John Howard has balls!!

[wordy]

The aussie air force could quite easily spank north korea using that lot.

Thats an offiensive fleet of about 120 aircraft (including the MPA's) NK has an army of over 1 million men. I'm not doubting the courage or proffesionalsim of the RAAF but be realistic the RAAF won't be able to spank an army that size unless it's part of a larger multi-national force.

 

[Rosbif]

They are in our Region and NKs Missles can hit as far as Brisbane if they send them off.

They are pretty much up the road on the world Scale.

Its why we are in the Asia-Pacific region

World scale or not you dont have the capability to conduct a military operation against North Korea over a distance of approximately 5000 miles.

 

[Zip]

World scale or not you dont have the capability to conduct a military operation against North Korea over a distance of approximately 5000 miles.

We arnt dumb we wouldnt go in alone

Have Allies not Crossed you mind before?

5000 miles can be easily shortened with the help of some friendly neighbours

 

[malfunkshun]

Just looking at Wikipedia myself, how the hell does a country the size of the UK have a personnel count of 107,700, whereas Australia's is 26,000, wtf

Because Australia had a population of just under 19million people at the 2001 census.
Britain does have a higher percentage of it's population in service too, based on those figures.

 

[Rosbif]

We arnt dumb we wouldnt go in alone

Have Allies not Crossed you mind before?

5000 miles can be easily shortened with the help of some friendly neighbours

Which comes back to exactly what I said in the first place. The ones who dish out the arse whooping will be the Yanks, since no one else has the ability. Clever Howard.

 

[malfunkshun]

Which comes back to exactly what I said in the first place. The ones who dish out the arse whooping will be the Yanks, since no one else has the ability. Clever Howard.

Other than the fact that, imo, they are usually the first to call for military action. I think the international community would put forward a more complete multinational force if the US didn't throw so much manpower at these situations.

 

[Biohazard]

We have about 50,000-60,000 Ground Troops IIRC. Hightly trained in Jungle warfare because we need that for defence.
We have 400 SAS and we have the 4RAR which is also a cammando force that are almost as good as the SAS.
Our troops have lots of experiance and knowlage about jungle warfare because we have been fighting in jungles since WW2. We went to Vientnam aswell so learnt a lot there. I think we might have even been in Korea the first time round aswell. Pluss we have to send peace keepers to pacific islands and East Timor a lot.
We have quite a highly trained army. Even if we only have 50,000 we would still be able to cause a lot of damage. and once the Planes are involed it will help us even more. Plus if we go in im 100% sure that America will go in aswell due to some Contract/Treatie we have both signed to make sure we help each other in time of need.

But like john Howard said, Its only a last resort

I think a lot of people do not realise the contribution of the Australian state in Vietnam. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you not long posted a thread on a battle that involved some 150 troops that got surrounded?

 

[dirtydog]

I must have been in a coma when Australia became a global military power with a logistics network in place to strike anywhere and at any time in the world.

I must have been as well

 

[dirtydog]

Are you suggesting that militarily, Australia shirks it's (sic) responsibilities ?

I'm suggesting they are a small and insignificant country in the grand scheme of things, and talking tough on the world stage like this is just funny

 

[cleanbluesky]

I'm suggesting they are a small and insignificant country in the grand scheme of things, and talking tough on the world stage like this is just funny

And what defines being 'small and insignificant'? If Australia is willing to provide ballsy leadership amongst international peers are they still insignificant?

 

[dirtydog]

And what defines being 'small and insignificant'? If Australia is willing to provide ballsy leadership amongst international peers are they still insignificant?

Small population, small military force, low military capabilities. The UK is a military superpower compared to them - which isn't saying much either.

 

[Biohazard]

what is the population of Australia?

 

[dirtydog]

CIA says 20 million.

https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/as.html

 

[Zip]

I think a lot of people do not realise the contribution of the Australian state in Vietnam. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you not long posted a thread on a battle that involved some 150 troops that got surrounded?

Correct.

100 troops got attacked by 1500 Veicong and thew Australians won the battke abd only had about 5-10 deaths fromm memory whilke reports they discoverd found that over 500 Veitcong were killed and more were injured.
they found a whole heap of the wouded and dead vietcong on the ground the next day but most of them were carried away in battle.

We have done that again on a bit more of a smaller scale in Iraq and Afganistan since then with no Fatalitys

Edit: it was actually Australia 18 deaths and Vietcong 245 deaths.

http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=17613120&highlight=long+tan

 

[Von Smallhausen]

I'm suggesting they are a small and insignificant country in the grand scheme of things, and talking tough on the world stage like this is just funny

Can I suggest a search of Australian history ? WWI, WWII, Vietnam .......

The Autralians have a justly proud history, the ANZACs contributing majorly to major world conflicts, doing themselves and their country proud.

 

[Pookie Bear]

Can I suggest a search of Australian history ? WWI, WWII, Vietnam .......

The Autralians have a justly proud history, the ANZACs contributing majorly to major world conflicts, doing themselves and their country proud.

I recall a conversation a few years back with a number of ex and current squaddies in the British Army and every single one of them said they would rather have an Australian soldier standing next to them than any other - and that includes any country you'd care to name. That says a lot to me.

On top of that, they've got a PM who has basically come out and said what no-one else has had the guts to say. Good for him.

They might not be my favourite sporting nation in the world (understatement of the year), but they deserve more respect than they're getting in this thread.

 

[dirtydog]

I think my comments are being misconstrued a bit. I am sure the Aussies are good soldiers and their military is capable in its own right. Just as a lot of small nations have a capable military, relatively speaking. I'm just saying that as a world power, they are insignificant. They are not on the UN security council; they don't have nuclear weapons; their conventional military is small.

 

[Stolly]

we are very well trained and have a lot of experiance for and with jungle fighting?

That'll be a lot of use in the depths of a Korean winter.

 

[Burnsy2023]

Australia doesn't necessarily need a large military to get the results they want. If they are determind to stop NK and have the political will to go all the way, they wouldn't be doing it alone. Both Australia and Japan have close ties with the US and the UK. Not that I'm saying they would need large amounts of military support from either one.

The don't need loads of ground troops, just a hard hitting arial campaign and trade sanctions that would cripple NK.

Burnsy

 

[wassap]

How has he got balls, GWB has been saying this for ages in rgds to NK, nothing new in his speech tbh.

Dont see what any kind of military action will acheive apart from killing the std joe blog, ala iraq etc