No missile defences for Australia says the PM

What sense is this?

Mr Turnbull rejected a push for Australia to install a missile defence shield to protect against an attack, saying he had received advice that it would not be helpful against North Korea’s long range missiles.

OK, so if the Norks find it too hard to attack Japan or Guam which do have missile defences however leaky they may be, Sydney seems pretty good as a place for them to show they really mean it. Does Malcolm never get anything important right? And then there’s this:

Opposition leader Bill Shorten said it was the “bellicose and provocative actions” of the North Korean dictatorship, and not Mr Trump’s rhetoric, which was of “big concern”.

“I and the government share the same concerns and the same views, and Australians should be reassured that on this matter of North Korea and our national security, the politics of Labor and Liberal are working absolutely together,” the Opposition Leader said.

“What we all need to do is be concentrating on encouraging North Korea to de-escalate. I think there is an important role for China to play here and of course we rely upon leadership from the United States. There are other nations which are much more affected than Australia, including of course the Republic of Korea and Japan, and neighbouring nations to North Korea.”

Good sense for a change. If they came up with a credible policy on stopping the boats, how much difference would it make who took over after the next election?

This entry was posted in International. Bookmark the permalink.

94 Responses to No missile defences for Australia says the PM

  1. bemused says:

    Wouldn’t it be ironic if Labor announced some common-sense policies and completely gazumped Turnbull and his Libtards at the next election. Mind you, anything sensible that Labor promised would be over-turned the moment they got in.

  2. RobK says:

    No missile defences for Australia says the PM
    When we get our submarines we’ll be invincible. 🙂

  3. Mother Lode says:

    Does Malcolm never get anything important right?

    Maolcolm is an Easter Suburbs luvvie.

    Most issues are simply beyond their ken – science, economics, history events – but they can’t admit that. Can’t admit that they lack the background to weigh in with an opinion.

    They pride themselves or the width and depth of their knowledge, however illusory that actually is.

    So, they come up with a single (erroneous or irrelevant) point and use that to dismiss the whole issue altogether.

    (Oh, and they are generally all at sea with quantitative matters. That is why they fell for AGW.)

  4. Daithi says:

    That is well and truly strange.

    Australia – ALE-70 Radio Frequency Countermeasures (RFCM)

  5. Daithi says:

    Should read:

    That is well and truly strange.

    Australia – ALE-70 Radio Frequency Countermeasures (RFCM) http://www.dsca.mil/major-arms-sales/australia-ale-70-radio-frequency-countermeasures-rfcm

  6. Mike of Marion says:

    So Mal wants us defenceless – traitorous prick.

  7. RobK says:

    Daithi,
    Re the ALE-70:
    “The proposed sale will improve Australia’s F-35 survivability and will enhance its capability to deter global threats, strengthen its homeland defense, and cooperate in coalition defense initiatives. Australia will have no difficulty absorbing this equipment into its armed forces.”
    Not really suited to ICBMs I think.

  8. . says:

    What do we get for 35 bn a year?

    I say outsource:

    Sandline (ex SAS)
    Suitcase nukes
    One AWD equipped for NMD

  9. Mique says:

    Given the improbability of North Korea being able any time soon to launch any sort of missile attack on Australian territory, let alone a nuclear attack, for us to spend billions obtaining an effective missile defence capability would be an irresponsible waste of money far beyond the bounds of reason. The moment a missile is launched that impacts on any country, Kim will die a fiery death. His whereabouts at any given moment will be known by the US and his hideyholes will have been comprehensively targetted long since. A MOAB response would probably be welcomed by China as much as by us.

    Kim might be nuts, but I doubt that he’s stupid enough to commit suicide.

  10. Habib says:

    Turnbull’s just as likely to bin Op Sovereign Borders and the rest of the BP regime if he slithers back in, as he and his dinner party guests think it cruel, and in rather poor taste. So what’s the difference again?

  11. RobK says:

    Mique,
    His whereabouts at any given moment will be known by the US and his hideyholes will have been comprehensively targetted long since. A MOAB response would probably be welcomed by China as much as by us.
    Like what they did to Bin Liner. Took no time at all.

  12. tgs says:

    ABD is insanely expensive and extremely technically challenging.

    I think there are more cost-effective defense purchases that could be made.

  13. duncanm says:

    One can bet Pine Gap will get a missile defense system if there is seen to be a credible threat.

  14. True Aussie says:

    If a nuke wipes out Sydney, Canberra and Melbourne then Australia would be better off.

  15. Anthony Park says:

    In fairness to MT. Mid-course Missile defense systems are very expensive. The US is allegedly spending nearly a $1 billion USD per year. That is on top of some $40 billion dollar existing investments. Realistically, we would have to integrate into the US defense system… and let’s be honest, it’s probably better that we support the US into destroying the ICBMs before they launch.

    There is an argument that we get Patriot type missiles to protect our military facilities from cruise missiles. E.g. if China decided to invade.

  16. Bob of Brisbane says:

    For once Malcolm Turnbull has made the right decision. All this sabre rattling savours of the warnings of imminent invasions by China, Japan and especially Russia in the 1800s and the various fortifications built on Sydney’s headlands – all without ever having to be used in anger.

  17. John L says:

    Mr Turnbull rejected a push for Australia to install a missile defence shield to protect against an attack, saying he had received advice that it would not be helpful against North Korea’s long range missiles.

    Received advice from whom Lucy or Nicki Sava?
    And since when has Malcolm start acting on somebody’s anybody’s advice?!?!?!

    Opposition leader Bill Shorten said ………. and of course we rely upon leadership from the United States.

    Since when Bill?

  18. BrettW says:

    I demand we buy a full missile defence system now. To be located in TAS to boost jobs with 95% female and 5% transgender workforce. Managed by Roz Ward.

    Should also be designed by CFMEU miners as part of a re-training exercise due to closing coal mines.

    David Wilkie to be appointed special minister for Defence Projects TAS.

    I don’t care how many billions or how many decades later project is finished as this should be a long term jobs and growth priority.

    If you disagree you are a redneck misogynist who opposes equality in the workforce. In fact there will be laws to prevent you complaining about this project on the basis they constitute hate crimes and discrimination against CFMEU workers.

    I tell you now it will rank as one of the best Government projects since the NBN was designed on a drinks coaster. In fact Stephen Conroy should be on the consulting team to ensure total lack of value for money and coming in way over budget.

  19. Paul Farmer says:

    Of course there is also the worry of the Philippines or a part of it becoming an Islamo Nazi state, or Indonesia succumbing to fundamentalist rule……..its by far not a remote possibility, or most likely China becoming more aggressive and expansionist as this century wears on…….Yet here we sit and we think we can just by and large rely on the US without attempting to do any real heavy lifting ourselves in terms of raising our defence capability for our mainland. Arguably , American assistance aside, it was the geography of New Guinea and that Japan had over stretched its supply routes that saved Australia from land invasion in WW2. We wont be so lucky this century……..

  20. Dr Fred Lenin says:

    Scrap the subs programme , scrap welfare for “refugees” and migrants,scrap subsidies for carpetbagger renewable crap, cut public service and politicians pay and entitlements by half . Use the money saved to form the Missile Corps ,develop and build tactical nuclear missiles ,land to air and sea ,air to air and sea ,ICBMs and anti missile missiles . No need for expensive foreign subs or planes ,build our own small tactical fighters for use within our borders . That would put the massive amounts wasted by governments to really good use ,value for money instead of globalist crap .

  21. woolfe says:

    Les Deplorables‏ @woolfe

    @TurnbullMalcolm rejected Australia to install missile defence shield as negotiations are well under way to surrender South Australia to NK

  22. stackja says:

    Harry Truman didn’t want an extended war and let Kim 1 stay in power.

  23. . says:

    I can’t blame Truman for not wanting to have all out war with China and thinking carefully about the USSR developing the H bomb.

  24. RobK says:

    I agree that an ICBM shield is not doable as an immediate response to NK but we were leading the way with over-the-horizon radar (at least we might see it comming!) . It would be great if we could keep that sort of momentum up.

  25. RobK says:

    Dr Fred,
    I think it might be time for a new defense paper. It’s good to see you’ve got the basic framework sorted.

  26. MikeS says:

    Prob no need for China to invade. We’ve been selling off the place brick-by-brick, so they’ll have the keys without having fired a shot or broken a sweat.

  27. incoherent rambler says:

    the various fortifications built on Sydney’s headlands – all without ever having to be used in anger.

    Proof that the defence capability worked.

  28. Oh come on says:

    For some reason, SK hasn’t purchased the Iron Dome platform from Israel. Too expensive, I guess. OK, NK has 10-20k artillery pieces trained on Seoul, so the South Koreans would need to spend many billions on an Iron Dome network with enough batteries and interceptor missiles to intercept the volume of artillery shells the North could send Seoul’s way. However, it would have been money well spent. Of course, in such an attack, plenty of shells will still get through and hit their mark before the artillery pieces are destroyed, which should take a few days. But this would mean parts of Seoul are badly damaged with many killed, as opposed to what we’d see now if NK ordered a large scale artillery barrage on Seoul, ie much of the city destroyed and maybe hundreds of thousands killed before the NK artillery is suppressed.

    And that will cost hundreds of billions – maybe more than a trillion – to fix. Which is much more than the cost of installing a really large Iron Dome network to protect the city.

  29. stackja says:

    Various traitors help USSR developing the H bomb.

  30. duncanm says:

    various fortifications built on Sydney’s headlands – all without ever having to be used in anger.

    piffle.

    The Japs were active up and down both coasts of Australia in WWII. Ships were sunk, and ports attacked.

    The Emden was busy raiding off the North coast of Oz in WWI.

  31. Empire GTHO Phase III says:

    Good sense for a change. If they came up with a credible policy on stopping the boats, how much difference would it make who took over after the next election?

    Tax?

  32. Empire GTHO Phase III says:

    Right now it’s a case of rape v. DA rape.

  33. Tator says:

    No missile defences!!!
    In a couple of years when the new AWD’s are operational, the AEGIS system used on them have some ABM capacity as long as they are equipped with the correct model Standard missile. But that will require some forethought. Maybe Darwin could host a couple of Arleigh Burke destroyers on behalf of the USN and a couple for Brisbane and Sydney. They do have 60 odd of them.
    It isn’t likely that the North Koreans have developed MIRV’s for their missiles yet as they are still developing the warhead capable to be fitted to their missiles.

  34. jupes says:

    So Mal wants us defenceless – traitorous prick.

    No no. We’ll soon have a couple of female infantry battalions.

    They’ll sort the stupid Norks out quick smart.

  35. jupes says:

    In fairness to MT. Mid-course Missile defense systems are very expensive. The US is allegedly spending nearly a $1 billion USD per year.

    Hmmm let’s think, what is more in the national interest; a missile defense shield or the ABC?

  36. lotocoti says:

    I don’t think Lockheed Martin has any THAAD batteries available for immediate delivery.
    At only a billion bucks a pop (including shipping and handling), I’m pretty sure the average punter in Townsville or Upper Tumbucna West is going to ask if Sydney gets a couple why shouldn’t they.

  37. jupes says:

    Sandline (ex SAS)
    Suitcase nukes
    One AWD equipped for NMD

    Dotty, what with your “only 376 Muslim terrorists in the world”, your “it’s moral to buy and sell children” and now this idiocy, you are without doubt the biggest fruitloop on the Cat.

    Seriously, take a break. You are just embarrassment to punctuation marks everywhere.

  38. lotocoti says:

    Maybe Darwin could host a couple of Arleigh Burke destroyers on behalf of the USN and a couple for Brisbane and Sydney.

    The NIMBYs in some Sydney harbourside suburb kicked up a huge stink over cruise ships alongside running on internal power.
    Imagine their howls at the possibility of someone not only cranking their SPY up to max. output, but also pumping out a couple of birds.
    Besides, most of the councils in Sydney are proudly nuclear free.
    Which, unless things have changed since the good old days, should stay Phat Boy Kim’s hand.

  39. rickw says:

    What we all need to do is be concentrating on encouraging North Korea to de-escalate.

    Prime Fucktard advocates negotiating with the armed lunatic you just discovered in your kitchen at 3:00am.

  40. Irreversible says:

    Kates, who is much better informed than the PM, knows that a missile “shield” costing say, a trillion, is a good buy. Let’s make Kates PM. Then he can use public money to start a few coal fired power stations, maybe some other industries even, to prove that the so-called Say’s law (actually a series of observations arising from shortages in the Napoleonic France) is the way to go.
    Or: we can ship Kates (and Trump) to Pyongyang, where his thinking will fit in perfectly.

  41. rickw says:

    In fairness to MT. Mid-course Missile defense systems are very expensive. The US is allegedly spending nearly a $1 billion USD per year.

    So quite a bit below the cost of the NBN?

  42. Tim Neilson says:

    rickw
    #2465710, posted on August 11, 2017 at 3:37 pm

    It’s not just that Fat Boy has been trained from birth to be a megalomaniac psychopath, though that’s enough reason to doubt the sanity of anyone who proposes “encouraging” him to de-escalate.

    Let’s suppose that there are some elements of reality in Fat Boy’s psyche, or at least in the mentalities of those who have some influence over him.

    What he’ll know is that:
    (a) in the early 1990’s the Ukraine gave up its nukes in return for a guarantee from Bill Clinton that the US would stand by it militarily;
    (b) in 2003 Gaddafi pre-emptively surrendered all his WMD’s in a state of panic over the liberation of Iraq, in return for GWB’s guarantee that the US wouldn’t take any action against Gadaffi’s regime;
    (c) when Putin invaded the Ukraine, the US under Barry did absolutely nothing;
    (d) when a rebellion broke out in Libya, the US under Barry instantly deployed every available airborne asset to attack Gaddafi’s forces, culminating in Gaddafi being captured, tortured, sodomised and killed live on the internet.

    So why exactly would Fat Boy voluntarily give up his WMD program? Even if he were to trust Trump, he’d have to keep in mind the prospect that at some stage the Dems will shoehorn Michelle Obama or Chelsea Clinton into the White House.

  43. Habib says:

    Hobart Class are AEGIS equipped, and can fire BMD weapons, they are expensive buggers though. With three on-line and joining the USN targetting bubble we’re pretty well covered, accepting of course that the NORKs have the capability to build a nuke warhead, launch and target it effectively, all of which is highly doubtful. Should finish the job from ’53 anyway and apply sufficient ordnance to bring them up to the stone age. Ditto for Syria.

  44. . says:

    jupes
    #2465686, posted on August 11, 2017 at 3:14 pm
    Sandline (ex SAS)
    Suitcase nukes
    One AWD equipped for NMD

    Dotty, what with your “only 376 Muslim terrorists in the world”, your “it’s moral to buy and sell children” and now this idiocy, you are without doubt the biggest fruitloop on the Cat.

    Seriously, take a break. You are just embarrassment to punctuation marks everywhere.

    We pay 35 bn a year and get two commando battalions and the SAS. A couple of years ago the Navy had NO seaworthy vessels and the RAAF fighter pilots can’t even train for long enough to be competent in air to air combat. 1 hour a week of flying.

    Where are our fantastic new landing ships/helicopter carriers?

    Laid up for three months this year because someone PUT THE WRONG OIL in.

    Current defence spending to the outcomes is indefensible and has been so for at least 30 years.

    You are defending 30 years of failure.

  45. Malcolm says:

    Steve Kates really has Turnbull Derangement Syndrome. Mad bad Steve thinks the Australian taxpayer should spend tens of billions of dollars on a missile shield that will accomplish nothing. That would be the whitest of white elephants. That would be madness.

  46. a happy little debunker says:

    RobK #2465524, posted on August 11, 2017 at 12:46 pm

    When we get our submarines we’ll be invincible.

    Viva la resistance, cause Frenchy subs are built for surrender.

  47. Sean says:

    Rudd already made this suggestion a month ago.

    And in power the idea was rejected by a Gov review.

  48. harry buttle says:

    The Israeli Arrow 3 looks like a good prospect, however defence alone doesn’t make you safe as no defence is 100%, we need an ability to strike back with WMD to deter such an attack – fortunately that is within our capabilities – reasonably stealthy VX armed cruise missiles would be neither insanely expensive, nor terribly difficult to build and would allow us an entry point into producing our own combat UAVs.

  49. Atoms for Peace says:

    We could strap some boosters onto the subs and frighten the crap out of our enemies with the Mother of all Stoopid Bombs. Nobody wants a 50 billion boondoggle dropped on them. ‘ cept the Australian taxpayer.

  50. J.H. says:

    Well…. A bit of good sense from Bill Shorten…. Perhaps there is a bit more to this man after all?

    Considering that Shorten is probably going to be the next PM, it is a small mollification of some sorts to know that at least he understands the geopolitics and dangers of a nuclear armed and ballistic missile capable North Korea.

    Well at least Turnbull has his 50 year submarine plan, it’s a pity he didn’t order a few Zeppelins while he was at it.

  51. The Countess says:

    Prob no need for China to invade. We’ve been selling off the place brick-by-brick, so they’ll have the keys without having fired a shot or broken a sweat.

    Isn’t that the truth.

  52. J.H. says:

    Tim Neilson
    #2465729, posted on August 11, 2017 at 3:51 pm
    rickw
    #2465710, posted on August 11, 2017 at 3:37 pm

    ——————————————————————————————————–
    Yep….. What Tim Neilson said. Spot on.

  53. Crossie says:

    Good sense for a change. If they came up with a credible policy on stopping the boats, how much difference would it make who took over after the next election?

    That’s like asking whether we want one hole in the head or two.

  54. John Constantine says:

    Australia can’t even make Bollards and get them right, let alone surface to air missile defence shields.

    What is the bet the next economic stimulus after the Bollards of Ponzi will be deeply dug missile proof Bunkers of Peace for the Elites of the Quisling class.

  55. Crossie says:

    Negotiations are obviously no longer an option unless the rest of the world wants to pay Danegeld to this psychopath into perpetuity.

    I wonder if Trump is daring Phat Boy into a dangerous move so that it will provide an excuse to bomb every military and government target in NK into dust. After that either the Chinese or South Koreans can go in and pick up the pieces if they wish. Americans should simply blast away and go home, none of the useless time wasting they did in Iraq.

  56. . says:

    China owns less than 0.5% of the land in Australia. Much of it is acquired to evade Chinese authorities.

    They opened up their economy 37 years ago.

    “We’re looking to invade in 300 years time”

    Hmm. Sounds like a plan.

  57. jupes says:

    You are defending 30 years of failure.

    I’m defending nothing you idiot. I agree that there has been 30 years of failure.

    I just pointed out that your ‘solution’ can be put in the fruitloop basket.

  58. Tel says:

    OK, so if the Norks find it too hard to attack Japan or Guam which do have missile defences however leaky they may be, Sydney seems pretty good as a place for them to show they really mean it. Does Malcolm never get anything important right?

    To be honest I think he did get this right.

    [1] Missile defense is very expensive and pretty sketchy in terms of hitting anything.
    [2] If they ever get it working in future they will still sell it to us.
    [3] Australia will never lead the world in this technology so don’t even start saying “investment”.
    [4] We are broke, and each year getting deeper in hoc.
    [5] North Korea are a long way away and Australia does not count for much in negotiations anyway.
    [6] We don’t even have viable conventional defense and that’s much more important.
    [7] Our limited conventional defense is getting weaker for half a dozen reasons.
    [8] At the moment most of our government (both major parties for sure) consists of idiots who would be guaranteed to make a mess should they attempt any major project (think in terms of NBN + School Halls + Pink Batts with rockets and explosives and you might be somewhere in the picture).

  59. Robber Baron says:

    Can we hold a postal survey to elect a new prime minister?

  60. Confused Old Misfit says:

    [6] We don’t even have viable conventional defense and that’s much more important.

    Are you implying that our girls can’t beat their girls? Or that our girls can’t beat their men?
    Just let David Morrison loose on them in his high heels!

  61. Zatara says:

    Maybe Darwin could host a couple of Arleigh Burke destroyers on behalf of the USN and a couple for Brisbane and Sydney.

    Why not host RAN ones?

    The US currently has 62 Arleigh Burkes with 9 more completing this year. At an original cost of US$1.843 billion per unit I’d guess the used ones might be quite a bargain. I’m sure they would be happy to sell Australia 6 of them and just build more.

    They also have lots of spare Los Angeles class attack submarines to chose from. Of the 26 retired boats in this class, 14 of them were laid up half way (approximately 17–18 years) through their projected lifespans. The class has more operating nuclear submarines than any other in the world. Original cost $2,200 million per inflation adjusted.

    ATiconderoga class cruiser as flagship would round things out nicely.

    There is much to be said for proven performance in a country which continues to buy pigs in a poke.

  62. . says:

    Outsourcing defence is a sensible option for a small country. We can barely keep enlistment up.

  63. Zatara says:

    Expecting big brother to expend their blood and treasure in one’s defense while refusing to do so itself isn’t outsourcing. There are other words for that.

    If one wants to keep enlistment up it is best not to use the military for forced social engineering.

  64. Confused Old Misfit says:

    Outsourcing defence is a sensible option for a small country. We can barely keep enlistment up.

    And it is really, really hard to get the gender balance right! If we outsourced it the SJW’s wouldn’t notice.

  65. Fang says:

    Oh! I thought North Korea, got our defense contract, didn’t they! 🙂

  66. Jarrod says:

    Very tough to hit a ballistic missile on its way to target at 5000 metres per second. The US have pulled it off a few times from dozens of tests. Once defensive technology gets to the point where it can realiztically shoot the things down, offensive technology will improve with it. Decoys, stealth, jamming, improved speed etc. Nothing will be completely reliable until laser based and now im talking scifi.

    Australia spending a cent on ballistic missile defence would wasteful.

  67. Up The Workers! says:

    Prime Quisling Halal Mal the Head-Loppers’ Pal doesn’t need missile defences.

    He’ll get the Australian Armed Farces Ladies Tactical Knitting Circle on the job.

  68. Stimpson J. Cat says:

    We can use the French subs and the Collins class subs to build an impenetrable wall around Sydney.

  69. Up The Workers! says:

    If Australia can build or source a trebuchet with a big enough bucket, we could kill two birds with the one stone by firing Halal Mal Quisling’s ‘Defence Minister’ at the fatboy and his crew of toadies.

    If the Yanks get a chance, I hope they nuke the obnoxious fatboy and that barber-shop he attends.

    That haircut is a crime against humanity!

  70. Entropy says:

    woolfe
    #2465601, posted on August 11, 2017 at 1:44 pm
    Les Deplorables‏ @woolfe

    @TurnbullMalcolm rejected Australia to install missile defence shield as negotiations are well under way to surrender South Australia to NK

    No need to be that mean to the NKs.

  71. BrettW says:

    Confused above triggered me when he mentioned Morrison.

    It made me think we need the ultimate deterant. A Company of Frightbats ! :

    Commanded by Triggs and including Clem Ford, Yassmin, Fran Kelly, Jess Rowe, Terri Butler, etc.

  72. Richard Bender says:

    Gee Steve, did you ever stop to consider that the advice the PM received came from people who know about availability missile defence systems and their capabilities, know about the North Korean missiles and their capabilities and reasonably, on the evidence available, concluded that a defence system would be ineffective?

    Or should he instead make national security decisions on the advice of an economist whose partisanship has rendered him essentially incapable of writing a readable blog post.

  73. John L says:

    Of course, in such an attack, plenty of shells will still get through and hit their mark before the artillery pieces are destroyed, which should take a few days.

    Why not start a few days earlier and take out those artillery pieces before they hit the marks.
    As Jack Reacher would say “take your revenge first”.
    Jack Reacher would also say “fuck the UN”!

  74. Ben Gray says:

    Have to disagree with you on this one Steve – missile defense systems are expensive and the likelihood of successful intercept, which is already pretty low even in tests, starts to shrink to nothing the larger the area you are trying to defend.
    They make sense for defending small areas that are likely to be attacked, places like military bases or small countries such Korea, Japan or Israel where the missiles are going to go coming from a fairly easy to guess direction close to your boarders. For us, it would just be throwing good money away to defend against a very unlikely attack.

  75. Tator says:

    Oh Come On,
    the North Koreans may have that many artillery tubes aimed at Seoul, but they would probably only get one or maybe 2 salvos in before getting hit with counterbattery fire from the South Koreans as most fixed tube artillery on the North Korean side would have their coordinates known before they started if the intel techheads are on the ball.
    Then again, 20k rounds of 155 mm or close to it would do some damage to some neighbourhoods even though they are 35 miles away.
    Plus a 2011 study by the Nautilus Institute throws a considerable amount of cold water on this scenario. While the sheer number of artillery tubes could theoretically kill a large number of civilians, operational issues complicate matters and push the number of civilian casualties greatly downward. Despite the thousands of artillery pieces, only 700 heavier guns and rocket launchers, plus the newer 300-millimeter MRLs, have the range to strike Seoul. Only a third would normally be fired at once, and notional rates of fire would be slowed tremendously by the need to withdraw guns into their hardened artillery sites (HARTS) to shelter them from counter battery fire.

    Other factors reduce the projected loss of life in the greater Seoul metropolitan area. The city has extensive air raid shelters for civilians that will quickly reduce the exposed population density. The North will struggle to keep these heavy artillery units supplied with shells, particularly with its aging supply system. Finally, U.S. and ROK forces will quickly begin hunting down units participating in the bombardment, causing their numbers to drop almost immediately.

  76. Jimf says:

    Very surprising the yanks can’t/ don’t have operatives that have infiltrated Kim Dim Sim’s inner sanctum. If they did , so much better to nail him and other key head nodders. You’d like to think the downtrodden masses could cause a popular uprising? (The Sth K’s are the best protesters around and they have a democracy!). Surely the rank and file of the armed forces are ripe to snuff this sick dynasty thing? (By the way – isn’t it ironic that commo “people power” nation states are always led by nepotists and the entrenched elite?) ..
    If it goes feral , so many already long suffering & impoverished citizens will be crispified.
    Anyway , maybe I’ve just watched too many Bond films in believing he can be done over up close.
    US will only ever strike Pre-emptively if Beijing is aligned and gives reluctant support. If mud guts is stupid enough to shoot something at Guam or SK then DT will just let Beijing know as the response is being executed. .

  77. . says:

    Tell you what it is interesting to see the different points of view here. A good sign for the blog.

  78. Tator says:

    Habib,
    my bad, didn’t realise that the HMAS Hobart was operational as was only handed over in June. Still, Malcontent would probably still sit it in Sydney Harbour whilst the US use theirs to protect their USMC contingent in the NT. No harm no foul.

  79. max says:

    Why do those inadequate little men in Washington and New York dream of new wars? Because the empire is near a tipping point.

    Washington must either either start a war in Korea, or gets faced down by the North, its carriers ignored, its bombers “sending signals” and making “shows of force” without result. For the empire this is a loss of face and credibility, and an example to others that America can be challenged.

    Iran has not caved to Washington’s threats and sanctions and clearly isn’t going to. Another strategic loss, a big one, unless–the hawks seem to think–remedied by a war. Iran wants to trade with Europe and Europe likes the idea. Worse, Iran is becoming a vital part of China’s aim to integrate Europe and Asia economically. To the empire this smelñls of death. The frightened grow desperate.

    China shows no signs of backing down in the South China Sea. For Washington, it is either war now, when thinks it might win, or be overshadowed as China grows.

    Russia has irrevocably gotten the Crimea, is quietly absorbing part of the Ukraine, and looks as if its side is going to win in Syria. Three humiliating setbacks for the empire. Loss of control of the Mideast would be a strategic disaster for Washington.
    Continued control of Europe is absolutely vital. European governments have groveled but now even they grow restless with Washington’s sanction against Russia, and European businessmen want more trade eastward. Growing trade with Asia threatens to loosen Europe’s shackles. Washington cannot allow this.

    Today, “US military” means airplanes. American ground forces are small, not rapidly deployable and–if I may lapse into rural accuracy–pussified, obsessed with homosexuality, girls in combat, trans this and trans that, and racial and sexual quotas in the officer corps. The Pentagon has trouble finding recruits physically fit enough for combat arms.

    generals… have let the military become the playground of feminists, homosexuals, transvestites, transgenders, single mothers, and so on. They value their careers over the military. 

    People tend to think of countries as suprahuman entities with rational minds. We say, “Russia did this” or The US decided that….” Countries don’t decide anything. Men (usually) do. You know, McCain, Hillary, generals, delusional Neocons, and Trump, who is eerily similar to Kaiser Wilhelm, another stochastic military naif with a codpiece need. These massive egos are not well suited to backing down or conceding that they have made a mistake.

    This egotism is important. Washington’s vanities could not accept being humiliated, not allow any country to show that resistance to America is possible.
    by Fred Reed

  80. max says:

    China to Protect North Korea if US Attacks First

    If North Korea launches an attack that threatens the United States then China should stay neutral, but if the United States attacks first and tries to overthrow North Korea’s government China will stop them, a Chinese state-run newspaper said on Friday.

    https://mishtalk.com/2017/08/11/war-games-china-say-it-will-prevent-us-from-attacking-north-korea-first-is-this-a-game-or-is-it-real/

  81. Jimf says:

    Max (Fred Reed?), some interesting observations there . Agree the world’s trade power dynamics are changing rapidly. Can’t help but think you may have overestimated the demise of the US military tho? Sure they’re caught up in western vanity politics rubbish,but my money’s on them against any other terrestrial force going around. Including China’s. At any rate , any conflict with NK will be quick,burny, and air based.

  82. Jimf says:

    When Kim goes it will most likely be because the powers that be in Beijing decide he’s too
    much trouble and they may just decide to knock him off and roll in the tanks themselves. A “caretaker” (ha ha) Chinese administration will be more palatable for everyone. Face saved . A more logical political compromise than conflict .

  83. Tator says:

    Max,
    US ground forces are small and not quickly deployable. Have you ever heard of a USMC MEF which are a division of Marines and their add ons like armour, artillery and air. There are two based in the Pacific Command alone with 86000 marines. Let alone the 28000 already stationed in Korea including a squadron of F16s and another of Hogs. Add a couple of carrier task forces and air superiority will be established in a day or so if not hours, allowing B1B and B2 attacks at will, let alone B52’s.
    I reckon the most feared words for a North Korean Fighter Pilot is going to be “You are cleared for take off” as their 1960’s and 70s built aircraft are no match for even the F16’s and I reckon even the Hogs would score a few air to air kills easily. Let alone the havok they will cause for any NK mechanised units.

  84. John L says:

    Consider this:
    The US has the missile – space shuttle – that can hit the moon.
    The US has spy satellites that can “see” what’s on Fat Boy’s plate of kimchi.
    How difficult it would be hit a relatively slow-moving target, such as NK missile, during the flight over some 2000 miles.
    Or even better; how easy it would be to hit it on the launch pad – stationary target.

  85. Pete of Freo says:

    Clearly Flummery has deduced that the NORKs can’t hit Canberra or Sydney and has opted for the standard threat response of the nation of Sydmelbane and abandoned the west. The added bonus is that a nuke on Stirling Naval Base, just south of Fremantle, would solve the GST problem, eradicate all of the bad feelings about the abandonment of a functioning, capable and thriving ship building industry in Cockburn Sound to the pork-barrel whims of a fatuous bath-house loiterer from South Australia and still leave all of those mines available for plunder. It’s a clear win-win situation

  86. old bloke says:

    I think Turnbull is right as far as defence against a possible NK missile strike on Australian targets goes (at the moment), but are all threats likely to come from land based missiles in NK? What plans do we have to defend Australia from ship or submarine based missile attacks?

    If an enemy wanted to take Australia, a small nuke fired from a submarine off the NSW south coast could take out Canberra and military bases on the eastern seaboard, do we have any defences against this sort of attack? I don’t think any enemy would bother targeting major population centres as our populace is largely unarmed and wouldn’t pose any threat to foreign armies.

    Our best defence would be to have the capability to respond to such an attack which we can’t do as we don’t have either the land based or submarine missile capabilities.

  87. . says:

    How difficult it would be hit a relatively slow-moving target, such as NK missile, during the flight over some 2000 miles.

    Pretty hard actually, but the tech is getting better. The tests are “one shot”, firing savlos from batteries would probably be successful.

  88. Sean says:

    China owns less than 0.5% of the land in Australia. Much of it is acquired to evade Chinese authorities.

    A large % of the land in Australia is worth very little though, so 0.5% isn’t as insignificant as it sounds.

  89. Pingback: The Swamp Runs Deep | Catallaxy Files

  90. . says:

    Sean
    #2466476, posted on August 12, 2017 at 12:11 pm
    China owns less than 0.5% of the land in Australia. Much of it is acquired to evade Chinese authorities.

    A large % of the land in Australia is worth very little though, so 0.5% isn’t as insignificant as it sounds.

    No. China doesn’t own 5% of our landmass. Stop being paranoid.

  91. Combine Dave says:

    No. China doesn’t own 5% of our landmass. Stop being paranoid.

    If true, it would be a great way to prevent NK nuclear strikes on Australia!

Comments are closed.