As an alternative to the current 31.9 billion dollar ADF budget, would it be economically beneficial and viable to:
a) Require mandatory basic military training for the entire Australian workforce during secondary schooling so as to avoid disrupting GDP output. Therefore having an exponentially larger combat familiar population.
b) To use this population as an emergency civil guard in case of attack on the homefront.
c) Proceed to dismantle the current military by placing a hiatus on all career recruiting until all active servicemen have retired. However, in doing so, ensuring exceptions are made to recruiting in the instance of essential maintenance personnel for grounds,equipment and vehicles in addition to strategic and field command roles. The officer class notably needed to organise and lead such a large paramilitary.
d) Install all metropolitan local police stations with rapid response gear and training (e.g. High powered assault rifles) in the event of foreign invasion (an army cannot be mobilised instantaneously).
Whilst this is political in nature, I assume it abides by the rules on fiscal policy. If not, apologies.
Do you really need a military? Why the fuck would any country invade or otherwise care about Australia?
I imagine if germany had conquered the world they would've remembered years later that they forgot about that island in the ass of the world and just said fuck it, not worth the trip
Assuming that a nuclear detonation would be globally catastrophic thus highly unlikely to occur even in war, or that air defence was manned.
I'm not after military flaws in the hypothetical, just if such a transition is economically viable or beneficial in any way. The implication is that Australia no longer participates in external warfare (e.g. Iraq, East Timor). I don't see how enormous expenditure on a force that could be overrun by the majority of our neighbours is needed when the money could be allocated elsewhere, particularly in regional areas.
Is there even any point? Australia has a history of training up the best soldiers last minute anyway. Admittedly in those days it was because most people lived on farms and had firearms anyway.
Actually as surprising as it is, Australia is an enormous agricultural prize among its habitable land mass, ore deposits (including uranium) and green energy potential. A certain overpopulated Asian country would be very interested and indeed Japan during WW2 developed invasion plans. I feel that is becoming a bit /pol/, sorry again. The whole place could become a giant Chinese GOC.
>a) Require mandatory basic military training for the entire Australian workforce during secondary schooling so as to avoid disrupting GDP output. Therefore having an exponentially larger combat familiar population.
>entire Australian workforce during secondary schooling
Idiot.. they're not in the workforce if they're still in school.
But I've considered this myself as I know a fair few Jews that do the year in the IDF, but you have to keep in mind It's not like we have an aggressive enemy state close by. We're not Israelis fending off suicide bombing Palestinians. Or bordering a maniacal Totalitarian regime like South Koreans. We're literally a desert island in the middle of nowhere. We can't get anymore isolated unless we moved to one of the poles.
>b) To use this population as an emergency civil guard in case of attack on the homefront.
Dude, we are an island. Our entire country is essentially a castle and the ocean is our mote. All we need is a kick ass naval/air force which we will have in 5-6 years. Literally most of the budget is going towards new ships/submarines/jets etc. so the whole argument of reducing the military budget is invalid right there. Do some fucking research. We will be having state of the art war machines with bleeding edge technology. I can't be bothered googling and linking articles regarding the new ships but as an appreciator of engineering, tech, military, etc. They make me froth. Not only that but we're getting the new f-35s which are again sexy as fuck. Yeah they might be controversial but that's what you get with bleeding edge tech.
>c) Proceed to dismantle the current military by placing a hiatus on all career recruiting until all active servicemen have retired. However, in doing so, ensuring exceptions are made to recruiting in the instance of essential maintenance personnel for grounds,equipment and vehicles in addition to strategic and field command roles. The officer class notably needed to organise and lead such a large paramilitary.
It's a pain to read what you right because you're so verbose. Just say "Should we stop hiring military personnel except for the people that are totally necessary" The answer is no. Because the military is already very selective and efficient. It's not like the welfare where people are paid to do nothing, they are all very critical, if they weren't they'd be out of there. Seriously you need to do more research. We have something like 40,000 army personnel compared to like 1.3million active military and nearly another million reserve for the USA.
>d) Install all metropolitan local police stations with rapid response gear and training (e.g. High powered assault rifles) in the event of foreign invasion (an army cannot be mobilised instantaneously).
Whilst this is political in nature, I assume it abides by the rules on fiscal policy. If not, apologies.
You are seriously an idiot and getting on my nerves. We don't need any of that shit. We are not at war! We are not in imminent danger of invasion you poof. 99.99% of situations the police deal with won't necessitate these measures and the ones that do will be fielded by specially trained police/commandos. Do you want a police state? Plus a majority of cops would be incompetent reservist soldiers because of things like strength, gender, body fat etc.
This is true, but also remember the nature of contemporary war. It is in hours, not days and weeks that a country can invade another. In those days there was a feeling of national pride. There was civility in parliament, when Robert Menzies spoke, do you think shadow opp. would hurl abuse, or backbenchers chatter among themselves? Of course not, silence. Children played outside and respected authority out of fear of the cane or belt. The basic human familiarity with the world that made Australians tough and those armies so quick to develop is now lost. Seriously, try to see how kids behave on camps or in school if possible. Argue with a teacher about marks? What is that. Have a fear of farm animals and muck? Absurd. over 700,000 men were enlisted in WW2 with a population half the size of the present day. Yet today the military including reserves only reaches a bit over 100,000. I agree entirely, is there any point, is it worth it?
High tech research gives me a technocratic vibe and I don't have an issue with it, technocratic inclusion into parliament could never hurt. Again, I don't want to go too off topic though otherwise I'll be destined for POL. Does anyone know anything about the original question, which is at base: does Australia need an army if a civil guard would suffice *economically*. If not/if so -> Why? (E.g. Too expensive, inadequate capital etc.)
Stop trying to sound clever cunt you're fucking me off big time.
>Assuming that a nuclear detonation would be globally catastrophic thus highly unlikely to occur even in war
A single nuke is not globally catastrophic. A nuclear war would be however due to the fact that there will be 100s flying around all over the place.
And yeah no ones ever dropped a nuke in times of war. tard.
If he was an American he would know that already as it was the Americans helping to kill the Japs in South East asia for us by dropping bombs and chem weapons.
I did cadets, its not what it's cracked up to be. Spent most of our time marching around and shit. Was pretty lame. And Its more than likely thats the format they'd follow if they were to implement it in more schools.
pffffft what are you talking about. Australia is notorious for their incompetent military leaders. Gallipoli for one where they landed on the wrong beach and got absolutely cucked.
There was also another battle where thousands of Australian troops fired on another group of diggers. Thousands were killed. Another time an Aussie f-51 squadron fired on a train full of Aussie and Yanky soldiers. Killed 700. Idiots..
>Australia is an enormous agricultural prize among its habitable land mass,
idiot, there's fuck all habitable land mass within Australia. The chinese are no threat mate. With a pop of 1.357billion, excluding those too old or young, the tarded and handicapped, and the vast amounts of auschwitz skinnyfags barely surviving because Chinas a shit hole and can barely feed its people you have about 500million. 500million chinks facing 10million bogans commanding 3million free sheep shaggers. HOWL!
Yep. Not like they'd need it with all their biological engineeing to create test tube steaks.
Yes, we need an army. The bouncers outside clubs aren't just there to check who comes in. They're there so people can see that they're there and not to cause trouble. Do you get the analogy. Plus our military is like a bully along with the coalition in the middle east. You have what i want (oil) so fuck you i'm taking it.
There are several factual errors in the argument you've made for yourself in what was an economics based question which I will respond to later on if you'd be interested. For example, a lot of our land is habitable, nuclear arms carry stratospheric fallout + such an event would enact M.A.D in addition to starting a war (alliance system), armed police do not equal a police state by definition, Gallipoli wasn't the fault of Australian or British forces (it's an extremely common myth that it was), the Chinese are absolutely a threat as is most of south-east Asia (this is a hypothetical though, none of this would happen in the first place because it would take immense political reform)...etc.
So thanks for the replies (remembering that I'll respond later, probs). Otherwise, wew lad. Projecting as much as Louis C[uc]K.
Ha. Tru tru tru 100 100 100. I'll post this in POL later on, I feel it belongs there more based on the comments. I get the bouncer analogy, I was just proposing the viability of a civil guard which is basically; everyone is the bouncer, it's a bouncer club.
Your last point renders any of our arguments void as it is, parliamentarians couldn't stay in power if they didn't suck oil tycoon's dicks once in a while. That'd be why we've got boots on the sand dunes and dirt. We're not exactly helping out Ukraine over here despite their war, no incentive. Seriously though, if anyone has statistical answers for me that'd be good.