Australia to boost defence spending

[webfact]

Australia to boost defence spending

CANBERRA: -- Australia has announced a surge in defence spending, a move that reflects concern over military expansion in the region.

Military spending will grow by A$29.9b ($21.4b, £15.4b) over next 10 years, the 2016 Defence White Paper outlined.

The largest investment will be made in submarines, with investment also being made in additional naval vessels, fighter jets and personnel.

Full story: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-35657021


-- BBC 2016-02-25

[Publicus]

This is Australia's reply to the CCP Dictators in Beijing who for the past several years have been trying unsuccessfully to separate the US allies, partners and friendly nations of this region from the United States. The goal in Beijing is for the CCP to dominate the region in economics and militarily.

Central to the sinister purposes of the CCP is to turn the South China Sea into a Chinese lake and to control the $5 Trillion of international trade routes through the Sea, to include oil shipments from the ME to Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Australia, Asean.

CCP Dictators in Beijing are certain Australia will have to submit to Beijing due to CCP's economic power and its programmatic military growth in the region. Given that it is impossible to change the ancient absolutist Middle Kingdom fantasy mindset of the Chinese elites, Australia is taking the required military actions to deal with the CCP pigheaded aggressors in Beijing.

Australia is acting in this way because the Chinese elites never compromise the absolutism of their Middle Kingdom fantasies carried to the present. Other countries of the region are doing the same, to include Japan, South Korea, India, Vietnam, Malaysia, Singapore, Philippines, Indonesia, New Zealand. Which is why CCP can never dominate the region on any basis.

[TPI]

Well, it's all very well for Oz to spend the money on defence but! If they're going to spend it the way they built the Collins class subs (80% of the money paid before the first keel was laid!) or the way they built and manned the Huen class mine destroyers (read badly built tug boats) or God save us, the shmozzle with the JORN radar (that should have caught the signal of MH370 from Malasia to when it ditched.....but didn't?)! And lets not talk at all about the fiasco of the Tobruk class rust buckets!

Now it's the F35!

Interoperaterbility (whew) might be a good thing but what will happen if the US decides that ANZUS is not worth the candle against say......Indonesia? The reason the Indo's were polite to Oz for all of those years is because they thought we had the "bomb"! They couldn't believe that we had the best delivery system in the world for "the bomb" (F111's) and didn't have any!!!!

So now, with all of this high tech gear when are we going to invade New Zealand? It's going to be the only country we can beat any time soon!

[JingerBen]

This is Australia's reply to the CCP Dictators in Beijing who for the past several years have been trying unsuccessfully to separate the US allies, partners and friendly nations of this region from the United States. The goal in Beijing is for the CCP to dominate the region in economics and militarily.

Central to the sinister purposes of the CCP is to turn the South China Sea into a Chinese lake and to control the $5 Trillion of international trade routes through the Sea, to include oil shipments from the ME to Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Australia, Asean.

CCP Dictators in Beijing are certain Australia will have to submit to Beijing due to CCP's economic power and its programmatic military growth in the region. Given that it is impossible to change the ancient absolutist Middle Kingdom fantasy mindset of the Chinese elites, Australia is taking the required military actions to deal with the CCP pigheaded aggressors in Beijing.

Australia is acting in this way because the Chinese elites never compromise the absolutism of their Middle Kingdom fantasies carried to the present. Other countries of the region are doing the same, to include Japan, South Korea, India, Vietnam, Malaysia, Singapore, Philippines, Indonesia, New Zealand. Which is why CCP can never dominate the region on any basis.

Your simple-minded analysis is based on ignorance and prejudice.

The Chinese have experienced de facto colonization in the 19th and early 20th centuries by Europe and America. After that, a period of chaos and Communist revolution followed by an abominable dictatorship imposed on them by old Marxist knuckleheads.

The social and economic progress that they have made in recent times has been incredible and laudable.

They are a force to be reckoned with now... and not just because of their military.

[Publicus]

Well, it's all very well for Oz to spend the money on defence but! If they're going to spend it the way they built the Collins class subs (80% of the money paid before the first keel was laid!) or the way they built and manned the Huen class mine destroyers (read badly built tug boats) or God save us, the shmozzle with the JORN radar (that should have caught the signal of MH370 from Malasia to when it ditched.....but didn't?)! And lets not talk at all about the fiasco of the Tobruk class rust buckets!

Now it's the F35!

Interoperaterbility (whew) might be a good thing but what will happen if the US decides that ANZUS is not worth the candle against say......Indonesia? The reason the Indo's were polite to Oz for all of those years is because they thought we had the "bomb"! They couldn't believe that we had the best delivery system in the world for "the bomb" (F111's) and didn't have any!!!!

So now, with all of this high tech gear when are we going to invade New Zealand? It's going to be the only country we can beat any time soon!

The points made in the post have already been well taken in Canberra. The new line of defense assets are of an indisputable high quality and include, as noted, an interoperability not previously considered.

CCP Dictators in Beijing understand only one thing, which is military force. The Chinese haven't ever been effective using military force which is why the history of the Chinese elites is to always try to win without ever firing a shot.

Nor has it ever been a matter of Chinese elites being more clever because the Chinese elites are not clever. Deceptive and duplicitous yes, clever no. Throughout the 20th century and in the IT environment of the 21st century the CCP elites in China have become too well known, exposed. They have as the direct consequence run out of tricks to play. An old dog uses old tricks, which doesn't cut it.

CCP just last week caved to Indonesia over Beijing's claims to Indonesia's Natuna Islands on the southern edge of CCP's nine dash line in the SCS. Beijing said oops and yes, the Natunas and their territorial waters are Indonesian after all. This was after Indonesia late last year moved 40 naval warships to the Natuna islands to assert its sovereignty there. The Chinese elites have always hated a fight and will go to any lengths when confronted by a fight, no matter what.

CCP are however anxious to play with their new weapons and their technologies. Sort of like a dumb nerd kid with new toys who believes they'll help him to stop getting his arse kicked out on the street.

[AlexRRR]

Well, it's all very well for Oz to spend the money on defence but! If they're going to spend it the way they built the Collins class subs (80% of the money paid before the first keel was laid!) or the way they built and manned the Huen class mine destroyers (read badly built tug boats) or God save us, the shmozzle with the JORN radar (that should have caught the signal of MH370 from Malasia to when it ditched.....but didn't?)! And lets not talk at all about the fiasco of the Tobruk class rust buckets!

Now it's the F35!

Interoperaterbility (whew) might be a good thing but what will happen if the US decides that ANZUS is not worth the candle against say......Indonesia? The reason the Indo's were polite to Oz for all of those years is because they thought we had the "bomb"! They couldn't believe that we had the best delivery system in the world for "the bomb" (F111's) and didn't have any!!!!

So now, with all of this high tech gear when are we going to invade New Zealand? It's going to be the only country we can beat any time soon!

The points made in the post have already been well taken in Canberra. The new line of defense assets are of an indisputable high quality and include, as noted, an interoperability not previously considered.

CCP Dictators in Beijing understand only one thing, which is military force. The Chinese haven't ever been effective using military force which is why the history of the Chinese elites is to always try to win without ever firing a shot.

Nor has it ever been a matter of Chinese elites being more clever because the Chinese elites are not clever. Deceptive and duplicitous yes, clever no. Throughout the 20th century and in the IT environment of the 21st century the CCP elites in China have become too well known, exposed. They have as the direct consequence run out of tricks to play. An old dog uses old tricks, which doesn't cut it.

CCP just last week caved to Indonesia over Beijing's claims to Indonesia's Natuna Islands on the southern edge of CCP's nine dash line in the SCS. Beijing said oops and yes, the Natunas and their territorial waters are Indonesian after all. This was after Indonesia late last year moved 40 naval warships to the Natuna islands to assert its sovereignty there. The Chinese elites have always hated a fight and will go to any lengths when confronted by a fight, no matter what.

CCP are however anxious to play with their new weapons and their technologies. Sort of like a dumb nerd kid with new toys who believes they'll help him to stop getting his arse kicked out on the street.

Australia has increased its defense spending because them new subs we been needing to replace for the last 30 years will now cost us 50 billion, were not buying any new missiles our increasing the size of our army so get your facts right buddy, and further more AU from time to time like playing a colonial power just like big brother but few take us seriously, the only thing were interested is in the Chinese to buy even more iron ore from us...who cares what they make out of it.

Edited February 25, 2016 by AlexRRR

[simple1]

Australia has increased its defense spending because them new subs we been needing to replace for the last 30 years will now cost us 50 billion, were not buying any new missiles our increasing the size of our army < snip>

Not entirely correct, have a read of the URL below.

http://www.watoday.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/defence-white-paper-new-submarine-fleet-to-cost-taxpayers-150-billion-20160224-gn32kg.html

[Publicus]

This is Australia's reply to the CCP Dictators in Beijing who for the past several years have been trying unsuccessfully to separate the US allies, partners and friendly nations of this region from the United States. The goal in Beijing is for the CCP to dominate the region in economics and militarily.

Central to the sinister purposes of the CCP is to turn the South China Sea into a Chinese lake and to control the $5 Trillion of international trade routes through the Sea, to include oil shipments from the ME to Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Australia, Asean.

CCP Dictators in Beijing are certain Australia will have to submit to Beijing due to CCP's economic power and its programmatic military growth in the region. Given that it is impossible to change the ancient absolutist Middle Kingdom fantasy mindset of the Chinese elites, Australia is taking the required military actions to deal with the CCP pigheaded aggressors in Beijing.

Australia is acting in this way because the Chinese elites never compromise the absolutism of their Middle Kingdom fantasies carried to the present. Other countries of the region are doing the same, to include Japan, South Korea, India, Vietnam, Malaysia, Singapore, Philippines, Indonesia, New Zealand. Which is why CCP can never dominate the region on any basis.

Your simple-minded analysis is based on ignorance and prejudice.

The Chinese have experienced de facto colonization in the 19th and early 20th centuries by Europe and America. After that, a period of chaos and Communist revolution followed by an abominable dictatorship imposed on them by old Marxist knuckleheads.

The social and economic progress that they have made in recent times has been incredible and laudable.

They are a force to be reckoned with now... and not just because of their military.

Your simple-minded analysis is based on ignorance and prejudice.

Tell us about the CCP Chinese fenqing. The fenqquing said the identical thing to me while I was in the CCP China. The fenqing said moreover I was "arrogant and ignorant." So now it's your turn so enjoy.

Meanwhile tell us all about it and about the CCP-created fenqing thx. (There is a variation in transliteration to English.)

Since the 1990s, a new student nationalism has emerged, one that is louder, more demanding, and more spontaneous than its predecessors. The new nationalists are angry — so much so that the Chinese description for those that display a high degree of nationalism, feng quing, literally means “angry youth.” The angry youth are members of the “fourth generation”— that is, they have grown up in the relative material prosperity and ease of China’s reform and opening, under Deng Xiaoping.

The CCP itself has had a hand in the creation of the angry youth. Beginning in the 1990s, the Chinese state has systematically encouraged patriotism and nationalist sentiment in its student population with a campaign of “patriotic education” (aiguo zhu yi jia yu).

http://soundideas.pugetsound.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1002&context=honors_program_theses

The CCP's fenqing (spelling variation) agree with you. Chinese fenqing are irredentist, revanchist, militarist. They hate the United States and Japan. Warmongers of the CCP which Australia is defending itself against too.

The variation of transliteration to English is either or both "angry youth" or "shit youth."

Edited February 25, 2016 by Publicus

[AlexRRR]

Australia has increased its defense spending because them new subs we been needing to replace for the last 30 years will now cost us 50 billion, were not buying any new missiles our increasing the size of our army < snip>

Not entirely correct, have a read of the URL below.

http://www.watoday.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/defence-white-paper-new-submarine-fleet-to-cost-taxpayers-150-billion-20160224-gn32kg.html

I live in AU, there has been no big "news" about spending, what i read in you link is the defence budget spread over many years which is normal here, hardly a war dance going on down here over perceived chinese aggression and expansion polices.

The choice of words by the other member who's posted on this thread is no better than the perceived threat, i really don't care who he is, he makes out like his some big shot know all....well buddy get a job at the pentagon.

[up2u2]

lmao China v Australia in a military conflict. It would be over in a day and $29 billion dollars increase over 10 years? Peanuts. An extra 5000 troupes. Really? China has a standing army of 2.3 million Australia 60,000. Australia would struggle to take on Indonesia in a military battle. $29 billion would make Indonesia a fair fight but no guarantee of winning.

[Publicus]

Well, it's all very well for Oz to spend the money on defence but! If they're going to spend it the way they built the Collins class subs (80% of the money paid before the first keel was laid!) or the way they built and manned the Huen class mine destroyers (read badly built tug boats) or God save us, the shmozzle with the JORN radar (that should have caught the signal of MH370 from Malasia to when it ditched.....but didn't?)! And lets not talk at all about the fiasco of the Tobruk class rust buckets!

Now it's the F35!

Interoperaterbility (whew) might be a good thing but what will happen if the US decides that ANZUS is not worth the candle against say......Indonesia? The reason the Indo's were polite to Oz for all of those years is because they thought we had the "bomb"! They couldn't believe that we had the best delivery system in the world for "the bomb" (F111's) and didn't have any!!!!

So now, with all of this high tech gear when are we going to invade New Zealand? It's going to be the only country we can beat any time soon!

The points made in the post have already been well taken in Canberra. The new line of defense assets are of an indisputable high quality and include, as noted, an interoperability not previously considered.

CCP Dictators in Beijing understand only one thing, which is military force. The Chinese haven't ever been effective using military force which is why the history of the Chinese elites is to always try to win without ever firing a shot.

Nor has it ever been a matter of Chinese elites being more clever because the Chinese elites are not clever. Deceptive and duplicitous yes, clever no. Throughout the 20th century and in the IT environment of the 21st century the CCP elites in China have become too well known, exposed. They have as the direct consequence run out of tricks to play. An old dog uses old tricks, which doesn't cut it.

CCP just last week caved to Indonesia over Beijing's claims to Indonesia's Natuna Islands on the southern edge of CCP's nine dash line in the SCS. Beijing said oops and yes, the Natunas and their territorial waters are Indonesian after all. This was after Indonesia late last year moved 40 naval warships to the Natuna islands to assert its sovereignty there. The Chinese elites have always hated a fight and will go to any lengths when confronted by a fight, no matter what.

CCP are however anxious to play with their new weapons and their technologies. Sort of like a dumb nerd kid with new toys who believes they'll help him to stop getting his arse kicked out on the street.

Australia has increased its defense spending because them new subs we been needing to replace for the last 30 years will now cost us 50 billion, were not buying any new missiles our increasing the size of our army so get your facts right buddy, and further more AU from time to time like playing a colonial power just like big brother but few take us seriously, the only thing were interested is in the Chinese to buy even more iron ore from us...who cares what they make out of it.

so get your facts right buddy

Canberra has agreed to accept B-2 stealth bombers at its RAAF base near Darwin and has accepted 2500 US Marines stationed nearby there on a rotating basis, on Australian soil.

US and Australia already operate the biggest US intelligence station outside of the USA, near Alice Springs which has 24 huge dishes to detect everything from a bomb test in North Korea to Xi Shitping sneezing inside the CCP walled huge ZongNanHai complex in Beijing.

Australia is increasing the size of its army as you'd know if you read the OP, okay pal?

Your government said it would spend Aus$195 billion (US$139 billion) over the next decade, including a doubling of its submarine fleet to 24, three additional destroyers, nine new combat frigates and 12 offshore patrol boats.

Your guyz in Canberra are purchasing seven US-made MQ-4C Triton drones and eight P-8A Poseidon recon aircraft. Your guyz are buying 72 F-35s Joint Strike Fighters and they are getting a bunch of new amored vehicles (okay, armoured).

Some 2,500 new military roles will be created to expand the total defence force to 62,400 personnel, with 900 jobs focused on improved cyber, intelligence and space security.

John Blaxland, the military expert at the Australian National University’s Strategic and Defence Studies Center, notes that,

In a world where the clouds are getting darker and where power dynamics are shifting and that shifting is creating rub points that could turn into spark points, the insurance policy which is the… Australian Defence Force is becoming less politically contentious.

Read more: http://www.defencetalk.com/australia-unveils-massive-increase-in-defence-spending-66847/#ixzz41B1nBQvl

In the next two decades half the world's submarines and half its combat aircraft will be concentrated in the Asia-Pacific strategic region.

The PM Turnbull has stated that once the International Arbitration Tribunal rules on the Phils challenge of the CCP in the South China Sea, the Australian Navy will join the US Navy in joint patrols in the SCS. Youse guyz are already doing air recon flights over the SCS. India said last month its discussing with Washington joint naval patrols. Japan has announced it will do air recon patrols over the SCS.

CCP Boyz aren't going anywhere soon. Or ever. Their fanboyz are just going to have to get used to it. CCP's stock market crashed again yesterday. It's a regular thing over there. It's a prelude to the whole thing crashing down before too much longer. Everyone's shorting China and Xi is furious. It's been said the only thing worse than a rising China is a falling China.

[Publicus]

Australia has increased its defense spending because them new subs we been needing to replace for the last 30 years will now cost us 50 billion, were not buying any new missiles our increasing the size of our army < snip>

Not entirely correct, have a read of the URL below.

http://www.watoday.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/defence-white-paper-new-submarine-fleet-to-cost-taxpayers-150-billion-20160224-gn32kg.html

I live in AU, there has been no big "news" about spending, what i read in you link is the defence budget spread over many years which is normal here, hardly a war dance going on down here over perceived chinese aggression and expansion polices.

The choice of words by the other member who's posted on this thread is no better than the perceived threat, i really don't care who he is, he makes out like his some big shot know all....well buddy get a job at the pentagon.

i really don't care who he is, he makes out like his some big shot know all....well buddy get a job at the pentagon.

Whether it is envy or jealousy or just a plain dislike makes no difference against the facts of the posts and in respect of the OP.

I was in the US Army at the Pentagon and later as a civilian was professional staff of the US Congress in Washington.

And you?

It could seem your expertise at the thread is that you live in Australia. That's all well and good. However, it is not enough for the purposes of the thread or topic. Woefully insufficient nevermind adequate.

We're counting on you in all of this to pay your taxes and to vote, nothing more. If you like Donald Trump then move into Trump Tower (but forget about the White House).

[Publicus]

lmao China v Australia in a military conflict. It would be over in a day and $29 billion dollars increase over 10 years? Peanuts. An extra 5000 troupes. Really? China has a standing army of 2.3 million Australia 60,000. Australia would struggle to take on Indonesia in a military battle. $29 billion would make Indonesia a fair fight but no guarantee of winning.

Australia has never stood alone (except for UK in 1942) and it does not presently stand alone against the Chinese Communist Party Dictators and Tyrants in Beijing.

Australia and the United States have been formal national security treaty allies since December 7, 1941 to the present and going forward.

Others are formal treaty national security allies, namely New Zealand, Philippines, Japan, Thailand, in this region of the world. Others have entered recently into "strategic agreement" with the US, such as India, Vietnam, Singapore, Malaysia among others. Don't forget Taiwan where World War III is supposed to start but won't cause CCP is going to have to give up on it, ever so quietly and long term.

CCP has been unsuccessful in its long term strategy to try to separate US allies, partner nations and friends of this region from the United States itself. We're all going to keep it that way now aren't we. This South China Sea thingy is both the end of the beginning for the CCP and the beginning of the end.

Reality is the Chinese Century ended before it began.

Edited February 25, 2016 by Publicus

[simple1]

If anyone is interested the Defense White Paper - 2016 is now available for download; URL below. There are a number of issues talked to such as the conflicts in the M.E., potential for conflict between India & Pakistan, Indonesia is viewed more as an ally than a threat and so on. However, the primary focus is the Oz / US alliance focusing on the Indo-Pacific Region.

Australia’s strategic outlook to 2035 also includes a number of challenges which we need to prepare for. While there is no more than a remote prospect of a military attack by another country on Australian territory in the foreseeable future, our strategic planning is not limited to defending our borders. Our planning recognises the regional and global nature of Australia’s strategic interests and the different sets of challenges created by the behaviours of countries and non-state actors such as terrorists

.

The roles of the United States and China and the relationship between them will continue to be the most strategically important factors in the Indo-Pacific region to 2035. A strong and deep alliance is at the core of Australia’s security and defence planning. The United States will remain the pre-eminent global military power and will continue to be Australia’s most important strategic partner. Through this Defence White Paper, Australia will seek to broaden and deepen our alliance with the United States, including by supporting its critical role in underpinning security in our region through the continued rebalance of United States military forces.

http://www.defence.gov.au/Whitepaper/Docs/2016-Defence-White-Paper.pdf

Edited February 25, 2016 by simple1

[NeverSure]

Well, it's all very well for Oz to spend the money on defence but! If they're going to spend it the way they built the Collins class subs (80% of the money paid before the first keel was laid!) or the way they built and manned the Huen class mine destroyers (read badly built tug boats) or God save us, the shmozzle with the JORN radar (that should have caught the signal of MH370 from Malasia to when it ditched.....but didn't?)! And lets not talk at all about the fiasco of the Tobruk class rust buckets!

Now it's the F35!

Interoperaterbility (whew) might be a good thing but what will happen if the US decides that ANZUS is not worth the candle against say......Indonesia? The reason the Indo's were polite to Oz for all of those years is because they thought we had the "bomb"! They couldn't believe that we had the best delivery system in the world for "the bomb" (F111's) and didn't have any!!!!

So now, with all of this high tech gear when are we going to invade New Zealand? It's going to be the only country we can beat any time soon!

You write as if Australia had to stand alone. It is China which stands alone in all of this. At all times the US has assets in the water that China KNOWS it doesn't know about or where they are. Let's start but not stop with nuclear powered stealth submarines. At all times Diego Garcia is in range and just around the corner and loaded for bear.

Americans and other signatories to defense treaties, many of them in Asia, will NEVER leave Australia on its own.

Never.

Cheers.

[AlexRRR]

Publicus your using this form to push an agenda, updating our defence equipment is normal, some times we increase defence budget and other times we trim it, it's NORMAL here, stay out of Australia we don't need some big mouth mouthing off and taking what is actually going on out of contex, like I said before I live in au I know what's going on you don't.

[Publicus]

Publicus your using this form to push an agenda, updating our defence equipment is normal, some times we increase defence budget and other times we trim it, it's NORMAL here, stay out of Australia we don't need some big mouth mouthing off and taking what is actually going on out of contex, like I said before I live in au I know what's going on you don't.

Still plugging away and hanging tough eh. The little train that could.

Gets me to think of the old saying to lead, follow or get out of the way. Problem is you're not doing any one of 'em.

Do carry on.

[webfact]

China angered by Australia military spending boost

LONDON: -- China has responded angrily to Australia's Defence White Paper which outlines a surge in military spending.

A boost of A$29.9b ($21.4b, £15.4b) over the next decade reflects concern over military expansion in the region.

The white paper reiterates Australia's objection to the reclamation of land in the South China Sea and urges ASEAN and China to agree on a code of conduct.

Full story: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-35665400

-- BBC 2016-02-26

[up2u2]

Well, it's all very well for Oz to spend the money on defence but! If they're going to spend it the way they built the Collins class subs (80% of the money paid before the first keel was laid!) or the way they built and manned the Huen class mine destroyers (read badly built tug boats) or God save us, the shmozzle with the JORN radar (that should have caught the signal of MH370 from Malasia to when it ditched.....but didn't?)! And lets not talk at all about the fiasco of the Tobruk class rust buckets!

Now it's the F35!

Interoperaterbility (whew) might be a good thing but what will happen if the US decides that ANZUS is not worth the candle against say......Indonesia? The reason the Indo's were polite to Oz for all of those years is because they thought we had the "bomb"! They couldn't believe that we had the best delivery system in the world for "the bomb" (F111's) and didn't have any!!!!

So now, with all of this high tech gear when are we going to invade New Zealand? It's going to be the only country we can beat any time soon!

You write as if Australia had to stand alone. It is China which stands alone in all of this. At all times the US has assets in the water that China KNOWS it doesn't know about or where they are. Let's start but not stop with nuclear powered stealth submarines. At all times Diego Garcia is in range and just around the corner and loaded for bear.

Americans and other signatories to defense treaties, many of them in Asia, will NEVER leave Australia on its own.

Never.

Cheers.

Simply not accurate. Australia has no treaty with America that requires them to assist it militarily. Australia would need to stand alone. We do assist America as a spy satellite pipeline at Pine Gap in the southern hemisphere. Other than that Australia is of little interest to America. It really is a myth that Australia and America have a military alliance in place. There would be a lot of talk and condemnation but that would be about it. Not worth the effort for America to face off against China over Australia which has little to no value to it economically.

[Rancid]

I don't have a problem with Australia updating its military as long as it does so in a way that is useful to the DEFENCE of Australia and not just to help bomb the crap out of ME countries that have nothing to do with us.

As to allies it should be remembered that the English hung us out to dry in WW2, not out of malice but due to putting their own interests first.

Also in same war no doubt the US saved our &lt;deleted&gt;. However as I recall the president was initially not the least interested, it was MacArthur that talked him into it as being purely in their strategic interest.

Allies are fine but you need to be able to stand up for yourself. As such Australia needs to make it very costly to attack. Sadly good combat aircraft are being replaced with a lemon so there is one line of defence eroded already. Although I respect the Oz soldier I really have little faith in Oz military planners.

[Publicus]

Well, it's all very well for Oz to spend the money on defence but! If they're going to spend it the way they built the Collins class subs (80% of the money paid before the first keel was laid!) or the way they built and manned the Huen class mine destroyers (read badly built tug boats) or God save us, the shmozzle with the JORN radar (that should have caught the signal of MH370 from Malasia to when it ditched.....but didn't?)! And lets not talk at all about the fiasco of the Tobruk class rust buckets!

Now it's the F35!

Interoperaterbility (whew) might be a good thing but what will happen if the US decides that ANZUS is not worth the candle against say......Indonesia? The reason the Indo's were polite to Oz for all of those years is because they thought we had the "bomb"! They couldn't believe that we had the best delivery system in the world for "the bomb" (F111's) and didn't have any!!!!

So now, with all of this high tech gear when are we going to invade New Zealand? It's going to be the only country we can beat any time soon!

You write as if Australia had to stand alone. It is China which stands alone in all of this. At all times the US has assets in the water that China KNOWS it doesn't know about or where they are. Let's start but not stop with nuclear powered stealth submarines. At all times Diego Garcia is in range and just around the corner and loaded for bear.

Americans and other signatories to defense treaties, many of them in Asia, will NEVER leave Australia on its own.

Never.

Cheers.

Simply not accurate. Australia has no treaty with America that requires them to assist it militarily. Australia would need to stand alone. We do assist America as a spy satellite pipeline at Pine Gap in the southern hemisphere. Other than that Australia is of little interest to America. It really is a myth that Australia and America have a military alliance in place. There would be a lot of talk and condemnation but that would be about it. Not worth the effort for America to face off against China over Australia which has little to no value to it economically.

You'd best advise the US Government and the Australian Government of the fact the treaty they signed in 1951 didn't happen and doesn't exist. All of this time besides.

From the website of the US State Department....

The Australia, New Zealand and United States Security Treaty (ANZUS Treaty), 1951

In April of 1951, U.S. President Harry Truman announced that negotiations on a tripartite security treaty between the United States, Australia and New Zealand would occur concurrently with the negotiations for a final peace treaty with Japan. Both treaties were concluded in mid-1951, and the ANZUS Treaty was ratified by the United States and entered into force in 1952.

In 1984, the ANZUS Treaty began to unravel when New Zealand declared its country a nuclear-free zone and refused to allow U.S. nuclear-powered submarines to visit its ports. Two years later, U.S. Secretary of State George P. Schultz and Australian Foreign Minister Bill Hayden concluded a series of bilateral talks by confirming that their countries would continue to honor their obligations to one another under the ANZUS Treaty, in spite of the fact that the trilateral aspects of the Treaty had been halted. On September 17, 1986, the United States suspended its treaty obligations toward New Zealand.

http://2001-2009.state.gov/r/pa/ho/time/cwr/102768.htm

US and Australia continue to honor the treaty. When New Zealand frayed the treaty, the treaty's trilateral nature morphed into a bilateral one. As of 2012 however the US and NZ resumed mutual naval defense cooperation to include the South China Sea.

[smedly]

what business is it of china to comment - a country that is building a military base off the coast of the Philipenes

[JingerBen]

Publicus your using this form to push an agenda, updating our defence equipment is normal, some times we increase defence budget and other times we trim it, it's NORMAL here, stay out of Australia we don't need some big mouth mouthing off and taking what is actually going on out of contex, like I said before I live in au I know what's going on you don't.

Excellent reply to what is transparent propaganda and verbal diarrhea from a recognizable source.

[up2u2]

Well, it's all very well for Oz to spend the money on defence but! If they're going to spend it the way they built the Collins class subs (80% of the money paid before the first keel was laid!) or the way they built and manned the Huen class mine destroyers (read badly built tug boats) or God save us, the shmozzle with the JORN radar (that should have caught the signal of MH370 from Malasia to when it ditched.....but didn't?)! And lets not talk at all about the fiasco of the Tobruk class rust buckets!

Now it's the F35!

Interoperaterbility (whew) might be a good thing but what will happen if the US decides that ANZUS is not worth the candle against say......Indonesia? The reason the Indo's were polite to Oz for all of those years is because they thought we had the "bomb"! They couldn't believe that we had the best delivery system in the world for "the bomb" (F111's) and didn't have any!!!!

So now, with all of this high tech gear when are we going to invade New Zealand? It's going to be the only country we can beat any time soon!

You write as if Australia had to stand alone. It is China which stands alone in all of this. At all times the US has assets in the water that China KNOWS it doesn't know about or where they are. Let's start but not stop with nuclear powered stealth submarines. At all times Diego Garcia is in range and just around the corner and loaded for bear.

Americans and other signatories to defense treaties, many of them in Asia, will NEVER leave Australia on its own.

Never.

Cheers.

Simply not accurate. Australia has no treaty with America that requires them to assist it militarily. Australia would need to stand alone. We do assist America as a spy satellite pipeline at Pine Gap in the southern hemisphere. Other than that Australia is of little interest to America. It really is a myth that Australia and America have a military alliance in place. There would be a lot of talk and condemnation but that would be about it. Not worth the effort for America to face off against China over Australia which has little to no value to it economically.

You'd best advise the US Government and the Australian Government of the fact the treaty they signed in 1951 didn't happen and doesn't exist. All of this time besides.

From the website of the US State Department....

The Australia, New Zealand and United States Security Treaty (ANZUS Treaty), 1951

In April of 1951, U.S. President Harry Truman announced that negotiations on a tripartite security treaty between the United States, Australia and New Zealand would occur concurrently with the negotiations for a final peace treaty with Japan. Both treaties were concluded in mid-1951, and the ANZUS Treaty was ratified by the United States and entered into force in 1952.

In 1984, the ANZUS Treaty began to unravel when New Zealand declared its country a nuclear-free zone and refused to allow U.S. nuclear-powered submarines to visit its ports. Two years later, U.S. Secretary of State George P. Schultz and Australian Foreign Minister Bill Hayden concluded a series of bilateral talks by confirming that their countries would continue to honor their obligations to one another under the ANZUS Treaty, in spite of the fact that the trilateral aspects of the Treaty had been halted. On September 17, 1986, the United States suspended its treaty obligations toward New Zealand.

http://2001-2009.state.gov/r/pa/ho/time/cwr/102768.htm

US and Australia continue to honor the treaty. When New Zealand frayed the treaty, the treaty's trilateral nature morphed into a bilateral one. As of 2012 however the US and NZ resumed mutual naval defense cooperation to include the South China Sea.

No where in the ANZUS Treaty does it say America will provide military combat assistance to Australia.

[ballpoint]

Well, it's all very well for Oz to spend the money on defence but! If they're going to spend it the way they built the Collins class subs (80% of the money paid before the first keel was laid!) or the way they built and manned the Huen class mine destroyers (read badly built tug boats) or God save us, the shmozzle with the JORN radar (that should have caught the signal of MH370 from Malasia to when it ditched.....but didn't?)! And lets not talk at all about the fiasco of the Tobruk class rust buckets!

Now it's the F35!

Interoperaterbility (whew) might be a good thing but what will happen if the US decides that ANZUS is not worth the candle against say......Indonesia? The reason the Indo's were polite to Oz for all of those years is because they thought we had the "bomb"! They couldn't believe that we had the best delivery system in the world for "the bomb" (F111's) and didn't have any!!!!

So now, with all of this high tech gear when are we going to invade New Zealand? It's going to be the only country we can beat any time soon!

You write as if Australia had to stand alone. It is China which stands alone in all of this. At all times the US has assets in the water that China KNOWS it doesn't know about or where they are. Let's start but not stop with nuclear powered stealth submarines. At all times Diego Garcia is in range and just around the corner and loaded for bear.

Americans and other signatories to defense treaties, many of them in Asia, will NEVER leave Australia on its own.

Never.

Cheers.

I can see it now...

[lannarebirth]

You'd best advise the US Government and the Australian Government of the fact the treaty they signed in 1951 didn't happen and doesn't exist. All of this time besides.

From the website of the US State Department....

The Australia, New Zealand and United States Security Treaty (ANZUS Treaty), 1951

In April of 1951, U.S. President Harry Truman announced that negotiations on a tripartite security treaty between the United States, Australia and New Zealand would occur concurrently with the negotiations for a final peace treaty with Japan. Both treaties were concluded in mid-1951, and the ANZUS Treaty was ratified by the United States and entered into force in 1952.

In 1984, the ANZUS Treaty began to unravel when New Zealand declared its country a nuclear-free zone and refused to allow U.S. nuclear-powered submarines to visit its ports. Two years later, U.S. Secretary of State George P. Schultz and Australian Foreign Minister Bill Hayden concluded a series of bilateral talks by confirming that their countries would continue to honor their obligations to one another under the ANZUS Treaty, in spite of the fact that the trilateral aspects of the Treaty had been halted. On September 17, 1986, the United States suspended its treaty obligations toward New Zealand.

http://2001-2009.state.gov/r/pa/ho/time/cwr/102768.htm

US and Australia continue to honor the treaty. When New Zealand frayed the treaty, the treaty's trilateral nature morphed into a bilateral one. As of 2012 however the US and NZ resumed mutual naval defense cooperation to include the South China Sea.

No where in the ANZUS Treaty does it say America will provide military combat assistance to Australia.

Article III: The Parties will consult together whenever in the opinion of any of them the territorial integrity, political independence or security of any of the Parties is threatened in the Pacific.

Article IV: Each Party recognizes that an armed attack in the Pacific Area on any of the Parties would be dangerous to its own peace and safety and declares that it would act to meet the common danger in accordance with its constitutional processes. Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall be immediately reported to the Security Council of the United Nations. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security.

Article V: For the purpose of Article IV, an armed attack on any of the Parties is deemed to include an armed attack on the metropolitan territory of any of the Parties, or on the island territories under its jurisdiction in the Pacific or on its armed forces, public vessels or aircraft in the Pacific.

[up2u2]

No where in the ANZUS Treaty does it say America will provide military combat assistance to Australia.

Article III: The Parties will consult together whenever in the opinion of any of them the territorial integrity, political independence or security of any of the Parties is threatened in the Pacific.

Article IV: Each Party recognizes that an armed attack in the Pacific Area on any of the Parties would be dangerous to its own peace and safety and declares that it would act to meet the common danger in accordance with its constitutional processes. Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall be immediately reported to the Security Council of the United Nations. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security.

Article V: For the purpose of Article IV, an armed attack on any of the Parties is deemed to include an armed attack on the metropolitan territory of any of the Parties, or on the island territories under its jurisdiction in the Pacific or on its armed forces, public vessels or aircraft in the Pacific.

consult, recognise, act, deemed, constitutional processes?

Where is the bit that says 'The Parties will jointly dispatch armed combat forces and military weaponry and engage the enemy'?

ANZUS Treaty = meaningless 'Weasel Words' you could drive a truck through. Worthless.

The majority of Americans wouldn't even know where Australia actually is. Or care.

[Publicus]

No where in the ANZUS Treaty does it say America will provide military combat assistance to Australia.

Article III: The Parties will consult together whenever in the opinion of any of them the territorial integrity, political independence or security of any of the Parties is threatened in the Pacific.

Article IV: Each Party recognizes that an armed attack in the Pacific Area on any of the Parties would be dangerous to its own peace and safety and declares that it would act to meet the common danger in accordance with its constitutional processes. Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall be immediately reported to the Security Council of the United Nations. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security.

Article V: For the purpose of Article IV, an armed attack on any of the Parties is deemed to include an armed attack on the metropolitan territory of any of the Parties, or on the island territories under its jurisdiction in the Pacific or on its armed forces, public vessels or aircraft in the Pacific.

consult, recognise, act, deemed, constitutional processes?

Where is the bit that says 'The Parties will jointly dispatch armed combat forces and military weaponry and engage the enemy'?

ANZUS Treaty = meaningless 'Weasel Words' you could drive a truck through. Worthless.

The majority of Americans wouldn't even know where Australia actually is. Or care.

Deny, deny, deny.

Denial is not a good or healthy approach. Just look at the CCP Boyz in Beijing.

The poster Lannarbirth saved me the time to look up the Treaty and find the applicable provisions. Here is from the post...

Article V: For the purpose of Article IV, an armed attack on any of the Parties is deemed to include an armed attack on the metropolitan territory of any of the Parties, or on the island territories under its jurisdiction in the Pacific or on its armed forces, public vessels or aircraft in the Pacific.

Anyone who might need assistance in comprehending this could visit here: http://www.readingrockets.org/article/using-think-alouds-improve-reading-comprehension

The long term strategy of the CCP Dictators in Beijing to try to separate East Asia and Southeast Asia allies and partners of the United States has been an abysmal failure. Beijing's belligerence and bellicosity in the East Sea, South China Sea, the Indian Ocean have in several ways driven even historically non-aligned countries such as India suddenly close to the United States, its formal treaty allies and its partners, in several ways to include militarily.

Last year Xi Jinping told India PM Narendra Modi to his face in Beijing that "the Indian Ocean is not Indian." Yet Xi says the South China Sea is Chinese. And so is the East Sea at Japan. So is Australia. So is Thailand. Etc.

Here's a good statement about it by Timothy R. Heath of the China Strategic Focus Group of the US Naval Pacific Command in Hawaii....

The United States is thus likely to find its system of alliances and partnerships in Asia an increasing source of contention with China. Senior U.S. policy makers have made clear that the United States has legitimate and important strategic interests in Asia.

[R]eassuring allies requires a greater U.S. willingness to confront China in sovereignty disputes and other issues. This risks deterioration in U.S.-China relations and potential destabilization of the regional order. China and the United States and its allies will need creative policymaking to balance these competing concerns and ensuring lasting peace and stability in the region.

http://thediplomat.com/2014/06/china-and-the-u-s-alliance-system/

Here's another view of the CCP's efforts to undermine and destroy US alliances in the region....

China views U.S. promotion of liberal democratic values, human rights, and Western culture as driven in part by a desire to constrain PRC power. Moreover, Beijing is well aware of U.S. historical successes in activating its network of alliances to defeat aspirants for preeminence in Europe or Asia. The growing competition between China and the United States, manifest in friction points across policy topics from cyber to the South China Sea, and in the U.S. decision to adopt the rebalance itself, makes this threat all the more real and pressing.

China also objects to the alliance system as a threat to its security and sovereignty. This is especially true of U.S. alliances with countries that have antagonistic relations with China. Beijing finds the U.S. alliance with Japan more problematic than it does the U.S. alliance with countries like Thailand, with which China enjoys far more stable relations.

http://www.csmonit

Stated in CCP words by Chen Jimin, Ph.D, assistant research fellow for the CCP Institute for International and Strategic Studies at the Party School of Central Committee, Beijing...

[T]he U.S. alliance systems injects uncertainty into Sino-U.S. relations. Washington’s allies in Asia include South Korea, Japan, the Philippines, Thailand and Australia. Three of these countries have territorial disputes with China. Their alliances with the U.S. inevitably pose a challenge to China's security and sovereignty, at least in psychological terms. The importance of Sino-U.S. ties is obvious, but the relationship is vulnerable. Particularly after the Obama administration launching its “rebalancing” strategy, the fragility of Sino-U.S. relations has become more apparent. There is no denying that the success of the U.S. strategic transformation largely relies on its alliance system in Asia

http://foreignpolicy.com/2012/03/06/chinas-top-party-school/

CCP also foolishly omits mention of the US commitment to the national security and the national sovereignty of Taiwan.

[up2u2]

consult, recognise, act, deemed, constitutional processes?

Where is the bit that says 'The Parties will jointly dispatch armed combat forces and military weaponry and engage the enemy'?

ANZUS Treaty = meaningless 'Weasel Words' you could drive a truck through. Worthless.

The majority of Americans wouldn't even know where Australia actually is. Or care.

Deny, deny, deny.

Denial is not a good or healthy approach. Just look at the CCP Boyz in Beijing.

The poster Lannarbirth saved me the time to look up the Treaty and find the applicable provisions. Here is from the post...

Article V: For the purpose of Article IV, an armed attack on any of the Parties is deemed to include an armed attack on the metropolitan territory of any of the Parties, or on the island territories under its jurisdiction in the Pacific or on its armed forces, public vessels or aircraft in the Pacific.

Anyone who might need assistance in comprehending this could visit here: http://www.readingrockets.org/article/using-think-alouds-improve-reading-comprehension

The long term strategy of the CCP Dictators in Beijing to try to separate East Asia and Southeast Asia allies and partners of the United States has been an abysmal failure. Beijing's belligerence and bellicosity in the East Sea, South China Sea, the Indian Ocean have in several ways driven even historically non-aligned countries such as India suddenly close to the United States, its formal treaty allies and its partners, in several ways to include militarily.

Last year Xi Jinping told India PM Narendra Modi to his face in Beijing that "the Indian Ocean is not Indian." Yet Xi says the South China Sea is Chinese. And so is the East Sea at Japan. So is Australia. So is Thailand. Etc.

Here's a good statement about it by Timothy R. Heath of the China Strategic Focus Group of the US Naval Pacific Command in Hawaii....

The United States is thus likely to find its system of alliances and partnerships in Asia an increasing source of contention with China. Senior U.S. policy makers have made clear that the United States has legitimate and important strategic interests in Asia.

[R]eassuring allies requires a greater U.S. willingness to confront China in sovereignty disputes and other issues. This risks deterioration in U.S.-China relations and potential destabilization of the regional order. China and the United States and its allies will need creative policymaking to balance these competing concerns and ensuring lasting peace and stability in the region.

http://thediplomat.com/2014/06/china-and-the-u-s-alliance-system/

Here's another view of the CCP's efforts to undermine and destroy US alliances in the region....

China views U.S. promotion of liberal democratic values, human rights, and Western culture as driven in part by a desire to constrain PRC power. Moreover, Beijing is well aware of U.S. historical successes in activating its network of alliances to defeat aspirants for preeminence in Europe or Asia. The growing competition between China and the United States, manifest in friction points across policy topics from cyber to the South China Sea, and in the U.S. decision to adopt the rebalance itself, makes this threat all the more real and pressing.

China also objects to the alliance system as a threat to its security and sovereignty. This is especially true of U.S. alliances with countries that have antagonistic relations with China. Beijing finds the U.S. alliance with Japan more problematic than it does the U.S. alliance with countries like Thailand, with which China enjoys far more stable relations.

http://www.csmonit

Stated in CCP words by Chen Jimin, Ph.D, assistant research fellow for the CCP Institute for International and Strategic Studies at the Party School of Central Committee, Beijing...

[T]he U.S. alliance systems injects uncertainty into Sino-U.S. relations. Washington’s allies in Asia include South Korea, Japan, the Philippines, Thailand and Australia. Three of these countries have territorial disputes with China. Their alliances with the U.S. inevitably pose a challenge to China's security and sovereignty, at least in psychological terms. The importance of Sino-U.S. ties is obvious, but the relationship is vulnerable. Particularly after the Obama administration launching its “rebalancing” strategy, the fragility of Sino-U.S. relations has become more apparent. There is no denying that the success of the U.S. strategic transformation largely relies on its alliance system in Asia

http://foreignpolicy.com/2012/03/06/chinas-top-party-school/

CCP also foolishly omits mention of the US commitment to the national security and the national sovereignty of Taiwan.

Again could you highlight where 'America and New Zealand will forward combat troupes and weaponry to engage the enemy China attacking Australia'. Simply does not make that statement or even hint at it. America coming to the aid of Australia under a 'declaration of war' under the ANZUS Treaty is mythical and has always been mythical.

Australia is a military 'lap dog' for the USA. Other than that it is of little to no importance.

[Publicus]

consult, recognise, act, deemed, constitutional processes?

Where is the bit that says 'The Parties will jointly dispatch armed combat forces and military weaponry and engage the enemy'?

ANZUS Treaty = meaningless 'Weasel Words' you could drive a truck through. Worthless.

The majority of Americans wouldn't even know where Australia actually is. Or care.

Deny, deny, deny.

Denial is not a good or healthy approach. Just look at the CCP Boyz in Beijing.

The poster Lannarbirth saved me the time to look up the Treaty and find the applicable provisions. Here is from the post...

Article V: For the purpose of Article IV, an armed attack on any of the Parties is deemed to include an armed attack on the metropolitan territory of any of the Parties, or on the island territories under its jurisdiction in the Pacific or on its armed forces, public vessels or aircraft in the Pacific.

Anyone who might need assistance in comprehending this could visit here: http://www.readingrockets.org/article/using-think-alouds-improve-reading-comprehension

The long term strategy of the CCP Dictators in Beijing to try to separate East Asia and Southeast Asia allies and partners of the United States has been an abysmal failure. Beijing's belligerence and bellicosity in the East Sea, South China Sea, the Indian Ocean have in several ways driven even historically non-aligned countries such as India suddenly close to the United States, its formal treaty allies and its partners, in several ways to include militarily.

Last year Xi Jinping told India PM Narendra Modi to his face in Beijing that "the Indian Ocean is not Indian." Yet Xi says the South China Sea is Chinese. And so is the East Sea at Japan. So is Australia. So is Thailand. Etc.

Here's a good statement about it by Timothy R. Heath of the China Strategic Focus Group of the US Naval Pacific Command in Hawaii....

The United States is thus likely to find its system of alliances and partnerships in Asia an increasing source of contention with China. Senior U.S. policy makers have made clear that the United States has legitimate and important strategic interests in Asia.

[R]eassuring allies requires a greater U.S. willingness to confront China in sovereignty disputes and other issues. This risks deterioration in U.S.-China relations and potential destabilization of the regional order. China and the United States and its allies will need creative policymaking to balance these competing concerns and ensuring lasting peace and stability in the region.

http://thediplomat.com/2014/06/china-and-the-u-s-alliance-system/

Here's another view of the CCP's efforts to undermine and destroy US alliances in the region....

China views U.S. promotion of liberal democratic values, human rights, and Western culture as driven in part by a desire to constrain PRC power. Moreover, Beijing is well aware of U.S. historical successes in activating its network of alliances to defeat aspirants for preeminence in Europe or Asia. The growing competition between China and the United States, manifest in friction points across policy topics from cyber to the South China Sea, and in the U.S. decision to adopt the rebalance itself, makes this threat all the more real and pressing.

China also objects to the alliance system as a threat to its security and sovereignty. This is especially true of U.S. alliances with countries that have antagonistic relations with China. Beijing finds the U.S. alliance with Japan more problematic than it does the U.S. alliance with countries like Thailand, with which China enjoys far more stable relations.

http://www.csmonit

Stated in CCP words by Chen Jimin, Ph.D, assistant research fellow for the CCP Institute for International and Strategic Studies at the Party School of Central Committee, Beijing...

[T]he U.S. alliance systems injects uncertainty into Sino-U.S. relations. Washington’s allies in Asia include South Korea, Japan, the Philippines, Thailand and Australia. Three of these countries have territorial disputes with China. Their alliances with the U.S. inevitably pose a challenge to China's security and sovereignty, at least in psychological terms. The importance of Sino-U.S. ties is obvious, but the relationship is vulnerable. Particularly after the Obama administration launching its “rebalancing” strategy, the fragility of Sino-U.S. relations has become more apparent. There is no denying that the success of the U.S. strategic transformation largely relies on its alliance system in Asia

http://foreignpolicy.com/2012/03/06/chinas-top-party-school/

CCP also foolishly omits mention of the US commitment to the national security and the national sovereignty of Taiwan.

Again could you highlight where 'America and New Zealand will forward combat troupes and weaponry to engage the enemy China attacking Australia'. Simply does not make that statement or even hint at it. America coming to the aid of Australia under a 'declaration of war' under the ANZUS Treaty is mythical and has always been mythical.

Australia is a military 'lap dog' for the USA. Other than that it is of little to no importance.

As Russia and the Czarist-Chekist Putin is obsessed and intimidated by the Nato alliance system, so are the CCP Dictators in Beijing severely constrained by the formal national security treaty alliances of the US and the named countries of this region, to include of course Australia. NZ is back on board as well.

CCP Dictators won't be attacking Australia or anyone soon. Or at all. The alliances and strategic partnerships of a myriad of countries of the region together and with the United States dictates the fact. Don't forget Taiwan cause altho the Boyz of Beijing are always silent about Taiwan, they lie awake at night because of it.

Kindly take notice...

The US Seventh Fleet monitored Chinese military live-fire exercises off the coast of Taiwan in March and April 1996. The forward-deployed Independence (CV 62) carrier battle group (CVBG), with embarked Carrier Air Wing Five, responded to rising tensions between China and Taiwan by taking station off the eastern coast of Taiwan.

Battle Cruiser USS Bunker Hill (CG 52), operated south of Taiwan using its SPY-1 Aegis radar and other means to observe the missile tests. Other ships operating with the Independence included the Destroyer USS Hewitt (DD 966), Destroyer USS O'Brien (DD 975), and the Battle Frigate USS McClusky (FFG 41). These forces provided a visible sign of US commitment to stability in the region.

The Nimitz (CVN 68) Carrier Battle Group transited at high speed to arrive in the South China Sea within days, intensifying the signal of US resolve. Secretary of Defense William Perry responded with a boast that while the Chinese "are a great military power, the premier--the strongest--military power in the Western Pacific is the United States."

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/taiwan_strait.htm

CCP in its 24/7 continuous barrage of missiles into the Taiwan Strait was designed to influence the first democratic national election in Taiwan, They did influence it. It successfully concluded with the pro-democracy leader Lee Teng-hui becoming the first nationally elected president of The Republic of China (Taiwan). The swift presence of the US Navy stopped the CCP missile barrage before the election which occurred in a more secure environment.

CCP are better armed now especially in Anti-Access and Area Denial missiles (A2/AD), space warfare and cyberwarfare but then again so is the United States....and Taiwan...and Japan...and South Korea....Australia is definitely coming soon.

Do not underestimate the United States in the Asia-Pacific. It's been done before but only at a great cost to everyone. Washington does not underestimate Australia either. Or New Zealand.