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.

China choice does not exist

 

Robert Bond   Director   Citizens for Defence

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

CITIZENS FOR DEFENCE

Chinese DF-21D Anti-ship Ballistic Missile

Chinese DF-21D Anti-ship Ballistic Missile

China choice does not exist

bobHugh White, professor of strategic studies, ANU, has answered ASPI’s Mark Thomson’s recent article on the “China Choice” in the ASPI Blog.

I am not surprised that most feed back to Hugh concentrates on the first option which is “America faces a serious challenge to its primacy in Asia from China”. The second and third options were ignored and read “America should respond to that challenge by trying to negotiate a power-sharing arrangement with China, rather than by competing with China for primacy or withdrawing from Asia. Third, Australia should encourage America to share power rather than take one of the other two options”.

Hugh presents as a true pacifist, an appeaser who would voluntarily give power to a communist country that runs over its citizens in tanks if they cry out for democracy in the hope that the country would abide by international law from then on and refrain from any more adventurous forays into other people’s sovereign territory or surrounds.

This has proven to be potentially a massive mistake almost from the time Hugh drew breath on the topic by China seeking to control great areas of the East China Sea and the whole of the South China Sea including island outcrops of most nations surrounding the sea. This is being enforced at present by China with military threats and several maritime police forces backed by the Chinese navy.

Chinese ship killers

Chinese ship killers

Then there are the nuclear powered submarines that are undoubtedly patrolling Australia’s northern waters and the recent military exercises carried out by a Chinese naval battle fleet in the waters surrounding Christmas Island. The Indonesians have been humiliated by the Chinese in a dispute over fishing rights and islands that are clearly in Indonesian territory. The Philippine government have taken China to a world court over similar Chinese bullying and intimidation over disputes about Philippine territory. One could go on with Japan, South Korea, Vietnam, Malaysia, India, to name a few who are in conflict with China.

Australia is in the cockpit of this Indo-Pacific turmoil being neighbours of Indonesia and close to the Philippines. We are intimately involved whether we like it or not. Our very survival as a nation is at stake over the long term and to suggest we have a choice between persuading the US to share power with China and backing the US wholeheartedly is academic claptrap.

Where does the sharing of power stop? What if, and it is almost a given, China wants more and more and just takes it like it is doing at present to our close neighbours?

Australia has to back the US to the hilt and we should be encouraging the other US allies in the Asian region to do the same. The one thought Hugh has got right is that the US could easily pull back to Hawaii and leave us to our own resources to face China. The US could defend its interests from there and save a great deal of money.

Chinese Anti Ship Missiles

Chinese Anti Ship Missiles

Our only chance for survival if this happened would be to quickly transform ourselves into a bigger Israel and the US might support us as a bulwark against the spreading of communism’s influence.

If Australia was wise it would immediately arm itself like Israel and if the worst happens be prepared to stand alone with US help.

There is no other way.

Chinese navy is no paper tiger

CITIZENS FOR DEFENCE

Robert Bond    Director    Citizens for Defence

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

Chinese Aircraft Carrier

                                  Chinese Aircraft Carrier

Chinese navy is no paper tiger

Ivory Tower professor Paul Dibb assures us that the Chinese navy is a paper tiger and then goes on to say the US will defend the region against Chinese hegemony. Manoeuvres make waves but in truth Chinese navy is a paper tiger PAUL DIBB THE AUSTRALIAN MARCH 07, 2014 12:00 AM

What unwarranted hubris gushes forth from Dibb when he so casually speaks on behalf of the US claiming they will defend this nation to the last US marine.

According to Dibb our contribution is to accommodate US marines in the Northern Territory and allow US warships to use some naval bases as well as allow the US to develop and use Cocos Island as a surveillance base.

Is this all Dibb can advise Australia to do in its own defence to assist a loyal ally who saved us from a vicious mauling at the hands of the Japanese in WW2? In April 2013 Dibb wrote (Talk of a US-China war “a dangerous miscalculation” the Australian 23/4) and yet China has since attempted to take control of large chunks of the East China Sea and virtually the whole of the South China Sea and is having conflicts with nearly every other nation in the area.

Dibb was not credible in 2013 and the next few decades will surely prove that China is no paper tiger. Defence analysts in the democratic western countries are not advising governments to massively increase defence spending to assist the financially stressed US military machine maintain world peace. Instead, they have always wantonly bludged on US blood and treasure without a shred of embarrassment or contrition.

These soothsayers 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 Stealth Fighter

               Chinese Stealth Fighter

Dibb has no strategic plan except to hope to good luck and continue to be a freeloader on the US. If this is analytical cleverness, we want no part of it.

The US, for all the diplomatic niceties it voices, knows the score and has a long memory as it should. Influential US politicians have called us freeloaders and have warned that there can be no “free ride” in defence matters.

If Australia had a fair dinkum strategic plan based on the Israeli model where over thirty years we could continually upgrade the effectiveness of our defence force, we could be capable of defending our continent in most instances if needed with probably a topping up of weapons, missiles, ammunition and other supplies from the US.

The time for Australia to build our defences is now, not when the rest of Asia has had decades to consolidate and hone their forces into war machines which can intimidate an unarmed Australia and deny the US sea and air space in the South Pacific.

Politicians should realise that 2% of GDP for defence spending is not acceptable in these circumstances. It insults our ally the US who has invested close to 5% of GDP for defence for the last 70 years. We have to man up. We have to match the US per capita and then some.

Ballistic  Missiles

     Ballistic Missiles

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.

Do not repeat sub fiasco

Robert Bond    Director    Citizens for Defence

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

Do not repeat sub fiasco

The Collins class subs have depth restrictions, speed restrictions, periscopes that vibrate and leak water, endless battery, generator and engine problems, and no capacity to provide the firepower and endurance demanded to adequately defend our 36,000 kilometre coastline. (Shape up or ship out: subs’ future on the line, 7/3).

Ten well managed Virginia-class nuclear attack submarines would be as effective as 30  unreliable one off Australian designed and built diesel electric submarines. The Collins fiasco is an example of what will probably be the eventuality if Australia decides to go it alone down the Collins path again. In fact, the world has moved on since Collins was built and the technology is advancing at such a rapid rate that a bad outcome is almost guaranteed.