonesia has made of the SU-30 maybe it's already started

[edit on 9-3-2007 by wtftrauma]



posted on Mar, 9 2007 @ 07:07 AM
link   
This would be my ideal Australian Air Force maintaining current level of pilots, support staff, etc. (I sure i've forgotten a ton of essential vehicles, systems, etc. essential to the military).

AIRFORCE:

F-35 x75


F-22 x 20


B1 Lancer x12


Wedgetail AWACs x4


P3 Orion x19 (current number in use)

Helicopters in the Australian Defence force is the domain of the Army but obviously would also need refuelers, transport hercules, etc.

I guess considering Australia has already purchased 24 super hornets to replace the F-111 the B1's wouldnt really be required even though they are less capable for the long distance strike capability.


[edit on 9-3-2007 by wtftrauma]



posted on Mar, 9 2007 @ 09:14 AM
link   
What purpose would taking Australia serve an invader?

Indonesia won't attack.They'd get 20 miles south of Darwin and run out of supplies.

We should concentrate on our special forces.If a global conflict happens and someone like China/Russia even looks at us it means the US is gone.

We retreat to the Murray River and hope to hold Victoria.



posted on Mar, 9 2007 @ 05:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by aylyan
We retreat to the Murray River and hope to hold Victoria.


No offence mate but if thats your survival plan your in deep trouble, the murray is dead and so will we be with strategic plans like that.

To be frankly honest here the North West of Australia is a veritable trove of minerals and natural gas. Not to mention all this un-mined Uranium due to the West Australian Government's policies so when the rest of the world realises the next wars are going to be resource/energy wars we will become a major target for aquisition.....because you could just walk in and take it with a realitively insignificant military.



posted on Mar, 13 2007 @ 11:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by mazzroth

To be frankly honest here the North West of Australia is a veritable trove of minerals and natural gas. Not to mention all this un-mined Uranium due to the West Australian Government's policies so when the rest of the world realises the next wars are going to be resource/energy wars we will become a major target for aquisition.....because you could just walk in and take it with a realitively insignificant military.


Supposing we are invaded by a vastly superior force..what's your plan?



posted on Mar, 13 2007 @ 11:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by aylyan
Supposing we are invaded by a vastly superior force..what's your plan?


Ok here is my plan and its quite simple....

In the centre of Australia not far from Alice Springs build a massive missile base ( ICMB ) and accompanying airfield supplied with what ever fighter craft required to stop attacks. All missiles to be Non-MIRV as the main propaganda drive of this defense system is exactly that ...to only be a defensive installation with offensive ability.

Soon as any Country shows movement of any troops or military assets into our sovereign waters a simple missile demonstration is to take place with the "said" test falling into unpopulated part of agressor countries region preferably close to the Capital City with a conventional payload.

The media is then used to portray to the International media that the Govt. has every intention to use Nuclear missiles in a massive pre-emptive strike. If it escalates into a full blown event then the use of micro burst devices ( altitudinal blast's ) would be recomended with the thinly veiled threat of full scale to be the Countries last measure.

Im am pretty confident that full scale would not happen as it hasn't happen yet in the world and we Aussies are a very stable well balanced bunch but I guess the only part of this plan that requires sorting out would be who gets to push the Button ? I certainly wouldn't want little Johnny to be the man.



posted on Mar, 14 2007 @ 03:08 AM
link   
A facility like that would be..gone,within 2 days of our "test" launch.

I don't think you're understanding the scenario I'm talking about.The US gone or otherwise engaged,and a superpower launching an invasion.I'd like to think we could do something about it too,but it's not realistic.

*Edit - I've strayed off-topic here.Your thread was about general defence of the country and I digressed,so disregard if you like.

[edit on 14-3-2007 by aylyan]



posted on Jul, 4 2007 @ 01:28 AM
link   
How the hell is a super power say china going to move in enough people without being noticed covering all of the north australian coastline there is radar that can (claimed) pick up stealth aircraft this radar pretty much covers indonesia in its line of sight and if someone tried to land troops the raaf would destroy them.



posted on Jul, 4 2007 @ 02:46 AM
link   
Bridging the sea gap is the main problem that any aggressor would face. The collins class subs can get close enough to take out a US supercarrier and it's screen so any invasion force is a sitting duck. Also the F111s have been transitioned to a primarly maritime strike role which is also partially the reason that we purchase US Navy designs for our fighters and interim strike aircraft (super hornet), for the integration of anti-shipping weapons. Any airborne force needs somewhere to land which are few and far between up north and is subject to attack by the same fighters operating the forward deployment bases.

All of this is visible on JORN which covers all Indonesia and a fair bit north of that depending on conditions. It is rumoured to have seen the F117s operating in Baghdad during GW1 which is what the previous poster alluded to. As for nukes we did actually start building a reactor at Jervis bay to provide plutonium and the main reason for purchasing the F111s was that they are nuke capable. Another rumour is that we already have nukes, the story goes that we recieved two devices as payment for the British testing at woomera and they are maintained at DSTO Salisbury Weapons research.

The Tasman Sea Gap is also the reason NZ have downgraded their Defence forces. Their current defence plans revolve around supporting Oz because if Oz falls there is nothing stopping them invading NZ (other than the fact that no wants boiling mud ;-)



posted on Jul, 4 2007 @ 05:23 PM
link   
Any defence strategy for Oz should be based on self sufficiency as the US may be overstretched on other fronts or even be facing natural disasters that prevent it from being in a position to assist.

The other main issue is civil defence, as it would only take a handful of nukes to eliminate 90% of Australia's population (due Oz being the most urbanised country on Earth). A civil defence programme that allows most people to get into a shelter within 10 minutes could be sold to the public as natural disaster protection. A campaign would be required to educate and train people in the use of such facilities, which could be sold to the public under the guise of natural disaster response. Most people would not object to their tax dollars being spent on a programme to protect them from some future natural calamity. Such a programme might actually be used for natural disasters from time to time.





[edit on 4-7-2007 by JamesinOz3]



posted on Jul, 12 2007 @ 06:29 AM
link   
To be honest, I don't really see any Country trying to invade Australia. When you think about it, and from what I have read and heard, it would be near on Impossible to hold Australia's borders if you decided to invade. I vaguely remember hearing about a journalist many years back asking an American Admiral what he thought if allied countries got invaded. His reply was that it would be too hard, even for the US Navy, to hold Australia's borders.

Having said that, even if a country like Indonesia made the stupid decision to invade, well I say let 'em try. The simple reason is because we could pretty much see them coming, we could just base all of our Air Force up Darwin way, and just pick them off as soon as they got within range. Also, we could have a few of the Collins Subs up there, and a few of Navy Destroyers based up there too. Thats the advantage of being at the arse end of the world I guess. You can pretty much see everyone coming at you


To be honest though, I don't really see anyone trying to invade. I actually think we will be taken down from within, rather than being invaded. When you look at it, with the amount of Muslims in Australia, and the amount I see coming in at SIA each day, if s**t really hits the fan between Muslims/Christians/Atheists, things will really turn ugly. But thats just my thoughts on the topic.



posted on Jul, 12 2007 @ 08:52 AM
link   
The main problem would be if an adversary used a handful of nukes to eliminate 90% of the population in a couple of hours. After that the human wave would come, even if that meant thousands of Indonesian villagers in pyjamas clambouring onto shore in Sydney Harbour armed with pitchforks, there might be so many of them and so few to stop them that it might succeed. Oz also needs a good reliable system of civil defence and a campaign to train the public in how to use it. It might not sound so kooky once we've been nuked I suspect.

[edit on 12-7-2007 by JamesinOz3]



posted on Jul, 13 2007 @ 01:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by JamesinOz3
The main problem would be if an adversary used a handful of nukes to eliminate 90% of the population in a couple of hours. After that the human wave would come, even if that meant thousands of Indonesian villagers in pyjamas clambouring onto shore in Sydney Harbour armed with pitchforks, there might be so many of them and so few to stop them that it might succeed. Oz also needs a good reliable system of civil defence and a campaign to train the public in how to use it. It might not sound so kooky once we've been nuked I suspect.

[edit on 12-7-2007 by JamesinOz3]


Yes, but how many countries would be dumb enough to go Nuclear on us, when they know that the retaliation from other countries that are Allied to us would wipe them out?????

They haven't used the acronym MAD because it would be an insane thing to do in first place.



posted on Jul, 13 2007 @ 08:08 PM
link   
Is this thread being hijacked by people who want to lessen the gun control laws? We don't need a milita thats what the army reserve is for.

Australia is pretty damn safe with New Zealand even safer (apart from being flooded with pacific islanders due to # immigration laws)

It seems to me people always try to use the threat of invasion as an excuse for a milita or to give more people guns. Grow a penis I say and stop being a hick.



posted on Jul, 13 2007 @ 08:08 PM
link   
Is this thread being hijacked by people who want to lessen the gun control laws? We don't need a milita thats what the army reserve is for.

Australia is pretty damn safe with New Zealand even safer (apart from being flooded with pacific islanders due to # immigration laws)

It seems to me people always try to use the threat of invasion as an excuse for a milita or to give more people guns. Grow a penis I say and stop being a hick.



posted on Jul, 19 2007 @ 05:24 AM
link   
I agree why even try invading aus. and our gun control laws are fine.



posted on Jul, 19 2007 @ 06:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by aylyan

Originally posted by mazzroth

To be frankly honest here the North West of Australia is a veritable trove of minerals and natural gas. Not to mention all this un-mined Uranium due to the West Australian Government's policies so when the rest of the world realises the next wars are going to be resource/energy wars we will become a major target for aquisition.....because you could just walk in and take it with a realitively insignificant military.


Supposing we are invaded by a vastly superior force..what's your plan?

Retreat into the Outback and fight guerrilla style and wear them down like the Russians did in 1812 and 1941 by using Mother Nature except you guys rely on the desert like conditions and whatnot instead of the winter.

We would do the same thing here in the US (assuming the invasion came from the Southwest or the West Coast), retreat to the Mississippi and if that falls then retreat to the Appalachians and the Blue Ridge Mountains, and should that fall well then were doomed. But up until we get pushed that far back we can gradually wear any invader down, and dont forget we have something like 200 million privately owned guns as well. An invader would need an army of tens of millions to successfully occupy the US.



posted on Jul, 25 2007 @ 03:13 AM
link   
ive got 1 word 4 u. china. they hav a population of over 1 billion.
now if australia began to build missile silos capable of ICBM's or Nuclear tipped weapons, our threat level to indonesia and other asian countries would sky rocket.


Also if we allow privately owned guns like in America our crime rates would only get worse and there is a risk of another port arthur massacre and this is before any invasion. so i believe that the negatives of privately owned guns far outweigh the positives.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join