Australian Defence Policy Comedy and the White Doctrine
In 2014, during NATO exercises, the German military used broom sticks painted in black to simulate guns. This is from reporting at the time:
On Tuesday, German broadcaster ARD revealed that German soldiers tried to hide the lack of arms by replacing heavy machine guns with broomsticks during a NATO exercise last year. After painting the wooden sticks black, the German soldiers swiftly attached them to the top of armored vehicles, according to a confidential army report which was leaked to ARD.
Laugh as you might, but notwithstanding the billions upon billions spent by the Australian taxpayers on defence, this is a metaphor for Australia’s defence posture. Particularly in light of the recent Chinese exercises in Australia’s back yard.
Then, with almost reflex timing, the Coalition government announced a $3 billion program to acquire another 28 F-35 joint strike fighter if elected to government:
The Coalition says it will acquire an extra 28 F-35 joint strike fighter jets if it wins the next federal election.
Labor last year scrapped plans to acquire the extra jets as part of a re-prioritisation of defence spending.
Putting aside the cost to staff and maintain such an extra fleet, probably adding another hundred or so million to the budget, where in the event of conflict does the Coalition or whomever expect to get fuel for these jets?
Australia, thanks to long standing bipartisan policy ensured that Australia no longer has a fuel refinement capability. Not even a strategic reserve. All our fuel comes by boat from South East Asia - probably Singapore or Malaysia.
So what is the benefit of having all these planes and diesel boats if THERE IS NO FUEL for them?
Given the uncertainty added in to the mix by President Trump, it is not unreasonable for lots of countries to question the reliability of the American defence umbrella. Germany is now talking about suspending its constitutional debt brake so that it can rearm itself. A powerful German military can only be a good thing right?
However, a few years ago, Professor Hugh White wrote a book postulating that Australia acquire nuclear weapons. He was shouted down by the usual suspect, but I thought he was correct then and I think he is even more correct now.
Australia can no longer rely on the United States to protect it in Asia and should consider developing its own nuclear weapons for the event that China becomes hostile, former defence strategist and security analyst Hugh White argues in a controversial new book.
Prof White has been quiet for a while now. Perhaps he has retired, but maybe he should come back for the debate.
Professor White argues in How to Defend Australia the assumption that the United States would protect the nation against any attack by a major power, which has underpinned Australian defence policy since the Cold War, is no longer true as China emerges as the dominant power in Asia.
It’s not just whether America would come to Australia’s defence. It’s whether Australia’s bloated and bureaucratic defence establishment will come to Australia’s defence.
This should really be part of the conversation with nuclear energy generation.
I have no confidence that there is sufficient leadership and maturity in Canberra for such a conversation so will continue to be despondent about this nations future.
Nuclear weapons in north of country & aimed north, make perfect sense. My only objection to the idea is that its us, you know, Australia. We would eff it up royally. Unions would ensure shoddy work, some government lunatic would make law they could only point in one direction, would rust, china would hack us and get the codes etc etc you know it would be a ballsup. I'm very happy to be wrong but Ladbokes probably give me 1000 to 1 on.
Australia’s limited defence capability assumes the American umbrella will always open. As you note, that no longer is prudent. The decline and ending of a home based fuel manufacturing capacity assumed the international rules based order was sufficiently robust to always protect imports. That belief is now similarly imprudent. The prospect of Japanese invasion during WW2 was only averted by American support. That should have been sufficient warning to motivate Australia to establish a robust defence capability. Instead, in the 80 years since WW2, Australia has blithely assumed a Potemkin defence would be enough, supported by the American deterrence. Time’s up. America is retreating, mainly because its finances are deteriorating and its people prefer domestic priorities. The Australian indolence is no longer sustainable.