ANZUS treaty and the changing world

Post Reply New Topic

I can't help but wonder; with the inevitable, though apparently postponed, collapse of the United States as a so-called super power, will it be able to uphold it's end? The American military is overtaxed as it stands, and with increasing military unpopularity and a faltering economy, would Americas inability to assist Australia and New Zealand in the likely event of Chinese expansionism, or Indonesias growing instability and anti-Australian sentiments - not to mention the constant civil wars amongst the pacific nations Australia must always play peacekeeper at - would the current American inability to render even token assistance ruin the century of alliance between Aus and Usa? Consider the changing world, of course, and essentially worst-case scenarios. Granted, Australia could never be defeated - as anybody who knows the purpose of the ADF's selective choice in equipment, and the designs of our cities should realize. But, even still - the death be destruction would be higher, because such a war would be fought on a narrower front - no divide and conquer with no friends to help the conquer.
Unlikely events, of course, but not unprecedented. England may help, but they don't have a teriffic track record there. But would an inability to help lessen the damage build resentment at lack of foresight and lead to strains between the nations?

I hope so. Australia is turning into mini-America. And with all due respect, I can't stand America.

Curious to have you expand on your theory that Aus cannot be defeated, also I think there is very little chance of Indonesia attacking us and if China wanted to expand nothing short of nuclear weapons could stop her. China has not shown any real aggression in the last 70 or so years unless you count Taiwan. If anything our close strategic alliance to the US is what makes us a target.

DentArthurDent, these are hypotheticals. It's no secret the Chinese government is still harbouring expansionist ideas - which is making Japan nervous. Once world oil supplies dwindle enough, China will try to sieze monopoly. After all, we've only fifty years of oil left, and whoever controls the tanks and bombers controls the world. As for Indonesia, the strong anti-Australian views held there are kept in check only by U.S. treaty - they don't want to be attacked on two fronts. We all remember the various military "accidents" by the Indonesians over time. As for why Australia can't lose; many of our cities, noticeably Adelaide, have myriad underground shelters and escape tunnels. The ADF equipment and training is for combat in harshest Australian conditions. An enemy might take Australia, but they couldn't keep it. Nukes would be ineffective barring surprise attack before an evacuation. Enemy supply lines would be impossible, the conditions something they would not be prepared for. It's difficult to fight determined, technologically advanced invisible guerillla's.
While our alliance to America makes us a target in some respects, benefits outway the cost - so long as America holds it's own end up.

Granted, Indonesia wouldn't try to attack a superior force. But they'd have no qualms about sneak attacks and kicking us when we are down. Pro-genocidal militaries have a habit of that.
As for the oil issue, in my opinion, it's not guaranteed viable alternatives - at least with enough power for military hardware - could come around anytime soon. If it does; what nations would hold that power, and what would they use it for? What would other nations do to get that power?

Well, personally the only instances of hegemony I noticed were superficial. But, I don't think Japan ought to pay for WWII by way of possible Chinese aggression. I will never trust the older generation of Japanese; too many horror stories told by Australian survivor slaves. But I wouldn't suggest a younger generation be held responsible for occurances long before they were born. That was why europe was in a constant state of warfare throughout history, and why many South American, Asian, African and Eastern European nations still are.

There has been a dispute within the Japanese Government about that very thing for some years now.

@ Haliphron
So you think the best way to educate the Japanese youth is to invade them and carry out atrocities

BTW several generations of Japanese have been paying for the war. Ever heard of Nagasaki and Hiroshima, you do realise that before those bombs were dropped the Japanese were very close to capitulation. They have had genetic problems since. The bombs were practically an experiment, they certainly were not needed to bring about Japans surender

By your logic Japan should drop a couple of bombs onto the US.

Where do you get that they were close to surrendering? They were getting dug in, ready to fight to the death! The bombs killed a lot, yes - but many, many more on both sides would have died if the bombs hadn't been dropped. Remember the psychology of the imperial Japanese.

Ishmael its pretty common knowledge that Japan was on its knees and had been trying to sort out a surrender for nearly a year. The Yanks did not want a negotiated surrender and also needed to test the bomb

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrender_of_Japan

The most popular "surrender" treaty the Japanese were trying to push before the bombs would have allowed them to keep the territories they'd captured, subjugate the people of those territories and keep their captured slaves. Like hell that would be allowed!
Japan put it either at continued fighting or acceptance of those terms. Obviously, the terms were rejected, and the Japanese kept fighting. You have to actually understand the psychology of Imperial Japan.