MARITIME WILL

Ludwig von Gress

Already in 1911 Admiral Sir Reginald Henderson said – “being girth by sea and having no inland frontiers to protect, Australia is compelled to regard the sea itself as her first and last line of defense”. Even today anybody interested in the defense of Australia ought to look at least at the map, but preferably on the globe with a pair of dividers. Adjusting the same, at the extremely conservative speed of 20 knots per hour. i.e. about 800 nautical miles per day and guessing the original points of departure of our potential enemies, one gets somewhat depressed. It is perhaps unnecessary to remind readers that fleet oilers and other supply ships can be prepositioned without anybody taking much notice. I would not recommend doing the divider exercise for the fighter bombers Sukhoi Su-30 recently acquired by Indonesia, because that is particularly depressing. Not just depressing, but horrifying. Some would call it strategic vulnerability.

ALONE

If we assume that the hitherto successful Australian defense policy “she’ll be right, mate” will save us again in a future conflict, there is no need to do anything more than what Australia is doing now. A gaggle of planes, a clutch of tanks and a pod of ships, just enough to send a handful of military personnel here or there as our current allies may from time to time for propaganda purposes ask. An occasional humanitarian mission reminds the media that we have some non civilian structure and we have young people (hopefully not all) joining the Navy believing the greatest danger they would be facing would be delivering cornflakes to flood victims. No worries, America will provide.

She may not. After decades of abuse in our media, Fortress America may prove to be as useful for the defense of Australia as Fortress Singapore of unblessed memory. Firstly, US and Australian interests do not coincide. What does Australia have that USA couldn’t be without or get somewhere else? Pine Gap? Tindal Air base? Secondly, in the case of larger conflict the United States would have other worries, primarily their own defense, then Middle East oil, then Europe, then … who knows. Australia might come to be considered in the context of denial of our resources to the enemy, but the time honoured tactic of burnt land may not be exactly our preferred option. Even this assumes a friendly, long term vision, democracy defending US administration. Should it turn isolationist, appeasenik or otherwise morally bankrupt, we would be truly alone. In that context it could be useful to remember that following an ordinary, democratic election Australia within two weeks of the Whitlam / Barnard duocracy approved annexation of the Baltic republics by the USSR, recognised the murderous regimes of communist China and of aggressive, expansionist North Vietnam.

A self-absorbed, politically correct United States would be obviously bad, but not necessarily the worst scenario, and I would like to say emphatically that it is my fervent wish it will remain only hypothetical.

However, with the US out of the equation, its satellites also would be out of the equation. As it is, we rely on the goodwill of America to pass on to us whatever information they may think we could need. We also depend on the good will of China and Russia in not shooting the satellites down. Otherwise, as far as I am aware, a couple of forty year old F-111 patrols either over 8,148,250 km2 of our Exclusive Economic Zone or, more likely just the Gulf of Carpentaria in order to save fuel for afterburner fly passes on Australia Day. I realise that the RAAF is doing the best it can with the resources available in a situation when no serious military danger exists at least in a foreseeable year or so.

It may well be that our naval and other intelligence monitors every junk between Hobart and Vladivostok and nothing flying, submerged or floating can surprise us. Somehow I do not think so, and if there is anything to learn from history, it is that politicians do not wish to believe bad news. Even the best intelligence would be ignored, further reducing our response time.

ENEMY

Enemies ? What enemies? Great Southern Quarry Inc, formerly known as Australia would not have any enemies and the brave Australian lamb will lie happily ever after next to the docile Chinese lion. That might be true after the Second coming, but let’s look at more realistic scenarios.

Dictatorships can rearm and militarise much faster than democracies. Regimes change, sometimes overnight and can became expansive and aggressive very quickly. Just a few examples – Napoleon’ France in 1793, Lenin’s Russia in 1920, Hitler’s Germany in 1938 and Sukarno’s Indonesia in 1963. Friends can become enemies. Japanese sailors were happily protecting our troop ships on the way to the Middle East and Europe during WWI yet a few years later equally happily were sinking them, including those marked with a red cross.

During the Cold War we often heard from appeaseniks that the peaceful people of the Soviet Union, who lost so many during WWII, do not wish war. That was not of much help to Hungarians or Afghanis. Germany, with its total military WWI casualties (including POW) approaching 7 million, ought to have remained peaceful forever. True, in June 1945 hardly any German believed that attacking Poland was such a good idea. Simply, peace loving Indonesians or Chinese would have very little say should their rulers decide that Australia is a feasible target.

Great hypocrite Mao, who murdered 80 million of his brethren, still has his overblown picture reverently hanging at Tienanmen Square and, in the way reminiscent of the democracies dismissing a clear war blueprint in the Mein Kampf, unmistakable and openly stated belligerent intentions of the Chinese politburo are ignored. In whichever way left-wing commentators may turn it, China is a potential enemy of Australia. Not the Chinese people, but the faceless, spineless apparatchiks of the current governing clique. Of course, as long as we sell uranium ore, iron ore, bauxite, coal and natural gas at the prices China considers benign and allow Chinese Army geologists to prospect for anything else useful we may have overlooked underground, why would China bother? Well, perhaps for ideological reasons.

Indonesia is, to put it mildly, not very stable politically and is busily rearming and modernising its armed forces. To be fair, an Indonesian watching our foreign politicking could be forgiven for not trusting us. There does not necessarily need to be a great divergence in ideology or religion, though the fact that Indonesia is a very large Muslim state and Australia not yet lingers in the mind.

The future Soviet Re-Union will be busily expanding its “near and not so near abroad” for some time yet. Still, the opportunity to pre-empt Chinese expansion into an America-less vacuum may prove to her too tempting to dismiss her as a potential enemy.

SOLUTION

I do not believe that a proper reaction to the forthcoming unpleasant geopolitical situation is to learn Mandarin and sew (sorry, buy Chinese made) white flags. I believe that Australia, even with its faults, is worth preserving and thus fighting for.

Australia’s hitherto successful “she’ll be right” defense policy just will not do. At the present time, Australia has neither an option of the Swiss defense policy – “leave us alone or you will never see your money again”, nor of Israel defense policy – “leave us alone or you will never see anything ever again”. Australia has no banks of consequence and no nuclear weapons.

Credible defense obviously requires close integration and cooperation of all three parts of well equipped and trained armed forces. The army ought to be cable of a rapid and decisive response, i.e. be able to get to any part of Australia before the enemy does and in numbers likely to make a difference, for whatever our enemies might lack, it is unlikely they would lack manpower. The Royal Australian Air Force ought to have dispersed and defensible airbases, enough pilots and planes outclassing those of the enemy and the Royal Australian Navy ought to… Let’s stop dreaming. For various and complex reasons, mostly relating to the size and mentality of our population, Australia’s ability to create and maintain a serious defense capability is limited.

I believe a new approach is needed. That a fight on somebody else’s territory is much preferable is known at least from the Carthaginian Wars and at least from that time it is known how essential sea power is. Napoleon, Hitler and the USSR never learned. Even better is not to have to fight at all. That state of affairs is achieved not by weakness, but by strength, sufficient to make the opponent think thrice. Wars start when one side is convinced it would win. Optimism, feelings of invulnerability, of assured victory, not the arms race, leads to aggression.

We can not compete militarily with China, and not even with Indonesia. Australia has to acquire a credible deterrent force, such as is represented by nothing else but nuclear powered and nuclear armed submarines. There is no need for ballistic missiles, cruise missiles such as Tomahawk Block IV would do. I believe it is unnecessary to discuss the disadvantages of land based or aircraft carried nuclear weapons, the superiority of submarines in that regard is obvious. Admittedly, the lease of two or three second hand nuclear submarines by the USA to us would be a rather tough test of the friendship and stretching of the trust somewhat, but the United Kingdom, as far as I am aware, has none to spare. After all, if the United States could be assured they would not be used against them and that the blueprints would not be sold to our main trading partner, it would be to their benefit.

For some people anything nuclear, or for that matter anything above 4th grade science, is frightening. They would not allow H2O pass their lips, they trust only organic, free range water. However, even ex-PM Keating, never noted for any sensible thinking, said in his brighter moment recently (24.08.08) that there is no reason for non-nuclear states not to acquire nuclear capability, as long as those already possessing it show no inclination to disarm themselves.

If the biggest bullies on the block, armed to the teeth, were to get together and say nobody else ought to have means of self-defence, because it could be dangerous, any sensible person would laugh. Yet when such a pact is called The Treaty on the Non-proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, some believe it has got something to do with peace. China, with 1,330,044,605 people (last month), multi million men standing army, lifestyle only a Bangladeshi would envy and, at least according to their propaganda, with an overabundant supply of everything under the sun, is so scared of attack it builds atomic weapons at an unprecedented rate. Yet Australia is expected to cross its fingers.

I realise that submarines require high technology communications, which Australia is unlikely to possess and in the “alone” scenario, unlikely to have access to. Nevertheless, the lack of proper communication might make our nuclear response more unpredictable, thus greater deterrent. A little bit of irrationality works wonders with bullies.

Annoying a nuclear tipped echidna would not be worth the hassle.

PEOPLE

If the news that some of our six conventional Collins class submarines, needing about 40 submariners each, have to be partially manned by US Navy personnel are true, then there is something seriously and drastically wrong with our approach to defense. (A nuclear submarine would need approximately triple that number.) The defense of Australia is too important to leave to the experts and politicians who believe the greatest danger to Australia would be their non-election.

RAN seems to suffer the most. Though the TV series Patrol Boat certainly helped and the occasional media excitement as e.g. when HMAS Sydney (II) was found, does no harm, the public generally is hardly aware of the Navy’s existence and an average young man can’t see beyond the tip of his surfboard. In order to create an Australian maritime mentality it would help if the Government stopped treating sailing and boating generally as a luxurious pastime to be taxed. It would help, if the government actively and generously supported Navy cadets. It would help, if the government actively and generously supported an Australian merchant navy, now practically nonexistent, by, for example, tax relief for Australian companies owning Australian manned commercial ships. It ought to ignore the so called level playing field myth, to which everybody but Australia pays just a lip service. After all, I think it had been proven quite conclusively some time ago that the earth is not level, but round.

Of course, it would also help if the government diametrically changed its treatment of veterans. The current practice simply is to wait until all but a handful dies, and the survivors then provide photo opportunities for politicians on the Anzac Day. However, in the meantime the might of the Defence Department is employed to drag the veterans through every conceivable administrative obstacle, perhaps in order to save money for feel good recruiting advertisements. In fact, I would be surprised if anybody would want to join the Navy after reading of the Veterans’ Struggle for Recognition in chapter 7 of Mr. Pfennigwerth’s book. Our treatment of defense personnel is shamefull.

The only alternative to the manpower scarcity is obviously conscription. It is difficult to comprehend why anybody, enjoying the undoubted benefits of living in Australia, could object to young men and women devoting one year of their lives ( slightly over 1%) to preparation of the defence of the lifestyle, so far secured for them by their fathers and grandfathers. Naturally, those who would like to improve our lifestyle to reach the level of communist China or democratic Zimbabwe, would object. The Defence department bureaucrats may be frightened of additional work and so may a few defense forces officers, who definitely would have to work harder. Media would be against, unless convinced that this is in order to defend ourselves against USA. But the Australian people would be in favour.

COST

Would China finance Australia’s rearmament? Hardly. We would have to pay ourselves. The costs would be painful, but the costs of fighting the chimera of global warming would be far greater, not to mention that it would enfeeble Australia, perhaps irretrievably.

Despite the annual “no foreseeable danger” defense budget dance, when it, i.e. that not foreseen danger hits the fan, money are either found or printed. In the past, Australians were dying for lack of training and proper equipment and I am afraid it would be the same today.

In the very short term sea transport would not be absolutely essential (we could tighten our belts for a few months) but whilst we could import i-pods and similar necessities by air, we could hardly continue exporting our iron ore, wheat or coal. Almost 100% of our exports ( by volume) goes by sea and only a minuscule proportion of that under the Australian flag. A shameful situation indeed, of which our various Transport Ministers seem to be totally oblivious. The length of any conflict is always a great unknown, but they usually last much longer than anticipated. The Royal Australian Navy, even if it were to get all the promised surface vessels on schedule, would not be able to protect our sea lanes without being backed by an underwater threat of disproportionate retaliation. The costs of leasing, manning and maintaining a nuclear deterrent would represent a fraction of lost trade.

XXI century Australia, with its vast mineral resources, seems to be emulating XVII century Spain with its South American gold – wealth in, wealth out, not much to show for it. For the opposite, positive example we can look at Singapore. India, with US$2,700 Gross Domestic Product per capita is currently building its own nuclear submarine. Our GDP per capita is US$36,300 (2007 CIA estimates). India’s GDP of course dwarfs ours, $2,989 trillion opposed to $761 billion, but still – we would not need other defense equipment in such large quantities. We have much to lose.

WILL

USN Rear Admiral J.C. Wyllie once said, “the ultimate objective of all military operations is the destruction of the enemy’s armed forces and his will to fight” . Cynics could say that our politicians are doing the first and our media the second.

Long term considerations, such as the strategy of our defense undoubtedly is, are mostly beyond the attention span of our elected representatives. Pleasing the media and pleasing, or at least bamboozling, the electorate is of paramount importance. Allocating money for defense produces few votes. Even those with an interest in defense matters realise that the election probably will come before any military conflict and their self interest takes precedence. For every Churchill is there is a full legislative chamber of Chamberlains.

With the exception of our sporting achievements, our media take malicious delight in denigrating anything they don’t understand. With a few honourable exceptions, our journalists, whose IQ is insufficient to comprehend the difference between carbon and carbon dioxide, can’t be expected to know the difference between a submarine and a submachine gun. Unfortunately, there is tremendous gap between the will of the people and the wishful thinking of elites or rather a group of semi educated simpletons, calling themselves elites, simply because they are able to manipulate the media. Nevertheless, I believe that in a democratic society sooner or later the will of the people will prevail. It would need significant effort on the part of all, who remember history and are able to see consequences of the current sorry state of the Australian Defence Forces. I do not think there is much time left.

I am painfully aware that in stating the sequence: no will – no maritime defense – no defense – no survival, I am saying nothing new. All that had been said and written before. It is obvious to all from pram tacticians (even a baby knows that loud scream produces milk) to wheelchair strategists, including, I venture to say, even to the defense bureaucrats in front of their computers. If only it was obvious to our politicians.

© Ludwig von Gress / 28-08-2008

References-

Geoffrey Blainey – The Causes of War, Sun Books Pty Ltd 1977

David Stevens – Maritime Power in the 20th Century The Australian Experience, Allen & Unwin 1998

Peng Guangqian – China’s National Defense, China Intercontinental Press 2004

Ian Pfennigwerth – Tiger Territory – The Untold Story of RAN in SE Asia, Rosenberg Publishing Pty Ltd 2008

CDRE Lee Corder AM – Australia A Maritime Nation?, The Navy, July-September 2008

Greg Sheridan – Anzac spirit but not battle ready. The Australian, 14.08.08

This article was written in August, 2008, prior to the publication of the Defense White Paper – Defending Australia in Asia Pacific Century: Force 2030. However, no changes were needed when it was published in July/September 2009 issue of The Navy, the magazine of the Navy League of Australia and later, in March 2010 as “Will and Vision” in Headmark, the journal of The Australian Naval Institute.

About Ludwig von Gress

Born in communist Europe, interested in defence matters on a macro scale, with a cavalry “devil may care spirit” from his grandfather and cautious effectiveness of asymmetric warfare approach from his guerilla father. He sometimes despairs that he may be the only one taking the defence of Australia seriously.
This entry was posted in Australia, Fire Arm Rights, Military and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

82 Responses to MARITIME WILL

  1. Pingback: Counter-Piracy and Maritime Security Conference, 6-9 September 2011, Victoria, Mahe, Seychelles | MaritimeSecurity.Asia

  2. Pingback: Release of Terms of Reference for Australian Collins Class Submarine Sustainment Review | MaritimeSecurity.Asia

  3. Pingback: Defence Minister Stephen Smith orders review of Collins-class subs | MaritimeSecurity.Asia

  4. Pingback: Pirate threat forces scientists to turn to Navy for help | MaritimeSecurity.Asia

  5. Antisthenes says:

    While Australia fiddles, China …
    From Jerusalem Post –
    „China has more than 100 companies and 10,000 personnel working in both Sudan and South Sudan, according to Xinhua, the Chinese news agency. Not showing concern for their lives would not be perceived positively at home.
    Further, the evacuation of Chinese citizens out of Libya set a precedent for the Chinese government that it will take bigger steps to rescue its citizens from harmful situations.
    The Chinese have special forces available right there in the Gulf of Aden with its 10th naval task force with over 700 commandos aboard. They are there performing anti-piracy patrols and ship escorts.“

  6. Adelaide gnome says:

    I have learned something new today. I wish our naval defense planners would read your article.

  7. Donitz says:

    Nothing much changed for the better since this original article was published, but it seems that at least more people talk about nuclear submarines. However, your Labour Party will cut defence spending in the next budget with the same disastrous results for RAN as UK’s Strategic Defence and Security Review in 2011 had on RN.

  8. Fan of Rickover says:

    Yeah, nuclears subs are the way to go. Even Argentinian government knows that, but then, Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, not overly endowed with brains, could run rings around your simple Julia Gillard.

  9. Coriolis says:

    Labor/Green’s long term plan is to emasculate ADF and make them UN police. The RN is important for Australia’s defence, not much good for policing unruly population and that’s why it has to be disposed of first.The cost is important factor, but for that traitorous lot just an excuse.

  10. Pingback: doc bleau

  11. buckett says:

    These days, the article is irrelevant. Labor WILL NOT defend Australia, and Coalition probably not either. So why waste the money? Do not pay the taxes, do not save, buy beer instead and enjoy while alcohol is not banned.

  12. borstein says:

    This government will demilitarize Australia to please the Chinese masters, save money and to create a proper Marx/pacifistic mindset. One exception is Anzac Day, so that RSL doesn’t scream. Submarines do not parade once a year, so we don’t need them.

  13. Alliance doubter says:

    A very good point. We can not rely on USA, especially the Obama’s; and we lack the will to defend ourselves, Anzac day rhetoric notwithstanding.

  14. manila row says:

    Great stuff. Australia going down the hill and, as you wrote, nobody cares.

  15. Dionesus says:

    Many said that on this blog before – the Labor government is a disaster for Australians, but a boon to China. One should hesitate before using a word “traitorous”, but …

  16. Tarliane says:

    This is a great inspiring article. However, I can’t persuade my daughter to join the Navy cadets, the school atmosphere is against it. We lost some time ago and now is probably too late. Still, keep it up, keep blogging. Looking to reading your next post, von Gress.

  17. Elenanor says:

    Extraordinary. You were so much ahead of the time. Good for you and sad for Australia.

  18. Mordechai says:

    Too late, China is about to take over.

  19. M.Kleansing says:

    Deliberated disarmament of the West by its corrupt and ideologicaly suspect governments is a disgrace which will speed up the decline of democracy.

  20. Alicia says:

    I tend to agree with you.

  21. yardson says:

    Hello my friend, I want to congratulate you. But it is great waste of time, all you Aussies need is a few escort boats.

  22. Matelot says:

    Since nuclear powered and nuclear armed submarines could be very effective deterrent to China no Australian government will ever aquire them.

  23. Ceres Vitali says:

    Never fear, the war will never come. It never does.

  24. goldschmidt says:

    Gillar and Smith announced a further stage of SEA 1000: studies, which will be hopefully concluded by 2017. And another year to translate to Chinese …

  25. Disney says:

    Good article; I will share with the many friends I can.

  26. Dirk says:

    Well, that Gillard woman has found or borrowed $130 million and bought a “humanitarian disaster relief” vessel to be called ACV Ocean Shield. I suppose ACV Illegal Migrants Ferry would sound too honest. ALP and honesty ?

  27. Carlos says:

    With respect, why should Australia have submarines at all? They are not good at all for ferrying illegal migrants.

  28. Teli says:

    It is all academic now. Australia is ready to surrender.

  29. Karla says:

    China can’t have Australia capable of self-defence.

  30. Conrad says:

    Nothing will change under any Abbot’s government, unless the new US president pushes, and pushes hard.

  31. Alistair says:

    Thanks to Obama’s creeping unilateral disarmament, USN will go from 59 submarines today to about 43 in 2028. China builts them at ever faster rate, though so far their boats are less sophisticated. That might change very soon.

  32. Silvan says:

    Very interesting article, I like it. But it is too late for West to defend itself, the will to live in freedom is lost.

  33. Benta says:

    I admire your guts and patriotism. You are not a native born Australian, are you? Aussies do not care.

  34. Pingback: Homer'o

  35. Ben says:

    We don’t even have the will to stop a few muslim rioters

  36. Farshark says:

    Young people will die because their elders were too complacent. Australia spends now on defence less than it did in 1937.

  37. Cicero says:

    Very prescient article.

  38. sacre noir says:

    All academic now. Obama will sell Australia and its beached submarines to the highest bidder.

  39. Porros says:

    Only dictatorship can save us.Some of us.

  40. Swegal says:

    The West lost the will to fight; better spend the money on wine and women.

  41. cheap shot says:

    Hey, I think your blog might be having browser compatibility issues. When I look at your blog in Firefox, it looks fine but when opening in Internet Explorer, it has some overlapping. I just wanted to give you a quick heads up! Other then that, excellent blog!

  42. Clarissa says:

    Well done.

  43. Guido says:

    Informative article, just what I was looking for.

  44. Pingback: Myrtle

  45. Pingback: B O Moreton

  46. Lio Chi says:

    F*ckin’ remarkable issues here. I’m very happy to look your article. Thank you so much and i am looking forward to contact you.

  47. no hope says:

    Thank you for the good write-up. Old and still valid; and more depressing. Australians will surrender.

  48. Kropatchek says:

    This is the end of the era; maritime will or any other will simply doesn’t exists in Australia. People are deluding themselves once a year on Anzac Day and that’s it.

  49. Pingback: S Trumpeter

  50. Morestar says:

    Very good article. I will be going through some of these issues soon.
    .

  51. Pingback: kredit kartee

  52. Pingback: Chomdin

  53. Pingback: Krieg Dolt

  54. Pingback: Kreo Sotte

  55. Pingback: ontrepreneur

  56. Pingback: Bergmann

  57. Pingback: Sea Horse

  58. MHalblaub says:

    On March 12, 2012 Israel ordered sixth Dolphin type submarine at $1 billion costs. Price for just the submarine is about $500-700 million. Maybe the nukes are quite expensive. Therefore the price for one new submarine is less than maintenance costs for 5 Collins in dock and maybe one “at” sea. So wrecking all Collins-submarines immediately could pay for six brand new submarines within 5 years. No capability will be lost during this short period because there is no real capability at the moment but much will be gained after that.

    My advice would be: don’t touch a working system. Lend the expensive Mark 48 torpedoes to the US Navy or Canada (well just one submarine half operational) and use the command and control system designed for these submarines. The battery powered DM2A4 SeaHake don’t suffer a power loss at great depths like Mark 48 with its piston engine. Just put a plug in the exhaust pipe of your car and you’ll know what I’m talking about. There is a reason why Chinese submarines try have great diving depths…

    That is just an interim solution until a decision is reached for the 12 submarines “specialized” for Australian needs…

    According to my knowledge one need is not on the Australian list: operational readiness

    Well, that’s just my view from far away (Stuttgart).

  59. Pingback: in-shoreman

  60. nuke free says:

    MARITIME WILL is warmongering post and should be banned.

  61. Servac says:

    Too late. Australians do not wish to defend themselves and would not like America to defend them. Well, it was nice while it lasted…

  62. Pingback: T Grigoriev

  63. Pingback: K Tram

  64. Pingback: Kim Polyuan

  65. Pingback: Mon Mexique

  66. 用品 says:

    No need to defend Australia. China will do it for you.

  67. Auto For says:

    Hi my loved one! I want to say that this article is amazing, nice written and come with almost all important infos.

    I’d like to look extra posts like this .

  68. Inter San says:

    Great post. I used to be checking continuously this weblog and I’m inspired! Old article and still relevant.

  69. Wan Ton says:

    China provokes and all US can do to send two obsolete B-52 in response; and then denies it is a response. Sell your navies for the scrap, Westerners and drink the proceeds to our health.

  70. Grant Hanter says:

    All rather academic today – no will, no money. Very interesting topic though, thanks for posting.

  71. Holster says:

    In retrospect it is rather depressing.

  72. on coeger says:

    Too little, too late. How many Australins care about the future of Australia? It is there for the taking.

  73. Beryl says:

    Even Windshuttle today in the Quadrant despairs. Are we beyond help?

  74. Mujer Fuera says:

    Inspiring. What happened after? No response, I guess. The politicians don’t see the obvious.

  75. Willie Green says:

    You can’t fight muslim barbarians with nukes, you need people, men, or rather, REAL men. Where are they?

  76. Pingback: Sun Shiner

  77. Zachery says:

    Hi there! I just would like to offer you a huge thumbs up for the great info
    you’ve got right here on this post. I’ll be coming back to
    your blog for more soon. Submarines and nuclear missiles are vital to survival.

  78. Herr Klaus says:

    In retrospect, it is rather sad post. Australia defending itself? How many Australians would fight? Two hundred?

  79. Storm Beef says:

    I agree. If Australia wants to be able to defend herself, she needs nuclear arms; and the submarines are the best and cheapest choice.

  80. crimson low tide says:

    It is unlikely to happen. Who would – Abbott?

  81. Nitely says:

    I’m confident you will be from Academia. In Academia
    unfortunately things appear unique to reality. How would an independent Jerusalem survive?
    With snipers on each roof tops shooting into bedrooms into each
    side? Or with vehicle bombs detonating in each area in vengeful bombings?

  82. Deadly Hunter says:

    You are really convincing and it would certainly work, if we had better politicians.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>