US Marines to be Stationed in Australia

[BullshitTantrum]

i'm a little late to this thread so i hope i'm not repeating anything but i though the US was putting troops in Aus so they could have a better tactical position in the world after russia and china said they'd declare world war 3 if iran or syria were attacked.

 

i also thought india broke UN sanctions by buying oil from Iran which was one of the bigger issues between the united states, russia and china.

[Walid Jumblat]

No idea about the WW3 thing, you may want to cite something on that.

 

The sanctions against Iran concerning oil are unilateral sanctions by the US, not UN sanctions.

[BullshitTantrum]

ah well i stand corrected. makes a bit more sense now.

 

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012/01/russia-should-anything-happen-to-iran-this-will-be-a-direct-threat-to-our-national-security.html

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yg7r6M9-iag

 

its not exactly directly china saying they'll blow the shit out of the us and the world, more like israel being backed by the us and iran backed by russia and china.

[bourgeoisie]

Im not gona lie…. I know nothing about anything. But my own personal opinion (which is unashamedly bias) is the world order will shift towards the Asia Pacific. I welcome that. As far as Iran / America goes – the States probably won’t touch the Iranians, no matter how big they talk. China backs Iran and really, no one wants to piss China off.

 

[Walid Jumblat]

China has no intention of going to war with the US any time in the foreseeable future, regardless of what happens in Iran.

 

Only Taiwan could reasonably ignite a war between the two countries and neither country is in the mood for that right now.

 

It's pretty commonly accepted that the global focus is/has shifted to the Asia-Pacific.

 

 

BTW, that map is wildly inaccurate^^^^

[eviltrailer77]

I was going to point that out, but guess I don't need to now.

[bourgeoisie]

the map is wrong? shit.... but I dun founds it on the internet!

[eviltrailer77]

Teh innerwebz navar lize

[Fist 666]

quite, apparently we only have about a dozen bases in afghanistan. i've been on that many in kandahar alone... of course those are ISAF posts, so maybe they don't count them?

[Walid Jumblat]

I like the US bases in Pakistan the best.

[Fist 666]

re: the jacobabad one

The Shahbaz Air Base is co-located with the commercial airport in Jacobabad. The Shahbaz Air Base was one of three Pakistani air bases used by U.S. and allied forces to support the Operation Enduring Freedom campaign in Afghanistan.

 

that must make it ours permanently.

[Walid Jumblat]

Yes, being in some one elses base makes it a US base forever, regardless even if there are no more US soldiers or assets remaining on that base.

 

Hence the Iraqi and Saudi bases.

[CILONE/SK]

Edit: I was going to post something, but I do not think any of you will believe me unless it includes some conspiracy theory, which it does not.

 

Continue on believing your nonsense. BTW, I would love to be stationed in Australia to take it over to make more money for my military masters who control my every move and thought.

[Fist 666]

i thought this thread was pretty nut-free...

[CILONE/SK]

It is compared to the other threads, but that is all subjective.

[Walid Jumblat]

Edit: I was going to post something, but I do not think any of you will believe me unless it includes some conspiracy theory, which it does not.

 

Continue on believing your nonsense. BTW, I would love to be stationed in Australia to take it over to make more money for my military masters who control my every move and thought.

 

I think your comments in this particular thread are about as off the mark as it gets and you come off as pretty arrogant because of that.

[cuntflaps]

Pine Gap anyone?

[Walid Jumblat]

What about it?

[cuntflaps]

Well in regards to the OP.....

 

 

I am not surprised, but seriously disappointed at this decision. How do the aussies feel about a US presence?

 

As you already know Pine Gap is a huge underground US base that I would guess not many Australians are aware of it's existence let alone that it's a US creation.

It's been linked to assisting satellites, part of the US's global dominance on defense?

What's its purpose? Why is it so top secret? /no tin foil

[Fist 666]

well there is a difference between cia/nsa type projects/bases being located outside our borders and active duty soldiers/marines/etc being stationed there.

 

what i do know about pine gap is that it isn't a post that will rotate active duty through its gates. so i don't have a problem with it in that regard.

[Walid Jumblat]

Well in regards to the OP.....

 

 

 

As you already know Pine Gap is a huge underground US base that I would guess not many Australians are aware of it's existence let alone that it's a US creation.

It's been linked to assisting satellites, part of the US's global dominance on defense?

What's its purpose? Why is it so top secret? /no tin foil

 

Well it's not top secret, it's a very public base in that there is no effort to ever hide its existence. Of course you're not allowed on it but you're not allowed in my house nor most other private property either.

 

Many Australian's don't know about it because they don't care. How many Australians know when federation was, how many have read the constitution, how many know the name of the aboriginal tribe that originally owned their land and how many Australians even know the capital of New Zealand?

 

What's Pine Gap's purpose? There's no secret about that either. It's an intelligence gathering facility.

 

You have to understand, there is no way in hell Australia could ever defend itself against a great power. Our land mass and approaches are massive and our population is small. We don't have the economy or the manpower to properly defend such a massive land with accessible coastlines. We have to be in alliances. The most effective alliance for Australian national interests (defined loosely as sovereignty, freedom from attack, long-term prosperity, political independence) is with the US. They are the only ones who have the power to deter attack on Australia (it was GB before the World Wars) and they also have very similar values (liberal democracy, rule of law, liberal markets, and they also share historical roots as well as language).

 

Now you can argue as to how true and perfect those values are in reality but reality is not perfect nor absolutist, in any country in any time in history. It would also be great if we didn't have to rely on any other country, but we simply have no choice in the matter.

[UPS!]

Who would potentially invade Ozland if there was no uncle Sam?

 

Im just curious, it seems like in this day in age only 3rd world countries that are non-western(white) have any chance of being invaded, Aussie is an Island and a liberal, democratic one at that.

 

China/Russia?

Who else would have the capability or will to ever try to conquer the outback?

[Realism]

I think it's more the fact that national defense is a priority in any developed nation, regardless of the likelihood of invasion.

 

You can live in a nice neighborhood and it still makes sense to lock your doors at night, you know?

[UPS!]

Yes, and I do like your metaphor but burglary is much more common place and logistically possible than invading another country, 1st,2nd or 3rd/4th world regardless.

 

They do have a military no?

Small as it may be in comparison, who with the capability to effectively invade would even consider attacking the Aussies?

 

Im not saying they shouldnt have a fuerzas armadas, but do they really need a superpower guarding them?

[Walid Jumblat]

Japan tried only 70 years ago. They attacked Darwin, a number of places in Queensland and Sydney, there is still living memory of these attacks.

 

Right now there really aren't too many countries that have the logistical capability to direct sustained military power on Australia. The US, Japan, Russia, the UK, maybe France. Out of those 5 Australia could well defend against 3, maybe 4 of them. None of these countries have any obvious intent or reason to invade Australia as it stands today.

 

Key part of that above paragraph is "Right now" and "as it stands today".

 

In 1899 no one would have considered a war engulfing all of Europe that would end the Ottoman empire. In 1920 no one conceived a war that would engulf the entire world seeing the end of the British empire and the rise of the United States and global communism. In 1985 only one person truly saw the end of the Soviet Union. On Sept.10 2001...., etc. etc.

 

Capability and intent only allows you to forecast probabilities and consequences of the next decade, maximum. Defence planning has huge lead times given the complexity and budgets involved. That means we have to plan for 2020-30 now without being able to tell who will be doing what. So you kind of have to plan for the worst and hope for the best.

 

Part of the above considerations needs to take in to account that just to our north we have Indonesia with 240m people yearly growth rates between 5-10%. Likewise we have to consider that as countries like China, India, Brazil, Indonesia, Mexico, etc. grow resources will become more and more sought after for economic growth and possibly even human survival. That makes Australia a country that very much needs to consider its defence.

 

Another thing that needs to be considered is not just invasion but an attack on our interests. Australia is largely an exporting country. Last year our largest export was iron ore and concentrates at just under USD60bn, mostly to Northeast Asia, followed by energy and a amount of other merchandise. A large amount of that goes through the Lombok and Makassar Straits as well as the South China Sea and other maritime chokepoints. Country X does not need to invade Australia to give us a hard time. They can interdict our exports and block us from markets. Australia has USD155bn of trade with Northeast Asia alone, that's 12% of our GDP. Imagine screwing 5-10% of a country's GDP would do over 5 years. Economically disastrous. It's not just the homeland that requires defence it's our access to shipping lanes and export markets and right now there is only one country with the ability to secure maritime passage the world over.

 

 

Also just want to point out how it was stated that only non-Western/white countries get invaded these days. Georgia, 2008. White, Christian, liberal and democratic.

[eviltrailer77]

For Australia this arrangement is a win-win. They get super power level defense with out having to pay out the massive manpower, economic and resource expenditures that come with it. A carrier navy is mindbogglingly expensive in all of those terms. But what they do have is plenty of flat land that make great airbases and deepwater harbors that will accommodate a ship of that size. As for the actual personnel on the ground, the average Aussies that I came in contact with while I was there had zero heartburn about us being there. Granted at that time there was only about 200 of us. I attribute that to the shared heritage, language and to at least some degree cultural values. Speaking as an 'Merican, I have never really considered Aussies, Brits, Kiwis and Canucks "foreigners" and I know to some extent that feeling is mutual. Making us the least intrusive presence.

 

This is all just opinion and speculation based on personal experiences. Feel free to tell me how wrong I am.

[Walid Jumblat]

There's also economic value for the communities that have direct contact with the manpower and assets that will be based in Australia.

[eviltrailer77]

Yeah, I didn't even think about that. Massive amount of cash flowing in to the local economies. Plus Jarheads/Squids have been known to blow an entire paycheck on a weekend of partying. Ask me how I know...

[UPS!]

Japan tried only 70 years ago. They attacked Darwin, a number of places in Queensland and Sydney, there is still living memory of these attacks.

 

Right now there really aren't too many countries that have the logistical capability to direct sustained military power on Australia. The US, Japan, Russia, the UK, maybe France. Out of those 5 Australia could well defend against 3, maybe 4 of them. None of these countries have any obvious intent or reason to invade Australia as it stands today.

 

Key part of that above paragraph is "Right now" and "as it stands today".

 

In 1899 no one would have considered a war engulfing all of Europe that would end the Ottoman empire. In 1920 no one conceived a war that would engulf the entire world seeing the end of the British empire and the rise of the United States and global communism. In 1985 only one person truly saw the end of the Soviet Union. On Sept.10 2001...., etc. etc.

 

Capability and intent only allows you to forecast probabilities and consequences of the next decade, maximum. Defence planning has huge lead times given the complexity and budgets involved. That means we have to plan for 2020-30 now without being able to tell who will be doing what. So you kind of have to plan for the worst and hope for the best.

 

Part of the above considerations needs to take in to account that just to our north we have Indonesia with 240m people yearly growth rates between 5-10%. Likewise we have to consider that as countries like China, India, Brazil, Indonesia, Mexico, etc. grow resources will become more and more sought after for economic growth and possibly even human survival. That makes Australia a country that very much needs to consider its defence.

 

Another thing that needs to be considered is not just invasion but an attack on our interests. Australia is largely an exporting country. Last year our largest export was iron ore and concentrates at just under USD60bn, mostly to Northeast Asia, followed by energy and a amount of other merchandise. A large amount of that goes through the Lombok and Makassar Straits as well as the South China Sea and other maritime chokepoints. Country X does not need to invade Australia to give us a hard time. They can interdict our exports and block us from markets. Australia has USD155bn of trade with Northeast Asia alone, that's 12% of our GDP. Imagine screwing 5-10% of a country's GDP would do over 5 years. Economically disastrous. It's not just the homeland that requires defence it's our access to shipping lanes and export markets and right now there is only one country with the ability to secure maritime passage the world over.

 

 

Also just want to point out how it was stated that only non-Western/white countries get invaded these days. Georgia, 2008. White, Christian, liberal and democratic.

 

My questioning was in no way combative of the subject, it was genuine wondering.

I know some shit of some shit, but obviously Christo you're the man for geo-political military rationale and what not.

 

And I knew you'd bring up Georgia you sneaky fuck, I was going to put a little disclaimer in my original post but didnt know if anyone would of remembered.

 

Basically I was thinking countries like UK/France/Russia/Germany/US/Japan/Now SK etc etc.

 

But you're still correct. Georgia is 2nd world at best, my main point was none of the big 5/6 or so countries would have reason to attack one another, but again like you said thats based on today.

 

I can get schooled, just means the next time I argue over this subject I can drop knowledge like Pidgeons drop shit.

[Walid Jumblat]

When looking at the tier one countries like UK, France, Russia, Germany, US, Japan, ROK, etc. I'd be a bit reluctant to think that there is an enduring culture of respect for sovereignty. There is a huuuuuge amount of maneuvering going on right now in both Europe and East Asia as well as the Mid East in terms of power and military force.

 

East Asia - The amount of submarines, surface vessels and anti-ship missiles that are being purchased by Japan, ROK, China, Vietnam, Taiwan, Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia, Australia and Singapore (should include India here as well, they are not East Asian but their influence in East Asia is a planning factor) is phenomenal. Now except for Aust., Jap., ROK and China none of these countries are tier 1. However Southeast Asia connects all of the Asia-Pacific with South Asia, the Mid East and Europe. That's the vast bulk of the global population, economy and energy/raw materials. Check this shipping map out:

 

 

 

90% of global trade is carried out by shipping. US global power rests mostly on naval power. Southeast Asia is as important as the Suez and Panama canals and the Straits of Gibraltar (think USN vessels moving from San Diego, Hawaii and Guam to the Persian Gulf and Afghanistan(Indian Ocean)). Should Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore or whoever create a confrontation in the MAlacca Straits or South China Sea think of the consequences for the global economy. Then think of how China, Japan, India or the US would react should any single country move in to assert control over this region. Then think of the Chinese claims to sovereignty over the South China Sea, pictured below:

 

 

Right now there is an armed stand off at Huanyang island between The Philippines and China. Vietnam and China have had a number of violent clashes in the South China Seas. There are multiple claimants of the territory in question (and beliefs that there are huge energy deposits beneath the seabed) and right now everyone involved is arming themselves with strategic maritime capabilities such as subs, amphib vessels and anti-ship missiles. Difficult to see things working out here without some friction and the involvement of several tier one countries with competing interests and vulnerabilities given the massive strategic importance of the region and the contested nature of ownership.

 

 

 

 

Then look at Europe and Russia. The US ballistic missile defence system is less about protecting missiles and more about containing Russia through influence. The BMD deal means that US bases with US personnel and US military support will be placed in Romania, Poland, etc. That makes them client states of the US, Russia can pressure them with trade, energy etc. But it cannot pressure them militarily as the US has committed to the defence of that country by basing strategic assets in country. It's like Uncle Sam pissing on his territory.

 

Warsaw Pact countries under the Soviet Union:

 

 

 

NATO expansion:

 

 

 

US BMD and proposed Russian response:

 

 

 

All this is because of geography - The Northern European Plain:

 

 

The NEP is a flat expanse of land from the Atlantic to Asia and is also where both World Wars were fought (excluding the Pacific, of course). You can basically drive tank divisions and march soldiers from Calais, France all the way through the Russian heartland and out the other side without any geographic features impeding your advance. Germany and Poland sit smack in the middle of this strategic highway and are the playing field on which Western Europe and Russia compete. If you hold that ground you have your competitor at a disadvantage. It's why Bismark expanded Prussia and why Hitler took Poland, etc. etc. It's also why Poland screams so loudly for Western Support now because it knows Russia looks very enviously at it. It's also why the Central European states are the strongest supporters of NATO and why they are forming battle-groups like the V4 and Nordic groups. It's why the US is placing its military in key geographic locations (google the Bessarabian gap for the relevance of Romania) to contain future Russian expansion.

 

 

 

In summary, just looking at East Asia and Europe we can see that geography has not changed and that competition is still prevalent. If the same pressures are applied to national security as they were 100 years ago and nations are similarly competing diplomatically and militarily as they were 100 years ago, why is there any reason to think that tier 1 state-on-state war is a thing of the past?