Do these people ever look at a map? at Catallaxy Files

Do these people ever look at a map?

This was from the Bolt Report yesterday. It is an interview with Major General (ret.) Jim Molan in which he discusses Australia’s dwindling defence capabilities. Do the people running this country ever look at a map? The richest country in the South Pacific is now cutting defence spending, taking Australia to the lowest defence expenditure as a proportion of GDP since 1938.

Written by Steve Kates

July 23rd, 2012 at 12:58 am

Posted in Uncategorized

61 Responses to 'Do these people ever look at a map?'

Subscribe to comments with RSS or TrackBack to 'Do these people ever look at a map?'.

Always fun to see advocates of high military spending in Cuba or the Soviet Union call for unilateral disarmament here.

Fisky

23 Jul 12 at 2:02 am
M

Token

23 Jul 12 at 6:43 am
Molan had an effective line. He noted Labor pulled apart border security and now can’t put it back together & noted they are doing the same with defense.

An important warning.

Token

23 Jul 12 at 6:45 am
Again – disconnect.

A government led by a lot of people for who the greatest threat to peace is that large entity sitting between Canada and Mexico.

The Minister for Education even recorded a fairly catchy tune about it once.

Myrddin Seren

23 Jul 12 at 7:41 am
Funny, myrddin. Thing is, I have had conversations with people so unhinged they really believe shit like that.

Entropy

23 Jul 12 at 7:45 am
Do these people ever look at a map?

An old Army saying: if you want lose a lieutenant, give him a map.

Gillard in 2010: this government has lost its way.

Therefore the answer is yes, the government has looked at a map.

Keith

23 Jul 12 at 8:05 am
What exactly is it about the map that’s got you worried, Steve?

Jarrah

23 Jul 12 at 8:46 am
Hi Steve – what’s wrong with reductions in defence spending (albeit not in absolute terms, but as a proportion of GDP), exactly?

Julie Novak

23 Jul 12 at 9:35 am
Let’s give all our citizens semi automatic rifles like they do in Switzerland. That should give any potential invading force reason to reconsider. Oh wait, John Howard banned semi automatics. Well maybe slingshots then.

TerjeP

23 Jul 12 at 9:41 am
Our military is in a state where it is so useless it is a waste.

They should just concentrate on making it combat ready. We have three divisions of an army and can deploy one brigade. We can deploy one sub at a time and one frigate.

Not spending enough is a continual waste. Make the decision – spend more or get rid of it.

.

23 Jul 12 at 9:57 am
A government led by a lot of people for who the greatest threat to peace is that large entity sitting between Canada and Mexico.

Well of course.

What we have to be prepared for is the repercussions of their meddling.

Driftforge

23 Jul 12 at 9:58 am
Let’s give all our citizens semi automatic rifles like they do in Switzerland. That should give any potential invading force reason to reconsider.

That’s only a side benefit.

Driftforge

23 Jul 12 at 9:59 am
I will just pick up on one point made by Jim Nolan logistics is the be all and end all. Unless things have changed in the last 10 years internal logistics are carried out by civilians as it is seen as more economically efficient to pay soldiers to stay on there bases and do nothing. Don’t equate spending with outcomes as the left loves to do with education and health and seems the right wants to do with military spending. Clean up the military first then let them spend some money. An example of extreme waste and in my opinion corruption is having people seen as fit for military service whilst on veterans pensions. It might sound like I am having a go at all in the military I am not as the opposite is often true also with some veterans being badly treated. How many contracts with defence have involved the most ridiculous outcomes like no penalty for late delivery. Maybe there is a place for civilians who have never been in defence to audit them and review all contracts. Another thing that happens in the military is the big kit like planes and tanks gets preference over the smaller kit for an individual soldier.

kelly liddle

23 Jul 12 at 10:00 am
A debate about defence spending is quite appropriate. That this seems to have been triggered by US comments is not so healthy. Their sole remaining indigenous industries seem to revolve around defence. Two weeks ago the UK was bent over to receive one only JSF, a platform seemingly nowhere near ready for prime time. I suspect that if Oz was still fully budgeted for the JSF, most of the US comments wouldn’t have occurred. If the US wants to close the sale, maybe they should offer something deployment-ready and/or sharpen their pencil a bit, or allow us to purchase alternatives from their inventory.

Keith

23 Jul 12 at 10:20 am
Why can’t the Chinese mass produce military equipment really cheaply so we can buy it low cost.

TerjeP

23 Jul 12 at 10:25 am
Terje
That would be my preference to have a few million medium range guided missiles. Mass produced they could probably be made for maybe thousand a pop and would hit anything in range by the overwhelming number. The other issue that is overlooked is our week spot with oil. It would not be that difficult to cut our oil supply off first to weaken us. We should be using our own energy for security purposes in my opinion.

kelly liddle

23 Jul 12 at 10:45 am
10 thousand a pop i meant

kelly liddle

23 Jul 12 at 10:46 am
Hi Steve – what’s wrong with reductions in defence spending (albeit not in absolute terms, but as a proportion of GDP), exactly?

Apparently Julie Novak didn’t bother to listen to Major General (ret.) Jim Molan.

Is Julie Novak seriously suggesting that a government health-care spending of 11% of GDP is just dandy whilst it’s defence spending (obviously it’s more appropriate role) is 1.5% of GDP is more than adequate?

NATO has an entry price of 2% of GDP on defence and NATO is mostly full of pantywaist euroweenies who have infamously chosen cradle-to-the-grave statism over national defence or indeed, arguably, nationhood itself.

JamesK

23 Jul 12 at 10:55 am
An example of extreme waste and in my opinion corruption is having people seen as fit for military service whilst on veterans pensions. I don’t quiet get your point Kelly and certainly can’t fit the word corruption into my experience. DVA pensions are allocated on a percentage base from 10 thru to 100 then TPI. Most soldiers come back from war zones with lessened hearing ability as a result of the noise of battle and bad backs from the weights carried or being bounced around the battlefield. I was initially assessed as 10% disabled due to back and hearing problems. This meant I was 10% less fit than I was before I left but I was still most probably fitter than most civilians. It just meant I had to strain a little more to hear and chew tablets on long route marches. I was till fit enough to be an Infantryman including SAS, for another 16 years – it just hurt a bit more.
There is also levels of fitness – the Army looked after vets who had lost arms and even legs – you can still hand out weapons from the Q Store with one arm and you can still run a desk efficiently without legs. Everyone on the Army doesn’t have to be ‘Infantry fit’ and we don’t have to kick them out just because they have physical disabilities – they still have their brains.

Kev

23 Jul 12 at 11:01 am
The Economist reported that the total military spending of all countries South East Asian countries combined is about $24.5 billion. Australia’s defence budget is about the same!

In worldwide terms we’re about the 13th biggest spender on defence. Per capita we’d do even better.

Hey maybe would could save some more money by picking up some ancient bolt action rifles for our soldiers. Apparently they’re just as good for killing people en-masse.

Chris

23 Jul 12 at 11:36 am
It isn’t just the reduced level of expenditure.

Add in the fact that our economy is being systematically crippled by debt and needless taxes. Factor into it the time it takes to construct assets such as aircraft and ships and the time necessary to recruit and train personnel in the basic operation of these assets let alone develop operational prowess.

We can forget about any meaningful force projection.

On the plus side, none of our potential adversaries are anywhere close to be able to kick in the doors to successfully invade, the air sea gap remains a potent deterrent. But I’d much rather we had advanced systems to police that gap.

The Government is allowing our country to become hostage to the goodwill of our neighbors.

Lloydww

23 Jul 12 at 11:52 am
Kev
My point is about deployments but agree would depend on the particular disability and the job of the soldier. There is a clause that means the military can’t look into veterans affairs medical records so I was told (correct me if I am wrong) and this doesn’t seem right. You would also know that some people are getting pensions that shouldn’t be and visa versa depending upon there willingness to do paperwork and whinge etc. A missing arm or leg doesn’t really apply to what I was saying as that is in the open and can’t be argued with.

kelly liddle

23 Jul 12 at 11:57 am
and this doesn’t seem right.

Why doesn’t that seem right?

If they actually could that would actually be wrong.

How about that kelly?

JamesK

23 Jul 12 at 12:14 pm
The problem isn’t just government spending. The military hierarchy are doing just as good a job at reducing combat capability themselves.

If they aren’t spending millions on lawyers looking to prosecute soldiers for killing the enemy, they are implementing policies – such as women in the infantry – that can only reduce the ability to win on the battlefield.

JSF? What’s the point? Taxpayers have spent billions on F18s but they have never fired a shot or dropped a bomb in anger. They could have deployed them at any time over the last ten years but obviously changing defence culture is more important than giving pilots operational experience according to these clowns.

Sack the lot and start again.

jupes

23 Jul 12 at 12:20 pm
Jupes,

Fourteen F/A-18 Hornet aircraft from 75 Squadron played a significant role in the war in Iraq. The Hornets were based at Al Udeid air base, near Doha in Qatar. At first they flew long missions of five or six hours, escorting and protecting coalition early warning AWACS aircraft and tanker aircraft used for air-to-air refuelling. Later, at the height of the war, the Hornets were used to attack Iraqi ground forces with laser-guided bombs. Targets included tanks, trucks, and artillery, as well as bunkers and storage areas for fuel and ammunition. As Iraqi resistance crumbled, the Hornets also flew close air-support missions to assist Australian and other troops on the ground as they advanced on Tikrit, north of Baghdad, a centre of support for the regime.

You may find, and no General will ever say this, that Defence are forced to implement policies like ‘women in Infantry’ as the ALP pay homage to Emily’s Listers.

Kev

23 Jul 12 at 12:51 pm
Kelly, Australia’s real vulnerability in the longer term WRToil is our refining capacity, not imports. There is the beginnings of a significant shift in onshore oil and gas production in Australia, which really won’t become apparent for at least another five years or so. in that same time period, Australia’s refining spread will shrink dramatically. it’s not all bad though, gas condensate (petroleum liquids coproduced in most gas fields) can be run on most diesel engines, with a few modifications, and heavy fleet vehicles are gradually shifting to CNG, LPG and some LNG.

Antipodean

23 Jul 12 at 12:51 pm
What’s it matter? The only real defence Australia has ever had is the great big mass of sea between us and an invading army’s port. That and the undesirable length of supply lines. If any enemy ever decides that those two things are managable then Australia’s defeat is guaranteed. I’m simply ackowledging the elephant in the room that a population of 22 million only has control of a land mass the size and like of Australia because everyoneelse lets it.

Once apon a time countries thought about what things they needed in their economy based on War time. i.e. keeping a minimum level of refining and production abilities incase needed to be switched to war time resources. No longer, and its going to cost some first world nation (or two or three or more) very dearly in the not too distant future. Having forth generation weapons costs a lot. Not having the basic chemicals needed to fire or fuel them is priceless.

Luke

23 Jul 12 at 2:25 pm
During the war the squadron flew 350 combat missions and dropped 122 laser-guided bombs.

Fair enough Kev. However calculate that into bombs per pilot and it’s hardly what you would call value for money. According to Wicci, the final cost of the Hornet project was $A4.668 billion.

To clarify the point of the third paragraph in my rant above: The government and ADF had – and still has – the opportunity to give operational experience to the combat arms of the military, yet refuses to do so. I would guess the amount of pilots from 2003 still serving would be very small indeed. Australia is poised to spend billions on the JSF yet doesn’t see the need to give the pilots operational experience when they could easily do so.

That is unforgivable neglect.

jupes

23 Jul 12 at 3:35 pm
You may find, and no General will ever say this, that Defence are forced to implement policies like ‘women in Infantry’ as the ALP pay homage to Emily’s Listers.

Or I may not. It is well known that Angus Houston – quite rightly – threatened to resign if Kafer was sacked. Unfortunately his answer was “Yes Sir” when told to implement Smith’s policies to neuter the ADF. That is utterly disgraceful.

Every decision taken by defence should consider combat capability. If the effect of the decision is to lower combat capability, then that decision should not be taken.

The current leaders of the ADF are far more concerned with political correctness than winning any future battles.

jupes

23 Jul 12 at 3:46 pm
What Luke said.

Us having a defence force at all is a bit of a giggle.

We are the little kid playing with toy soldiers while hiding safely under mum’s apron strings, otherwise known as the US pacific fleet.

The only part of our defence force that ever sees deployment is the SAS. We might as well get rid of everything else.

Yobbo

23 Jul 12 at 6:40 pm
The only problem is too much defence spending and so Yobbo’s solution apparently is to make the spending less than 0.001% of GDP.

Like the Lying Slapper and Swannie he’s such an original thinker just more decisive, incisive and oooh… libertarian

JamesK

23 Jul 12 at 6:54 pm
Generally, the level of sheer ignorance in this stream of comments is very high.

The military of any country is that nation’s insurance policy for when things go pear shaped.

How many of you own a house or a car and do not bother to insure it?

The reason that Juliar and Swan are such drooling cretins is that they just cut the insurance policy to pay for bling.

And it gets worse.

Rudd continued Howard’s repair work on parts of the Hawke-Fraser-Whitlam demolition job of ADF capability.

It takes no time at all to wreck a military capability like, oh, anti-submarine warfare. Hawke did that when Melbourne was not replaced in ’82 (the ship was almost irrelevant, it was MPA and dipping helo’s at sea routinely which really mattered). By 84 we were no longer in the ASW game as the capability had unravelled. We put parts of it back together (maybe a quarter) by 2010. If we get the two light carriers,a nd if we get dipping helicopters, 4 to 8 years of effort will see us back to the level of capability we had back in 1982.

Hands up anyone who thinks that a nation which has 99% of its trade by tonnage going by sea does not need ASW in a world where every regional nation has submarines!

Much worse, defence spending is rigid. it’s committed years in advance as that’s how long it takes to bring complex equipment into service.

Think about the ILS (integrated logistics support) that implies.

Now think about the training and skill sets that demands.

take F-35. Will we get them? yes.

But Juliar and Swan just added billions to the cost of the program, to save hundreds of millions in current outlay so as to make themselves look good in a bloody headline. There are companies which were gearing up to support F-35 (having invested many millions and employed hundreds) and these companies are now going to go bankrupt. Oh, and once burned twice shy. Now, that work will go overseas as the people who were able to do it here just got bankrupted.

Yay Juliar. Top move, bitch.

And yes, were I king, half the senior officers in the ADF would be gone, as would 50% of the denizens of Russell and Campbell park.

yet still, what JUliar has done is to devastate what capability we have, waste 20 years of very, very expensive reconstruction work, waste tens of billions already spent, and trash the national insurance policy.

Well done!

It is easy to destroy, but it’s hard to build.

Mk50 of Brisbane

23 Jul 12 at 7:23 pm
“How many of you own a house or a car and do not bother to insure it?”

Insurance makes sense when there is risk, but the insurance also needs to be commensurate with the risk.

“There are companies which were gearing up to support F-35 (having invested many millions and employed hundreds) and these companies are now going to go bankrupt.”

Won’t somebody think of the military-industrial complex?

Jarrah

23 Jul 12 at 7:39 pm
How many of you own a house or a car and do not bother to insure it?

Would you pay three quarter price price premiums to be insured for 5% of the value and have to pay an excess?

This is why I say – spend more money or don’t bloody bother.

It is insane given the importance of the air sea gap and we don’t have true SLCMs or ALCMs.

yet still, what JUliar has done is to devastate what capability we have, waste 20 years of very, very expensive reconstruction work, waste tens of billions already spent, and trash the national insurance policy.

I note the waste of giving Indonesia aid and they buy almost twice as many comparable tanks to ours at cut rate prices.

Sheer fucking incompetence.

.

23 Jul 12 at 7:44 pm
Jupes,
I’ve always gone on about the RAAF’s fighter squadrons being a protected species – I just gave them a little bit of credit for when they actually did go overseas. Yes operational experience is a positive but keeping in mind these aircraft are so sophisticated that the western forces have enjoyed air superiority over the last few decades of targets, then just having pilots who can fly them meets the prerequisites of RAAF planners.

The F111s worked just because we had them and the Indons and others were well aware of it. The pilots don’t need much combat experience to fly on a bombing mission that hardly anyone could counter.

You have a point with Houston but I converse with Infantry Generals and would have little to talk about with an ex pilot.

Politics…ah yes. I recall a dinner when a Colonel (who wasn’t going any further) told me that once officers go past their regimental command they either become political or don’t make General grade. I believed him then and still do to a certain extent.

There are obvious exceptions to that rule and they have been mainly Army ex regimental and divisional commanders.

Kev

23 Jul 12 at 7:50 pm
I note the waste of giving Indonesia aid and they buy almost twice as many comparable tanks to ours at cut rate prices.

Sheer fucking incompetence.

Well, no. It depends. Anyone planning an invasion of Australia is probably going to have to walk through Indonesia first.

wreckage

23 Jul 12 at 7:53 pm
wreckage – Indonesia can afford their own weapons. We turned a 40 bn surplus into a 210 bn debt. Since they are so cheap they would have bought them anyway.

I’m talking about whole of Government competence.

.

23 Jul 12 at 7:55 pm
Australians were attacked by middle east based terrorists. Indonesia government had no role in that.

TNI’s main interest is the corruption and business incomes from running Indonesia.

TNI helps suppress indonesian based terror grousp because they upset the smooth frow of tings for them.

Jim Rose

23 Jul 12 at 8:13 pm
Jarrah in pouting mode:

Won’t somebody think of the military-industrial complex?

Australia has one of these? Who knew?

Actually, the companies now going tits up (that I know of) are a specialist machining company, a fuel systems company, and two specialised data management mobs. All of which employed Australians and were using this program to leverage into export sales of their products in the civilian aviation sector.

Y’see, Jarrah, prove yourself in the high-quality arena locally and then you can move into the broader arena offshore.

But hey, you’re a sneering hoplophobe and it’s only people’s jobs in an icky sector according to your bigoted view. Shorter Jarrah: how they dare to try and develop a high tech aviation industry here!

Not like they are lefties sucking on the taxpayers tit, is it, eh?

Just start-ups in the aviation industry.

Mk50 of Brisbane

23 Jul 12 at 8:25 pm
In Jarrah’s defence, while he has been known to sneer, he doesn’t seem much of a, ah, hoplophobe.

wreckage

23 Jul 12 at 8:41 pm
Won’t somebody think of the military-industrial complex?

Come on, regardless of factual whatevers, that was a funny comment…

Tim

23 Jul 12 at 8:59 pm
Mk50, I understand the concept of insurance, but I wouldn’t buy insurance from a company that was guaranteed to never pay out.

The military we have would have zero effect on the thing we are supposedly “insuring” ourself against – aggression from China.

Yobbo

23 Jul 12 at 9:12 pm
There’s also free riding and aggression from China doesn’t mean we wouldn’t be without friends.

China has 14 borders. An attack on any of them would immediately have the region and the US against them. Free riding in a military alliance is a form of cheating.

If you don’t want the shared cost then leave the alliances, but we shouldn’t cheat.

Furthermore the Australian public shouldn’t be lied to that everything is fine on the defense side like the Alliance is doing. This policy ought to be made explicit to the voters.

JC

23 Jul 12 at 9:16 pm
The military we have would have zero effect on the thing we are supposedly “insuring” ourself against – aggression from China.

Apparently our ADF are there only to ensure an invasion by the Red Army or a Chinese nuclear weapon directed at Sydney would be rebuffed.

Since the ADF can’t possible succeed in Yobbo’s mind, let’s resort to 0.01% of GDP military funding.

That apparently is his considered position.

Yobbo’s way brighter than The Lying Slapper

JamesK

23 Jul 12 at 9:22 pm
“The military we have would have zero effect on the thing we are supposedly “insuring” ourself against – aggression from China.”

The best defence against China, or any conventional military threat from the north, is the alliance with the US. Our own equipment is secondary, unless we go for nukes.

However, conventional military threats are currently non-existent, and likely to remain so for decades at least. Reducing defence spending now is the rational response to our actual situation, rather than the paranoid delusions of corporate welfarists from Brisbane.

Jarrah

23 Jul 12 at 9:23 pm
The Australian military is a very fine little corporate military, if a little precious, but it doesn’t really deliver a lot of overall bang for the buck. It just behaves like it can.

John Mc

23 Jul 12 at 9:28 pm
Fuck, you’re a moron Jazz. The complaints against our cuts in military spending came from the US, who are getting sick and tired of the free riding that’s going on from their allies.

Half baked morons like you think that the US is playing some sort of game to get us to buy arms from da “military industrial complex”, but it’s not. They want a shared experience in their alliances and more so as we move ahead in time because their budgets are experiencing large cuts.

It’s also not the right thing to do to a partner, which as a leftwinger you wouldn’t understand as it means having ethics. And no, sneering doesn’t make you more ethical.

JC

23 Jul 12 at 9:33 pm
China has 14 borders. An attack on any of them would immediately have the region and the US against them. Free riding in a military alliance is a form of cheating.

I’m not suggesting we free-ride, JC. Just that we stick to the things we are good at. Comparative advantage, so to speak.

What our military does best is supply Commandos. We should just supply more of those and forget the expensive equipment which is never used.

Since the ADF can’t possible succeed in Yobbo’s mind, let’s resort to 0.01% of GDP military funding.

JamesK apparently believes the ADF stands a good ‘ol fighting chance against China’s 2 million active troops and their ICBMs.

Yobbo

23 Jul 12 at 9:34 pm
Perhaps that’s right, Yobbo, but the US may also want us to share the expense of heavy duty machinery too. That comes in big licks.

As I said, de-militarizing is actually a fair option. Applying the Swiss method of arming the population is case of an unlikely invasion isn’t totally out of order. However if we’re going the alliance route we shouldn’t be stiffing our partners.. or we leave.

JC

23 Jul 12 at 9:37 pm
We could probably negotiate significant discounts in our spending if we just let them open more bases here. One thing we do have in Australia is a lot of underutilised land.

Yobbo

23 Jul 12 at 9:41 pm
JamesK apparently believes the ADF stands a good ‘ol fighting chance against China’s 2 million active troops and their ICBMs.

Any intelligent human being would be ashamed of that particular stupidity but Yobbo has form.

JamesK

23 Jul 12 at 9:41 pm
Who else could threaten us, James? New Zealand?

Yobbo

23 Jul 12 at 9:45 pm
Jesus Yobbo you really must be as thick as two short planks.

China aren’t interested in invading us.

They want minerals from us cheaply.

Moreover our military have many other obligations and not just countering Chinese influence.

And just a part of those obligations are to Alliance partners.

If China did bully Australia they would have that Alliance to deal with.

Moreover China isn’t going to protect international waters sea passage for Australian trade with the rest of the world let alone with China.

China takes all the benefits and little of the responsibility for free international trade conditions.

The Chinese are still parasites being encouraged to be positive contributors by the US and Australia.

They benefit greatly from trade – including with us.

JamesK

23 Jul 12 at 9:58 pm
“Won’t somebody think of the military-industrial complex?”

I’ll agree, Tim. It was funny.

Winston Smith

23 Jul 12 at 10:16 pm
Lost in this debate is the fact that GDP percentage isn’t the whole story. Maintaining a steady percentage means the amount actually spent grows, even though a larger economy doesn’t mean Australia is harder to defend or needs to project power further.

So what are the actual amounts? This graph is in constant dollars. The ‘cuts’ actually keep spending about the same as 2008 – about $9 billion MORE than what Howard spent in his first year. I don’t remember the US complaining then.

Even more important than absolute amounts are the capabilities that our taxpayer dollars buy. I agree that Gillard and Swan are cutting growth in spending for purely political reasons, which is a very bad idea. Strategic considerations come first. The emphasis should be shifting from expensive shambolic projects like the JSF to ones that actually serve our defence requirements.

Jarrah

23 Jul 12 at 10:18 pm
Health Expenditure Australia 1996 ~ $45 billion

Health Expenditure Australia 2011 ~ $120+ billion

That’s worked out at $75+ billion more than Howard’s first year.

Tell us your latest %defence/GDP bs again Jarrah.

JamesK

23 Jul 12 at 10:33 pm
“That’s worked out at $75+ billion more than Howard’s first year.”

WTF has that got to do with anything?

Jarrah

23 Jul 12 at 10:49 pm
WTF has that got to do with anything?

Funny….

That’s eggsactly what I had thought after reading your drivel Jarrah.

JamesK

23 Jul 12 at 10:56 pm
Maintaining a steady percentage means the amount actually spent grows, even though a larger economy doesn’t mean Australia is harder to defend or needs to project power further.

Except for paying wages. You realise the one way to really consistently get recruits is to offer good pay and conditions, don’t you?

Greenspan and Oi showed that a volunteer force is more efficient – good policy requires competitive pay.

We’ve also had a wages boom in industries which competes for most of the same pool of labour – intelligent able bodied young men who are medically fit – i.e they are paid over 90k p.a with little experience in the mining industry.

You’re aware of this as well, aren’t you?

.

24 Jul 12 at 7:36 am
“Except for paying wages.”

Fair enough. What proportion of defence spending is wages?

“That’s eggsactly what I had thought after reading your drivel Jarrah.”

Why is it drivel? Do you have an argument to make, or are you just trolling?

Jarrah

24 Jul 12 at 9:39 am
Fair enough. What proportion of defence spending is wages?

It’s a decent chunk from memory.

43% this year according to the ADF wiki page right now.

In the last seven years, they would have faced a lot of competitive pressure for younger enlisted and commissioned recruits.

.

24 Jul 12 at 2:31 pm

Catallaxy Files