Defence Spending Increase

[Manix77]

Originally Posted by balthazarr

I just can't see how Australia can defend itself - no matter how much we spend. With a population of ~20mil, even if every single able-bodied person were to enlist, we couldn't defend such a massive area from a sustained attack.

Maybe I'm missing something and someone more knowledgeable can enlighten me.

Actually our geographic/strategic circumstances are the opposite. Defending mainland Australia is relatively easy. Anyone who's ever served/worked in northern Australia can tell you that the environment up there is our best defence. If an adversary landed in Darwin and tried to attack south they'd have huge land based supply lines along ONE ROAD! If they landed in a southern sea port they'd have huge sea/air based supply lines with plenty of opportunity for interdiction. That said if we don't have a reasonable military then we're vulnerable.

Originally Posted by Road_Warrior

Point taken, but you've gotta ask the question - why aren't there more MBT's in A-stan right now? Most if not all of the coalition members there have them in service but not in service in A-stan! I've seen pictures of Dutch tanks that are currently there (look funny covered in fabric and anti-rpg skirts all over them) but that is all.

Most of the troops in Afghanistan are special forces. Those nations that have conventional forces there like the Dutch and Canadians back them up with tanks (Leopard 2 in both cases). Given that the Taliban are now mobilising in larger organised groups (because they get trounced by small special forces patrols) I think you'll see more forces using heavy fighting vehicles, check this link out.

http://www.monstersandcritics.com/ne...tury__Feature_



regards

Manix