remnantprep
Senior Member
People do not exist for the sake of governments!
Posts: 4,399
Likes: 3,968
Email: remnant@ausprep.org
|
Post by remnantprep on Oct 24, 2017 6:50:14 GMT 10
|
|
remnantprep
Senior Member
People do not exist for the sake of governments!
Posts: 4,399
Likes: 3,968
Email: remnant@ausprep.org
|
Post by remnantprep on Oct 24, 2017 9:30:06 GMT 10
ANs so on! lol We didnt learn a thing from the last 2 wars!
|
|
spatial
Senior Member
Posts: 2,195
Likes: 1,509
|
Post by spatial on Oct 24, 2017 15:04:37 GMT 10
Japan is looking for an excuse to change their constitution from pacifist (self defense force) and have a standing army, that was implemented as part of WW2. It will also enable japan to get involved in world conflicts - send in 'peace' keeping troops etc.. or take aggression..
Using NK as an excuse and talking up the threat but I think the real issue is Chinese aggression. After the elections they won a clear 2/3 majority so are pushing forward with the constitutional change but also need political will from the people.
|
|
|
Post by Peter on Oct 24, 2017 22:40:08 GMT 10
Does anyone here believe that Japan doesn't already manufacture military hardware for their own use? Despite their constitution preventing it (or so I've read - I haven't checked it myself), I can't see their government having sat on their hands for the last 60 years... or at least not the last 20...
And if some of their other technology is an example, damn will it be some high-tech gear.
|
|
spatial
Senior Member
Posts: 2,195
Likes: 1,509
|
Post by spatial on Oct 25, 2017 4:20:24 GMT 10
Does anyone here believe that Japan doesn't already manufacture military hardware for their own use? Despite their constitution preventing it (or so I've read - I haven't checked it myself), I can't see their government having sat on their hands for the last 60 years... or at least not the last 20... And if some of their other technology is an example, damn will it be some high-tech gear. Japan does indeed manufacture military tech eg.. they are now building the billion dollar Australian subs...They have a right to defend themselves but are unable to participate in any military activity outside of their territorial waters. There are rumours that they had nuclear teasing facilities in fukushima nuclear plant that was taken out by the tsunami.... Japan has the highest debt in the world and to try and further stimulate their economy a few years back have doubled their military hardware spending..
|
|
|
Post by spinifex on Oct 25, 2017 19:57:39 GMT 10
I wonder why we persist with messing around with conventional subs? Its like basing a modern Air Force on piston engine planes.
Let's get some of the right stuff for our Navy and go nuclear powered.
Japan has a long post war history of Arms manufacture. They built Chinooks, Phantoms, UH-60's, S70's, P3's and F15's at home. In the 90's Mitsubishi proceeded with producing their own design of F16 style fighter.
|
|
|
Post by spinifex on Oct 26, 2017 19:22:01 GMT 10
I reckon our White Pointers are deadlier than a Collins Class. Certainly a hell of a lot quieter and with far greater patrol range. Pity we can't load one into a Hercules and drop it in Krazy Kims Swimming pool.
|
|
remnantprep
Senior Member
People do not exist for the sake of governments!
Posts: 4,399
Likes: 3,968
Email: remnant@ausprep.org
|
Post by remnantprep on Oct 27, 2017 8:49:28 GMT 10
Australia has relied for far to long on the USA for protection, we need to become a little more independent partners with the USA rather than spongers!
|
|
|
Post by spinifex on Oct 27, 2017 19:27:31 GMT 10
Australia has relied for far to long on the USA for protection, we need to become a little more independent partners with the USA rather than spongers! We're not big enough to have the resources to be anything other than a sitting duck for the bigger predators in our region. I'll respectfully beg to differ. If Pakistan can afford and maintain a nuclear arsenal ... so can we. South Africa had a nuclear arsenal including ballistic missiles until about 1990. Israel has one (believed to be developed in collaboration with S.A. and tested on a remote rock in the southern ocean). With nuclear powered and nuclear armed subs we would hold our ground against anyone. The problems are in getting social licence from a broad base of Australian society to 'go thermo-nuclear' and avoiding the wrath of the USA when the 'light-bulb' (insert best Gru impersonation there!) moment hits their leaders - we no longer depend on them and can do our own thing. They'd soon have the UN security council well stirred up. We'd be labeled a Dangerous Rogue State, economic sanctions ... blah, blah, blah ... same script as used for Iran. For the record ... I think our alliance with USA is worth preserving. But on changed terms. Especially until they have a significant change in their Deep State that sees them treating other nations as peers and colleagues rather than servants and enemies.
|
|
|
Post by spinifex on Oct 29, 2017 16:24:33 GMT 10
I think it IS the only option for self reliant border defence for a resource rich nation with a tiny population and sclerotic manufacturing base. All a nuclear arsenal is good for is to serve as an incentive to trade rather than invade.
However you make an important point ... if we ever have to launch against another nuclear power ... we're coming off worse. About 80% of our population is in just 10 cities (I think) ... a targeting dream for ICBM's. Still ... it'd cost the other side a heavy toll as well.
|
|
grumble
Senior Member
Posts: 455
Likes: 777
|
Post by grumble on Oct 30, 2017 14:55:56 GMT 10
There is a simple solution to some of the concerns about our defensibility
reintroduce national service but with a bit of a change to it to make it more of a home guard
1st anyone that is not a professional soldier can not be deployed outside the Australian mainland so only those that sign on to be long term soldiers can be deployed overseas
2nd when people are due to do national service they are given a couple of options as to how they perform their national service 1. As a home guard that is trained in insurgency anti armour tactics and area denial strategies basically harassment forces
2. Logistics so they do that side of it warehousing and transportation of goods to locations in need plus the movement of troops and evacuation of civilians
3. Basic emergency responders ,care providers and moral boosters. So their role would be each person is given basic fire fighting training , 1st aid to level 3, trained to assist medical personal with transporting injured around make shift hospitals and trained to prepare meals on a large scale to feed large numbers of personal which would include helping distribute food to the homeless and disadvantaged during peace time
Additionally people can opt to specialise in a chosen field within those 3 fields while serving national service that will then serve as credits towards any future training they receive in doing a trade or university or any civil defence role including fire brigade ambulance , police or any other field of employment where those skills are relevant
The core concept behind this scheme is you have a standing army that are your regular fighting forces then you have your average population at home of both male and female that serve as a home guard here each person that is part of it has had some training that is helpful in times of not just conflict but in the case of natural disasters so the time and resources allocated towards the system is not lost but utilised as needed and in return the community at large benefits
There will be a buy out scheme for those that do not wish to serve their nation and their community all you have to do is sign a little bit of paper that says you will pay 51% tax for the next 15 years in return for not wishing to contribute to the community also the 3rd tier of the system could be mandatory for anyone wishing to gain Australian citizenship
Naturally there is no real substitute for well trained highly skilled professional soldiers but if you know a nation has a home guard which has been given a truckload of ATGM and AA systems and are trained to use them its going to slow down even the most advanced military especially if you have no idea where they may pop up and if used effectively not just on light armour but on soft targets like troop transports, ammo and fuel supplies it starts to hurt
is this a perfect idea? Nope but it does suddenly make it a bit harder to just walk in the front door the biggest positive to this is these people would be defending , protecting their home turf
this rag tag system would not defeat a well maintained highly trained and well equipped modern military and would unfortunately contribute to the enemy using some rather unsavoury tactics against the civilian population but then again no occupying force is ever nice to those they have conquered so it will only inspire the home guard to fight harder and more desperately
The home guard only has to serve as another factor any invading force has to try determine the threat of and delay a possible invasion and its done its job
The key thing that I did forget to add is to be the eyes and ears of the regular military with real time on the ground information on enemy movements and positions
|
|
grumble
Senior Member
Posts: 455
Likes: 777
|
Post by grumble on Oct 30, 2017 15:55:50 GMT 10
And no eligibility to govt payments if you havent completed your national service. Can we take our rifles home like the Swiss? I'd say if you were not gainfully employed you would have to fulfil at least 3 days of community service a week till you found a job if you were long term unemployed it should be that way now to be honest as for taking your firearms home I think if you were part of the home guard fighting force then yeah you should at least have your basic fighting kit with standard load out at home but I also think that unless you had a specialist role such as LMG then you would be restricted to semi auto only because as you would know there are very few times full auto is used by the military
|
|
grumble
Senior Member
Posts: 455
Likes: 777
|
Post by grumble on Oct 30, 2017 15:58:40 GMT 10
What would bother me is if we put our limited resources into a nuclear deterrent and remove our dependance on our US alliance, then the only defence we have against any conflict greater than a minor incursion would be to lauch our nukes. Sort of like turning every minor argument into a gunfight. there is so much truth in that and I do think its part of the reason we never really went down that path to begin with
the expense of building the infrastructure and the ongoing operational cost is just too much we would end up like Britain with hired nukes from the US so we would still be reliant on them
|
|
grumble
Senior Member
Posts: 455
Likes: 777
|
Post by grumble on Oct 30, 2017 16:46:03 GMT 10
Community service/ work for the dole systems dont work. I was a manager at Centrelink when they tried it in the late 1990's. They take a lot of precious resources to administer and the unions hate them, because tbey encourage employers to replace paid employees with free labour from the scheme, especially for the maintainance/minor work type functions performed by council employees. Oh hell no that's not the sort of work I meant
I more mean go help the salvos and go help the people that really need help and it should serve as a reminder to them where they could end up very soon
|
|
fei
Senior Member
Posts: 604
Likes: 876
|
Post by fei on Nov 11, 2017 21:43:28 GMT 10
I've been thinking about the national service thing lately, although tied in with the idea of the basic minimum income (BMI) that has been floated.
My idea is something like: On your 18th birthday you receive a bunch of forms to apply for BMI, national service, Medicare, Tax File Number and any other services etc required by the government. All are compulsory and must be completed before continuing the process.
Next all applicants do a course in citizenship requirements, on completion of which they get their voting rights. (ie. you can't vote unless you understand the way things work and what is expected of a citizen)
Then another course in basic living skills, afterwards off to basic training for whichever national service they have chosen. National service wouldn't just be military based - it could also cover stuff like firefighting, medical, forest ranger, police etc. Basically just the range of stuff available for national service in places like Singapore and Germany.
Once all the basic training courses are finished, they can start receiving their monthly BMI payments. This would be a reduced amount at 18 years of age, and would increase at 19th and 20th birthdays, getting the full amount at 21...but only if their national service commitments are fulfilled.
Note: if BMI is brought in, it would be just over the full dole / pension now in place. It would be paid to all citizens, but not be enough that people can easily live on. ie. would still need to have some paid work to live well. Of course, all other payments would be abolished (although I'm sure all the pollies would keep their own payments in place).
|
|
paranoia
Senior Member
Posts: 1,098
Likes: 1,252
Email: para@ausprep.org
|
Post by paranoia on Nov 12, 2017 0:28:08 GMT 10
Well I agree with a lot of what you said except...
"Note: if BMI is brought in, it would be just over the full dole / pension now in place. It would be paid to all citizens, but not be enough that people can easily live on. ie. would still need to have some paid work to live well."
You can't make a BMI higher than the existing pension/dole now in place, the money just isn't there. Australia already cannot afford the welfare system we have.
I'm working part time at the moment and take home not much more than a single pensioner would. I have a mortgage, 3 young children and a stay at home wife to support and have no problems doing so.
If you offered me the current dole as a BMI I would not need paid work to live well and there would be very little incentive for me to contribute to the society.
I believe a BMI should be brought in, but I'm thinking 1/3 to 1/2 of the current pension system.
|
|
fei
Senior Member
Posts: 604
Likes: 876
|
Post by fei on Nov 12, 2017 2:48:00 GMT 10
I was thinking around 20k for BMI, although that could be phased in over a couple of years, so maybe starting at 15k and working up.
The one saving you get with BMI is that most of the staff now dealing with all the different forms of welfare could be replaced by a much smaller team just responsible for ensuring that no-one is gaming the system (ie. no need to check whether people have been doing cash jobs etc and still claiming the dole, instead just making sure that the recipient is alive and in the country).
The BMI payment would still be treated as taxable income though.
|
|
remnantprep
Senior Member
People do not exist for the sake of governments!
Posts: 4,399
Likes: 3,968
Email: remnant@ausprep.org
|
Post by remnantprep on Nov 12, 2017 7:48:59 GMT 10
Are you talking about Basic Universal Income? If so would it be cheaper in the long run than current dole system>
|
|
paranoia
Senior Member
Posts: 1,098
Likes: 1,252
Email: para@ausprep.org
|
Post by paranoia on Nov 12, 2017 8:07:34 GMT 10
while BMI or UBI is a nice idea which I believe we will eventually need there are good arguments for a targeted funding model. The average person typically vastly over estimates welfare administration costs which are less than 5 billion. It's important to keep in mind that's the entire department of human services and they do a lot more than managing dole/pension payments. You can see the annual department report here, total spending is on page 207 www.humanservices.gov.au/sites/default/files/2017/10/8802-1710-annual-report-2016-17.pdfGiven that we pay out more than 150 billion and they have many functions 5 billion doesn't really seem excessive to me.
|
|
|
Post by spinifex on Nov 12, 2017 8:40:58 GMT 10
I'm pretty sure that any kind of BMI will just result in a proportionate rise in minimum wage ... and a proportionate rise in cost of goods and services. So it ends up being self defeating. The only way it doesn't do that is if robots and AI are doing everything and don't require a pay-rise to keep them working.
It would be best all round if we had some major changes in economic policy that enabled our economy to be something more than selling coffee to each other, selling Chinese imports to each other and selling Australian raw materials all over the world to countries that actually manufacture stuff.
I say again ... if Pakistan and NK can run nuclear programs ... we can do it. Especially if it's part of a world leading nuclear industry that designs and develops cutting edge reactor tech, fuel processing tech and nuclear medicine. We have the best geology for safe nuclear industries on the planet and the raw materials and a credible track record of good governance. The cost of such a program would be less than the trade conscessions we currently make to USA in return for 'protection'. The benefits of a high tech design and manufacturing sector in our economy would be huge.
Also ... just like you don't bring a knife to a gun fight ... perhaps we might not want to bring conventional weapons to a nuke fight. In fact ... the fight wouldn't even start in the first place. (I assume that's why Pakistan never got 'treatment' by the usa in the same way every other ME nation except KSA has.)
|
|