In todays Courier Mail - paywalled.

It would seem our Politicians & ADF advisors  cant come up with an original plan with concerns over Chinese Military strike capabilities  being able to target/reach our northern military bases in the NT, Townsville & Nthn Western Australia because of their setup in the Spratleys in Sth China Sea.

The answer? ....... move our capabilities/bases further south.

What a pack of numpties ::)


Quote:

ADF BASES ON CHINA’S STRIKE LIST CHARLES MIRANDA A WAR-gaming map of potential threats from China’s land-based missile arsenal, which shows strikes across two-thirds of Australia, forms part of a dramatic submission to the highly anticipated Defence Strategic Review. The 33-page document put together by former analysts from Defence and the Rand Corporation paints a stark picture as it argues for Australia’s future military bases, stockpiles and fuel depots to move further south. The report warns the militarisation of artificial reefs and atolls in the South China Sea puts us in range of China’s land-based DF-26 intermediate-range ballistic missiles. The analysis names China’s militarised Mischief Reef as creating a “ring range” over key ADF bases in the Northern Territory, Townsville in Queensland and the top half of Western Australia, notably the sensitive joint Australian-US Naval Communication Station Harold E. Holt. It is such a capability threat that will feature heavily in discussions this week in inaugural AUKUS talks in Washington between Defence Minister Richard Marles and his US and British counterparts.

A sensible conclusion that the ADF has achieved.   [smiley=thumbsup.gif]

Fancy naming a communication station after Harold Holt .... it's jinxed before it even does anything

The Brisbane Line is ancient WW2 stuff, only the jurassic Libs and Labs would think that could work in the 21st Century

Smart move moving some strategic assets out of range of a potential land based enemy attack, however some assets will need to stay in the north for tactical reasons. As for the Brisbane Line, that is a myth that has grown in the telling.

...

Bias_2012 wrote on Dec 5^th, 2022 at 12:30pm:

Fancy naming a communication station after Harold Holt .... it's jinxed before it even does anything The Brisbane Line is ancient WW2 stuff, only the jurassic Libs and Labs would think that could work in the 21st Century

The "Brisbane Line" was disproved in a Royal Commission.  Only fools still believe in it.

Naming a Communication Base after Harold Holt is appropriate, considering his support for the US.  "All the way," and all that jazz... ::) ::)

Belgarion wrote on Dec 5^th, 2022 at 12:51pm:

Smart move moving some strategic assets out of range of a potential land based enemy attack, however some assets will need to stay in the north for tactical reasons. As for the Brisbane Line, that is a myth that has grown in the telling.

The Japs flew sea planes at 300mt height over Sydney and Melbourne in 1942 ... they spotted all the battle ships and reported when they safely returned to their mother subs

Ack Ack guns fired at them too late, and kids in Melbourne went around collecting shrapnel, initially thinking stones were being thrown on their roofs 

Bias_2012 wrote on Dec 5^th, 2022 at 1:55pm:

Belgarion wrote on Dec 5th, 2022 at 12:51pm: Smart move moving some strategic assets out of range of a potential land based enemy attack, however some assets will need to stay in the north for tactical reasons. As for the Brisbane Line, that is a myth that has grown in the telling. The Japs flew sea planes at 300mt height over Sydney and Melbourne in 1942 ... they spotted all the battle ships and reported when they safely returned to their mother subs Ack Ack guns fired at them too late, and kids in Melbourne went around collecting shrapnel, initially thinking stones were being thrown on their roofs

And your point is?  No one is claiming Australia is invulnerable.  All that is being done is a relocation to move assets to less-vulnerable sites, further south.  Sounds like a perfectly reasonable responce to threat being posed. 

Brian Ross wrote on Dec 5^th, 2022 at 2:05pm:

Bias_2012 wrote on Dec 5th, 2022 at 1:55pm: Belgarion wrote on Dec 5th, 2022 at 12:51pm: Smart move moving some strategic assets out of range of a potential land based enemy attack, however some assets will need to stay in the north for tactical reasons. As for the Brisbane Line, that is a myth that has grown in the telling. The Japs flew sea planes at 300mt height over Sydney and Melbourne in 1942 ... they spotted all the battle ships and reported when they safely returned to their mother subs Ack Ack guns fired at them too late, and kids in Melbourne went around collecting shrapnel, initially thinking stones were being thrown on their roofs  And your point is?  No one is claiming Australia is invulnerable.  All that is being done is a relocation to move assets to less-vulnerable sites, further south.  Sounds like a perfectly reasonable responce to threat being posed.

Why - when you would need those supplies/resources in the north to defend it?

That's why it's there is the first place.

My use of the "Brisbane Line" was figuratively speaking because like it's suggestion(proven or not)

someone has now come up with a strategy for perceived foreign threat by retreating(removing) to the south.

The ADF hierarchy & its advisors are a bunch of softcocks like you.

Gnads wrote on Dec 5^th, 2022 at 3:10pm:

Why - when you would need those supplies/resources in the north to defend it? That's why it's there is the first place.

It was moved north in responce to the Dibb Report (1986).  You are aware of the Dibb Report, aren't you?  I would expect someone as knowledgeable as you about all things, would know all about our efforts to defend against Penguin attacks...


Quote:

My use of the "Brisbane Line" was figuratively speaking because like it's suggestion(proven or not) someone has now come up with a strategy for perceived foreign threat by retreating(removing) to the south. The ADF hierarchy & its advisors are a bunch of softcocks like you.

Always the unnecessary insults (which runs against the stated forum rules). 

As I have pointed out the "Brisbane Line" was a falsehood.  It never existed.  Moving some assets further south is a sensible responce to a perceived threat. What would you suggest as an affordable alternative?  How about a useful suggestion instead of just criticism?   ::) ::)

Gnads wrote on Dec 5^th, 2022 at 3:10pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Dec 5th, 2022 at 2:05pm: Bias_2012 wrote on Dec 5th, 2022 at 1:55pm: Belgarion wrote on Dec 5th, 2022 at 12:51pm: Smart move moving some strategic assets out of range of a potential land based enemy attack, however some assets will need to stay in the north for tactical reasons. As for the Brisbane Line, that is a myth that has grown in the telling. The Japs flew sea planes at 300mt height over Sydney and Melbourne in 1942 ... they spotted all the battle ships and reported when they safely returned to their mother subs Ack Ack guns fired at them too late, and kids in Melbourne went around collecting shrapnel, initially thinking stones were being thrown on their roofs  And your point is?  No one is claiming Australia is invulnerable.  All that is being done is a relocation to move assets to less-vulnerable sites, further south.  Sounds like a perfectly reasonable responce to threat being posed.  Why - when you would need those supplies/resources in the north to defend it? That's why it's there is the first place. My use of the "Brisbane Line" was figuratively speaking because like it's suggestion(proven or not) someone has now come up with a strategy for perceived foreign threat by retreating(removing) to the south. The ADF hierarchy & its advisors are a bunch of softcocks like you.

What is your solution then? Please describe the best distribution of defence assets to achieve the maximum survivability in the event of an attack.

Belgarion wrote on Dec 5^th, 2022 at 4:42pm:

Gnads wrote on Dec 5th, 2022 at 3:10pm: Brian Ross wrote on Dec 5th, 2022 at 2:05pm: Bias_2012 wrote on Dec 5th, 2022 at 1:55pm: Belgarion wrote on Dec 5th, 2022 at 12:51pm: Smart move moving some strategic assets out of range of a potential land based enemy attack, however some assets will need to stay in the north for tactical reasons. As for the Brisbane Line, that is a myth that has grown in the telling. The Japs flew sea planes at 300mt height over Sydney and Melbourne in 1942 ... they spotted all the battle ships and reported when they safely returned to their mother subs Ack Ack guns fired at them too late, and kids in Melbourne went around collecting shrapnel, initially thinking stones were being thrown on their roofs  And your point is?  No one is claiming Australia is invulnerable.  All that is being done is a relocation to move assets to less-vulnerable sites, further south.  Sounds like a perfectly reasonable responce to threat being posed.  Why - when you would need those supplies/resources in the north to defend it? That's why it's there is the first place. My use of the "Brisbane Line" was figuratively speaking because like it's suggestion(proven or not) someone has now come up with a strategy for perceived foreign threat by retreating(removing) to the south. The ADF hierarchy & its advisors are a bunch of softcocks like you. What is your solution then? Please describe the best distribution of defence assets to achieve the maximum survivability in the event of an attack.

So you think moving everything to the south will help defend against an attack from the north?

Or is it because more people live in the south & those in the north are expendable?

Solution?

Leave it where it is.

Brian Ross wrote on Dec 5^th, 2022 at 3:21pm:

Gnads wrote on Dec 5th, 2022 at 3:10pm: Why - when you would need those supplies/resources in the north to defend it? That's why it's there is the first place. It was moved north in responce to the Dibb Report (1986).  You are aware of the Dibb Report, aren't you?  I would expect someone as knowledgeable as you about all things, would know all about our efforts to defend against Penguin attacks... Quote: My use of the "Brisbane Line" was figuratively speaking because like it's suggestion(proven or not) someone has now come up with a strategy for perceived foreign threat by retreating(removing) to the south. The ADF hierarchy & its advisors are a bunch of softcocks like you. Always the unnecessary insults (which runs against the stated forum rules).  As I have pointed out the "Brisbane Line" was a falsehood.  It never existed.  Moving some assets further south is a sensible responce to a perceived threat. What would you suggest as an affordable alternative?  How about a useful suggestion instead of just criticism?   ::) ::)

Repeating that the Brisbane Line was a non event when I've already explained why I used it isn't a useful response.

Whether it existed or not is irrelevant but when it was put about at least there was an actual war & threat of attack & invasion which eventuated.

The ADF & it's advisors are talking about doing something similar with this suggestion.

Are they sure that China will attack us in the near future?

My suggestion is to leave our defence capabilities where they are.....

What do penguins have to do with the Dibb Report? Your comments that it had any relevance to the Dibb Report is also of no use.

Not all of Dibbs recommendations were acted on.

Maintaining our capabilities in nthn WA, the NT & FNQ  should still be a priority.

Gnads wrote on Dec 5^th, 2022 at 7:04pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Dec 5th, 2022 at 3:21pm: Repeating that the Brisbane Line was a non event when I've already explained why I used it isn't a useful response. Your repeating of the same tired old line still doesn't make it any more valid, Gnads. Quote: Whether it existed or not is irrelevant but when it was put about at least there was an actual war & threat of attack & invasion which eventuated. We were invaded?  Really?  Where? When?   You exaggerate things. [quote] The ADF & it's advisors are talking about doing something similar with this suggestion. Are they sure that China will attack us in the near future?

They are being cautious, nothing more.  You appear to have problems with people being cautious about an unlikely eventuality. Why?  The PRC is unlikely to have the capability to invade Australia, we are simply too far away from China.  Any danger would be from an ICBM.  Unlikely but a possibility which our defence forces should be aware of and take precautions against.


Quote:

My suggestion is to leave our defence capabilities where they are.....

Admiral Kimmel thought the same thing about Pearl Harbor in 1941.  "The Japanese will never dare to attack us here!"  He declared.  Well we all know how that turned out. 


Quote:

What do penguins have to do with the Dibb Report? Your comments that it had any relevance to the Dibb Report is also of no use.

You have just demonstrated your ignorance about Australian Defence matters, Gnads.  Go away, educate yourself.   ::) ::)


Quote:

Not all of Dibbs recommendations were acted on.

No, they weren't.  Hawke was too much of a, "soft cock" and instead acted to appease the US on the issue.


Quote:

Maintaining our capabilities in nthn WA, the NT & FNQ  should still be a priority.

Why?  There is no direct threat to these regions, Gnads.   ::) ::)

Brian Ross wrote on Dec 5^th, 2022 at 7:40pm:

Gnads wrote on Dec 5th, 2022 at 7:04pm: Brian Ross wrote on Dec 5th, 2022 at 3:21pm: Repeating that the Brisbane Line was a non event when I've already explained why I used it isn't a useful response. Your repeating of the same tired old line still doesn't make it any more valid, Gnads. Quote: Whether it existed or not is irrelevant but when it was put about at least there was an actual war & threat of attack & invasion which eventuated. We were invaded?  Really?  Where? When?   You exaggerate things. [quote] The ADF & it's advisors are talking about doing something similar with this suggestion. Are they sure that China will attack us in the near future? They are being cautious, nothing more.  You appear to have problems with people being cautious about an unlikely eventuality. Why?  The PRC is unlikely to have the capability to invade Australia, we are simply too far away from China.  Any danger would be from an ICBM.  Unlikely but a possibility which our defence forces should be aware of and take precautions against. [quote] My suggestion is to leave our defence capabilities where they are.....

Admiral Kimmel thought the same thing about Pearl Harbor in 1941.  "The Japanese will never dare to attack us here!"  He declared.  Well we all know how that turned out. 


Quote:

What do penguins have to do with the Dibb Report? Your comments that it had any relevance to the Dibb Report is also of no use.

You have just demonstrated your ignorance about Australian Defence matters, Gnads.  Go away, educate yourself.   ::) ::)


Quote:

Not all of Dibbs recommendations were acted on.

No, they weren't.  Hawke was too much of a, "soft cock" and instead acted to appease the US on the issue.


Quote:

Maintaining our capabilities in nthn WA, the NT & FNQ  should still be a priority.

Why?  There is no direct threat to these regions, Gnads.   ::) ::)[/quote]


Which is repeating what old line?

I said "threat" of invasion, there was no exaggeration-  you grabbed one word out the whole paragraph & misrepresented what was said - that's being selective & dishonest.

PNG was pretty close - so were some of the islands in the Solomons.

Take precautions for an "unlikely" event by running away?

If we are too far away for China to invade why would the hit us with ICBMs?

Soften us up & leave us be? The world is now a small place.... the PRC/CCP have not only set up in the Sth China Sea ... they are angling all through the Pacific ..... buying their way into the Solomons, PNG, Timor Leste ..... and becoming Debt Masters in Africa & Sth America.

They would be able to reach where ever they wanted too.

So the Yanks should have pulled their fleet out of Pearl Harbour? Where to?
What happened there was a lack of intelligence or the ignoring of intelligence.

It got the reluctant Yanks into the war though didn't it?

And an attack from China isn't going to come from the north?

They're going to come at us from the Antarctic with all their Attack Penguins?

I'd suggest to you that if you're going to tell people to go away & get educated to your fictitious standards to offer an opinion in this MRB that you're not suited to be running it.

You should go away.

Gnads wrote on Dec 7^th, 2022 at 5:52am:

Which is repeating what old line? I said "threat" of invasion, there was no exaggeration-  you grabbed one word out the whole paragraph & misrepresented what was said - that's being selective & dishonest.

You're right.  I apologise.  I misread your comment.


Quote:

PNG was pretty close - so were some of the islands in the Solomons.

PNG, like all Japanese operations was run on shoestring. They lied to themselves that they could sustain two operations - PNG and Guadalcanal simultaneously.  Thankfully they never attempted an attack on Australia.  I would have been a slaughter for the Japanese.  Australia was simply too far from their bases in the north Pacific.


Quote:

Take precautions for an "unlikely" event by running away?

Easier than investing in systems which might likely never see use.


Quote:

If we are too far away for China to invade why would the hit us with ICBMs?

Very unlikely but as long as we host US bases and forces it is a possibility.


Quote:

Soften us up & leave us be? The world is now a small place.... the PRC/CCP have not only set up in the Sth China Sea ... they are angling all through the Pacific ..... buying their way into the Solomons, PNG, Timor Leste ..... and becoming Debt Masters in Africa & Sth America. They would be able to reach where ever they wanted too.

Doubtful.  They lack the ability and the experience.  Just like the Japanese.  We are simply too far for them to contemplate such an operation.  They would have been much better just buying what they want.  We would have been more than happy to sell it.  They have missed their chance in the regard.


Quote:

So the Yanks should have pulled their fleet out of Pearl Harbour? Where to? What happened there was a lack of intelligence or the ignoring of intelligence. It got the reluctant Yanks into the war though didn't it?

It still meant that Japan attacked, what ever the cause.  The Americans had been patrolling to the North and West for months before hand but they assumed that no one could operate in the Winter months in the North Pacific because they found it too difficult to do so.  The Japanese decided otherwise and attacked.

America was reluctant because they were "isolationist".  Their experience in Europe had not been good in WWI so they decided they no longer wanted to play so they stayed home.  Unfortunately the world came a knockin'.


Quote:

And an attack from China isn't going to come from the north? They're going to come at us from the Antarctic with all their Attack Penguins?

No.  Your ignorance is showing again, Gnads.  You really do need to educate yourself.

I have tolerated your comments thus far, Gnads.  No more.  Educate yourself before you make an even bigger fool of yourself.  You have twice violated the forum rules and I have allowed your comments through. You are not the moderator.  I am. ::) ::)

Obey the stated forum rules, Gnads or you will be banned, understand?