US marines to set up in Darwin, Australia

US marines to set up in Darwin, Australia

www.news.com.au

THE US will have a permanent new military presence in Australia by rotating marines through a base in Darwin,
US President Barack Obama is set to announce.

This is all about the rise of China, the modernisation of the People's Liberation Army and, particularly, it's about the increased vulnerability of US forces in Japan and Guam to the new generation of Chinese missiles,

"The new Chinese missiles could threaten them in a way they've never been able to before.

(visit the link for the full news article)

Well just as you thought America couldn't stretch it's arms anymore, here we have them coming to Australia using a ADF base for marine rotation.
I thought they already had bases in South Korea and Japan ?
I know the Chinese are getting it on navel wise, with it's new experimental soviet era carrier and their numbers of subs.

Can someone explain to me the strategic advantages that the US would have by doing this all in response to China ? I think that America should still be rolling back, or placing more of a presence say Taiwan if they really want to piss China off.

Kinda makes Australia look bad by it's largest resource buyer.

www.news.com.au
(visit the link for the full news article)

Bout time
I did not like the way those wallabies were looking at us.

But in all reality I wish the gov. would worry more about this region than the middle east.

I could see the next land grab to be over Antarctica when resources become limited.

I guess that also accounts for the upgrade of Pine Gap

Because , when the Chinese strike. You have a defensive wall that encases them. So all your forces arnt killed in one strike. They can get the hell out of dodge , or deploy very rapidly from different areas. So they have to focus on more than one area.

China is about containment. Its not about invading. if we go to war with China , it will be a Naval / Air war , as invading would get many people killed. We would bomb them back to the stone age. The Marines are there if they decide to use infantry to try and push their way across the ocean , and island hop.

Marines can slow them down.

funny i don't recall voting for this crap ... oh well ... it will be fun for the locals haha

reply to post by cerebralassassins


I went there in 99 for a school trip, we were allowed to see parts of the base, every car inside was left hand drive, lots of missiles and rockets on display. They didn't let us do much else.

reply to post by milkyway12


I read that the US are also thinking/acting about supplying weapons to Vietnam because of a boarder threat that China poses.

Well, I'm certain the Australian government must have had some say in this. But it is telling that here in America it will come as a 'surprise' .. especially as we are continually reminded of the financial crisis befalling our nation.

Just as we are temporarily appeased by the declaration of troop withdrawals, and many of us are naively thinking it represents some kind of 'change' to the black hole that is defense spending, we see that the establishment has no shortage of places to which it can send American troops.

I doubt this can be realistically accepted as 'helping' Australian defense; and it certainly is easily attributed to the "red menace" ... I think there either has to be A) more to it.. or B) it's just another excuse to spend spend spend on defense contractors....

Thanks for the heads up!

The port at Darwin has always been a very strategically important location to the allied global supply network.
Just look at it on a map.

Since you bring up a WW3 scenario involving China, we would have to project that their mass land army could just roll all the way to Singapore within a month or two (considering no WMD are used to halt them). The Chinese navy and army could also potentially capture surrounding Indonesia but that could prove much more costly.

Holding Darwin would keep the global supply chain complete, and could ensure China could be surrounded geographically to halt or slow their expanse.

That's all speculation though on a very unlikely eventuality however. WW3 isn't exactly in the Chinese best interest.

So the US marines are probably there for something else, like 'combating insurgency in Indonesia', or future events like the Timor crisis that we don't know about yet. They could be using "China" as a smoke screen to cover up the anti-Corporatism rebels in the region, and are having difficulty painting many of these indigenous movements as "Islamic terrorism", and so the "Rise of China" would serve as an excellent smoke screen.

Keep in mind that Indonesia is a diverse location and has been exploited significantly by global industrial powers for the last 200+ yrs. Dutch East Indies
Dutch East India Company
Indonesia Demographics

There are around 300 distinct native ethnicities in Indonesia, and 742 different languages and dialects.

That's quite diverse actually. Basically they are having trouble justifying and explaining legitimately the conditions of their society and the use of military to interdict and resolve it. It will just look simply like the "Indonesian government with foreign assistance (Chinese and NATO!), to put down a 'workers(slave) revolt' essentially.

Who here hasn't heard of the very low standards in 'sweat shops' throughout this region? It's not just Indonesia either, there is Malaysia
Philippines

That's just a possible alternate scenario which I believe is more likely. It just seems to me that the global 'corporate-industrial-government-military' system knows no boundaries or borders, and it serves the interests of the ruling powers in all of the nations in question. And so their objectives would be more understandable had the goal been a political power grab in an important region resource-wise, it is always about $$$ isn't it?

Australia currently has one of the highest female/male population ratios.

China currently has one of the highest male/female population ratios that is especially disproportionate in the younger generations.

China's birth control policy is going to leave them with a serious population dilemma, as they are due for a population collapse over the next 20-30 years and are currently dealing with a high number of infertile females due to diseases and abuse.

Just thought I'd add another dimension to the issue.

Basically, China will seek to use its submarines to restrict naval presence of foreign powers through the whole western Pacific, particularly along the island chains where littoral ASW is a bitch. They may island-hop - but may also make a bee-line for strategic theater staging in Australia following a seizure of Taiwan.

They will want to pull their airbases and assets away from India.

This is all coming at a time when the Marines are drawing heavy criticism for the amphibious programs that are seen as unnecessary and costly.

Lucky dogs - Marines - where do I sign up. Well if something happens, The Aussies can't blame us like they do for not being there in WWII.

Originally posted by overratedpatriotism
Bout time
I did not like the way those wallabies were looking at us.

*giggling at that*

I read the article - and it seems like a lot of posturing to me. I mean, if they are truly worried about a missile strike from China - in Australia - then why did they just list the exact location of the base that our marines will be?? We're obviously not trying to hide the fact - so clearly it is just a chess move. In reality, Australia is doing us a big favor by even letting us on their soil. It is not as if the U.S. wouldn't come screaming over if anyone ever tried to mess with Australia, because I know we would. Having an actual physical presence there is just for show.

On another note - I would absolutely love to see Australia. I just finished a book by Bill Bryson about Australia from 2001, and if even half of what he says is true, then I'd feel very sorry for any country that sent ground troops in to invade. They'd have to bomb, because they'd never make it with a ground invasion. God help them, if the deadly creatures in the sea or on the beach didn't get them - and the deadly creatures and insects on land didn't finish them off - and the intense heat and vast expanse of land didn't wear them down - THEN the Aussie soldiers could come along and deal with what was left of them.

Originally posted by TheDocIsIn
Lucky dogs - Marines - where do I sign up. Well if something happens, The Aussies can't blame us like they do for not being there in WWII.

I'd say if the US are bringing MORE troops to Australia then it's for their benefit, not ours..

Originally posted by followingpythagoras

..... I'd feel very sorry for any country that sent ground troops in to invade. They'd have to bomb, because they'd never make it with a ground invasion. God help them, if the deadly creatures in the sea or on the beach didn't get them - and the deadly creatures and insects on land didn't finish them off - and the intense heat and vast expanse of land didn't wear them down - THEN the Aussie soldiers could come along and deal with what was left of them.

Agreed. It is just one more similarity you all share with the US.... Unlike many of the "old world" nations crammed into one continent, and whose borders represent years of friction (resolved or otherwise) we benefit from a landmass and population distribution which sort of makes us impossible to occupy, and suicidal to invade.

I know the general consensus weighs against American endeavors in almost any context; but I for one, am very comforted that we are allies.

reply to post by Aim64C


So your theory is that China wants to steal my women?

Can i ask something. I'm not very knowledgable in this area.

Are there any bases in the US that are not US bases?

In any case I'm happy US troops will be stationed at Darwin.

Originally posted by skitzspiricy
Can i ask something. I'm not very knowledgable in this area.

Are there any bases in the US that are not US bases?

I don't think so although other countries armies do train there.

Originally posted by Maxmars

Originally posted by followingpythagoras

..... I'd feel very sorry for any country that sent ground troops in to invade. They'd have to bomb, because they'd never make it with a ground invasion. God help them, if the deadly creatures in the sea or on the beach didn't get them - and the deadly creatures and insects on land didn't finish them off - and the intense heat and vast expanse of land didn't wear them down - THEN the Aussie soldiers could come along and deal with what was left of them.

Agreed. It is just one more similarity you all share with the US.... Unlike many of the "old world" nations crammed into one continent, and whose borders represent years of friction (resolved or otherwise) we benefit from a landmass and population distribution which sort of makes us impossible to occupy, and suicidal to invade.

I know the general consensus weighs against American endeavors in almost any context; but I for one, am very comforted that we are allies.

I guess its a two way streak, since the British were unable to protect Australia during the ww2 and the U.S. sent its forces to serve and protect Au that was bombed by the Japanese, then its only natural that the U.S. and Au have respect for one-another and its respect has grown to a very tight alliance between the people and its common foreign policy.

reply to post by C0bzz

So your theory is that China wants to steal my women?

No.

They want to steal mine

Joking aside, look at the number of U.S. service members with wives and families from nations we have bases in. This is the same with many military forces throughout the world and through history.

"So, doesn't your theory apply to the U.S. too?" - Well, the U.S. presence pales in comparison to what China would set up there.

I was merely adding another dimension to the discussion. There can never bee too many ways to rationalize an invasion.

That said... the Navy is rife with legends of Australia.... yes, legend is the proper term.