Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
2011/06/02 04:13:15
Subject: If a war was to start, would America actually aid Australia?
Jaon wrote:Well thats because Britain, our mother country, gave us the shaft, .
Yep very true
It is called "Retaining the Ashes."
No America would not give a gakk about Aus
(No oil)
Oil isnt everything - Australia has vast resources of uranium etc. Also, if you think about it, theres prolly loads of oil under the barrier reef, and Australia would make a great staging ground for an invasion on other southern hemisphere countries.
So I think there are plenty of reasons for US to invade Australia. I mean, assist Australia in the event of war.
I doubt US would dish out extras to extract ( if there are any) under the reefs.
Australia (Recently ravaged by the Hive Fleet Ginger Overlord)
sebster wrote:Basically it goes back to WWII, when the British lost Singapore they wanted Australian troops committed to the continued defence of the remaining colonies in Asia, with the defence of India the primary objective. This reached the point where the British were over-riding Australian commands to our own troops. It was clear that Australia saw the relationship as one of mutual self-interest, while the British still saw us as a colony.
Pretty much this. Australian relations with the US, motivated by a great deal of self-interest, grew much cosier as we moved away from the British. Nothing necessarily bad, but this is the only instance of Australia being "shafted" by the British that I can think of.
Oh, there's also a rising amount of nationalism of the stupidest and ugliest kind in Australia.
Really Naughty language.
Waaagh_Gonads wrote:I believe they would.
Currently the only country that is a 'threat' is Indonesia. China is too far away and the other powers in the region are too small.
Indonesia has no force projection (no boats), and an army barely capable of engaging unruly islanders.
That's a bit of an exaggeration.
Indonesian and Aus ties aren't at all bad at the moment, but I would be a lot less confident about the lack of risk of any invasion (or at least serious SEA conflict) if I didn't know that the US would come flying in, guns blazing.
I also can't recall us priding ourselves on being a peaceful country, for that matter.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2011/06/02 05:09:33
Smacks wrote:
After the game, pack up all your miniatures, then slap the guy next to you on the ass and say.
"Good game guys, now lets hit the showers"
2011/06/02 05:28:09
Subject: If a war was to start, would America actually aid Australia?
chaos0xomega wrote:My bad I read my source wrong, its the other way around, the US is Australia's fourth largest export market, doesn't really help you much, sorry :(
Not a problem.
I'm not really familiar with Aussie-Indonesian relations, someone care to fill me in why people think they are a threat?
They're quite near to us and they have a habit of invading nearby islands, and our relations are often fairly strained. When you're looking for someone to be a threat to you, that's about all it takes.
Emperors Faithful wrote:That's a bit of an exaggeration.
It really isn't. The sum total of Indonesia's amphibious assault capabilities is 14 recomissioned LSTs. You know the things the allies used in Normandy? The US sold Indonesia 14 of the things years ago, and they remain the entirety of Indonesia's amphibious capabilities.
They each carry 200 troops, so if they're all functional and everyone of them makes it to Australia without being blown up, they'll land 2,800 troops, then presumably turn around to go get another 2,800 troops. And again, and again, and again.
It's ludicrous.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2011/06/02 05:28:28
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
2011/06/02 05:38:03
Subject: If a war was to start, would America actually aid Australia?
Australia (Recently ravaged by the Hive Fleet Ginger Overlord)
sebster wrote:
Emperors Faithful wrote:That's a bit of an exaggeration.
It really isn't. The sum total of Indonesia's amphibious assault capabilities is 14 recomissioned LSTs. You know the things the allies used in Normandy? The US sold Indonesia 14 of the things years ago, and they remain the entirety of Indonesia's amphibious capabilities.
They each carry 200 troops, so if they're all functional and everyone of them makes it to Australia without being blown up, they'll land 2,800 troops, then presumably turn around to go get another 2,800 troops. And again, and again, and again.
It's ludicrous.
Wait, they had naval forces at the time of the Timor invasion. What happened to those?
Smacks wrote:
After the game, pack up all your miniatures, then slap the guy next to you on the ass and say.
"Good game guys, now lets hit the showers"
2011/06/02 05:56:35
Subject: If a war was to start, would America actually aid Australia?
Naval forces are distinct from troop carriers and landing craft. The US Coast Guard has light naval assets, but no troop carriers or landing craft (for obvious reasons). Of course, I'm not sure how many landing craft the US Navy has, either, since it seems most troop movements are done with cargo planes and helicopters these days...
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2011/06/02 05:57:12
2011/06/02 05:57:17
Subject: If a war was to start, would America actually aid Australia?
Emperors Faithful wrote:Wait, they had naval forces at the time of the Timor invasion. What happened to those?
They have other naval assets that can escort and protect the troop ships, and other ships capable of carrying troops - but those troops would need to be unloaded in a port. Those boats measure how many troops Indonesia could put onto land in a seaborne invasion, and the answer is 2,800.
Our own force projection is about as crappy, by the way. It's why we had to negotiate for so long before East Timor, we couldn't land troops without a friently port. Either that or get the US to do that part.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
2011/06/02 07:55:47
Subject: If a war was to start, would America actually aid Australia?
I can only offer one mildly aging ex soldiers opinion on this- go to war to preserve cute girls with hot accents who can drink comparable amounts of booze to me? gak, I'd reenlist. Now if you got invaded and whoever they were promised to only fire on the blokes and ship all the girls to Minnesota after the war was over, well, the sympathy levels would drop some then.
2011/06/02 08:35:02
Subject: If a war was to start, would America actually aid Australia?
Church: So it is a sword, It just happens to function like a key in very specific situations.
Caboose: Or it's a key all the time, and when you stick it in people, it unlocks their death.
2011/06/02 09:04:38
Subject: If a war was to start, would America actually aid Australia?
Thanatos_elNyx wrote:I'm pretty sure if Australia got invaded yere ridiculous array of poisonous animals would defeat them.
Worse than that. I know a woman who works for the Aussie Airforce mothballing Jets. Mothballing them. Her words.
How big are the moths if they eat jets??
"There's a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious—makes you so sick at heart—that you can't take part. You can't even passively take part. And you've got to put your bodies upon the gears and upon the wheels, upon the levers, upon all the apparatus, and you've got to make it stop. And you've got to indicate to the people who run it, to the people who own it that unless you're free, the machine will be prevented from working at all" Mario Savio
2011/06/02 09:22:27
Subject: If a war was to start, would America actually aid Australia?
Sir Pseudonymous wrote:Naval forces are distinct from troop carriers and landing craft. The US Coast Guard has light naval assets, but no troop carriers or landing craft (for obvious reasons). Of course, I'm not sure how many landing craft the US Navy has, either, since it seems most troop movements are done with cargo planes and helicopters these days...
We don't need no stinking dingies. We land amphibiously in style
Modern amphibious assault ships are miniature aircraft carriers. They can carry over 1500 marines in a single ship US Marines in a single ship (aircraft carriers are also somewhat capable of the function but it's not their primary purpose in the Navy to deliver troops). The US Navy currently operates 9 but has commissions for 10, as one is in construction (we're getting ready to replace older ones with the new American class ships). Amphibious Transport Docks (modern LPD's) are operated in higher number, and are smaller. The US is more than capable of landing at the least an operating force of 10,000 professional soldiers. It's not D-Day but it's none too shabby.
Realistically speaking, the US is the only nation in the world with the force projection ability to fight full scale wars without having to rush into building all the things it needs and doesn't have (but who knows when one of those will show up again).
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2011/06/02 11:18:51
I was thinking of the sort of boats that beach themselves to land troops when I said "landing craft", since transport helicopters are what I think of when it comes to rapidly deploying forces into potentially hostile terrain, and what those use.
2011/06/02 12:00:33
Subject: Re:If a war was to start, would America actually aid Australia?
darkkt wrote:Oil isnt everything - Australia has vast resources of uranium etc. Also, if you think about it, theres prolly loads of oil under the barrier reef, and Australia would make a great staging ground for an invasion on other southern hemisphere countries.
We do love our nukes.
darkkt wrote:So I think there are plenty of reasons for US to invade Australia. I mean, assist Australia in the event of war.
Some days, I'm waiting for our uniforms to switch to grey with little red arm bands.
As to the OP: Would we defend Oz from enemy attack? If the government wouldn't, I sure a feth would. I love me some Aussie women.
I'm both orderly and rational. I value control, information, and order. I love structure and hierarchy, and will actively use whatever power or knowledge I have to maintain it. At best, I am lawful and insightful; at worst, I am bureaucratic and tyrannical.
" border="0" />
2011/06/02 13:42:14
Subject: If a war was to start, would America actually aid Australia?
im curious, hoq exacrlt did Britain "give you the shaft"
You know, if a country could shaft someone.
We are arming Syrian rebels who support ISIS, who is fighting Iran, who is fighting Iraq who we also support against ISIS, while fighting Kurds who we support while they are fighting Syrian rebels.
2011/06/02 14:25:14
Subject: If a war was to start, would America actually aid Australia?
I'm both orderly and rational. I value control, information, and order. I love structure and hierarchy, and will actively use whatever power or knowledge I have to maintain it. At best, I am lawful and insightful; at worst, I am bureaucratic and tyrannical.
" border="0" />
2011/06/02 14:30:05
Subject: If a war was to start, would America actually aid Australia?
The sad truth is a lot of the population of the first world see Australia as a giant holiday resort that they can go live in if they get enough money and as such it is disregarded as a "real" country.
This is only emphasised by its lack of political and military punch.
2011/06/02 14:43:15
Subject: If a war was to start, would America actually aid Australia?
Orlanth wrote:Other than winning the occasional game of cricket or rugby, and rarely both in any close succession I do not know where the Aus get the idea that we are shafting you. Perhaps its part of the wave of anglophobia I am starting to hear from some Australian boadmembers. "You feth us over, because you feth us over, like when you fethed us over, err sometime, dont know exactly when."
Basically it goes back to WWII, when the British lost Singapore they wanted Australian troops committed to the continued defence of the remaining colonies in Asia, with the defence of India the primary objective. This reached the point where the British were over-riding Australian commands to our own troops. It was clear that Australia saw the relationship as one of mutual self-interest, while the British still saw us as a colony.
Oh, there's also a rising amount of nationalism of the stupidest and ugliest kind in Australia.
I think your points are connected. The UK sent as lot to defend the Pacific theatre, including a fleet. After Singapore fell the next major place in theatre was Burma. Australia was very unlikely to ber invaded particualrly after the losses from Midway and Coral sea. India might have risen in full open rebellion if the Japanese had got there and that would have possibly dumped a huge population resource in the Axis camp.
So the ANZACS were asked to support there, they also went to Borneo and other buffer zones that combined with lots of help from the RN and USN kept Australia itself safe. My problem was not that the UK would not keep Australia defended but if troops had to be sent there they might be given an idiot commander of the quality that lost Singapore.
n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.
It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion.
2011/06/02 15:25:38
Subject: If a war was to start, would America actually aid Australia?
Jaon wrote:I've been thinking, after doing some history assignments at school about the ANZUS Treaty (The Australia, New Zealand, United States Security Treaty), and how America, upon Australian invoking the ANZUS treaty, has not come to our aid, would America actually give a damn about us? My understanding is Australia isnt very powerful at all, hell its struggling to pay for 5.56 NATO ammunition at the moment, and that we would not stand up in a fight.
Are we even a valuable enough ally, or would we simply be a necessary loss? Were just over 200 years old, we dont have any nuclear weapons that I know of, our soldiers are well trained but we are lacking in numbers, and America, even under pledge, under oath, has already proven to us that the ANZUS treaty means squat. Do we even matter? If say, Japan attacked us again, would America simply take advantage of that? What would they really do?
All pure speculation, of course.
Who did you pick a fight with? NK is Best Korea? Tahiti? China/USSR/Japan/Darth Vader?
It kind of matters who's on the other team doesn't it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Emperors Faithful wrote:I think our closest ally to rely on would be New Zealand. And New Zealand gave the US the finger over the ANZUS treaty years ago.
I can't imagine a situation where the US wouldn't side with Australia in the case of a war, unless Australia was acting pretty aggressively. The only point of interest would be the relationship with Indonesia, which has caused the US and Australia to clash diplomatically beforehand.
Are you there at the time? After your arguments on the WWII thread I wouldn't lift a finger to help. Ok one middle finger...
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2011/06/02 17:50:37
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
2011/06/02 20:01:22
Subject: If a war was to start, would America actually aid Australia?
Sir Pseudonymous wrote:I was thinking of the sort of boats that beach themselves to land troops when I said "landing craft", since transport helicopters are what I think of when it comes to rapidly deploying forces into potentially hostile terrain, and what those use.
Ah I see.
No one in their right mind uses landing craft anymore. It's horribly inefficient with the new fangled age of helichoppers. Clarification: No one uses landing craft Normandy and WWII style anymore. That and we can actually fit tanks inside them these days.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2011/06/02 21:35:57
Frazzled wrote:
Are you there at the time? After your arguments on the WWII thread I wouldn't lift a finger to help. Ok one middle finger...
What? You don't like having your country derided?
Boohoo, grow up. Its like throwing a tantrum when someone gives a sweet to someone who made fun of your grandfather.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jaon wrote:
All pure speculation, of course.
Because of your ties to Britain you would be guaranteed their support, which means the US would be involved in some fashion. Unless, of course, the aggressor happened to be Indonesia or China. Indonesia is an unlikely culprit, and China won't be a a problem for several decades; even then its not likely that they will try to invade, or some other such nonsense.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2011/06/02 21:47:03
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
2011/06/02 22:12:20
Subject: If a war was to start, would America actually aid Australia?
Jaon wrote:I've been thinking, after doing some history assignments at school about the ANZUS Treaty (The Australia, New Zealand, United States Security Treaty).
I'm I the only one who thinks New Zealand should only be abbreviated with an "N"?
If she was an example of the rest of the Aussie women, then damn. Bunch of kinky broads.
finger to help. Ok one middle finger...
