Australia's Role in World War III

Did you ever see Steve Irwin try wrestle a Drop Bear? No, because they are to cunning and vicious and even he didn’t want to try.

Drop Bears are stealthy as they climb trees and wait for passer by’s and then “Drop” on them and maul them to death… Yes very dangerous…..

Our ties with China a purely economical the same with US and China. If the *snip* hits the fan between China and the US which it won’t, not in our life time anyway, of course the Aussie’s would side with our old allies.

Yes Kevin speaks Mandarin and he was a diplomat between China and OZ but even if he said we should stay neutral, which he wouldn’t, he would be overruled by the rest of parliament.



Mod Edit: Profanity/Circumvention Of Censors – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 26-2-2008 by Jbird]

Originally posted by Underbelly

That is rubbish. He's making it up. "Warmonger" talk. We all know China would have great difficulty in taking a small island like Taiwan, let alone a vast land like Australia.

Impossible to take Taiwan. Those mountains of shoes are too much for just one army.

[edit on 26-2-2008 by Jbird]

I don't think Australia would have anything to worry about as the whole planet would be screwed by fallout. I believe that if a joint attack were put into motion on the scale you described, the U.S. would authorize the use of nukes. Seeing as China has a army that is basically the same size as the population of the US it would be a dire battle for the US. Plus any preemptive nuclear strikes on the US by Russia would be devastating as well.

If a WW3 should break out as you speak these would be the teams.

China, Russia, Iran, Venezuela, North Korea, and Syria.
(There might be a little more but they might not play as big role.)

NATO, (US, Canada, Belgium, Denmark, Ice Land, France, Italy, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, UK, Turkey, Poland, Germany and some more here:
More)

The US might have more countries allied with them, but that means nothing.
I hope there is no war and there will most likely not be one.

Originally posted by cruzionIt wasn't the Russians who defeated Napoleon and Hitler, it was the god awfull weather.

Originally posted by UnderbellyStalin dug half a hole in the USSR's grave by culling all his best military men, the planners and generals. The USSR were trying to rebuild while Germany were on an all out attack. The USSR were lucky in a way as the winter hit the German forces hard, but also Germany couldn't touch the USSR's industrial complexes. Once Russia was able to replenish her army, Germany was doomed.

That's what I said. But also the fact Stalin purged all his military top brass. Thousands were killed including many national war heroes. It was Stalin's paranoia and hunger to stay in exclusive power that almost cost the Russians. The Russians were a shambles when Germany attacked. The winter slowed Germany down at Stalingrad and Russia were able to regroup its army and it was able to churn out tanks and planes for the counter-offensive.

Originally posted by cruzionDidn't Russia lose more troops than the entire rest of the world combined? That says nothing about their skill, just how numerous they are.

Originally posted by UnderbellyRussians were tough. They sacrificed more manpower than anybody else. A country like America even gets a fraction of those figures in losses and the population won't stand for it.

That's what I said also. It doesn't say anything for their skill, but rather Russia's willingness to sacrifice many men. As I said if that many Americans died, and the general population in America heard about it, they'd be scared and demoralized and demand a diplomatic solution and an end to conflict. In Russia and China it is different. They would be willing to sacrifice millions to achieve objectives.

Originally posted by Equinox99
If a WW3 should break out as you speak these would be the teams.

China, Russia, Iran, Venezuela, North Korea, and Syria.
(There might be a little more but they might not play as big role.)

NATO, (US, Canada, Belgium, Denmark, Ice Land, France, Italy, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, UK, Turkey, Poland, Germany and some more here:
More)

The US might have more countries allied with them, but that means nothing.
I hope there is no war and there will most likely not be one.

Of course I hope there is no war too. Economic prosperity will hopefully ensure it doesn't happen. All this talk is just hypothetical.

One country you've forgotten about is Japan. They would be key. The bad press about American military servicemen in Japan is doing nothing to help the friendship.

Japan is a high tech society and it would be able to re-arm and become a superpower very quickly. On top of this is the fact Japan possesses enough fissile material that if she decided to convert it all into nuclear weapons then Japan would have a stockpile bigger than America's.

Ok this thread rocketed off without me while i was offline, had to catch up on what you all said, got to say you all make very good points....

But I see the general agreement here is that Australia would in fact side and actually fight alongside the US when called to war...


[edit on 26-2-2008 by Vimes]

[edit on 26-2-2008 by Jbird]

Well i personally think they will take part in a war such as the one you speak of. I also think they might take a very large role because of where they are sitting. But i also would like you to know we as in the U.S would never "make" its allies do something. It quite funny how people hate the U.S when we do so much for the world.

reply to post by Mr.x211



I understand what your saying, but i never once said i 'hate" the US, I actually like the US alot, i just don't like your current government, and when i meant about the "forcing of allies to fight alongside you" I meant that is a typical thing Bush would try and do... or am I wrong ?

Oh i wasn't really pointing fingers to you brother i was simply stating that it is usually used as that sort of term. As for Bush yes im really not happy with him either but i do have faith in my leaders or "The U.S Government". I truly believe that nothing will happen "war/military" wise till after the next elections unless of course the whole Kosovo issue explodes into a invasion which is most likely.

[edit on 26-2-2008 by Mr.x211]

reply to post by SKULL AND BONES



It is in my opinion that this user should perhaps been banned, I have seen his comments removed by admin several times now already... and he keeps on doing it...

reply to post by Mr.x211



Well i'm hoping for your and the rest of our sakes that any kind of war doesn't take place, hopefully this whole kosovo deal will just be alot of talk with empty threats...

I agree but with all the tanks stationed on their new border, i highly doubt it. Is it me or am i the only one who thinks that if a major war or threat such as Nuclear came to our "U.S" soil or any of our allies our "the U.S" would use what we have in our arsenal such as things we don't even know we have. I mean i doubt a modern high tech government "military,political might' such as the U.S would let someone or something run over it. Anyways i do think AS would help the United States in such a issue.

reply to post by Mr.x211



Come to think of it, the US spends over $500 Billion a year on defence right, and that has been going on for ages, I have to agree with you, i think the US has a very sharp card up it's sleeve, and if it pulls it out...well, then I feel sorry for who is on the receiving end....

I mean don't tell me a country such as the US, spending that much money just on military doesn't have some huge kind of back up plan...

Look at the stats of The US military power

Aircraft: 18169

Global Tank Power Armored Vehicles: 29920

Artillery Statistics of the World Artillery: 5178

Global Missile Defense Statistics Missile Defense Weapons: 35324

Infantry Support Weapons Statistics Infantry Support Weapons: 2441

Naval Strenth of the World Naval Units: 1866

Merchant Marines Strength of the World Merchant Marines: 446


And this is just what the US military ADMITS to having in their arsenal



Australia


Aircraft: 471
Global Tank Power Armored Vehicles: 645

Artillery Statistics of the World Artillery: 385

Global Missile Defense Statistics Missile Defense Weapons: 36

Infantry Support Weapons Statistics Infantry Support Weapons: 947

Naval Strenth of the World Naval Units: 56

Merchant Marines Strength of the World Merchant Marines: 52


And then China


Aircraft: 9218

Global Tank Power Armored Vehicles: 13200

Artillery Statistics of the World Artillery: 29060

Global Missile Defense Statistics Missile Defense Weapons: 18500

Infantry Support Weapons Statistics Infantry Support Weapons: 34000

Naval Strenth of the World Naval Units: 284

Merchant Marines Strength of the World Merchant Marines: 1775

Exactly brother this is why i have so much faith in my government and this is why im not exactly scared of another nation threatening us with Nuclear arms.

And here is the World Military Budget

www.globalissues.org...

Yea i am almost sure it doesn't state everything.

reply to post by Mr.x211


Do you know anything about what the story is with Pine Gap in Central Australia ? ?

All i know is that it is a joint US - AU Underground Military Base

Most of what i've read about it is that it has something to do with UFO's and that it is a base for being able to fire some kind of weapon into space at alien ships, but i mean that is conspiracy stuff that....any real explanation to what they do there ?



[edit on 26-2-2008 by Vimes]

Originally posted by MuLongQun
Did you ever see Steve Irwin try wrestle a Drop Bear? No, because they are to cunning and vicious and even he didn’t want to try.

Drop Bears are stealthy as they climb trees and wait for passer by’s and then “Drop” on them and maul them to death… Yes very dangerous…..

[edit on 26-2-2008 by Jbird]

You forgot to add how the drop bears like to drop on the tents of beautiful foreign tourists.

Oh... and they have a strange attraction alcohol, especially "Bundy"...