Im getting the feeling im going to have to spell everything out very..very slowly
Brian Ross wrote on Sep 25
th, 2013 at 7:37pm:
Why would it be embargoed? Come now, you need to create a realistic, detailed scenario. What nation is sufficiently powerful enough to force an economic embargo on Indonesia that it would become desperate enough and irrational enough to attack Australia?
Why would it strike out at "its resource rich (gold, oil, pasture etc.) Australia"? Indonesia is already resource rich. It has some of the largest gold reserves in the world in West New Guinea. What does it hope to achieve by "striking out" at us?
Why would it be embargoed? who knows, it may not happen maybe guinea wants independent and a massacre unfolds Or a extremist leader is elected who leads the counties now a dark path and the result is an embargo.
Many questions you asked, you can answer your self, don't dumb yourself down.
Brian Ross wrote on Sep 25
th, 2013 at 7:37pm:
Nations which succumb to civil unrest or instability don't suddenly decided to attack other nations. They are invaribly fighting one another on the streets or in civil wars. Undertaking a massive military operation to distract the civilian population from it's troubles is what caused the overthrow of Sukarno (and Peron and Galtarie in Argentina).
.....WoW, uh ok civil unrest or instability in a counties could spread to other nations which is within itself a threat, however if the civil unrest continues long enough it could also become a Humanitarian crisis. Which with a larger military we could help out more and more effectively.
Brian Ross wrote on Sep 25
th, 2013 at 7:37pm:
Syria falls apart, it's a problem for it's neighbours and last time I checked, Syria is not one of ours'. Failed states can represent a problem, we've seen it in the Solomons and nearly in Nauru and PNG but they are our neighbours. They have required stabilisation but they have neither had the means or the will to attack Australia.
Syria falls apart neighbours begin to fall apart world oil supply becomes under threat. i don't know about you but thats seem like a threat to me.
Brian Ross wrote on Sep 25
th, 2013 at 7:37pm:
We have a large modern force. We do experience and play an important and even a main role in military exercises with our allies.
The present size of the ADF is IMHO quite adequate. What is needed is more attention to retention and above all, training and equipment. We can presently sustain the size ADF we have. We cannot sustain a substantially larger force, nor do we need a substantially larger force, I would suggest.
LOL, a 'large modern force', we has a very small force. We have experience and the equipment thanks to the last 10 years (we spent some 20 years of reducing 'toys', and funding because of our lack of foresight. Which resulted in a close run in East timor).
And yes we can afford a larger military..
it would cost between 3 and 4% of GDP. For the last 20 years, we have spent an average of about 2% of GDP on defence, so that means a steep increase. But to put it in historical perspective, during the 1950s and ’60s we spent an average of 3.3% of GDP, so this would take us back to what we spent before the great strategic changes of the early 1970s allowed us, for a time, to ignore the possibility of conflict with great powers.
Australia could afford this level of defence spending. It would mean higher taxes, but our tax levels are still quite low compared to those of other countries. As far as i see it, there is no point building a great nation if you can defend it.