MENU

Does Australia Really Have a Defence Policy?

By Mark Tier

May 18, 2022

SUBSCRIBE TO SAVVY STREET (It's Free)

 

According to Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison, the Labor Party is “soft” on defence. Is the Liberal Party any harder?

A difficult question to answer. After all, Labor supports the Liberals’ order of nuclear-powered submarines—the only difference being that Albanese says they should be built in Australia, while Morrison hasn’t made up his mind. Yet.

Both parties support the American alliance ANZUS (but NZ already took itself out of it), the “Five Eyes,” and the Quad; now AUKUS is crucial to Australia’s security.

With 35,877 kilometres of coastline, how are 8, 10, or even 25 submarines going to help repel an invader?

And neither party is prepared to answer this fundamental question: with 35,877 kilometres of coastline, how are 8, 10, or even 25 submarines going to help repel an invader?

When you boil it all down, the Liberals’ and Labor’s defence policies are identical: if Australia is attacked, pray that the US Navy comes to our rescue.

The ANZUS treaty obliges the US to come to our aid (and vice versa). But this agreement cannot be enforced. The US has its own interests. And if (hypothetically) Russia and China teamed up to attack the US, America’s military would have its hands full.

What then?

We’d be entirely on our own.
 

Australia Needs a “Porcupine Strategy”

The real hole in Australia’s defence “policy” is not who might attack us—China being the current “whipping boy.” But how we could defend ourselves against an attack without help from the US Navy.

Right now, we can’t.

We need a defence strategy that simply makes it so expensive to attack us that a potential invader will stop and think three, four, or more times before taking any action, regardless how massive and well-equipped their military forces are.

A strategy that clearly demonstrates to any potential enemy that much of an invading force, whether by sea or air, will be demolished before it can even reach our shores.

A strategy that takes full advantage of a major defence asset: that we have no land borders and are a long way from pretty much everywhere.

To attack Australia, an enemy must travel hundreds if not thousands of kilometres by sea or air to reach our shores. With sufficient satellites in orbit we can see them coming.

To attack Australia, an enemy must travel hundreds if not thousands of kilometres by sea or air to reach our shores.

With sufficient satellites in orbit we can see them coming.

Whether from Africa, the Americas, Antarctica, Asia—or the Solomon Islands, 1,000-odd kilometres from Cairns.

With hundreds, if not thousands of drones, any invader will be met with a fierce welcoming committee. Hundreds of kilometres from our beaches.

Plus: anti-missile missiles, to defend against any missile attack.

Finally, three nuclear Polaris-style submarines. Continually cruising under water so no one knows where they are.

Why three? In case one or even two of them are in for maintenance or put out of action.

They should carry a combination of conventional and nuclear missiles. Conventional missiles could help the drones to knock out ships. And if any of our cities are H-bombed, the enemy would know our response would be tit-for-tat.

What about the new submarines Morrison’s government has ordered? Assuming an enemy has the courtesy to wait until they’re operational, the new subs could duplicate the concentrated firepower of hundreds of drones, even from the other side of the continent.

But shooting missiles would give away the subs’ positions. Better to lose a way-cheaper drone—with zero casualties.

And what about the army? Let’s be realistic. If a major power manages to land hundreds of thousands of troops on our beaches, 58,206 full-time active-duty personnel and 29,560 active reservists probably aren’t going to hack it—even with RAF support.

When we look at things this way, it is clear our armed forces are perfectly designed to support the US military. But if Australia is actually invaded we’re in the same boat we were in, in 1942, when the Japanese air force attacked Darwin: dependent on the Brits.

You know how that turned out.

So Morrison is right. Given that our bipartisan defence policy boils down to praying for the US Navy to show up, Labor is softer on defence than the Libs. After all, with Morrison’s extensive (Pentecostal) experience, Labor leader Anthony Albanese doesn’t stand a chance of winning a praying contest.

But what does it matter who wins if Washington isn’t listening?

 

 

(Visited 164 times, 1 visits today)