During the last sitting week of federal parliament, Messrs Morrison and Dutton made much of the looming threat of war with China.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
It was done as an attempt to 'wedge' Albanese and the ALP, but was also a jingoistic electioneering call.
This brought to mind the meaning of the word 'jingo'.
It was taken from a popular music-hall song in the UK leading up to the First World War: "We don't want to fight, but by jingo if we do/We've got the ships, we've got the men/And we've got the money too".
There's an irony here, of course, for those whipping up jingoistic war drums are seemingly unaware that the bulk of our ships and aircraft are not fit for purpose.
I will begin by looking at the AUKUS announcement last September, which forecast ambitious plans to provide Australia with advanced US and UK defence equipment.
The package includes hardware such as sophisticated tanks and missiles, and, of course, the acquisition of nuclear submarines.
When Australia suddenly cancelled the existing French submarine project, the Prime Minister angered the French by lying to them about it.
We also alienated a number of Pacific Island states, which believe our submarines will compromise the South Pacific Nuclear-Free Zone.
It may also encourage nuclear proliferation.
Asian countries with nuclear power reactors such as Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan may want their own nuclear-powered boats.
As Richard Broinowski pointed out in Pearls and Irritations, "environmentally, the acquisition could be a disaster".
He asks, "where in Australia are the submarines to be based? Could their home ports become contaminated? Where do we dispose of their reactors at the end-of-service life?"
The subs will contain highly-enriched, bomb-grade uranium (U-235) and plutonium (Pu-239) that will remain highly toxic for thousands of years.
Australia does not have the political will to identify permanent disposal sites for low-level medical nuclear waste, let alone the highly toxic spent fuel from submarine reactor cores.
And, of course, when Australia will receive the submarines is left totally vague.
The shortcomings with existing defence programs tell us we may be waiting a long time, entailing much more expense than we bargained for.
In an article published in the spring 2010 edition of Security Challenges, Fred Bennett, chief of capital procurement in the Defence Department in the 1980s, lists what he calls the seven deadly risks that confound efficient defence procurement.
They are novelty, uncertainty, complexity, interdependence, resource limitations, political constraints and the dangers of commercial control.
Some or all of these factors played a part in cost overruns, schedule delays and performance failures that have dogged previous defence procurement projects. The following are among the more egregious examples.
The Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter sold to the RAAF is admitted to be a failure by USAF experts. At an eye-watering $US100 million per plane, it has limited range, low air-to-air combat survivability, and extraordinarily high running costs. Fifth-generation Chinese and Russian fighters outperform it.
Nine UK-designed Hunter-class frigates to be built by BAE Systems at Adelaide's Osborne Shipyard at a cost of $6 billion have been found at audit to have substantial design faults.
The ADF's entire fleet of 47 European-designed MRH-90 Taipan helicopters, assembled in Australia and brought into service in 2017, are being retired because of numerous faults. Retirement is a decade earlier than expected.
They will be replaced by the latest versions of American Blackhawks.
In the shorter term, cynics may see the ramping up of the Chinese threat and the AUKUS agreement as ephemeral, as laying the groundwork for a 'khaki' Australian election in 2022.
Regardless of all the above, I am always dismayed by the attention paid to increasing defensive and offensive capabilities by those expressing concern for our security.
It would be more useful for the future of humanity if at least as much attention was paid to waging peace.
Please don't tell me that building up our military capabilities will ensure our safety, as it was similar arms races that led to two world wars.
Far better to heed the fourth pillar of the Greens philosophy, which is 'Peace and non-violence'.
Its text reads that: "Trying to prevent violence with violence itself will not work. The Greens are committed to peaceful and non-violent solutions locally, nationally and internationally".
