Aussies Join U.S. Missile Defense and J.S.F. Programs

[Kodiak]

Australia accused of being U.S.'s "deputy sheriff" in the Pacific. (http://www.msnbc.com/news/1001077.asp?0cv=CB10)

[Ed]

It seems perfectly rational for them to work with us. It would appear that their other options include doing nothing and trusting a psycotic state to "do the right thing" or to do it themselves.

Some people just like to complain.

[Kodiak]

I agree, Ed.

Kudos to the Aussie leadership for allying themselves with an internationally unpopular administration.

[Jon_in_london]

How are countries like Britain and the Dwarf Bastard Convict Republic going to benfit from this? You are just using us as early-warning radar stations. We arent going to be protected.

[a_unique_person]

This is just "Arse Licker" John Howard continuing on his merry way. If you wonder where the quote came from, it is from the new leader of the Opposition. When Mark Lathan first used this phrase, all I could think was, why has it taken so long for someone to say it as it is.

[Mike B.]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
This is just "Arse Licker" John Howard continuing on his merry way. If you wonder where the quote came from, it is from the new leader of the Opposition. When Mark Lathan first used this phrase, all I could think was, why has it taken so long for someone to say it as it is.

Why is anyone who supports Bush (i.e. Blair or Howard) a priori always an "arse licker" or a "poodle"?

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london
How are countries like Britain and the Dwarf Bastard Convict Republic going to benfit from this? You are just using us as early-warning radar stations. We arent going to be protected.

The direct benefit will be to South Korea and Japan.

The article never mentions direct benefits for Australia, but instead suggested future unrelated benefits for Australia from a stronger military alliance with the US.

1+1 is not the only way to get to 2...

So goes the Art of War and modern diplomacy...

[Kevin_Lowe]

Originally posted by Kodiak
I agree, Ed.

Kudos to the Aussie leadership for allying themselves with an internationally unpopular administration.

Are the awards for bizarre and illogical statements still running? If so, we may have a strong contender.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Kevin_Lowe


Are the awards for bizarre and illogical statements still running? If so, we may have a strong contender.

Says you...

Care to make your case, or are you trying for the very same award you think I deserve?

[Ed]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
This is just "Arse Licker" John Howard continuing on his merry way. If you wonder where the quote came from, it is from the new leader of the Opposition. When Mark Lathan first used this phrase, all I could think was, why has it taken so long for someone to say it as it is.

OK, fair enough. So what would you do?

[Crossbow]

It sounds to me like deal is:

USA: Please let us install early warning and/or defense systems in your country.

UK and Australia: Well, I don't know. Those sorts of things are not too popular here. And, if they are installed, will they not serve to make our nation, instead of your nation, the place where your enemies would strike first in order to destroy the system that is designed to work against them?

USA: I understand your concerns. But tell you what, if you let us install these systems, then we will let you share the technology.

UK and Australia: Well that is very nice thought, but just who is going to pay for all of this new technology that you will be sharing.

USA: Well the USA taxpayer will you big silly! You all will not have to pay for the research, development, or installation, but you will be allowed to study, purchase, install, etc. whatever components of the system you would like.

UK and Australia: Wow! That could save us billions and billions in new R&D!

USA: It sure could! If we have a deal, then please sign here, here, and here.

UK and Australia: Oh yeah we have a deal! Here is our John Hancock's!

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Crossbow
It sounds to me like deal is:

USA: Please let us install early warning and/or defense systems in your country.

UK and Australia: Well, I don't know. Those sorts of things are not too popular here. And, if they are installed, will they not serve to make our nation, instead of your nation, the place where your enemies would strike first in order to destroy the system that is designed to work against them?

USA: I understand your concerns. But tell you what, if you let us install these systems, then we will let you share the technology.

UK and Australia: Well that is very nice thought, but just who is going to pay for all of this new technology that you will be sharing.

USA: Well the USA taxpayer will you big silly! You all will not have to pay for the research, development, or installation, but you will be allowed to study, purchase, install, etc. whatever components of the system you would like.

UK and Australia: Wow! That could save us billions and billions in new R&D!

USA: It sure could! If we have a deal, then please sign here, here, and here.

UK and Australia: Oh yeah we have a deal! Here is our John Hancock's!

And of course you have premises for this conclusion, right?

[ceo_esq]

Here's a link (http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/CIB/2001-02/02cib03.htm) to an interesting Australian parliamentary white paper from 2001 evaluating both the benefits and disadvantages to Australia arising from its strategic relationship with the United States.

On the subject of Australia's potential participation in the US National Missile Defense program, the paper concludes:... it is difficult to see how Australia could discourage the US from developing a method of protecting its cities and citizens from attack, or why it would want to. It is in Australia's interest to help to ensure that the US does not feel vulnerable to missile attack. A vulnerable US will be less likely to risk being actively engaged, or playing a leadership role in the Asia Pacific region.From the point of view of any country whose defense policy depends on US cooperation - and for the NATO and ANZUS countries, there is unlikely to be any feasible alternative policy in our lifetimes - it is a very bad thing for the strategic position of the United States in the world to be weakened (or even perceived to be weakened) due to missile vulnerability.

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by Kodiak


And of course you have premises for this conclusion, right?

Yes I do.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=590&ncid=721&e=12&u=/ap/20031204/ap_on_re_au_an/australia_us_missile_defense

Australia to Join Missile Defense Program

CANBERRA, Australia - Australia will join a U.S. program to build a missile defense system, the government said Thursday, calling the threat of ballistic missiles too grave to ignore.

...

Washington hopes that developing a shield against ballistic missiles will protect it against potential threats from countries like North Korea (news - web sites). It wants allies such as Britain, Canada and Australia involved in the project, particularly for the use of satellite tracking stations in their countries.

...

Defense Minister Robert Hill said Australia will likely help research the multibillion dollar project and has no plans for a ground-based missile defense system on its own soil. Australia could incorporate missile defense systems into three planned air warfare destroyers for the navy.

...

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by ceo_esq
whose defense policy depends on US cooperation - and for the NATO and ANZUS countries,

uh huh huh you said anzus uh huhuhu

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Crossbow


Yes I do.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=590&ncid=721&e=12&u=/ap/20031204/ap_on_re_au_an/australia_us_missile_defense

Australia to Join Missile Defense Program

CANBERRA, Australia - Australia will join a U.S. program to build a missile defense system, the government said Thursday, calling the threat of ballistic missiles too grave to ignore.

...

Washington hopes that developing a shield against ballistic missiles will protect it against potential threats from countries like North Korea (news - web sites). It wants allies such as Britain, Canada and Australia involved in the project, particularly for the use of satellite tracking stations in their countries.

...

Defense Minister Robert Hill said Australia will likely help research the multibillion dollar project and has no plans for a ground-based missile defense system on its own soil. Australia could incorporate missile defense systems into three planned air warfare destroyers for the navy.

...

Funny...

I saw nor read any mention about fears of "first strikes" on Australian soil or program expenditure coming solely from US sources...

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by Kodiak


Funny...

I saw nor read any mention about fears of "first strikes" on Australian soil or program expenditure coming solely from US sources...

Well, if that is the case, then I suggest that you keep reading.

One of the arguments that has been around since 1983 when Reagan Administration began to work out some of the details of the SDI program was that large and complex detection, identification, and tracking systems would need to be setup well away from the USA frontier in order to provide the maximum amount of warning time. Therefore, places like Greenland, the UK, and Australia were tapped since they fit the geographic bill and the USA already had a fair degree of electronic intelligence presence there.

While such thoughts sounded quite logical to the SDI team, they did not sit well with many of those actually living in Greenland, the UK, and Australia since they reckoned that if someone was actually going to make a serious attack on the USA, then it may well mean that they would start by attacking those places that are being used to defend the USA (read, Greenland, the UK, and Australia).

Further, the USA has been working on this missile defense system for over 20 years now and how much of that money has come from outside the USA? Very little to say the least. Now then, in all fairness, I suppose that it is possible that all of these countries may decide to reconsider their past support and donate substantial sums of their money so that it can be used to increase the security of the USA, but somehow I doubt it.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Crossbow


Well, if that is the case, then I suggest that you keep reading.

One of the arguments that has been around since 1983 when Reagan Administration began to work out some of the details of the SDI program was that large and complex detection, identification, and tracking systems would need to be setup well away from the USA frontier in order to provide the maximum amount of warning time. Therefore, places like Greenland, the UK, and Australia were tapped since they fit the geographic bill and the USA already had a fair degree of electronic intelligence presence there.

While such thoughts sounded quite logical to the SDI team, they did not sit well with many of those actually living in Greenland, the UK, and Australia since they reckoned that if someone was actually going to make a serious attack on the USA, then it may well mean that they would start by attacking those places that are being used to defend the USA (read, Greenland, the UK, and Australia).

Further, the USA has been working on this missile defense system for over 20 years now and how much of that money has come from outside the USA? Very little to say the least. Now then, in all fairness, I suppose that it is possible that all of these countries may decide to reconsider their past support and donate substantial sums of their money so that it can be used to increase the security of the USA, but somehow I doubt it.

Thank you.

Well argued and fairly presented.

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by Kodiak


Thank you.

Well argued and fairly presented.

You are most welcome and I am glad to be of service.

[Jessica Blue]

Apart from any other consideration will the hugely expensive MDS actually work...?

As I understand it...

*Rocket science is unreliable and imperfect and there are too many ways to get around the system. Dummy or decoy missiles may be used....such as multiple-warhead missiles, or bombs hidden in decoy balloons.

*When a missile is destroyed mid-air the fallout may occur in countries other than its point of origin, eg: a missile sent to the US from North Korea and hit by Star Wars could fall over Canada.

There is also the chance it could increase the arms race. For example, China has already stated it would not only build a shield of its own but it would increase the size and diversity of their nuclear stockpile if the US deployed a Star Wars system. India responds by building up its nuclear arms...then in turn Pakistan.

Plus a more realistic threat would be much more likely to come from means other than a nuclear missile. Namely biological warfare or suitcase-sized bombs loaded into trucks, boats, or planes, none of which Star Wars could counter. How would a Missile Defence Shield have prevented 9/11...? We may be spending huge amounts of money on a system that not only fails but makes the world more nervous and paranoid...money that could be better spent elsewhere.

However, no doubt these flaws wont stop the eager-beaver war-hawks in the Pentagon nor the arms manufacturers who stand to make trillions of dollars profit from the technology.


Meanwhile Bush pushes ahead with a multimillion-dollar expansion of the US nuclear arsenal:

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/1130-04.htm

[Zep]

It's not like there are no US bases here already...! (http://www.anti-bases.org/campaigns/US_bases_in_Australia/list_of_US_bases_in_Australia.htm)

[Jessica Blue]

Originally posted by Kodiak
I agree, Ed.

Kudos to the Aussie leadership for allying themselves with an internationally unpopular administration.

I'm not sure there's anything particularly praiseworthy in it.

We've put all our defence eggs in the US basket because we're a nervous little white colony in the middle of Asia and look to America for our security...or the illusion of it anyway. Whatever stand the US took we'd probably support it, in deference to the alliance. Historically we've been behind you all the way....Korea, Vietnam, the Gulf war, Afghanistan and Iraq.

"We need the US more than she needs us"...


Question for Australians...without the US would we feel just too vulnerable?

[Ed]

Originally posted by Jessica Blue


I'm not sure there's anything particularly praiseworthy in it.

Well, if it the US, I would hardly expect praise regardless of the topic.

We've put all our defence eggs in the US basket because we're a nervous little white colony in the middle of Asia and look to America for our security...or the illusion of it anyway. Whatever stand the US took we'd probably support it, in deference to the alliance. Historically we've been behind you all the way....Korea, Vietnam, the Gulf war, Afghanistan and Iraq.

This sounds a bit snide. Where would you put your defense eggs? Or, perhaps, you don't feel a need for defense. I think that there are limited choices: Do nothing, do it yourself, do it with the US, or conjure up another partner or partners.

Assuming that you care to defend your country, do you go it with a hulking large brute that scares the bejesus out of everyone or with Michael Flatly?

I personally could not care less about Australias choice. I guess that I just feel pretty blase about the rest of the world at the moment.

I wonder how common that feeling is among americans. I think that it's genesis is almost unrelieved US bashing. People bash the US but point out that "it is not the american people it is your government and it's policies". The problem is that the government was put there by us and, in all probability, we will have the same one come November. So it is "us". Kyoto is a good example. Bush is excoriated, conviently forgetting the fact that the treaty was virtually unanimously voted down by congress. That is us. We sh!tcanned Kyoto. Bush could stand on his head, naked, in the middle of the Mall and it would not make one whit of difference if congress dosen't want it.

So, do what you want.

I think that the world would have more to complain about with an indifferent america. But one thing is for certain, they would complain.

"We need the US more than she needs us"...


Question for Australians...without the US would we feel just too vulnerable? [/B]

[Zep]

Originally posted by Jessica Blue
Question for Australians...without the US would we feel just too vulnerable? Of course! Not that an alliance is a bad thing, just that some of the obligations and the political nuances don't play well in our region.

But while those can be negotiated (Asian politics is often based on what is negotiable, not so much on what is policy), what I do NOT like is the suck-puppy-dog attitude of our current PM. He's the little wimpoid with glasses who hangs around with the big cool dudes in the football team just so he won't get beaten on. He agrees with everything they say, and runs errands for them, just to keep on their good side, but in actual fact they hardly know or care he is there.

Really! Have a look at the dude! Is this the face of a world statesman? I ask you...

http://www.monarchist.org.au/howard.jpg

[Ed]

Why is his part so wide?

[Zep]

It isn't. It's just an exceptionally narrow head.

[Ed]

Originally posted by Zep
It isn't. It's just an exceptionally narrow head.

Wide, surely.

[The Fool]

What makes me laugh is our new oposition leader, when he's not bashing Cab drivers he was generally bashing anything American....Know what he does as soon as he is made leader of the oposition? He has a meeting with the US ambassador and then in his next news conference he has an Australian AND a US fla behind him...... He knows full well that the Australian people don't want us to tell the US to nick off.... If his stated policy is to abandon alliance with the US he knows he has zero chance of being elected.

He calls howard an asslicker but as soon as he is in a positon of some power himself he has to have his lips surgically removed from the US ambassadors behind...Lol, politicians...don't ya just love em.

[Ed]

I hate them. At this moment, particularly the bastards that moved the Royal Armouries to Leeds.

Don't ask.

[Zep]

Originally posted by The Fool
What makes me laugh is our new oposition leader, when he's not bashing Cab drivers he was generally bashing anything American....Know what he does as soon as he is made leader of the oposition? He has a meeting with the US ambassador and then in his next news conference he has an Australian AND a US fla behind him...... He knows full well that the Australian people don't want us to tell the US to nick off.... If his stated policy is to abandon alliance with the US he knows he has zero chance of being elected.

He calls howard an asslicker but as soon as he is in a positon of some power himself he has to have his lips surgically removed from the US ambassadors behind...Lol, politicians...don't ya just love em. The US ambassador said that Latham "saw that he had a different point of view now that he wasn't an independent member any more".

Anyone wanna buy my favourable opinion?

Hey, didn't those right-wing stooges John Laws and Jones The Parrot get done for that not so long ago? Cash-for-comments anyone?

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by Ed
I hate them. At this moment, particularly the bastards that moved the Royal Armouries to Leeds.

Don't ask.

Me too. Whats in Leeds anyway? Its all grim and filthy so far north...

[Jessica Blue]

Originally posted by Ed
I wonder how common that feeling is among americans. I think that it's genesis is almost unrelieved US bashing. People bash the US but point out that "it is not the american people it is your government and it's policies". The problem is that the government was put there by us and, in all probability, we will have the same one come November. So it is "us". Kyoto is a good example. Bush is excoriated, conviently forgetting the fact that the treaty was virtually unanimously voted down by congress. That is us. We sh!tcanned Kyoto. Bush could stand on his head, naked, in the middle of the Mall and it would not make one whit of difference if congress dosen't want it.Yep it's not just Bush.

So, do what you want.

I think that the world would have more to complain about with an indifferent america. But one thing is for certain, they would complain.Few would want an indifferent America Ed, but there seems to be two world views about how it should act. One view is that the US endeavours to do the *right thing* and so should answer to nobody and not be constrained by compliance to International laws and treaties. It's big and powerful enought to act alone...the independent sheriff.

The other is that the world needs the US onboard for sure, but as an important team player, not as a law-unto-itself maverick, who claims to respect the game but wont play ball and thinks it should be exempt from the rules. Sure, there's other players with their own agendas who wont play properly either, but if the star player wont lead by example then the game is pretty much f*cked.

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

Is the Bush administration suspending experimental and test (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A36878-2004Jan21.html) requirements that are supposed to determine if these missiles in the NMD program actually work in their haste to get some kind of system up and running asp?



Who is going to make a first strike, pre-emptive strike anyway? Nations like North Korea? Is there evidence that the leadership or N. Korean regime is suicidal, or not interested in self preservation? Terrorists? Do terrorists have ICBMs? How will NMD protect Americans from 737s/777s? or boats loaded with explosives or a nuke?


Is the purpose of NMD to provide a shield, not from pre-emptive attack, but from retaliatory attack from an enemy?
Is the NMD to preserve America's ability to use nuclear weapons without fear of consequence?
The NMD program could give the U.S.A. the option of using nukes if they can not respond to a real or perceived threat with conventional forces.

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

Originally posted by Crossbow


It wants allies such as Britain, Canada and Australia involved in the project, particularly for the use of satellite tracking stations in their countries.

...


...[/I]


The
Canadian Territories and Greenland (http://north.cbc.ca/regional/servlet/View?filename=jan27iccprezmissile01272004) are discussing issues surrounding getting involved in the U.S. missile defence system. They are basically on board for potential economic spinoffs but want some assurances about some concerns (http://north.cbc.ca/regional/servlet/View?filename=june2missile-defense06022003).
"Greenlanders first want the Americans to clean up the mess they left at military sites on the island."

"I support my colleague from Greenland in making sure that the mistakes that were made in the past aren't repeated over again," he says. "So we're cautious because there's PCB sites that we're still trying to clean up."

Okalik says the North is still cleaning up contaminants left behind by the U.S. military at DEW line sites during the Cold War. He says he wants to avoid a repeat scenario.

[Agammamon]

Ah, wonderfull. The JSF is 1000-1500lbs overweight (depending on the variant)and delayed by 2 years, now it's going to be even harder to meet everyone's requirements. Not to mention the money pit that is missile defense (no, money pit doesn't begin to describe it, money neutron star is more like it) the Aussies have now bought into.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london


Me too. Whats in Leeds anyway? Its all grim and filthy so far north...
"So far north"? You soft southern jessie! Anyway, Leeds is also 60 miles southwest-ish of Fylingdales, so if someone goes pre-emptive over Bush's ESB*, then the Royal Armouries will get a bit dusty, but will have a nice evening glow to it.

*ESB = Empire Strikes Back, the sequel to Star Wars. Geddit? Geddit?

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by BillyTK

"So far north"? You soft southern jessie! Anyway, Leeds is also 60 miles southwest-ish of Fylingdales, so if someone goes pre-emptive over Bush's ESB*, then the Royal Armouries will get a bit dusty, but will have a nice evening glow to it.


Which is just another reason to move the Royal Armouries back to HM Tower!

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by Agammamon
Ah, wonderfull. The JSF is 1000-1500lbs overweight (depending on the variant)and delayed by 2 years, now it's going to be even harder to meet everyone's requirements.

Seems like nobody has learnt the lessons of eurofighter!

BTW- do you have a link for that?

[Ed]

Originally posted by BillyTK

"So far north"? You soft southern jessie! Anyway, Leeds is also 60 miles southwest-ish of Fylingdales, so if someone goes pre-emptive over Bush's ESB*, then the Royal Armouries will get a bit dusty, but will have a nice evening glow to it.

*ESB = Empire Strikes Back, the sequel to Star Wars. Geddit? Geddit?

Yet another reason for moving them to somewhere safe, like London.:D

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london


Which is just another reason to move the Royal Armouries back to HM Tower!
I agree! It's just a ruse to get southern softies to come to Leeds. Like that's going to work.

[Ed]

Originally posted by BillyTK

I agree! It's just a ruse to get southern softies to come to Leeds. Like that's going to work.

The is that brewery (the one with the charming concertina wire) right accross the street. That is worth something.

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by BillyTK

I agree! It's just a ruse to get southern softies to come to Leeds. Like that's going to work.

Well, we already have a the National Army Museum and the Imperial War Museum in London. No need to go bush-whacking up through the disease ridden geordie-infested wastelands!

[Agammamon]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london


Seems like nobody has learnt the lessons of eurofighter!

BTW- do you have a link for that?

'Fraid not. It eas in a print edition of the "Navy Times" and I can't find it on their website. However you can search for "joint strike fighter" and "overweight" and you'll pull up several articles.