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.

I haven't heard of ANZUS but if it's like NATO then I think they would. Japan is a popular theoritical invader because of the history but it's really not realistic. Japan and US are BFFs now so in the aforementioned scenario it would actually probably be Japan and America invading....

Khornholio wrote:

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"?

I guess, so that would mean ANZUS becomes ANU-....

I know, countries that are barely over 200 years old shouldn't bother asking for help. I mean, hell, America's been around for much longer. I mean, it's been, uh, crap. 234 years since we declared our freedom. Huh. Funny.

All joking aside, the USA usually honors its treaties, especially with old blokes that they fought alongside before. Heck, we've had a few wars against the british, but we became allies around the turn of the 20th century or whatnot. And if we're concerned about our allies not pulling their share of the military weight, what the heck were we doing in Vietnam?

So does NATO offer discount bulk-rate bullets? Why is AU buying from them?

NATO 5.56 is a type of round, it isn't manufactured by NATO, NATO merely standardized it for all member states; which means that most Western states use it even if they aren't NATO members.

Whoops. Thanks, dogma.

Jaon wrote:Look, I really dont mean to be insulting, it is a theoretical situation. It doesnt need to be able to happen to be discussed.

You're not being insulting, but given other comments in the thread I felt it was important to realise how theoretical the possibility was. Then, once we realise how unlikely the event is, we have to consider the point I made earlier;

"The first thing to realise is that talking about Australia being straight up invaded is crazy talk, there is no nation with the capability to do so and any kind of plausible reason to do so. So once we're asking if the US would come to our aid in the event of invasion, we're already in crazy land and the answer is whatever you'd like it to be."

This is because you have to change the real world a lot, or forecast a lot of big changes in the world in the future, to get to a point where another nation might plausibly invade Australia. At which point you have to realise that all those changes would likely have a major impact on the nature of the US/Australian relationship.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Orlanth wrote: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.

The UK, from it's own POV was right in prioritising the threat to India as it was under genuine threat, and far more important to the overall war effort, but Australia was fearful on invasion and wanted first and foremost to have sufficient strength to defend itself. You can point out that Australia wasn't really threatened by invasion and I'd agree, but it is only natural for any country to be very conservative when it comes to defending the homeland. After all, a land invasion of the UK by Germany was similarly unlikely, but this didn't stop Churchill withdrawing the Palestinian divisions back home.

So from there you get a situation where Australia expected extra help from the UK, and instead found the UK wanting to reduce Australian strength to protect other parts of the empire. It isn't hard to see why we might have been pissed.

Singapore represented the realisation that the empire wasn't enough to protect Australia entirely, and the events following showed they wouldn't prioritise us over the other colonies. Since then we've looked to the US as the country with the strength to do that, and tried to tie their geopolitical interests to our own (we don't have their ships resupply here just to give our prostitutes some extra income...)

But I don't think events more than 50 years old are what drives the comments you see about the UK today. Most of the comments come from people barely aware that there was a WWII, so I think it's more to do with the rising level nationalism in Australia that started probably in about the late 90s. Afterall, we're far more dismissive of Americans, and they're our key ally.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

LordofHats wrote: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.

And yet those very boats are how Indonesia would launch an invasion. Seriously, those exact boats - their ships are old Normandy landing craft sold to Indonesia by the Americans.

Which goes to show how ludicrous the idea of Indonesian invasion is.

So we've established that an invasion is impossible, or rather sebster gave that theory such a spanking it won't be raised seriously again, but the idea of a South East Asian conflict involving Australia isn't nearly as improbable. Indonesia wouldn't need to invade Australia for the two countries to end up in a war. Heck, if the Timor issue, after a solid waiting period, hadn't been dealt with the way it was (with a great deal of US backing) that could have started a war by itself.

Boring. Let's say China goes crazy and decides to invade Austarlia. Then what?

Okay so china has secretly been building heaps and heaps of boats and planes and somehow goes undetected and suddenly darwin is under siege.

Wtf happens.

Emperors Faithful wrote:So we've established that an invasion is impossible, or rather sebster gave that theory such a spanking it won't be raised seriously again, but the idea of a South East Asian conflict involving Australia isn't nearly as improbable. Indonesia wouldn't need to invade Australia for the two countries to end up in a war. Heck, if the Timor issue, after a solid waiting period, hadn't been dealt with the way it was (with a great deal of US backing) that could have started a war by itself.

Yeah, that is a good question. I think East Timor showed that the US will support Australia in an event in our region that we think is important, but that support will be limited and conditional on other events.

But what if an Australian led peacekeeping operation was failing, and our troops were either under siege or captured by rebels or government forces? I honestly don't know... we've seen the US is willing to support certain allies no matter what (Israel), but how far would they go to support an Australian operation that didn't really benefit the US one way or another?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

KamikazeCanuck wrote:Boring. Let's say China goes crazy and decides to invade Austarlia. Then what?

The US would absolutely support Australia, because US ships taking harbour in Australia is an important part of the US's ability to project force in South East Asia, and Chinese control of Australian natural resources would give China a strong platform to go crazy elsewhere in the world.

sebster wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:So we've established that an invasion is impossible, or rather sebster gave that theory such a spanking it won't be raised seriously again, but the idea of a South East Asian conflict involving Australia isn't nearly as improbable. Indonesia wouldn't need to invade Australia for the two countries to end up in a war. Heck, if the Timor issue, after a solid waiting period, hadn't been dealt with the way it was (with a great deal of US backing) that could have started a war by itself.

Yeah, that is a good question. I think East Timor showed that the US will support Australia in an event in our region that we think is important, but that support will be limited and conditional on other events.

But what if an Australian led peacekeeping operation was failing, and our troops were either under siege or captured by rebels or government forces? I honestly don't know... we've seen the US is willing to support certain allies no matter what (Israel), but how far would they go to support an Australian operation that didn't really benefit the US one way or another?

How does supporting Israel benefit the US?

I doubt the US would be comfortable with supporting everything the Australian government does. What if we were the aggressor?

Its okay dude. In my personal opinion the only reason America would ever come to Canada's aid is because.

A) Were right above them. Where are the invaders likely to attack next?

B) We are or were atleast something of a breadbasket. And we supply lots of lumber. The States loves us because we openly trade with them.

C) Alaska. I'm willing to bet if Canada got hit, so would Alaska. And we all know what happened the last time a country stubbed the toe of America.

Emperors Faithful wrote:How does supporting Israel benefit the US?

It doesn't, yet the US supports Israel unconditionally, regardless of what they do. My point being that the US accepts that kind of relationship in one instance, but our relationship clearly isn't like that.

I doubt the US would be comfortable with supporting everything the Australian government does. What if we were the aggressor?

This my question, our relationship clearly isn't as unconditional as Israel, but it's still fairly close. I doubt they'd support us in an offensive action (but then that's even less plausible than Indonesian invasion) but what about something else, like Australia committing troops to a destabilising Indonesia, which then becomes far more volatile than we can handle. Assuming oil production wasn't threatened so the US had no interest of their own in intervention, would they engage just to aid us?

Shadowbrand wrote:Its okay dude. In my personal opinion the only reason America would ever come to Canada's aid is because.

A) Were right above them. Where are the invaders likely to attack next?

B) We are or were atleast something of a breadbasket. And we supply lots of lumber. The States loves us because we openly trade with them.

C) Alaska. I'm willing to bet if Canada got hit, so would Alaska. And we all know what happened the last time a country stubbed the toe of America.

After reading the complete Fallout timeline, Its difficult to hear War in Alaska without thinking of Uncle Sam in Power Armour

I wouldnt see anyone invading Australlia, no offense intended or anything, but what would they get? they dont even have that many warhammers left, Fosters maybe, sand definitely, shrimp possibly

micahaphone wrote:I know, countries that are barely over 200 years old shouldn't bother asking for help. I mean, hell, America's been around for much longer. I mean, it's been, uh, crap. 234 years since we declared our freedom. Huh. Funny.

All joking aside, the USA usually honors its treaties, especially with old blokes that they fought alongside before. Heck, we've had a few wars against the british, but we became allies around the turn of the 20th century or whatnot. And if we're concerned about our allies not pulling their share of the military weight, what the heck were we doing in Vietnam?

So does NATO offer discount bulk-rate bullets? Why is AU buying from them?

You can buy cheap .223s from the Chinese. ironical...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Jaon wrote:Okay so china has secretly been building heaps and heaps of boats and planes and somehow goes undetected and suddenly darwin is under siege.

Wtf happens.

They would nuke you and then hit whats left with cruise missiles.

Frazzled wrote:

micahaphone wrote:I know, countries that are barely over 200 years old shouldn't bother asking for help. I mean, hell, America's been around for much longer. I mean, it's been, uh, crap. 234 years since we declared our freedom. Huh. Funny.

All joking aside, the USA usually honors its treaties, especially with old blokes that they fought alongside before. Heck, we've had a few wars against the british, but we became allies around the turn of the 20th century or whatnot. And if we're concerned about our allies not pulling their share of the military weight, what the heck were we doing in Vietnam?

So does NATO offer discount bulk-rate bullets? Why is AU buying from them?

You can buy cheap .223s from the Chinese. ironical...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Jaon wrote:Okay so china has secretly been building heaps and heaps of boats and planes and somehow goes undetected and suddenly darwin is under siege.

Wtf happens.

They would nuke you and then hit whats left with cruise missiles.

Why nuke a country you intend to occupy! Thats ludicrous!

Jaon wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

micahaphone wrote:I know, countries that are barely over 200 years old shouldn't bother asking for help. I mean, hell, America's been around for much longer. I mean, it's been, uh, crap. 234 years since we declared our freedom. Huh. Funny.

All joking aside, the USA usually honors its treaties, especially with old blokes that they fought alongside before. Heck, we've had a few wars against the british, but we became allies around the turn of the 20th century or whatnot. And if we're concerned about our allies not pulling their share of the military weight, what the heck were we doing in Vietnam?

So does NATO offer discount bulk-rate bullets? Why is AU buying from them?

You can buy cheap .223s from the Chinese. ironical...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Jaon wrote:Okay so china has secretly been building heaps and heaps of boats and planes and somehow goes undetected and suddenly darwin is under siege.

Wtf happens.

They would nuke you and then hit whats left with cruise missiles.

Why nuke a country you intend to occupy! Thats ludicrous!

Nuke Sidney and the population centers. They aren't near the mines.
Its what I would do.

Then you just eliminated all chance of the country siding with you peacefully due to the threat of an overwhelming military force.

And wtf do you think America would do if china started nuking countries? For that matter any country with nuclear weapons. You sir suck as a leader. You just caused global nuclear war. But with so many people stacked against you the chances are that you wont be able to effectively destroy every target that was nuking you. So you cant even take everyone with you.

Also if you nuke the population centers you destroy much of the infrastructure for the mining process.

AND you give the mining companies warning so they can demolish everything they can with regards to the mines.

ChocolateGork wrote:Then you just eliminated all chance of the country siding with you peacefully due to the threat of an overwhelming military force.

Thats the point. They want your stuff. They don't want you. C

And wtf do you think America would do if china started nuking countries? For that matter any country with nuclear weapons.

Stay the hell out of it? There's a reason we don't nuke out with Mother Russia. Why do you think we're in a nuke war over...Australia?

You sir suck as a leader. You just caused global nuclear war. But with so many people stacked against you the chances are that you wont be able to effectively destroy every target that was nuking you. So you cant even take everyone with you.

No China just nuked a small country with a large amount of natural resources. Why do you think anyone would help you?

Also if you nuke the population centers you destroy much of the infrastructure for the mining process.

Nothing that can't be quickly replaced. They have, after all, a billion people and lots of miners.

AND you give the mining companies warning so they can demolish everything they can with regards to the mines.

Again, not a problem. The Chinese have a long term view of things and your stuff is shiny, oh so shiny.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
In my defense I am just trying to think of a reason the US would have to go to war to defend Australia. You don't have a lot of natural enemies, which is an excellent thing.
Except of course:
*the White Sharks
*the spiders
*the crocodiles
*and this guy

If you nuked Australia's population centers... wouldn't you effectively destroy all of Australia's habitable land in the process? I mean, I guess you can go live in the desert or something, but who the hell wants to do that besides maybe the Aborigines?

I guess America would come to their defense but most of the War would be fought in the sea and air.

chaos0xomega wrote:If you nuked Australia's population centers... wouldn't you effectively destroy all of Australia's habitable land in the process? I mean, I guess you can go live in the desert or something, but who the hell wants to do that besides maybe the Aborigines?

Nuke the major cities. Then invade. The mines are generally intact. Send the surviving population to work the mine.

Or you could just buy the natural resources. Why didn't Hirohito think of that?

I think a lot of people would be surprised at how much the GBR, AUS, CAN, NZL, and AUS military's work together. If Australia were ever truely attacked the US would be there to shove something pointy and painful up the nether regions of whomever thought that was a good idea.

As for supporting Isreal, when you have an entire region that is basically insane but you need to work with someone there you pick the least crazy, say a prayer, and hope it works out. The Isrealies are allies of convenience, if/when another nation in that part of the world becomes a stable democracy that the US might be able to work with in a reliable fashion I think you'll see the US begin to seperate itself from them. They've been REALLY crappy allies over the years but they've been the most stable nation in that part of the world since they were formed.

Frazzled wrote:Or you could just buy the natural resources. Why didn't Hirohito think of that?

Well, the US did stop selling the resources to them. That's sort of the whole reason behind the rapid expansion of the Japanese to sieze resources, they knew their military only had a limited amount of time before they were running on empty.

Okay, i've thought long about this. i'll chime in on the side of if America
won't officially help, i'll join up with the other 'Yanks' and help form the
"USAADF" or US Aussie Assistance Defense Force". We'll drag Frazzled along
to confuse them with babble and use his Weiners as the first wave. if the
invaders make it past that, we'll put down our Foster's(Australian for Homeland
defense), stop BBQing on the beach and go kill bad guys.
What could go wrong?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Shadowbrand wrote:Its okay dude. In my personal opinion the only reason America would ever come to Canada's aid is because.

A) Were right above them. Where are the invaders likely to attack next?

B) We are or were atleast something of a breadbasket. And we supply lots of lumber. The States loves us because we openly trade with them.

C) Alaska. I'm willing to bet if Canada got hit, so would Alaska. And we all know what happened the last time a country stubbed the toe of America.

Who's invading from the North? Polar bears and Eskimos?
We'd be there for Canada too. i don't know what all the doobt is aboot?

alarmingrick wrote:Okay, i've thought long about this. i'll chime in on the side of if America
won't officially help, i'll join up with the other 'Yanks' and help form the
"USAADF" or US Aussie Assistance Defense Force". We'll drag Frazzled along
to confuse them with babble and use his Weiners as the first wave. if the
invaders make it past that, we'll put down our Foster's(Australian for Homeland
defense), stop BBQing on the beach and go kill bad guys.
What could go wrong?

alarmingrick is the man.

Frazzled wrote:
Thats the point. They want your stuff. They don't want you.

Yeah, great plan, drop nuclear weapons on all those natural, and well established harbors.

Its almost like you don't actually think before you speak.

Frazzled wrote:
Stay the hell out of it? There's a reason we don't nuke out with Mother Russia. Why do you think we're in a nuke war over...Australia?

If China used nuclear weapons on Australia, then we would take severe issue with them. It would, at the minimum, lead to a massive increase in military expenditure, and probably lead to the presence of many, many naval assets in and around Taiwan.

There's a difference between not going to war with Russia because they have nuclear weapons, and taking action against a state that uses nuclear weapons.

You're confusing what you want to happen given X, with what is likely to happen given X. Hell, just look at how paranoid large swathes of the public, and political class, are regarding Iranian nukes. That's the baseline.

Frazzled wrote:
No China just nuked a small country with a large amount of natural resources. Why do you think anyone would help you?

Why do we help Israel?

Moe to the point, you answered your question with "large amount of natural resources."