Australia a ripe plum of the South Pacific

 

CITIZENS FOR DEFENCE

Robert Bond    Director    Citizens for Defence

www.citizensfordefence.org      Citizens for Defence (BondBobby) on Twitter

US Marine Aircraft Carrier

                                 US Marine Aircraft Carrier

Australia a ripe plum of the South Pacific

Bobby Bond SharpenedHow can a Boeing 767 jet liner with transponders turned off reportedly travel thousands of kilometres parallel to our north western coastline without being discovered by the Australian authorities? Nothing shows up the incompetence of our politicians more than when they can fail to have our continent and the surrounding oceans out to 2000 kilometres continuously monitored by radar, sonar sensors and reconnaissance drones capable of detecting the flight of a massive civilian jetliner.

This happened recently when Malaysian flight 370 was thought to have crashed in the Indian Ocean. It could have flown over Australia and crashed in the inland dessert. Our government would never know. This scandal highlights to our friends and enemies just how unprepared are our defence forces to defend our nation. The government could not do more to encourage spies, terrorists, or armies to land on our northern shores.

Aus FA18 fighter built 1984

Aus FA18 fighter built 1984

Yet there has not been one peep from any of our defence analysts or lobby groups. There just seems to be a learned helplessness that has the experts” hypnotized by the government propaganda intimating it cannot defend our shores. How do they expect to when they waste most of the 1.5% of GDP they spend on defence now on projects like the Collins-class submarines. The last Coles report states everything has been fixed up in a miraculous operation where Australia now has 2 subs operational out of 6 instead of 1 or none. The experts and the media swallow it hook, line and sinker and the nation is reassured.

Australian University Professor and leading pacifist, Hugh White is spruiking to anyone who will listen that the region and the US should be sharing power with China, a communist dictatorship that runs over anyone who mentions democracy in tanks.  Hugh talks as though Japan and the other US allies have no skin in the game and it is purely a contest between China and the US. He suggests Japan and by inference other allies of the US pull back from the coalition as their input is insignificant. China could have no greater friend.

Indoctrinated Asian soldiers

Indoctrinated Asian soldiers

Hugh should stop talking on behalf of the US and Japan and suggest what Australia and the rest of the freeloaders in the South and East China Sea should do to balance China. I hope the US continues this policy of disinterest until it forces Australia and the other nations to upgrade their forces. Australia should be spending 4% of GDP (Hugh suggests we should spend half this amount) on intelligent defence assets like nuclear submarines and substantial military exercises. Could Hugh advise us how much power and sovereignty we have to surrender to China before the dragon is satiated?

There is a campaign with other government subsidised and influenced lobby groups lately to heavily criticize the US on their pivot to Asia and ignore the despicable contribution Australia and most other allies contribute to their own defence. What hypocrisy, when you consider the US has bases in Japan, South Korea, Guam, and rotating and training arrangements with most other allies in the area? Aircraft carriers, ships, submarines, missiles, bombers and other military equipment are on constant patrol of the Indo-Pacific area. What more should the US do, fight our wars for us whilst we hide in a fox hole somewhere?

Australia should wake up to the fact that the US has already done far more than it need do, and it is long past our turn to make our nation as safe as is possible with the resources we have.

The limits of American power

The limits of American power

CVN-70 USS Carl Vinson

                                    CVN-70 USS Carl Vinson

The US has to have limits on the use of its power in line

with the threats to its core interests. It has always been so and will continue

so. To call the Vietnam and the Iraq wars waged by the US and others to be

outside the US limits of use of power is a furphy that conveniently shifts the

blame of losing these wars to the argument that they shouldn’t have been

started in the first place.

The reality is the US just physically cannot police the world and keep it safe for the majority of the peaceful nations in the world. Obama has acknowledged this and has revised where he feels the US core interests lie in his speech at West Point.

The reason why these wars have been lost is the absolute refusal of the free world to take responsibility for its security with funding, equipment and military personnel in line with their GDPs to support the US in its quest for world peace.

Iraq is an example where the US left a nation with every chance of going forward with democratically elected governments and due to outside influences and a lack of hunger for freedom this outcome seems an impossible dream.

The US is going to try to stem the tide in a limited way but the solution would be if more than 200,000 Western troops and equipment poured in and reset the status quo in order to enact a political solution. Even if the US supplied 50% of this force and the coalition the rest the US would be doing more than its fair share of heavy lifting.

Failing this the West will just have to get used to an increasingly dangerous world where bombings and terror become the order of the day.

Clive Palmer is right on nuclear subs

 

Robert Bond   Director   Citizens for Defence

 www.citizensfordefence.org      Citizens for Defence (BondBobby) on Twitter

CITIZENS FOR DEFENCE

Chinese Aircraft Carrier

                        Chinese Aircraft Carrier

Clive Palmer is right on nuclear subs  

bob Clive Palmer’s suggestion to buy US submarines off the shelf is the first time an Australian politician has made any sense on the submarine debacle.    (Clive Palmer’s $86bn budget saving plan doesn’t add up The Australian June 24, 2014 12:00AM)

The 12 diesel electric submarines Australia proposed to buy for $36 billion in 2009 dollars will never be built in Australia for less than $4 billion in 2022.

Yet we can buy state of the art Virginia subs from the US for $2.5 billion today. It has been known for a long time that nuclear subs are three times more effective in battle than the diesel relics Australia is proposing to build. Therefore Australia has only to buy four US subs to be as effective as 12 subs built by us. This would cost about $10 billion dollars.

The Australian built subs will only travel at 4 knots submerged for a limited distance compared with the nuclear subs which can travel in excess of 32 knots indefinitely. These pond paddlers are only built for ponds like the Mediterranean or Sea of Japan and are useless in the Pacific, Indian, or Great Southern Ocean which surround Australia.

Virginia Nuclear Attack Sub

Virginia Nuclear Attack Sub

The present security outlook is so dire for Australia at present that it would be hoped that Palmer would look for savings other than the defence force and advocate buying 10 US submarines which would be as effective as 30 one off Australian relics built at $4 billion each.

Mark Thomson of ASPI knows this but is misleading the Australian public as a payback to the Australian government for its $8000 a day contribution which is $3 million annually and this buys a lot of government propaganda.

Tony Abbott and Senator David Johnston should think again on tying Australia to Japanese submarine technology for the next 50 years. Only 70 years ago we were at war with Japan and who knows the diplomatic twists and turns that lie ahead in the next half century with any northern Asian nation.

Australia could be denied spare parts, technical skills and routine upgrading of its submarine over time depending on the whim of the Japanese nation. These risks Australia could do without. Sweden’s refusal to supply shells for their anti tank weapons purchased by Australia led to death and injury of our soldiers in the Vietnam War.

Virginia sub in dry dock

Virginia sub in dry dock

The US and Great Britain are the only Anglo Saxon nations with the runs on the board on whom Australia should depend in defence matters. They only make nuclear powered submarines for the vast oceans we have surrounding us and shouldn’t this tell something to our politicians who are way out of their depth on the submarine issue.

The following table shows the absolute stupidity of the two major parties who plan to throw tens of billions of defence dollars away on building obsolete subs instead of state of the art Virginia Nuclear attack submarines. We would be better off with no submarines and put the money into high technology drones and long range missiles.

 

Collins-class

Future Subs

Virginia-class

 

Cost

6 for A$6.24 billion

12 for A$36 billion

10 at A$25 billion

Year of dollar

1986 dollars

2009 dollars

2012 dollars

Cost of 1 sub

A$1.040 billion

A$3 billion

A$2.5 billion

 

Sub weight

3051 tonnes

4,000 tonnes

7900 tonnes

 

Submerged sub

Top speed

21 knots

22 knots???

32 knots

Distance

32.6 nautcl miles

40 nautcl miles

unlimited

Snorting speed

10.6 knots

12 Knots ????

32 knots

 

Propulsion

Diesel electric

Diesel electric

Nuclear electric

Shaft Horse P

7500 SHP

10,000 SHP????

40,000 SHP

 

Cruise Missiles

0

8????

16

Range

1000miles

1000 miles

 

Torpedoes

22

30????

38

 

Dive Depth

180 metres plus

200metres plus???

250+ (480 alleged)

 

Endurance

55 days

60 days

100 days +

 

 

Comparative

work rate of sub

5=1 nuclear sub

3=1 nuclear sub

1 nuclear sub

 

Cost for same

work rate

$5B at 1986 $

$9B at 2009 $

$2.5B at 2012 $

 

Aus Military needs more defence dollars

Robert Bond   Director   Citizens for Defence

 www.citizensfordefence.org      Citizens for Defence (BondBobby) on Twitter

CITIZENS FOR DEFENCE

US Marine Aircraft Carrier

                       US Marine Aircraft Carrier

Aus Military needs more defence dollars

Bobby Bond SharpenedPrime Minister Tony Abbott’s government is making great progress in reshaping our air force. The anti submarine surveillance planes and drones, the 58 new F35 stealth fighters, and a genuine interest in obtaining more stealth fighters, possibly with VTOL capabilities shows his government is well versed in what is necessary for our defence force.

In fact Defence Minister Senator David Johnston has just announced that his government is seriously looking at acquiring F35B jump jets to put on the new Canberra class flat tops capable of accommodating at least 10 stealth jump jets per ship and this would give our navy real versatility. These ships together with the AWDs could form the core of a modest battle fleet capable of projecting power 1500 kilometres from our coast. The battle group should closely follow the example of the US marines who have had many decades of firsthand experience in amphibious operations.

This battle group should have F35B VTOL stealth attack aircraft on each of our amphibious ships capable of attacking the enemy with long range stealthy anti-ship missiles capable of supersonic speeds and with a range of 400 miles. These missiles are under development now for the F35s and should be available soon after Australia acquires these planes. The air force with the aid of fuel tanker aircraft would have to give the fleet added air cover from airfields on the coast.

F35B Stealth fighter

                       F35B Stealth fighter

The government has found $29 billion for defence in the coming year but has budgeted for a deadly pause in defence spending over the 4 year forward estimates period. This is just not acceptable as it will lead to 3 more years of stagnation of our defence forces at a time when China is aggressively projecting military force against our close northern neighbours, the Philippines and Indonesia, and is sending battle fleets and nuclear submarines into our northern waters.

We have to strengthen our defences in the north now in order to counter the Chinese when they have consolidated their gains in the South China Sea and established military bases on Islands and atolls in the south eastern region of the sea as they are doing now.

The government has to make a serious attempt to defend this nation by putting aside another $3 billion dollars in next year’s budget followed by further substantial budget increases in the years ahead. Extensive military exercises involving the navy, air force, and army have to be held annually in the north with what equipment we have and expensive investment made in areas of weakness.

Most citizens concerned about the defence of our nation have zero confidence in the ability of Government to construct a hard hitting modern defence force that can deter adventurous states in the north from coercing us politically, economically, socially or invading us using military force or threats.

One can compare our present security situation with 1938 just before WW2. Before the war we had no defence capability. The Japanese bombed Darwin and many of our soldiers never had rifles let alone ammunition which were in critically short supply. Our army was ordered to disperse into the surrounding bush as an imminent invasion was feared.

Aussie Soldier

                Aussie Soldier

We are in the same boat today except that the weapons we face are far more destructive. Why have our governments not learnt from the lessons of history that we have to be prepared at all times to defend ourselves in order that we never are caught by surprise again by a belligerent enemy?

The US will only save us if it is in the US interest and this is the way it should be. Look how they told us to stand on our own two feet during the East Timor crisis when we had to hire civilian ferries to move our troops and supplies. Observe how the US has not involved itself in any of the current world disputes like Ukraine, Syria, and Chinese aggression in the East and South China Sea except for wild rhetoric about economic threats.

Are Australians so naive that we think the US is our saviour and at our beck and call even though we have continually freeloaded off their defence force for the last 70 years?

Japanese sub technology a step too far

Robert Bond   Director   Citizens for Defence

 www.citizensfordefence.org      Citizens for Defence (BondBobby) on Twitter

CITIZENS FOR DEFENCE

Japanese  sub technology a step too far

Senator David Johnston should think again on tying Australia to Japanese submarine technology for the next 50 years. Only 70 years ago we were at war with Japan and who knows the diplomatic twists and turns that lie ahead in the next half century with any northern Asian nation.(Navy eyes Japan’s technology BRENDAN NICHOLSON The Australian May 16, 2014 12:00AM)

Australia could be denied spare parts, technical skills and routine upgrading of its submarine over time depending on the whim of the Japanese nation. These risks Australia could do without. Sweden’s refusal to supply shells for their anti tank weapons purchased by Australia led to death and injury of our soldiers in the Vietnam War.

The US and Great Britain are the only Anglo Saxon nations with the runs on the board on whom Australia should depend in defence matters. They only make nuclear powered submarines for the vast oceans we have surrounding us and shouldn’t this tell something to our politicians who are way out of their depth on the submarine issue.

Abbott & Johnson drowning in sub fiasco

 

Robert Bond   Director   Citizens for Defence

 www.citizensfordefence.org      Citizens for Defence (BondBobby) on Twitter

Future Sub calls the NRMA

                                      Future Sub calls the NRMA

CITIZENS FOR DEFENCE

Abbott & Johnson drowning in sub fiasco

Bobby Bond SharpenedThe submarine Australia hopes to acquire in the next decade is more and more turning into a tangled mess where Prime Minister Tony Abbott and Defence Minister Senator Johnston are way out of their depth. These politicians are dogmatically standing by outdated concepts such as diesel electric propulsion that will ultimately lead to another 50 years of virtually nonexistent undersea defence for a nation that has vast oceans and seas surrounding it.

Britain and the US only use nuclear powered submarines and doesn’t this tell our flat earth politicians something. They are not interested in wasting everyone’s time by designing a last century relic that will have to hide in the shallows if a nuclear attack submarine is anywhere within a thousand miles of it in a conflict.

Have our politicians even approached the US or Britain about the supply of nuclear propulsion units or submarines? The US supplied Britain propulsion units for their first nuclear submarines. Why aren’t any deals put up to the US or Britain made public so that we taxpayers and concerned citizens can judge how wisely our defence dollar is being spent?

Senator Johnston

Senator Johnston

Sure, the US and Britain are concerned about their secret technology, and understandably so, but why don’t our politicians put it to them and see where the boundaries are. Just as an outside observer and based on what the US ambassador to Australia has said several times in the past and what US think tanks and analysts are saying the US would be amenable to us purchasing 10 Virginia class submarines to assist US forces in this area of the Indo-Pacific.  As an encouragement to the US we could extensively upgrade HMAS Sterling in Western Australia as a joint facility for Australian and US ships. Have any of these proposals been discussed and if so why are they being kept secret?

As English speaking allies and mother countries they are the only nations Australia should be seeking help from and we should accept their designs and technology where it can be obtained. These subs will be defending this nation for 50 years and we will depend on our allies for spare parts accident damage repair and technological upgrades. We can rely on these two nations to be always there for us.

Not so Germany, Sweden, Japan, France or most other countries in the world. They are breaking their necks to design and build Australia 100 year old technology subs designed for the Mediterranean or Baltic Sea which virtually can fit into the Queensland Gulf of Carpentaria. The Japanese submarine is built exclusively for the East China Sea and the Sea of Japan which are just oversized ponds. Yet Australia has the vast Pacific Ocean, the vast Indian Ocean, the Timor Sea and China Seas not to mention the Great Southern Ocean to patrol.

Virginia-class nuclear attack submarine underway

Virginia-class nuclear attack submarine underway

The Swiss, French, Japanese and Germans have never recently built a submarine suitable for such a task and yet Australia seems to be going to let them design and build an unproven dinosaur with no guarantees that it will adequately defend our nation and no guarantees that we will be able to acquire parts and follow up assistance to keep the subs operational. Indeed Sweden caused Australian soldiers to die in Vietnam when it denied us ammunition for their antitank weapons in the Vietnam War because they were morally opposed to us fighting the communists.

The politician’s brainless consideration of completely new designed diesel electric museum piece submarines with the assistance of Germany, France, Sweden, or Japan is going to kill countless Australian submariners as they pit their obsolete submarines against nimble high technology nuclear attack submarines in the decades ahead.

Mr Abbott and Mr Johnston, level with the Australian people and tell us why you cannot make a rational decision on nuclear submarines for the defence of our nation.

Nuclear subs the only defence

 

Robert Bond   Director   Citizens for Defence

 www.citizensfordefence.org      Citizens for Defence (BondBobby) on Twitter

CITIZENS FOR DEFENCE

Virginia-class nuclear attack submarine underway

Virginia-class nuclear attack submarine underway

Nuclear subs the only defence

Bobby Bond SharpenedASPI is hosting an international conference on Submarine Choice to help determine the next submarine Australia buys. This is the latest agonising self examination of a problem that should have been decided in 2009.

If our politicians had any concern for Australian security they would have ordered Virginia-class nuclear powered submarines from the US then and we would be very close to having some in operation in the next few years.

But nothing in Australia is as it seems in the self defence arena. We are a twisted nation that writhes between brave ANZAC tradition displayed a century ago and a despicable self serving attitude at present that treats our sole long standing ally, the US, as an eternal milking cow able to sustain and protect our freeloading exploitation without any compunction or embarrassment on our part.

Even this ASPI conference has been hijacked by the warped Australian psyche. Mark Thomson is senior analyst for defence economics at ASPI and in today’s ASPI blog advises that the conference is constrained by three parameters which are “Collins class must be replaced when it reaches its life-of-type. Second, the replacement boats must be built in South Australia. Third, the new boats must have conventional (ie non-nuclear) propulsion”.

These are ludicrous restraints to put on the acquisition of a critical underwater defence platform. To limit our choice to what ancient technology can be built in South Australia when there is a world market available with state of the art weapons systems is just crass contempt for the security of this nation, and to rule out the most lethal submarine in the world at present, the Virginia class nuclear submarine, is like going to a bull sale and buying a bull without testicles.

Virginia-class nuclear attack submarine

Virginia-class nuclear attack submarine

These perverse decisions have been brought in by the two major parties purely for political reasons and show an amazing lack of concern for the acquisition of the most effective high technology weapons to defend our shoreline.

ASPI does much good work and is a great source of information and opinion but when it comes to matters of government policy ASPI has to toe the government of the day line or risk losing essential government funding. Former Prime Minister John Howard no doubt had the best of intentions when he set ASPI up and it is a crying shame to see how the present government has wantonly hijacked Howard’s agenda for its own short term political advantage.

The Australian Defence White Paper Committee is chaired by the executive director of ASPI, Peter Jennings and senior ASPI analyst Andrew Davies is on the committee. The DWP will be a perverted document before it is written even though this document has the heavy responsibility of choosing the next Australian submarine.

The Virginia-class nuclear powered submarine is the cheapest and most advanced submarine in the world at present as judged on quantity and quality of effective firepower, speed, endurance, stealth, sensors, size, littoral capabilities, spying and quality of build by a nation that has been building excellent nuclear submarines for fifty years without any major problems.

One Virginia submarine is as effective as any 3 diesel electric, or AIP submarines Australia may be able to assemble. This means we acquire $6 billion more effectiveness per nuclear submarine than we could achieve with one future submarine.

We have been hounded for a decade about the uselessness of the Collins-class submarines with endless DWPs and discussions about a replacement submarine. We have wasted ten years with indecision and freeloading policies on the US. A decisive government could have placed orders for Virginia submarines a decade ago and today we could have already commissioned our first couple of nuclear submarines to patrol our vast oceans.

Surely for once Australia can make a timely rational decision to buy the cheapest and most effective attack submarine in the world which is the Virginia-class nuclear submarine.

Prod the dragon on human rights

CITIZENS FOR DEFENCE

Robert Bond    Director    Citizens for Defence

www.citizensfordefence.org      Citizens for Defence (BondBobby) on Twitter

US marine amphibious hovercraft

US marine amphibious hovercraft

 Prod the dragon on human rights

Peter Layton on the Lowy blog says the strategy in the China Seas is not working and a refocus on human rights and similar Chinese frailties may succeed where military balance has failed.

Why not prod the dragon with human rights issues etc and make him more belligerent than he is now? This soft power can work effectively until hard power is used. China has clearly demonstrated in the last five years that it will use hard power to gain its goals.

But unless Asian nations including Australia arm themselves and are prepared to defend their sovereignty en-mass there seems to be little we can do but buy Chinese white flags and wave them at China.

The US has realized that leading by example does not work with selfish Australians and other Asian nations and that saving us from the ravages of a marauding Japanese nation in WW2 is of little relevance to the present generation.

ww2-US troops

                                               ww2-US troops

Ideally, the US should reduce its defence budget to 1.48% of GDP to match Australia and its other Asian allies and mothball its fleet and missile systems saving a few old frigates and torpedo boats to match our contribution to the Alliance.

The US just cannot afford to carry the rest of the world on its shoulders in the interests of peace. Sequestration is biting deeply with stress on ship maintenance, aircraft numbers and in all areas of the US defence force.

Freedom is not free and Australia should stop bludging on the US.

Australian Defence Analysts lean to US

CITIZENS FOR DEFENCE

Robert Bond   Director  Citizens for Defence

www.citizensfordefence.org Citizens for Defence (BondBobby) on Twitter

Australian Defence Analysts lean to US

Chinese ship destroyers

Chinese ship destroyers D-21 D

Bobby Bond SharpenedBenjamin Schreer is a senior analyst at ASPI, and advocates the US gets tough on China over its incursions in the South China Sea. Why should the US come to the aid of these nations including Australia if they cannot prepare defence forces themselves and have the guts to oppose China from their sovereign territory?

Benjamin should stop talking on behalf of the US and suggest what Australia and the rest of the freeloaders in the South and East China Sea should do to balance China. I hope the US continues this policy until it forces Australia and the other nations to upgrade their forces. Australia should be spending 4% of GDP on intelligent defence assets like nuclear submarines and substantial military exercises.

We could then say what we should do to a point instead of starting off with what the overworked US should do.

Amphibious fleet

Amphibious fleet

Indonesia is being humiliated by China with attacks on its fishing fleet in Indonesian sovereign waters and claims on an island in the South China Sea bordering its landmass. But Indonesia is not waiting for the US to come to its rescue and is setting up a naval and air base in the region with marines included. China may run into spirited resistance in the future if it continues to breach Indonesia’s sovereign territory and this is the way it should be.

Vietnam is buying Russian submarines for its defence and it too is likely to take direct action if Chinese harassment continues. The Philippines and Malaysia have to do the same if they expect to get back their sovereign estate and surrounding oceans.

The Indonesian dispute with China is in closer proximity to the Australian coastlines than is Christmas Island and should be a litmus test of Australia’s resolve in aiding its close neighbours. There is little doubt that Chinese success there will encourage further adventurism by China south of Indonesia, whether it is fishing or mineral rights, military bases in the small nations surrounding Australia or some other activity.

The US has clearly shown that it is not interested in these internecine disputes anywhere in the world but has a self interest of preventing major conflicts and wars. It is up to the affected nations in the South and East China Sea to arm themselves sufficiently to make a credible attempt to defend their territory and hope that a NATO type body could be formed to give it more clout at some time in the future. With these actions one would hope that the US will step in if China escalates the situation by partially invading any of these nations’ sovereign interests.

It is becoming a habit for Australian defence analysts to speak on behalf of the US and tell us what they will and will not do. Mark Thomson is senior analyst for defence economics at ASPI, and in his ASPI blog Free financial advice has turned the coming White Paper into a budget review based on what the major parties say they will put up which is a paltry 1.5% OF GDP with a wild unbelievable promise that in ten years which will be 2023 they will have increased it to 2%.

Virginia sub in dry dock

Virginia sub in dry dock

Even if this unlikely event comes to pass, this is estimated to be about $50 billion in 2023 which will probably have less purchasing power than $27 billion in 2013 currency after adjusting for the 10% annual cost rise for high technology defence equipment.

Every aspect of government and their paid advisers thinking is based on the premise that the US is our back stop and let’s be a freeloader.

It doesn’t matter if it is the strategic uncertainties in the China Seas or drawing up a strategic document like the Defence White Paper, the US is the milking cow at the end of the equation that is expected to carry the entire load.

 

Defence White Paper a sham before it is written

 

Robert Bond   Director   Citizens for Defence

 www.citizensfordefence.org      Citizens for Defence (BondBobby) on Twitter

CITIZENS FOR DEFENCE

Indoctrinated Asian soldiers

Indoctrinated Asian soldiers

Defence White Paper a sham before it is written

Bobby Bond SharpenedMark Thomson’s article on the ASPI Blog asks the question does Australia need to build our defence forces in the face of China’s double digit defence expenditure increase. Why this question needs to be asked at all after five years of Belligerence in the Indo-Pacific region by China displays a detachment from the issue by Thomson which is extremely dangerous to the future security of Australia.

ASPI is a government funded “Think Tank” and the executive director Peter Jennings and a senior defence analyst of ASPI Andrew Davies have been appointed to construct the next Defence White Paper due in early 2015. Jennings is on the record as saying the DWP is a political document which surely makes him a political operative. Andrew Davies has a long history of advising Australians to spend little on defence. In June 2013 Davies advocated Australia continues to spend a minuscule 1.6% of GDP on defence condemning this country to unacceptable risks of intimidation or worse by Asian nations in the region over the coming decades.

Chinese Ballistic Anti Ship Missiles

Chinese Ballistic Anti Ship Missiles

It just so happens that these opinions neatly dovetail with the policies of the two major parties who when in government continue to support ASPI with millions of dollars. ASPI seems to be little more than a government propaganda machine charged with the task of selling to the Australian people defence policies which guarantee that Australia continues to freeload on the US war fighting machine for survival as well as keeping the defence budget close to the impoverished figure of 1.5% of GDP annually.

The next Defence White Paper is a fraud before it is even written with the government’s demands that facile election promises of no defence cuts and a 2% of GDP defence budget by 2023 be the guidelines.

Taking 10 years to reach 2% of GDP is obscene and to make this the limiting factor on the coming Defence White Paper is a fraud of gigantic proportions which Australia will pay for ten times over in the future decades.

The Defence White Paper should reflect the current strategic situation and what Australia reasonably needs to counter it and not be hamstrung by stingy politicians of both major parties seeking to hide the true picture of Australia’s pathetic defence position.

Thomson and ASPI must have a direct line to God if they can predict that Australia has no need for a modern and highly trained defence force to defend our north and assist our Coalition partner, the US. Chinese nuclear submarines are operating in our northern waters now and a naval battle group has recently carried out military exercises in waters surrounding Christmas Island. China has plans for four aircraft carriers and associated naval battle groups, is lifting its military spending by at least 20-30% annually, and is leading the world in cruise missiles and anti-ship ballistic missile technology which could be a real game changer.

Chinese ship killer DF21-D

Chinese ship killer DF21-D

Australian citizens look on the Defence White Paper as a strategic document of our defence needs, not a budgetary document of the major parties whose first priority is to have Australia defenceless and beholden to another nation, the US, for our very survival in order to save a few pieces of silver.

Having government funded defence advisers draw up the next Defence White Paper is hardly the way to achieve an unbiased, non-political assessment of the future security of Australia.