The Law Conscription/National Service

[Malifice]

But how do they get here? The north of Australia is huge and either incredibly hot and dry or hot and wet. It would be a logistical nightmare to invade thru the top end.

And ignoring the fact the Indonesian military is not a cohesive force. Every island has its own local military head who is content getting his kickbacks from whatever rort he has going on on that island.

The Indonesians would need a singular unifying cause behind an invasion, would need to somehow be assured the Americans or British wont get involved, and then somehow need to get past Super hornets and F-35 Stealth fighters (we have 72, and can easily get more from the Seppos) with AWACS and ground radar etc, based on an Australia sized aircraft carrier, and with with subs (soon to be nuclear powered) patrolling the northern waters and medium and long range missile systems blowing boats out of the water.

Any forces that managed to land needs constant resupply and reinforcement (logistics) of 3 meals a day, ammo, fuel, water, clothes, spare parts, medical supplies etc via supply lines that stretch from Australia to Indonesia (don't forget those subs, missiles and stealth aircraft), creating logistical demands that Indonesia simply couldn't meet.

Most of our kit is US made and supplied, so even if they didnt get involved militarily, we can easily get more tanks, bombs, aircraft or whatever we need from the Seppos, and they're 'plug and play' because we already have the logistics and training systems and maintenance etc in place.

The Indons would have a hard time organizing any kind of large scale invasion, further difficulty in mounting one, and even if they got past those two hurdles, a next to impossible task of keeping any forces adequately supplied across the Timor Sea.

All that extra manpower is pretty useless if they cant get that manpower to Australia, and cant keep them supplied when they get here.

China is a different story because they have a Blue water navy and massive and advanced airforce (and missile systems) big enough to largely suppress anything we can put in the sky or under the water to put a big enough dent in those forces. We'd also be unable to cut off naval or airborne resupply/ logistics (without an American blockade). They're also a lot more unified than the Indons.

 

[Episode IV]

...and still had not yet had a Female PM.

Yes, we have.
You could say the Australian Public didn't vote for Julia Gillard.

 

[ferball]

you seem to have an issue with Communism..

Mal loves it.

 

[ferball]

And ignoring the fact the Indonesian military is not a cohesive force. Every island has its own local military head who is content getting his kickbacks from whatever rort he has going on on that island.

The Indonesians would need a singular unifying cause behind an invasion, would need to somehow be assured the Americans or British wont get involved, and then somehow need to get past Super hornets and F-35 Stealth fighters (we have 72, and can easily get more from the Seppos) with AWACS and ground radar etc, based on an Australia sized aircraft carrier, and with with subs (soon to be nuclear powered) patrolling the northern waters and medium and long range missile systems blowing boats out of the water.

Any forces that managed to land needs constant resupply and reinforcement (logistics) of 3 meals a day, ammo, fuel, water, clothes, spare parts, medical supplies etc via supply lines that stretch from Australia to Indonesia (don't forget those subs, missiles and stealth aircraft), creating logistical demands that Indonesia simply couldn't meet.

Most of our kit is US made and supplied, so even if they didnt get involved militarily, we can easily get more tanks, bombs, aircraft or whatever we need from the Seppos, and they're 'plug and play' because we already have the logistics and training systems and maintenance etc in place.

The Indons would have a hard time organizing any kind of large scale invasion, further difficulty in mounting one, and even if they got past those two hurdles, a next to impossible task of keeping any forces adequately supplied across the Timor Sea.

All that extra manpower is pretty useless if they cant get that manpower to Australia, and cant keep them supplied when they get here.

China is a different story because they have a Blue water navy and massive and advanced airforce (and missile systems) big enough to largely suppress anything we can put in the sky or under the water to put a big enough dent in those forces. We'd also be unable to cut off naval or airborne resupply/ logistics (without an American blockade). They're also a lot more unified than the Indons.

Yeah true and they'd probably by pass the top end as well.

But they don't really have any reason to invade right now. Maybe if we demanded a fair price for all that gas...

 

[Malifice]

The Australian character is (or has been) one of helping out your mates when they get into a fight, regardless of circumstances. It's a part of the national psyche.

That has nothing to do with why we've gone in with the Americans in every major conflict of the past 100+ years they've been involved in.

We saw which way the wind was blowing in WW2, when the UK (our prior major military partner) was getting her ass handed to her all across the Pacific, and was contained on her little island while Hitler was running amok in Europe.

Enter the Americans. Parking a quarter of a million US troops in Australia in WW2, along with seeing the US Carrier fleets coming steaming into port was a welcome sight.

We can seamlessly plug a Brigade or similar battle group (Special forces task groups most recently) directly into a US Army group. Our administration, logistics etc all all standardized. Most Aussie soldiers (and commanders) now have experience working with the Seppos (and that will continue with the US Marine base being set up in Darwin).

This is in our national intrest. We're not doing it 'because America are our mates'.

I already know we disagree on the causes of World War Two, we've been here before.

No we have not. The causes of WW2 are largely down to German (and Japanese) nationalism.

You can cite the overly restrictive conditions of the Treaty of Versailles, the 'great game' between the European powers, the depression and a lot of things, but all of those things don't lead to WW2 without German nationalism.

 

[Episode IV]

And ignoring the fact the Indonesian military is not a cohesive force. Every island has its own local military head who is content getting his kickbacks from whatever rort he has going on on that island.

The Indonesians would need a singular unifying cause behind an invasion, would need to somehow be assured the Americans or British wont get involved, and then somehow need to get past Super hornets and F-35 Stealth fighters (we have 72, and can easily get more from the Seppos) with AWACS and ground radar etc, based on an Australia sized aircraft carrier, and with with subs (soon to be nuclear powered) patrolling the northern waters and medium and long range missile systems blowing boats out of the water.

Any forces that managed to land needs constant resupply and reinforcement (logistics) of 3 meals a day, ammo, fuel, water, clothes, spare parts, medical supplies etc via supply lines that stretch from Australia to Indonesia (don't forget those subs, missiles and stealth aircraft), creating logistical demands that Indonesia simply couldn't meet.

Most of our kit is US made and supplied, so even if they didnt get involved militarily, we can easily get more tanks, bombs, aircraft or whatever we need from the Seppos, and they're 'plug and play' because we already have the logistics and training systems and maintenance etc in place.

The Indons would have a hard time organizing any kind of large scale invasion, further difficulty in mounting one, and even if they got past those two hurdles, a next to impossible task of keeping any forces adequately supplied across the Timor Sea.

All that extra manpower is pretty useless if they cant get that manpower to Australia, and cant keep them supplied when they get here.

China is a different story because they have a Blue water navy and massive and advanced airforce (and missile systems) big enough to largely suppress anything we can put in the sky or under the water to put a big enough dent in those forces. We'd also be unable to cut off naval or airborne resupply/ logistics (without an American blockade). They're also a lot more unified than the Indons.

It's a moot argument anyway.
China could not invade Australia independently and without getting anyone else involved. They'd have to subdue most of SE Asia first, and that alone would bring in other players.

That's the primary reason Australians are worried about the projection of soft power in the region by China.

 

[Malifice]

China could not invade Australia independently and without getting anyone else involved. They'd have to subdue most of SE Asia first, and that alone would bring in other players.

China dont have to go anywhere near SEA.

Their boats and aircraft can reach us just fine from China without SEA entering into it.

And SEA countries wouldn't want to get involved.

The only independent players (outside of Australia and China) that matter are the USA, the UK, Canada and New Zealand.

Our military allies, both formally, and informally.

 

[Episode IV]

That has nothing to do with why we've gone in with the Americans in every major conflict of the past 100+ years they've been involved in.

We saw which way the wind was blowing in WW2, when the UK (our prior major military partner) was getting her ass handed to her all across the Pacific, and was contained on her little island while Hitler was running amok in Europe.

Enter the Americans. Parking a quarter of a million US troops in Australia in WW2, along with seeing the US Carrier fleets coming steaming into port was a welcome sight.

We can seamlessly plug a Brigade or similar battle group (Special forces task groups most recently) directly into a US Army group. Our administration, logistics etc all all standardized. Most Aussie soldiers (and commanders) now have experience working with the Seppos (and that will continue with the US Marine base being set up in Darwin).

This is in our national intrest. We're not doing it 'because America are our mates'.

That we can do something does not necessarily mean we should.

No we have not. The causes of WW2 are largely down to German (and Japanese) nationalism.

You can cite the overly restrictive conditions of the Treaty of Versailles, the 'great game' between the European powers, the depression and a lot of things, but all of those things don't lead to WW2 without German nationalism.

We have. I remember a discussion from months ago. Your mention of Versailles indicates you do too.

You were intent of denying that the rise of Hitler and German nationalism was a result of Versailles (which was in turn the result of the allied powers forcing Germany to accept the blame for everything), and I think it had far more to do with it than you (and a great many others in the West) will admit.

If you'd like to think World War Two would have happened without Versailles (being the focus of European condemnation of Germany), you're quite welcome to.
I don't agree.

*edit - not the "rise of " German nationalism, really. Nationalism in general was a force all over Europe (and elsewhere) at the time.
I'll amend that to the subsequent reinforcement and exploitation of it by the Nazis, who were able to take advantage of a collective nationalistic pride and feeling of being hard done by far more easily than they would have been able to otherwise.

 

[Episode IV]

China dont have to go anywhere near SEA.

Their boats and aircraft can reach us just fine from China without SEA entering into it.

Unsupported bombers, maybe. Some missiles. The PLA navy (except submarines) would have to go a very, very long way around without going through SE Asia.
Could they? Yes. Sort of.
Is it even remotely likely it would happen that way? No.

And SEA countries wouldn't want to get involved.

Wouldn't they?
I think the "wanting to" bit is rather superfluous to the discussion. Nobody really "wants to" get involved.
What is in question is the extent to which other players might think they have to.

Hence the current apprehension at Chinese projection of soft power in the region.

The only independent players (outside of Australia and China) that matter are the USA, the UK, Canada and New Zealand.

Our military allies, both formally, and informally.

I think you're doing India a great disservice there. Singapore too. Plenty of independent players matter. I'd even go so far as to say all of them do, but limiting it to our immediate allies would be appropriate in this context I suppose.

Australia being invaded by China as a localised conflict is not something that, all things remaining equal, is going to occur in the near future.

I think you're arguing at cross purposes a fair bit here.

 

[Episode IV]

Yeah true and they'd probably by pass the top end as well.

But they don't really have any reason to invade right now. Maybe if we demanded a fair price for all that gas...

Our leading export partner for gas by total volume, by a very long way, is Japan.
China accounts for second place (by nearly half that of Japan), followed by South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore and Malaysia.

Looking at that with an eye to global power structures would reveal a fairly distinct pattern.
I haven't gone too far into the raw data, but Australia's income from raw gas exports puts China in first place, And South Korea second.

So we're exporting less gas to China but making more money from it, than we do from Japan in exporting more.
In other words, we charge China more than anyone else for it.

So what constitutes "fair price", exactly?

*note - haven't looked into this too closely. Lots of different websites involved which have to be screened for veracity.

 

[Episode IV]

And none of this has anything to do with conscription anyway.
Other than a discussion of preparedness in the face of a perceived threat.

 

[Malifice]

That we can do something does not necessarily mean we should.

We have. I remember a discussion from months ago. Your mention of Versailles indicates you do too.

You were intent of denying that the rise of Hitler and German nationalism was a result of Versailles (which was in turn the result of the allied powers forcing Germany to accept the blame for everything), and I think it had far more to do with it than you (and a great many others in the West) will admit.

If you'd like to think World War Two would have happened without Versailles (being the focus of European condemnation of Germany), you're quite welcome to.
I don't agree.

*edit - not the "rise of " German nationalism, really. Nationalism in general was a force all over Europe (and elsewhere) at the time.
I'll amend that to the subsequent reinforcement and exploitation of it by the Nazis, who were able to take advantage of a collective nationalistic pride and feeling of being hard done by far more easily than they would have been able to otherwise.

The harsh conditions of the Treaty was not the cause of WW2.

German nationalism was. Hitler promoted pan Germanism (a union and incorporation of all Germanic speaking peoples, even in regions not affected by the treaty) under a totalitarian Fascist State, followed by an invasion, annexation and genocide to the East (into Poland and Russia).

Treaty or no treaty, that was Hitler's clearly stated goals. The treaty (if anything) actually made his job more difficult because it expressly forbade him from doing any of it.

You can't have WW2 without German Nationalism, but you can have it without the Treaty of Versailles.

 

[ferball]

Our leading export partner for gas by total volume, by a very long way, is Japan.
China accounts for second place (by nearly half that of Japan), followed by South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore and Malaysia.

Looking at that with an eye to global power structures would reveal a fairly distinct pattern.
I haven't gone too far into the raw data, but Australia's income from raw gas exports puts China in first place, And South Korea second.

So we're exporting less gas to China but making more money from it, than we do from Japan in exporting more.
In other words, we charge China more than anyone else for it.

So what constitutes "fair price", exactly?

*note - haven't looked into this too closely. Lots of different websites involved which have to be screened for veracity.

More than approx $4 per GJ paid to Woodside whose major shareholders are foreign equity firms.

 

[ferball]

And none of this has anything to do with conscription anyway.
Other than a discussion of preparedness in the face of a perceived threat.

So what need do we have for conscription then?

What perceived threat would it actually be effective against?

 

[Episode IV]

The harsh conditions of the Treaty was not the cause of WW2.

German nationalism was. Hitler promoted pan Germanism (a union and incorporation of all Germanic speaking peoples, even in regions not affected by the treaty) under a totalitarian Fascist State, followed by an invasion, annexation and genocide to the East (into Poland and Russia).

Treaty or no treaty, that was Hitler's clearly stated goals. The treaty (if anything) actually made his job more difficult because it expressly forbade him from doing any of it.

You can't have WW2 without German Nationalism, but you can have it without the Treaty of Versailles.

Yeah, look... we've been here.
One reasons the world keeps making the same mistakes is that we haven't learned anything from past ones.

 

[Malifice]

And none of this has anything to do with conscription anyway.
Other than a discussion of preparedness in the face of a perceived threat.

One of the main reasons for having a large and capable military is deterrence.

Who in their right mind is going to launch an invasion of the USA for example? And who, when negotiating with the USA, is under any illusions as to the not just economic but also military might the Yanks can bring to bear behind the scenes?

The Seppos were the ones that coined 'gunboat diplomacy' when Commodore Perry sailed his fleet into Japan with the request to 'open your markets to the USA (or else)' remember.

Im still bewildered how you cant see how having the USA as our major military ally is a good thing for us. State parties will think twice before invading or trying to bully us, with the specter of the Yanks standing behind us.

 

[Episode IV]

So what need do we have for conscription then?

What perceived threat would it actually be effective against?

I've already addressed that. I don't think conscription would "work" in Australia any more.

We're a multi-cultural nation with global alliances and aspirations which do not dovetail with large segments of the population.
Just imagine trying to get a few thousand Arabs conscripted into Australian military forces to being told they have to fight in the Middle East. Malifices' comments about attitudes towards conscripts would become even more true, and would take on a new dimension.

*edit - I would be largely supportive of efforts to expand participation in the Reserves. That's a different kettle of fish.
I don't know how you'd go about it though, its a matter of record that participation in the armed forces of Australia by (growing) minorities has been historically difficult to achieve.

 

[Episode IV]

One of the main reasons for having a large and capable military is deterrence.

Who in their right mind is going to launch an invasion of the USA for example? And who, when negotiating with the USA, is under any illusions as to the not just economic but also military might the Yanks can bring to bear behind the scenes?

The Seppos were the ones that coined 'gunboat diplomacy' when Commodore Perry sailed his fleet into Japan with the request to 'open your markets to the USA (or else)' remember.

Im still bewildered how you cant see how having the USA as our major military ally is a good thing for us. State parties will think twice before invading or trying to bully us, with the specter of the Yanks standing behind us.

I do think it's a good thing for us.
Don't really know where you're getting the impression I don't.

I also think we have to be fairly careful about how completely we become involved with things as part of that alliance when those things are not necessarily to our benefit, nor things we should really be concerned with.
Blind support of the USA is detrimental.

 

[Malifice]

Yeah, look... we've been here.
One reasons the world keeps making the same mistakes is that we haven't learned anything from past ones.

No dude, you're plainly wrong and an apologist for Hitler.

In the absence of German Nationalism, the Treaty of Versailles does not force the German State to invade and annex anyone. The Treaty doesn't compel them to become fascist, it doesn't order them to enact the Holocaust, and it doesn't require the construction of a totalitarian regime, hellbent on establishing a new Germanic Reich and controlling power of Europe. The treaty doesn't order the Germans to invade and/or annex the Sudetenland, Poland, the Czech republic, Austria, Rhineland and Slovakia.

That's all down to German nationalism.

You're blaming a Treaty that expressly says 'you cant have an army or annex any of these lands' with being the reason why Germany went all Nazi, raised a massive army, and annexed all of those lands.

 

[Episode IV]

No dude, you're plainly wrong and an apologist for Hitler.

Phht.
Cya.

 

[Malifice]

I also think we have to be fairly careful about how completely we become involved with things as part of that alliance when those things are not necessarily to our benefit, nor things we should really be concerned with.

They're in our national interest simply because we're fighting alongside the USA, even if we don't agree with the reasons why.

Because of our repeated integration with the Americans in conflicts, we can (at present) seamlessly pick up a Brigade or Division and simply plug it into US logisitics and supply, with people from the rank of Private up to the rank of General, all experienced with working (and fighting) with the Yanks.

Our individual warfighters also get invaluable experience working with the worlds strongest military.

That alone is invaluable in the event s**t hits the fan and we find ourselves in a major conflict.

We fight next to them for a reason. And its not necessarily because we might have a horse in the current conflict, but because we may have a much bigger horse in the next one.

 

[ferball]

I've already addressed that. I don't think conscription would "work" in Australia any more.

We're a multi-cultural nation with global alliances and aspirations which do not dovetail with large segments of the population.
Just imagine trying to get a few thousand Arabs conscripted into Australian military forces to being told they have to fight in the Middle East. Malifices' comments about attitudes towards conscripts would become even more true, and would take on a new dimension.

During WW1, despite the internment of some Germans, others fought in the AIF. I dunno if you can make blanket statements about how immigrants will react to that sort of conflict.

*edit - I would be largely supportive of efforts to expand participation in the Reserves. That's a different kettle of fish.
I don't know how you'd go about it though, its a matter of record that participation in the armed forces of Australia by (growing) minorities has been historically difficult to achieve.

There's plenty of stuff that gets done by volunteers in the community. Some sort of volunteer corps would be good.

But none of this addresses the question of what situation we'd need conscription in. The only one I can think of is actual aliens from out of space and that's ludicrous.

 

[Malifice]

Phht.
Cya.

Your argument is literally 'The Treaty of Versailles is what caused (Germany to go full Nazi, and for Hitler and the German State to do everything he and they did)'.

My argument is literally 'German nationalism is what caused Germany to go full Nazi, and for Hitler and the German State to do everything he and they did'

You can take away the Treaty and you can still end up with Hitler and Nazis doing Hitler and Nazi s**t and WW2 happening.

You cant take away German Nationalism and end up in the same place. No German Nationalism = No WW2.

There is one cause of WW2 in Europe and that's German Nationalism. It's literally the only thing you can remove from the equation and if you do so, it results in WW2 in Europe never happening.

The Treaty restrictions were a grievance the Nazis used to fan that Nationalism for sure. But the Treaty itself was not the one doing the fanning.

 

[owen87]

Your argument is literally 'The Treaty of Versailles is what caused (Germany to go full Nazi, and for Hitler and the German State to do everything he and they did)'.

My argument is literally 'German nationalism is what caused Germany to go full Nazi, and for Hitler and the German State to do everything he and they did'

You can take away the Treaty and you can still end up with Hitler and Nazis doing Hitler and Nazi s**t and WW2 happening.

You cant take away German Nationalism and end up in the same place. No German Nationalism = No WW2.

There is one cause of WW2 in Europe and that's German Nationalism. It's literally the only thing you can remove from the equation and if you do so, it results in WW2 in Europe never happening.

The Treaty restrictions were a grievance the Nazis used to fan that Nationalism for sure. But the Treaty itself was not the one doing the fanning.

Perhaps it's not as simple as 'this one trick they don't want you to know about will make your whole country a Nazi!' ?

 

[Episode IV]

During WW1, despite the internment of some Germans, others fought in the AIF. I dunno if you can make blanket statements about how immigrants will react to that sort of conflict.

Different world. I talked about this earlier too.

There's plenty of stuff that gets done by volunteers in the community. Some sort of volunteer corps would be good.

But none of this addresses the question of what situation we'd need conscription in. The only one I can think of is actual aliens from out of space and that's ludicrous.

"Need?"
If we were invaded, being threatened with invasion, and could not meet defensive (or pre-emptive) military requirements without it.
Short answer being, right now, we don't need it.