David Simpson writes: Richard Marles has got to go ASAP. And not in an RAAF jet (“Unguided missile Richard Marles again demonstrates his poor judgment”).
Steve Brennan writes: Australia’s relationship with the US is embarrassing, but it’s complicated by the events of World War II and our indebtedness to it for preventing the Japanese from invading Australia. America has infiltrated Australia ever since on almost every level, and AUKUS demonstrates its overwhelming influence to the point of madness.
The deal stands out as a major Albanese government failure because it makes no sense and with so many unknowns the cost is sure to blow out. Plus it most certainly relinquishes our independence on matters of military conflict to the US. If America wants a war with whoever, Australia will just be another US force, to be commanded by the US military. This is the cold hard reality of the relationship — and the Labor leadership was too weak to properly analyse it.
Marles stands out as the ideal punter to lead this madness as he shows himself to be a sycophant to the US every step of the way. Not able to answer questions about what Australia is getting itself into, only responding with national security tropes or hiding behind classified information restrictions. He comes across as weak and unconvincing and could easily be placed in the same league as Barnaby Joyce as a deputy prime minister.
Geoff Marshall writes: There’s no way Marles is heading for the door. Under the Morrison and previous governments, a major purchase could, and often did, take 10 years. Marles pulled it back to three but it seems even that was too long. He went out and bought 200 Tomahawk cruise missiles a week or so ago.
John Gleeson writes: Among all the articles regarding AUKUS and Marles’ seeming lack of talent in his portfolio, I do not see an overall assessment of the current war in Ukraine. This conflict has revealed the strategic and tactical use of drones — a relatively cheap and deadly mix.
The massive losses of tanks and vehicles — and a warship — due to drones should give pause for thought. Are tanks now obsolete? What strategies must be pursued to counter drone warfare? Where is the conversation we should be having on this subject? Where is Marles on this? Do we need nuclear submarines when cheap drones could provide our marine defences?
Douglas Mackenzie writes: According to Bernard Keane’s article, Defence Minister Marles is determined to push ahead with an ill-considered plan to spend $368 billion (likely to rise to closer to half a trillion dollars) on six nuclear-powered submarines.
Unfortunately for Marles, and even more unfortunately for Australian taxpayers, such submarines may already be obsolete, and certainly will be by the time the first boat is delivered. One of the main reasons for this is their expulsion of hot water from the reactor cooling systems, which is easily detected by surface vessels, as well as by aircraft and satellites. Another reason is the advances made in the capability of uncrewed submersible drones. These cost about $12 million each: about 30,000 effectively expendable deadly drones for the cost of six useless nuclear-powered submarines.
I thought it was generally agreed by historians that Japan had no intention of invading Australia, due to not having the manpower etc and the long, fragile supply lines
America only joined the war because of the Japaese attack on Peatly harbour, not for any other reason; they were making sure they had support if they failed to beat the Japanese.
Indeed, and the reason the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor was because the US had imposed sanctions on Japan, leaving it with a limited supply of bunker oil. This brief history is worth reading, and keep in mind that Australian PM Billy Hughes, at Versailles, was at the forefront of the rejection of Japan’s Racial Equality Proposal, which greatly offended the Japanese. Australia’s fear of the Yellow Peril was alive and flourishing in 1919.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Events_leading_to_the_attack_on_Pearl_Harbor
Indeed that is true, but so many still peddle the nonsense that they wanted to. Paul Bongiorno was also telling the same old lie last week.
Marles is compliant with the US because he has seen how rich you can get by facilitating the sale of American arms to the taxpayers of Australia. He has seen what Hockey and Pyne have done and he wants what they are having. To this end he is happy to play along with anything the yanks want.
Is Marles the local member for Corio or the US military complex ?
He is a member of his local golf club.
Not sure what happened in the transition from Opposition to Government, but Marles seems to be a different person with different prorities, now toeing the American line.
Same person but no-one took any notice of him as shadow Defence Minister and Deputy Labor Leader. Dutton and Morrison never shutting up about the China menace meant there was no media space or interest in Marles.
The most baffling thing about the current government is it’s approach to defence & the relationship with the USA. It seems so detached from the realities of us, both as an economy & a society, having so much in common with Asia & indeed China. Moreover the failings in the USA political system make it a far less reliable & durable partner, than in the past.
Defence & Foreign Relations have never really been election issues in Australia but they will both loom large in the next election. There is now a clear case for left of centre independents, with a less US centric outlook, to run on these issues and enjoy a groundswell of support from like minded people in the communities.
Time for the good people of Corio to find a better person to be their local member than Marles. Won’t be hard !!!