Kevin Rudd reckons Australia should plan for some ballistic missile defence programme against Kim Jong Un. In Washington, security expert Andrew Shearer at the US Centre for Strategic and International Studies reckons Australia should plan for continental missile defence against China’s 100 ICBMs and 1.5 million serving military.
Lead from the front Kev!
Security expert or vested interest?
Andrew Shearer was behind ‘Option J’ the Jap sub bid for Australia, so we put little value on his judgement and allegiances.
And why? What would all that cost? Double the NBN, NDIS and Gonski combined?
Another option is far cheaper, less costly in human life and more effective, as Dr Jim Saleam explains.
Was this ever taught in Australian schools and universities or forgotten so we do it again?
Dr. Jim Saleam:
‘So called experts have warned that Australia needs a nuclear shield to protect itself from Chinese and North Korean rockets.
And where would Australia get such a shield?
Well, it would appear that they recommend we obtain it from our ‘allies’ in Washington / New York.
If official Australia believes that the Continent is under threat of some type of nuclear coercion, we know as they do, that it comes because Australia is part of the New World Order alliance system and that in the contention between the Chinese superpower and the US superpower, Australia is a prize, a combined asset, a potential battleground and more besides.
If Australia accepted a nuclear shield from the US superpower, this commits the country to whatever war may take place between these powers and ensures that battles will be fought – here.
There is the other option. This is that Australia leaves the New World Order system, that is, takes Australian independence and subsequently arms itself for defence – as a neutral power
Certainly, Australia could be threatened by Chinese rockets (more so than North Korean ones), but Australia is a prize and the irradiation of its land-space is not profitable for a power anxious to build its economic power. If China uses ‘weapons’ on Australia, they would most likely be conventional ones backed by an invasion to ‘protect’ its children-of-the-motherland who reside here.
A policy of independence and armed neutrality means that Australia declines to be a prize or an asset or a battlefield.
No policy can guarantee these things, but one policy leads directly to disaster and the other might just avoid it.’
Armed neutrality is the posture of a state or group of states that has no alliance with either side in a war, but asserts that it will defend itself against resulting incursions from any party.
This may include military preparedness without commitment, especially as the expressed policy of a neutral nation in wartime; readiness to counter with force an invasion of rights by any belligerent power. Armed neutrality enables a seemingly-neutral state to take up arms for protection to maintain its neutrality.
This would seem more in line with Australia’s national interest and effective strategic security. Andrew Shearer, we’re a wake up to you, and Kev, just go back to Brisvegas.
