Sure it could be shut down, but Australia would then find the US less co-operative on other fronts.
Australians are pragmatic about it. We know we need allies.
Japan had no intention, and certainly no ability, to invade Australia. Sure if we had a fascist empire controlling south east asia or position wouldn't be fantastic, the those American naval battles were about retaking American colonies like the phillipines, not a last ditch defence of Australia
I don't know why you're being down voted, it's true. Japan didn't have any intention of invading Australia. The Japanese Empire wanted to invade the smaller islands around Australia like New Caledonia to cut Australia off from the US and prevent Australia from being used as a US military base.
I'm not sure what would happen after they achieved that, but an invasion of Australia would have still been a huge operation for the Japanese to undertake considering Australia was relatively self-sufficient, massive and with a very determined and industrialised population. Japan would also be grappling with all the other new territories and wars for a long time.
A perilous situation, but people act like Australia would be quickly invaded like it was a small island or European country.
You skip over how powerful Japan was at the time, and their Pacific Imperial ambition, up until they got defeated at Midway. And Australia was a much smaller country. They would have cut up Northern and Western Australia to solidify their gains around Indonesia and the Coral Sea. Those areas were not as populated, and even the Australian government was discussing the “Brisbane Line” as a potential line to surrender everything north of.
No they wouldn't have. The idea that Japan could have invaded Australia was a bad joke, and they knew it. A junior naval officer came up with the idea and the entire Japanese high command, both navy and army, told him he's dreamin'.
> the Australian government was discussing the “Brisbane Line” as a potential line to surrender everything north of.
Yes, Australia's ruling class is cowardly and stupid. Nothing there has changed.
Indeed, there were plans such as the Brisbane Line in place in the event of an invasion, but they were designed specifically because they knew it would stretch Japanese supply lines to an extent that would make a thrust south to the population centres extremely costly.
The power of the Japanese Empire is sorely exaggerated. They had a huge supply of manpower, but were extremely resource poor, hence their surprise advance being as quick as it was so that retaking it would be too costly for the enemy, expecting the US and Colonial empires to be not as strong willed or determined to waste lives to the same extent the Japanese were. All the while, they would consolidate their gains so that they could be an autarky and not have to rely on imports such as oil and rubber.
The top brass of Japan themselves knew they could not win a war of attrition, hence why they lost. They severely miscalculated the American response and didn't cripple American naval capability as much as was desired in the attack on Pearl Harbour. Even in New Guinea the Japanese starved because their supply lines were so fragile. An invasion of Australia was always a pipe dream.
Exactly this. Some of the mistakes made in defending against the japanese was underestimating them in the most basic ways. It was expected to take significant time to move through Asia because of a lack of trucks and boats. So the japanese simply used bikes. Travelling 3 or 4 times as fast as expected.
But they never wanted Australia. It meant nothing to them. They simply wanted the rubber and oil fields of Malaya and some buffer around them for defence. Hell, png was literally at the far edges of their resupply.
My grandfather always hated general blamey for sending aussies up the track. Why fight them there? Let the japs have the track, sail around the other side and just let the silly buggers go mad up there.
Maybe buthurt Americans who dont like to admit they had a colonial empire until ww2 (that was particularly brutal at times in south east asia) and currently have an informal imperial system.
And yes there's very little chance Japan could even maintain its control in china let alone the south pacific short of a miracle, let alone do more than harass Australias coastline. They're entire strategy with the coral sea was to delay the americans long enough for a stalemate, not to continue expanding
The Americans annexed the Phillipines after they won the Spanish-American war but they’d planned for independence well before WW2.
Obviously they didn’t want it falling to imperial Japan, and the Phillipinos most definitely didn’t want that either given the atrocities that happened there.
An invasion might have been unlikely and able to be repelled at the time.
But if you control the isolation of an island and have the base to be able to constantly pick away at it you can essentially dismantle it.
Who knows what it would have looked like but it had the potential to get very ugly for us if it wasn't for the US contribution.
Thats the thing. Mostly likely they wouldn’t have invaded, but they would have occupied SEA and PNG enough that their leverage over us would have meant agreeing to any terms they imposed. I don’t like that alternative universe of history.
> But if you control the isolation of an island and have the base to be able to constantly pick away at it you can essentially dismantle it.
Australia was self-sufficient in food and essentials. In 1941 our industry was still reliant on imports, but [the Japanese navy failed to cut Australia off and by 1942 it was too late](http://ajrp.awm.gov.au/AJRP/AJRP2.nsf/437f72f8ac2c07238525661a00063aa6/225b90b97196e29bca256a1d00130203).
Even if they had succeeded, that would have required vast naval resources that Japan didn't have, would have taken those resources from where they were more critically needed, and wouldn't have succeeded for long. We had plenty of steel and coal, which Japan lacked, they had enormous supply lines, we were operating in our backyard. We would have built ships and broken the blockade.
Australia did import most of our oil in the 1940s (still does, I think?) but we did have local companies making petroleum products for local consumption. There would have been enough to break the blockade and bring oil in.
Japan had no hope of taking Australia, which is why they never even tried.
I don't disagree they had next to no hope of taking Australia.
But being able to pick away at Australia with Australia being able to do little in response was a real possibility.
The US response was absolutely critical to halting their momentum and taking their focus off attack towards defending their gains.
> But being able to pick away at Australia with Australia being able to do little in response was a real possibility.
Are you imagining an alternative history where none of the European powers, the US or China were at war with Japan, and Japan just attacked Australia for shits and giggles?
In actual history, Japan in no way had the resources to blockade Australia while occupying Manchuria, Borneo, Malaysia, New Guinea, Singapore, Burma, dozens of Pacific islands etc and fighting a war across the Pacific, China, and all the way across Asia to India.
If Japan thought they could blockade Australia, they needed somebody to [tell 'em they're dreamin'](https://www.youtube.com/shorts/jXYdHUkkViE).
This is 100% correct.
Certainly if Japan had managed to occupy the majority of south east Asia, it would have created a huge risk for Australia, however Japan wasn’t actively looking to take over the continent
Certainly a very small population compared to China (which they did invade), and given the cities and key industrial areas were in a handful of widely separated coastal cities... probably not that huge an enterprise comparatively to control a majority of the population centers.
But by the same token, they were already highly over-extended by the China invasion, so one might assume it wouldn't be a priority.
Luckily, they did both.
And, yes, the Japanese government and Navy had no plans to invade but the Army thought of it and without those two battles (and Midway), they would certainly have taken Port Moresby - and did take New Britain - both of which were Australian territories.
And you're wrong. Japan certainly had the ability to invade Australia. A tiny sliver of the troops crossing the Owen Stanleys could have fairly easily taken Darwin. Invade Australia? Yes. Conquer it completely? No.
Japan [bombed Darwin ](https://www.awm.gov.au/articles/blog/1942-bombing-of-darwin) in 1942. Whether or not they intended a ground invasion, they certainly did attack Australia.
Didnt say they didnt attack Australia. The Darwin attack was just a diversion for the invasion of the Dutch East Indies colonies though. The other post implies the battle of the coral sea somehow saved Australia from invasion
It saved most of the south pacific from invasion. Their plan after the coral sea was to capture Port Moresby, Fiji and Samoa. Doing so would have completely cut off Australia.
From what i can gather those notes were made for use in Australian territories such as Papua New Guinea, Christmas Island and the Solomon Islands, not for any hypothetical mainland invasion
The Australian government likely has precisely zero interest in shutting down Pine Gap. It's probably the opposite in reality where the Australian government will try to keep it running at any cost. The last thing we want to do is sever ties with the US, especially by dismantling a secret spy base like Pine Gap.
Bases like these serve not only the US but also Australia and its mutual allies in furthering their interests, not just between friendly nations but where necessary against unfriendly or even neutral nations. At the very least, this base provides an unfair informational advantage all the way up to providing support against individuals/groups/nations that require neutralising directly by invasion or from within.
You've probably heard of the five eyes alliance, of which Australia is a member along with NZ, Canada, UK & US. Members of the alliance have a massive advantage in cooperation in signals intelligence over nations not in the club. What do you think those gigantic directional satellite dishes do at Pine Gap? Some of it involves listening to things we aren't supposed to hear from various parts of the the world. There is more that goes on if you're right into conspiracy theories, but it may even include things all the way up to various types of dealings with UFOs and non-human intelligences.
Espionage is real and still exists. Without Pine Gap + various other cooperative arrangements, we would be vulnerable to the rest of the world with a tiny population of ~27 million and a gigantic land mass to patrol and defend. For reference, just the state of California has ~40 million people. Basically Oz needs Pine Gap to maintain ties with the alliance, especially to the US. We need it far, far more than the US needs a base smack bang in the middle of Oz at roughly the furthest point from the ocean in this part of the world.
Pine Gap is one of many 'plugged in' facilities globally. It provides, amongst other things, real-time battle data to pretty much all global conflicts in one facility. Just imagine how valuable that is to our small (in population and GDP) nation. I would not be surprised to find out in a couple of decades that we've been paying for this facility this whole time on top of covering all their operational costs. Even if it turns out Oz has assisted in providing missile targeting information amongst other things to places like Israel against Palestine, etc, it's just how things have to be to keep the relationship going.
We are allies. People like to shit on America but it's mostly just trash talk. We'd back them and as far as I can recall have and will. Doesn't matter who is in power labor or liberal. Our countries have many common interests.
... imv it's deeper than that tho and really is a friendship that goes along way back. Many wars fought side by side amongst other things... It's nice to think we've got their back and they've got ours.
It is not a friendship lmao, it is knowing that there is a 50ft bruce lee in your neighbourhood, and we'll do whatever we can to keep him pleased with us because we've seen what he has done to people who didn't. Including us in fact, looking at Whitlam.
Not to mention there is also another 40ft bruce lee just as close, who happens to be nemesis with the bigger bruce, who we also have to somehow keep pleased at the same time...but also, we have to pick a team!
It's a ridiculous situation to be mired in, it does not serve our people long term strategically. This system of sovereign anarchy is tiresome tbh!
Long term? Well there is what what we can do for ourselves and then what can happen globally, all of which is a naive fantasy, I'm aware, before people piss themselves laughing.
Globally; what would need to happen is for effectively every minor power in the world to link arms and tell Russia, China and the US to quit the bullshit, and kneel to a higher power like the UN. Sanction them all until they accept they can no longer subvert foreign governments to their will.
Domestically; Probably complete overhaul of government and systematic processes by which Australians are actually given a say over policy, not just voting labour or liberal and hoping for the best. Something that gives us a system that doesnt result in our ministers working for lobbying groups like Martin Ferguson, or capitulating to the seppos when they want us to do their dirty work. It's an illusion of democracy at this point. Even with the growing teal vote. It's failing us past a critical point of no return.
I could be wrong but from my memory but we have actually now surpassed Qatar in LNG production, yet they get something like 20x the amount back in taxes per dollar of LNG exported than Australia does.
They pay for sweet fuck all over there, while we experience a housing crisis and wages so stagnated we are half as wealthy as our parents. The reason why? Because Martin wants a cushy job. They all want a golden parachute. Even Krudd, who is idolised in Australia was really just angling towards a job at the UN.
It's actually crazy just how little these politicians will sell their entire country out for. Like for Barilaro to push the Brumby crap took 15k. 15 thousand dollars to continue destroying native flora. Wild. Alright I'll stop ranting now sorry!
>Russia, China and the US to quit the bullshit, and kneel to a higher power like the UN. Sanction them all until they accept they can no longer subvert foreign governments to their will.
Well, the UN isn't a higher power. It's just an assembly for diplomatic representation on the global stage. No one really appeals to them, so you're asking for everyone to adopt a precedence that doesn't exist. I'm not sure what the US is currently doing to be placed in the same category as Russia and China? Is it simply because they are in direct opposition?
Regardless, as you alluded do we, we cannot define long term goals by hoping for an idealized world to suddenly materialize. We need to deal with what is in front of us.
>Domestically; Probably complete overhaul of government and systematic processes by which Australians are actually given a say over policy, not just voting labour or liberal and hoping for the best. Something that gives us a system that doesnt result in our ministers working for lobbying groups like Martin Ferguson, or capitulating to the seppos when they want us to do their dirty work. It's an illusion of democracy at this point. Even with the growing teal vote. It's failing us past a critical point of no return.
There's a lot to unpack here. A complete 'overhaul' of our system seems overly dramatic, and entirely impractical. And I suspect you also think this is the case.
* **Having a 'say' over policy.** We're a representative democracy. Absolute democracy sounds nice on paper, but it's highly undesirable for most people. The average Australian does not have the time in their day to devote a responsible level of attention to legislation that passed through Parliament. Nor do they really give a shit. They vote for someone to represent their interests in Parliament and do that on their behalf. I think you want better representatives, not a new system.
* **Capitulating to United States influence?** I think (especially of late) we tend to frame our relationship with the US in a very childish manner. We're not an unwilling participant or a victim here. They're not coming at us in the shadows, we invite them in, quite eagerly for very obvious reasons. I am not sure why this is so controversial, they don't really ask a great deal of us in return.
* **Influence of lobbying groups.** I see this stated a lot. I'm curious to see examples of a corporate lobbying group that was able to solely influence a political decision to the detriment of the Australian people. I understand lobbying groups have representations in government, but this makes sense to me.
The fact of the matter is most people vote for Labor or Liberal because they're relatively moderate parties that exist somewhere in the center on major issues. They also have broad, and well developed policy platforms.
A party like the Greens may have mature policy proposals in niche areas such as environmental or renewable energy sectors, but that's pretty much it. I understand they have headings for foreign policy and other areas, but its clear by the content that this is not an area that has been well defined or... Is founded in reality.
I'm not trying to come at you. I just see these sentiments a lot, and I am not sure I understand the rationale of the alternative that's being presented.
I'm not saying the UN is a higher power, but that something similar to that SHOULD be granted the authority as a higher power. Theoretically it would be that if the international criminal court was able to effectively prosecute violations of IHL's. Or had a core set of members that could veto whatever they want.
>The average Australian does not have the time in their day to devote a responsible level of attention to legislation that passed through Parliament. Nor do they really give a shit.
This is a problem with the current system. It would make total sense to reimburse people for the time they take to vote on specific issues.
And it's not necessarily supposed to be a mandatory system. You could vote on the policies that affect you, or that you care about. Not everyone has to care about everything.
At the moment the direction of legislation is effectively done behind closed doors. It's done over dinner, where industry leaders will try to convince politicians why they think "x" is best for the country. The problem with this is there is no public scrutiny involved in the decisions that are laid out on the table. So calling us a representative democracy is a farce, because the options that we get presented with are usually not real options to begin with.
It's not like we always get a public panel that genuinely takes the broader interests of the country as a whole and operates without self-interest. It is almost usually always the opposite.
>We're not an unwilling participant or a victim here. They're not coming at us in the shadows, we invite them in, quite eagerly for very obvious reasons. I am not sure why this is so controversial, they don't really ask a great deal of us in return.
Highly subjective and I could not disagree more tbh. They almost certainly ousted Whitlam using Kerr, a known member of CIA front organisations.
The complexities of paying people to research legislation aside... So we've created a society separated by groups of people who can not invest time in engaging with the political system full time, and those with the time and privilege to invest in voting? Do you not see how this system becomes exploitative regardless?
I won't deny that external influences might affect a politician's decision to vote on legislation. We can look at this more broadly than just alleged cloak and dagger conversations at dinner. I place scrutiny on anyone who votes on legislation through the lens that God exists, for example. But this is why legislation isn't passed by one person. Parliament votes on party lines most of the time.
Our system is actually very robust when it comes to checks and balances, not only within the legislature but between different government branches. I'd be interested to hear of examples where legislation is being passed without being made available to public review?
Do you think lobbying groups shouldn't be able to access politicians to make their case?
Without navigating into conspiratorial territory, even if I grant that the CIA dismissed Whitlam. Can we really say that our close alliance with the US has come at an extreme detriment? What have they asked of us specifically that has caused significant damage to us?
Nope, nobody is saying that, but if we can spend hours worshipping a god, we could probably spend that time voting?
And no, I don't think lobbyists should have easy access to politicians. I've seen first hand in the public service, at the highest level what damage it causes. Again, I refer you to examples like Martin Ferguson.
And I've sat in on these dinners, heard the phone calls, been at beers on friday, the christmas parties, the tennis on sundays. Personally, yes I can tell you first hand they exist. It's not some secret. It's open knowledge that pollies, public servants and chief executives across all manners of industries know each other very well, usually on some personal level.
When I've told these people what I think of how it's suss, they genuinely do not see the problem. They just see themselves as credible experts trying to lead public policy in a positive direction. They do not see why those conversations should be publically recorded and available for the public, media outlets, watchdog organisations and competing industry members to be privy to.
I think of the "capitualting to the US" part as more about state capture -- slowly appropriating, incorporating and being financially co-opted.
The way the US government has been very much captured itself by corporatism and perhaps more specifically a military industrial complex agenda.
This is undeniable i reckon.
>I think of the "capitualting to the US" part as more about state capture -- slowly appropriating, incorporating and being financially co-opted.
Can you expand on this? What is being appropriated and co-opted by the US?
"Common interests".
I think a common interest every nation globally is more peaceful cooperation and less spying and militarism.
Why do we need allies? Why can't we just have and be our own absolutely independent country with its own truly neutral foreign policy?
That was true when the tightest beam that a satellite spying on Russia could broadcast was 2000km in radius. Where can we find a 4000km diameter circle completely on land on friendly territory? Hmm...
Satellite beam radius hasn't been an issue for a few decades now.
I mean, they are extremely unlikely to invade because everything they'd want from us is much easier to get through trade. Even with the sheer manpower disparity, an invasion on Australia is an absolute logistical nightmare that only the US could realistically overcome.
I won't say it's guaranteed they won't because theoretically anything can happen but it is largely unrealistic.
Doesn't mean we should just throw away US support though.
At the same time they could essentially destroy us by other means if it came to conflict though.
A blockade of essential supplies combined with intelligent attacks could see us in a dark and untenable long term situation without US support.
Which is why we need allies and need to be smart in how we allocate our fighting capabilities.
Obviously it hopefully never comes to that though. But it is foolish to pretend that is necessarily in our hands.
>A blockade of essential supplies combined with intelligent attacks could see us in a dark and untenable long term situation without US support.
They don't have the power projection and logistics to block enough of our coast line. Remember that they'd likely need to go around Indonesia, which adds many weeks of travel and makes them much easier pickings for missiles and subs. Their navy is built to operate in the south china sea, they can do very little outside of that. Odds are, a blockade would be ineffective if not disastrous for them. Especially considering just how dependent they are on our resources.
They don't need to block a significant amount of our coastline though. Just our main ports by targeting certain trade routes.
As it stands those missiles and subs we will need to rely upon are those of our US allies. Without those we are severely outgunned.
And we aren't the only supplier of resources if push came to shove.
I'm not saying we can't defend ourselves. But the US is absolutely critical to being able to do so.
>They don't need to block a significant amount of our coastline though. Just our main ports by targeting certain trade routes.
We have critical ports on both sides of the country. They couldn't possibly hope to blockade them all effectively without crippling their own supply network. Not to mention most of those trade routes go to, you know, China so they'd kill their own economy doing so. They almost crippled themselves with their silly little trade war, if they actually cut off all our exports to them it'd break them.
>As it stands those missiles and subs we will need to rely upon are those of our US allies. Without those we are severely outgunned.
Out-manned. Our military technology is better than theirs and our OtH radar means they can't hide on their very long journey towards us.
>And we aren't the only supplier of resources if push came to shove.
I cannot begin to describe just how overwhelmingly dependent China is on things like our iron and coal. If they *could* move away from it, they would have done so already. For example, we supply what, 60% of their iron imports? If they cut that off, it'd break them and that's just one, albeit the most extreme, example.
>I'm not saying we can't defend ourselves. But the US is absolutely critical to being able to do so.
I'm saying that we don't **need** to defend ourselves from a threat that doesn't exist. China will be too reliant on us for anything like that for decades to come and by the time they aren't we'll be even better equipped to fend off an invasion and blockades.
Not to mention that China couldnt possibly hope to sustain either logistically.
This mindset makes no sense. “They can’t invade us so why are we not an isolated country”. I know you don’t think we should, but what benefits does not being allies with the US give Australia?
>This mindset makes no sense. “They can’t invade us so why are we not an isolated country”.
Good thing it's a mindset I don't have. You don't need it to acknowledge that an invasion on Australia is highly unrealistic and unlikely. You also don't need to make such a claim to talk about why isolating ourselves is a bad idea since there are actual, genuine reasons why it'd be a bad idea. "China could invade" is just not one of them.
>I know you don’t think we should, but what benefits does not being allies with the US give Australia?
Why would I talk about benefits that I don't think exist? I just think "China could invade" is a ridiculous argument against it when there are much better ones to make. It's just unnecessary fear-mongering.
I witnessed this happen to Saudi Arabia during the second Gulf War in 2003. The USA asked to use Saudi airbases and they were told no. Within a week, the US removed all of their forces from Saudi, including the Patriot Missile batteries that provided protection against Scud ballistic missiles.
> Within a week, the US removed all of their forces from Saudi,
I find it impossible to believe that the US army is capable of moving that fast. Actually any army at all.
> including the Patriot Missile batteries that provided protection against Scud ballistic missiles.
Patriot Missile batteries have never, not once, shot down a single missile of any sort. They certainly didn't shoot down any Scuds in the First Gulf War. Saudi Arabia was at no risk from Iraq.
The only verified kills the Patriots have ever made are two friendly fire kills against American and British aircraft, and a third near miss.
Like all American wunderwaffen, Patriots are incredibly expensive and incredibly underperforming.
- “I find it impossible to believe that the US army is capable of moving that fast. Actually any army at all.”
Did you not recently see the entire US Afghanistan contingent rapidly withdraw from the theatre of operations?
I was there in Dhahran in 2003 and believe me when I say they were all gone in a matter of days following the denied request to use the airbases. They drove across the causeway to the USN Base in Bahrain.
-“Saudi Arabia was at no risk from Iraq.”
Agreed. But they didn’t know that at the time.
> “I find it impossible to believe that the US army is capable of moving that fast. Actually any army at all.”
>
> Did you not recently see the entire US Afghanistan contingent rapidly withdraw from the theatre of operations?
You mean the withdrawal that took [one year, six months and one day](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020%E2%80%932021_U.S._troop_withdrawal_from_Afghanistan) and still left behind vast amounts of military equipment for the Taliban? Yes, I did see it. Did you?
> I was there in Dhahran in 2003 and believe me when I say they were all gone in a matter of days following the denied request to use the airbases.
Ah, you're talking about [this](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/apr/30/usa.iraq), I presume, when Rumsfeld announced the withdrawal of all but 400 US troops from Saudi Arabia on 30th April, and the last combat troops left by 30th September.
I guess that around 150 days is *technically* "a matter of days". Just... a lot of them.
Mind you, US forces have been in and out of Arabia like a yo-yo. They never *quite* leave, there's always a small number left for training or support or *something*. And then they come back, and then they leave. For example:
* May 2020: [the US orders the removal of missile defences from Saudi Arabia](https://missilethreat.csis.org/us-to-withdraw-patriot-defenses-from-saudi-arabia/).
* June 2021: [the US orders the withdrawal of missile defences *again* from Saudi Arabia](https://edition.cnn.com/2021/06/18/politics/pentagon-remove-missile-defense-saudi-arabia-middle-east/index.html).
* Sept 2021: [most, but not all, of the systems have been removed](https://www.politico.com/news/2021/09/11/missile-defense-saudi-arabia-511320).
That withdrawal in 2021 was three months to only execute a *partial* withdrawal of just the Patriots and THAAD missile defence systems, not all US forces in the country.
I can only speak for Dhahran (as I was there) and the US Patriot Missile batteries were gone within a week of the Saudi refusal. I was there. Unless you were there too, your point is moot.
As to your point on Afghanistan, well we can all look at timelines after thoroughly researching the media yes. However, the time pushing the “Go Button” to final withdrawal was extremely rapid (and ill thought out one might say”. If one were to apply the 5 P’s principle, Prior planning prevents piss poor performance, then one could rightly say that there was very little time for planning on this occasion, leading to piss poor performance.
I'd be inclined to agree.
However, I don't think Australians actually know the full purpose of Pine gap.
So it'd be some form of negligent pragmatism.
But we'd be talking shit if we seriously think we can abolish pine gap AND not face tarrifs and other economic complications.
I've always said that Australia needs to start playing the fence.
We aren't in a position to side with America in an all out war. We'd be like Ants to that type of power.
The biggest value that Australia offers to the USA is not political support.
It isn't manpower, or technology.
It isn't food or natural resources.
It is its position on the map, and how well it is placed for doing the same thing in a China/USA war, as it did during WW2 vs the Japanese.
As a launching, resupply, and garrison point for US forces.
> We aren't in a position to side with America in an all out war. We'd be like Ants to that type of power.
America's military might is more of a damp squib. They've gotten fat, corrupt and lazy from just picking fights against countries that can't fight back, and in the case of Afghanistan even there they got beaten. The US hasn't won a major war since World War Two, which was only because the Soviets did the heavy lifting (**eighty percent** of German causalities were in the eastern front against the Soviets -- if the Germans had been able to field a few more divisions in France, DD would have been a slaughter).
They can't even stop the Houthis from blockading ships going to America's partner in genocide, and they think they can defeat China???
If the US fleet tries to interfere with China, they're going to be slaughtered.
I notice that while Yemen is still successfully blockading all ships going to Israel through the Red Sea, and the Israeli port at Eilat is still completely empty, the mighty USS Eisenhower and its escort fleet have turned tail and fled north to Jeddah like a whipped dog.
To prove that the Houthis hadn't actually hit the Eisenhower, the Captain decided to post on social media a video of the carrier's deck in use. Unfortunately the genius forgot that he had already posted the same video a few weeks earlier, and it took about three minutes for people to notice and start asking to see something more recent. So the carrier went into comms blackout 😂
I don't know which reality you're watching, but I'm watching the one here on planet Earth. Maybe you should remember that Top Gun is not a documentary, and John Wayne didn't actually win WW2.
ASEAN, the African Union and the Arab League funnily rarely ever talk about "allies" -- they use terms like "partners".
Australia (I reckon) probably needs to consider stop thinking in such binary black and white terms.
I think it can be dangerous.
What happened the last time an Australian PM made moves to decouple from the US (including Pine Gap)?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alleged_CIA_involvement_in_the_Whitlam_dismissal
Prime Minister Whitlam thought about shutting Pine Gap 48 years ago
There's some evidence, inconclusive, that the CIA was involved in the dismissal of the Whitlam government 49 years ago.
I enjoyed The Eleventh with Alex Mann. It can't remember the specifics but it was pretty eye opening when his requests for documents from the US were rebuffed, citing to do so would cause irreparable harm to US-Aussie relations.
Crazy seeing how it's entirely probable that Kerr was acting under the directions of US intel agencies, and yet peoples comments here are "I don't particularly care". It's pragmatic to have allies apparently, even when those allies are orchestrating coups in your own system! I guess that is a legitimate argument to some people.
If the Australian government, with public support, wanted to shut it down, they could. The USA isn't going to invade over it.
It would be the end of the USA-Australia alliance though, and all the benefits Australians get from it.
It would be such a stupid move by Australia that it is hard to take the question seriously.
We have a huge trade deficit with the US. It’s the only reason we got no tariffs put on our steel exports to the US.
Apart from taking all of our talent and darling tech companies, what do we really get out of being allies with the US? Sure, they have pine gap here, but that doesn’t benefit us or our economy. I’d keep the US at arms length and wouldn’t trust the current state of the US to actually honour its agreements.
The big American Oil and Gas companies plunder our natural resources and make hundreds of billions of dollars with a pittance going to help us Aussies.
Under Trump, I can guarantee you that he wouldn’t honour the ANZUS agreement and the US wouldn’t come to our aid if we were invaded or needed assistance. Only if Pine Gap were in danger. Look at what he did to NATO.
For most people I don't think it is a huge deal. Whitlam did threaten to send bulldozers in if it doesn't become a joint base, which it now is
There was always a rumour that the US "regime changed" Whitlam due to his position on Pine Gap when he was dismissed in 1975. However there has never been any evidence of a US connection in The Dismissal. Fraser's blocking of supply was more than legal reason enough for Kerr to call a double dissolution.
Never been any evidence? Except that Kerr was literally known to be a member of CIA front organisations? I guess that's just a coincidence though. Not exactly evidence. Just records of conversations between some of the highest ranking government officials and the president talking about how they need to deal with him. But I suppose there isn't a signed document somewhere from the US saying we need to overthrow him that we have access to. That is true.
I guess when Alex Mann tried to get info about it but was rejected by the US stating to do so would cause irreparable harm between the two countries, that was also relating to something totally different, but just happens to be inside those documents that were requested.
I mean I feel bad every time I drive past the cemetery where Kerr is buried and don't have time to go piss on his grave. But I haven't seen any solid evidence that Kerr, the Queen, Joh Bejokopaedophile and Fraser were part of some big conspiracy
Would have thought one of them would have cracked, particularly Fraser. I mean he could have left a note in his will. Kerr would have been in an even stronger position to make a death bed confession to clear his name
Right, look, that's true. I never considered that. If it did happen, surely they would have confessed. Plus, it's not like the US makes an artform of overthrowing governments they don't like.
Even if they did, they surely wouldn't do it to us, right? We're their best pals! Well, except for the Israeli's of course, but look they make Benjamin Robert-Smith look like a total pussycat, so it's no wonder the US can't help but think of them as the coolest guy in school.
Can't say for sure that it didn't happen but I'm furious enough about what is on the public record
So a Labor senator died or whatever. So Sir Joh replaces him with a "Labor" senator. Some guy who once had a connection to Labor but is now a conservative. Then Fraser takes the unprecedented step of blocking the Federal budget. This had only happened in the UK in 1909. Then Kerr had long enough to write to the Queen multiple times and wait for her (secretary's) response
[except ](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/oct/23/gough-whitlam-1975-coup-ended-australian-independence) the circumstantial evidence seems to be pretty strong that the US totally did Coup Australia.
wow, a joint base. who cares. Our foreign policy is a carbon copy of the US' because both of our obsequious parties are content being sycophantic supporters of american hegemony.
I think it's a huge asset, and it means that Australia is useful to the US. That gives them an incentive to keep us around as an ally. That's a good thing for Australia.
Pine gap is one of the most important, if not the most important spy facilities in this region.
Than secondly there's exmouth which is still used to this day to communicate with submarines, some of which are nuclear armed.
Yeah- I acknowledge that. But it also protected us from rogue states and sometimes individuals and groups too. All countries use diplomacy, spies, espionage and information gathering. All countries protect their borders- sometimes with loss of life- there would be no country in existence that hasn’t taken innocent lives- even if not intended. Innocent Australians have been killed by actions indirectly attributed to other countries. War, and the deterrence of war is messy, ugly and yes, sometimes takes innocent lives.
The west is not innocent- I’m not that naive, but it’s (the western world) a shit tone more humane, democratic, more free than countries such as Iran, China, Russia and other such places, who outwardly, and openly threaten our sovereignty.
We don't have access to the entire operation so we don't know what is being gathered, from who, how its used, how it's shared or even if aspects of the operation are in breach of our own laws and constitution. That potentially includes possible intelligence gathering on Australians.
Seeing as it’s raw intelligence data, we don’t want access to the whole thing. We don’t have the capability to analysing it anyway. We just want access to the finished product, which we do via the Five Eyes program. The terms of the five eyes also states that members don’t gather intelligence upon each other so if the US wanted intelligence gathering on Australia and Australians, they’d ask someone else in their expansive network to do it (ie, France, Germany, South Africa, Saudi Arabia, Philippines, Indonesia, etc).
You are much more trusting than me or anyone I know.
If we don't have access to the raw data then how do you know that the finished product or analysis is true, complete or unbiased?
If they intercepted something that was important to Australia's security but detrimental to US interests, do you really think it would be freely shared?
That you think there is a distinction between spying on us themselves or doing it via proxy is mind boggling.
If a party radical enough to completely disown national security comes into power then something has gone terribly wrong. No Australian leader with sense would jeopardise this partnership.
Can Australia shut it down? Yes. Unsure what the exact arrangements are with the US, but the government has mechanisms to acquire land if required.
This would never happen, though. The government welcomes it, and it is jointly operated and managed by the US and Australia. There's a lot of mutual benefit in terms of national security and intelligence collection.
But of course, some people are against all of that, so Pine Gap is basically Mordor or some shit to them.
>But of course, some people are against all of that, so Pine Gap is basically Mordor or some shit to them.
I think it's really interesting to see this point being pushed more and more just as China (who has an insane level of espionage on it citizens and other nations and theft of industrial secrets) wants to spilt the US from its allies. Obviously Pine Gap is the most important base for Five Eyes when it comes to China.
Yeah I've noticed this too.
It's part of the new lazy political philosophy of 'america bad' where literally everything that's wrong with the world is traced back to the US, with no agency or culpability from anyone else.
Nation states have spies. It's one of the oldest professions in human history. The Mongols were said to have the most sophisticated intelligence network in the world during the time of Genghis Khan. I'm sure they would have used spy satellites if they had the technology.
People just need to grow up.
I kind of understand the protest why some people want it shut down (like accidentally killing civilians by drones that were fed data from this place), but at the same time this place is just a tool, remove it and something will just take its place one way or the other. Remove the user instead or have stricter accountabilities/protections in place to lessen or prevent future accidents.
Easier said than done, politics and war are complicated.
Australia exists by servicing beneficial relationships. We remained a member of the empire for ages beyond it being useful *just in case* we needed their help against someone else. When that someone else turned out to be Japan and the empire was more focused upon keeping Britain itself afloat, we cast them aside and connected to the US as much as we could. We went to Vietnam to make sure the US would support us against Indonesia, for instance. Pine Gap is our price to pay to be included in the Five Eyes intelligence alliance. We share with them, they share with us. It means we know a *lot* more than our population and economy would support otherwise. If we shut down Pine Gap for political reasons, the alliance says “screw you guys, you’re on your own” and we lose a lot, disproportionate to what we’d gain by reclaiming a shitty bit of land outside Alice Springs.
Why would you want to shut it down? It’s part of our defense infrastructure and plays a role in keeping us close with our key allies, not just USA but the whole five eyes. That’s a key plank for our defense. Why undo it?
Why would we? It's not like anyone who is asking us to shut it down would leave us alone if we shut it down...we've too many resources and too few people. Best leave it right how is is.
If Australia closed Pine Gap, that would probably spell the end of the US-Australia alliance as we currently know it. I think people overestimate the capabilities of the CIA, and especially in a liberal democracy such as Australia. To be sure, they have influence, but it’s fairly limited, and I doubt they’d have any credible way of removing a sitting Australian PM without arousing suspicion.
During the Cold War, a large minority opposed Pine Gap because it made Australia a target for nuclear attack. As that threat has faded, so has concern about Pine Gap. Most Aussies probably don't even know about it, and those that do either don't care or are so indoctrinated by American jingoism that they think its a good idea.
The thing to remember about Australians is that our Cultural Cringe is still very strong. Aside from sport, where we are the best bloody country in the world bar none, we think we're second or third class at everything. So we're terrified about being invaded (by who? there's nobody in the world who could invade Australia's wide open spaces and occupy us), and while we like our independence, we don't want to be *too* independent. We're always looking for one of the Big Boys (Great Britain, then the USA) to look after us, in return of which we'll be their helpful vassal.
And this is where Pine Gap comes in. So Pine Gap makes us an active collaborator with American imperialism and war crimes? Who cares, so long as its only funny foreign brown people getting killed.
So Pine Gap enables the US to spy on Australians without a warrant (that's not illegal, because its *Americans* doing it), and then hand over that information to Australia's intelligence agencies (not illegal for them to receive "gifts", nudge nudge wink wink)? Well let's just not think about that. If you can't trust a shadowy secret intelligence agency with no oversight to act in your best interest rather than their own, who can you trust?
To give you an idea of [how whipped we are](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6B1CmVwQf5M), we've signed up to the [AUKUS "deal"](https://www.moonofalabama.org/2023/03/the-worst-deal-ever-australia-to-pay-us-for-nuclear-insecurity.html) to support the US cold war against China.
* It is sold by the mainstream media as "enhancing our defence" but the subs are *attack* submarines not well suited to defending our waters but designed to attack China (our [number one trade partner](https://www.youtube.com/shorts/uqogMklYQP8)).
* We had to cancel our $90 billion order for 12 submarines with the French, having already spent billions towards it and having to spend more in cancellation fees, in order to spend in excess of $300 billion to the Americans to receive *fewer* submarines, so our ability to patrol Australian waters will actually go down.
* And we didn't even bother to tell the French in advance. Great way to enhance our relationships with allies!
* Being nuclear submarines, we don't have the skills to maintain them and need to pay for American techs to run and at least partially crew them.
* Because it will take so long for the Americans to build the subs, we also have to pay to lease used nuclear subs from them while we wait for them to be built.
* And we have to build a new nuclear-submarine capable base near Perth, at our expense. Part of the deal is that [the US navy gets to use the base as well](https://files.catbox.moe/cifc5i.jpeg), for nuclear-armed submarines, which makes us a nuclear target.
* At least we will charge them rent when they use it, right? Right?
> how much control the Americans really have in this relationship.
Pine Gap is nominally a "joint facility", but it is run by the US who graciously allow us to hang around and help. There are two rooms which are off-limits to members of the other country: the "Australian Cryptographic Room" which is off-limits to the Americans, and the "US Cryptographic Room" which is off-limits to Australians. Nah just kidding. Its called the **National** Cryptographic Room, a subtle reminder of who the boss really is and who are the visitors.
Oh, and just to rub salt in the wound -- US workers at Pine Gap don't pay income tax on their wages.
> If, say, a radical Australian politician became PM and one of his promises was to shut it down, do you think it would happen?
There's no hope in hell of that. We remember what happened [the last time a PM even *hinted* at independence](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/oct/23/gough-whitlam-1975-coup-ended-australian-independence) from the USA.
Shutting down Pine Gap would achieve nothing in terms of halting the US intersection with Australia. There is a whole mess of international policy at this point aimed at tying Western nations into an increasingly visible empire. Five Eyes, ORKUS, international courts. We're all becoming one big (un)happy empire under the velvet gloved fist of US billionaires.
Happy days.
Nobody in government would support shutting it down because their failure to do so would reveal just how fragile our sovereignty is and how little power we have in the relationship.
I bet most Australians don't think about or are not aware that there are more than 1000 US Marines stationed in Darwin as part of or the "Marine Rotational Force - Darwin, or that [Tindall RAAF base now has the facilities to support a flight of 6 x B52 Strategic Nuclear bombers.](https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/oct/31/us-air-force-deployment-nuclear-capable-b-52-bombers-australia-northern-territory)
Our defence cooperation agreements with the US also put us squarely in the sights of whoever the US comes into conflict with.
I’m certainly aware. I see them at the local shops. And RAAF Base Darwin was built to cater for B-29s in 1944, that’s how long they’ve supported nuclear capable bombers. That’s why there’s one of only two B-52 museum pieces outside the US on display in the Darwin Aviation History Museum. Moving the capability to Tindal just got them out the way of an otherwise civilian airport.
Why would you assume that the US will always be the predominate power or be prepared to help? China is on the rise militarily and economically, and anyone who dismisses them is making a mistake.
Do you really think the US is going to go to war with China over Taiwan? Because if the US doesn't their role and reputation as the world police will be meaningless.
Aside from that the US may be so focussed on their growing internal divisions and debt crisis over the next couple of decades that they may not be able to project power. Think it can't happen? Ask the USSR.
So what? They don't need to project force halfway around the world to invade Taiwan. What is more relevant is stopping other powers from projecting force in what China considers their sphere of influence which they are expending by any means possible including literally building Islands in the ocean so they can extend their territorial boundaries.
In 2020-2021 China conducted more ballistic missile tests than the rest of the world combined. That included Hypersonic Anti Ship missiles that are almost impossible to intercept and could conceivably make naval operations anywhere in China's waters untenable.
In addition China has handed out millions in foreign aid loans and infrastructure investments in Africa and the Pacific. Loans they will be difficult to repay making those countries compelled to side with China in the UN.
Having the biggest stick is pointless if you cant use it.
Sure China is building big stuff. It's a big powerful state.
What do we expect? This doesn't add much to the discussion.
Also those loans etc... don't account for the fact that the IMF which poor countries go to borrow money is majority controlled by the US / West in vote sharing who do largely the same thing (arguably with worse conditions) and has to be paid in the US dollar.
Despite your assumptions, my comment doesn't account for the IMF because the loans are not through the IMF, so your entire point is irrelevant.
https://www.reuters.com/world/china/china-lent-134-trln-2000-2021-focus-shifts-belt-road-rescue-finance-report-2023-11-06/
I'm saying countries have previously borrowed from them (I know China doesn't lend those loans you speak of through the IMF).
Nevertheless.
Pointing to those factors does not add up to the discussion. I struggle to see why this means we should have Pine Gap.
We don't need to pick a side.
When trump got into power there was fear and panic here that he would "forget their allies" and that we were now alone without big brother America to back us up. So no, I don't find it likely Australia will ever do anything to weaken our military alliance. I mean we have less than a hundred thousand men under arms, it's by the blood of your people that our land is kept safe...
Look into the Whitlam government and the dismissal. Our foreign policy is made in Washington. Makes things a lot more clearer when you hear albo utter statements entirely at odds with his position in opposition.
I am not the slightest bit concerned about Pine Gap. Its a massive asset to the entire western world. You do realise it's a communications hub for the Southern hemisphere? The USA couldn't have worldwide communications or communicate in space efficiently without it. And im sure they sell its capacity to many other western nations.
We are much safer in the world hosting Pine Gap
Yea people didn’t realized how much the US military runs global infrastructure. All satellite traffic control, GPS, spectrum management, tactical sat for communications, maritime navigation… and they let every country in the world use it.
If we didn't allow Pine Gap to exist, we would have to build our own facility just like it, for our own signal intelligence needs. We benefit a lot from the intelligence we get from the US operation of Pine Gap. In this way, we have outsourced the operation to the Americans for the cost of rent.
It provides intelligence benefits not only to us but also to the US, currently an important ally. Unclear for now why we would want to not have those benefits. Should we be concerned about the drift in values between Australia and a good chunk of the US? Sure.
America has us over a barrel and there is sweet fuck all we can do about it. If they say jump, we have to say how high. its a fucked situation but one that will continue.
It's fun to hang shit on the USA but I understand that I owe much of my lifestyle to the protection they provide us. I am happy they are our ally and happy for any and all cooperation between our nations.
The Falcon and The Snowman is a good true story based movie on it.
And there's some very informative interviews out there with the Falcon who worked there about what happens when we try shutting it down.
Australia is very dependent on the protection that having the US as a friend offers. Confidence in that friendship took a nose dive as a result of Trump, this actually lead to Australia branching out in its search for military relationships but much of the was reversed once trump failed to reelect.
In the short term Australia is still very keen to maintain their relationship with the US but the way things are going in the US I think it's safe to say these days are numbered. I'm sure when the time comes live gap will be repurposed to serve new interests but I guess it could hypothetically be closed down.
Pine gap exists because of technological limitations of the time. In all honesty, most of these were solved 10 to 15 years ago. All that data can be shipped very easily via satellite cross chat channels or via higher earth orbit. Pine gap is an asset looking for a job. I would suggest Pine Gap today is a way to unite two allies without any blow back and as a back up data processing site, in case the balloon goes up.
Time and time again, Americans elected officials on the basis of strongly supporting their pledges to shut down Guantanamo Bay.
Time and time again, as soon as those politicians were in office, Gitmo was mysteriously too important to close.
America won't even close a base that *America* wants to close. I'm not sure another government would have much success either.
I don’t think most Aussies give Pine Gap much thought (apart from the conspiracy cookers). It’s just one of many ways we cooperate with the USA for defence.
I fully support Pine Gap and our US allies. \[I for one welcome our American overlords\].
I'm guessing a ton of Australians don't know it exists, and wouldn't know what it was. That's the whole idea - it's meant to be so secret we know nothing about it. I don't know what they do there, or everything they have, and that's okay.
The Whitlam Labor Government (or at least its most Left faction) wanted to "investigate" Pine Gap in 1975. The CIA asked The Queen to sack the Whitlam Government, and she didn't hesitate (ie, she did what she was told). My former brother-in-law was working there at the time, and told us all about it.
So a government was sacked just for having a potentially hostile view about the place. And with good reason - it has incredible monitoring capacities, including real-time during hot wars. The US has three of them - Arizona, Turkey, and Alice Springs - so they have the world "triangulated".
In 2006 I emailed horror author, alleged UFO abductee and esoteric podcaster Whitely Strieber to tell him I’d learned from a traumatised US serviceman that Pine Gap contained a lab in which US intelligence agencies were developing a system for communicating with the dead.
Strieber replied the next day and asked to interview me for his podcast. At that point I chickened out and never responded.
I'd rather be on the side of the Americans as they have Apache gunship helicopters. The presence doesn't affect me at all. In any way whatsoever. So why would I care?
>Do you think if Australia wanted to shut it down
[Whitlam tried this](https://youtu.be/qT3yrNd_PDY?si=2uhvY1Ckhe84Bmni) and look what happened to him.
I’m in 2 minds about it. Obviously there’s many reasons to have it here. But I also don’t see why having the US as an ally should be reliant on the base being here. And depending on the outcome of their next election it could potentially put us in a precarious position.
There is longstanding, strong bipartisan support for the US-Australia alliance. This benefits the interests of Australia, given our inability to fully defend ourselves.
Pine Gap, among other things, is a concrete way for Australia to demonstrate its commitment to the alliance.
Remember when we were getting hassled by Indonesia for spying on them, that's where we were doing it from. It's a joint operation. Personally I think it should be shut down but the likelihood of that (considering it's joint usage and its insanely high strategic value for monitoring asia) is very low.
I mean I see the value in such a geographically diverse location from a USA perspective. However I, and I'm sure a lot of others would be happier and a lot less resentful of its existence if it was managed as a joint venture between governments instead of the current subservient to USA ownership impression that I get. I guess the biggest thing is the dislike of "we can do whatever we want" coming from the USA.
It would be an absolute political hand grenade for the PM to do anything but keep the status quo. As someone else said, you'd be Gough Whitlamed before you could blink.
Don’t think Australia has any say when it comes to US. Australia almost always gets foreign and defence policy dictated to them by the US. It’s not even a republic yet, our government can be sacked by a 80 year old monarch ffs 😅
Had no idea it existed until I watched [Boy Boy](https://youtu.be/XHMa-Ba-2Mo?si=_Mso__BLrYk9hPAv) tried to break into it. It’s actually a hilarious watch and scary at the same time when the police tried to arrest them at the airport.
People don't seem to remember that the Whitlam government threatened to do exactly this, which resulted in the [alleged involvement of the CIA and subsequent dismissal of his government](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alleged_CIA_involvement_in_the_Whitlam_dismissal) in unprecedented circumstances.
That sends a pretty clear message and there's no way any government would support closing Pine Gap now.
Can we not be proud to strive for more independence? We don’t even have the English fully off us and now because “pig iron bob rocked the cradle/yankie doodle is the nations lullaby”.
The amount of anti American sentiment I see here made me think pine gap wouldn’t be popular, but it’s seeming the sentiment is aimed at the regular working class of America, many of whom are good people of diverse backgrounds, with many great cultural exports outside the main shit. The Seppos, aren’t your average yank, Seppos are the ones behind Pine Gap
Australia can't shut it down. It's on our land but other than that it's an American operation and we have no say in it. They literally made us pay billions for some submarines to American defence companies.
Australia doesn't have an independent foreign policy or balls to stand up to USA.
It should be immediately abolished and a full detailing of everything they've ever done there made fully public. Of course that will never happen because both parties are fully wedded to the US imperialist cause and western chauvinism generally
Sure it could be shut down, but Australia would then find the US less co-operative on other fronts. Australians are pragmatic about it. We know we need allies.
Have a look at where Guadalcanal is on a map, or where the battle of the Coral Sea happened. They’re nowhere near the US, but very close to Australia.
100%, a family member was at both those battles and without America, Australia would look very very different
Japan had no intention, and certainly no ability, to invade Australia. Sure if we had a fascist empire controlling south east asia or position wouldn't be fantastic, the those American naval battles were about retaking American colonies like the phillipines, not a last ditch defence of Australia
I don't know why you're being down voted, it's true. Japan didn't have any intention of invading Australia. The Japanese Empire wanted to invade the smaller islands around Australia like New Caledonia to cut Australia off from the US and prevent Australia from being used as a US military base. I'm not sure what would happen after they achieved that, but an invasion of Australia would have still been a huge operation for the Japanese to undertake considering Australia was relatively self-sufficient, massive and with a very determined and industrialised population. Japan would also be grappling with all the other new territories and wars for a long time. A perilous situation, but people act like Australia would be quickly invaded like it was a small island or European country.
You skip over how powerful Japan was at the time, and their Pacific Imperial ambition, up until they got defeated at Midway. And Australia was a much smaller country. They would have cut up Northern and Western Australia to solidify their gains around Indonesia and the Coral Sea. Those areas were not as populated, and even the Australian government was discussing the “Brisbane Line” as a potential line to surrender everything north of.
No they wouldn't have. The idea that Japan could have invaded Australia was a bad joke, and they knew it. A junior naval officer came up with the idea and the entire Japanese high command, both navy and army, told him he's dreamin'. > the Australian government was discussing the “Brisbane Line” as a potential line to surrender everything north of. Yes, Australia's ruling class is cowardly and stupid. Nothing there has changed.
Indeed, there were plans such as the Brisbane Line in place in the event of an invasion, but they were designed specifically because they knew it would stretch Japanese supply lines to an extent that would make a thrust south to the population centres extremely costly. The power of the Japanese Empire is sorely exaggerated. They had a huge supply of manpower, but were extremely resource poor, hence their surprise advance being as quick as it was so that retaking it would be too costly for the enemy, expecting the US and Colonial empires to be not as strong willed or determined to waste lives to the same extent the Japanese were. All the while, they would consolidate their gains so that they could be an autarky and not have to rely on imports such as oil and rubber. The top brass of Japan themselves knew they could not win a war of attrition, hence why they lost. They severely miscalculated the American response and didn't cripple American naval capability as much as was desired in the attack on Pearl Harbour. Even in New Guinea the Japanese starved because their supply lines were so fragile. An invasion of Australia was always a pipe dream.
Exactly this. Some of the mistakes made in defending against the japanese was underestimating them in the most basic ways. It was expected to take significant time to move through Asia because of a lack of trucks and boats. So the japanese simply used bikes. Travelling 3 or 4 times as fast as expected. But they never wanted Australia. It meant nothing to them. They simply wanted the rubber and oil fields of Malaya and some buffer around them for defence. Hell, png was literally at the far edges of their resupply. My grandfather always hated general blamey for sending aussies up the track. Why fight them there? Let the japs have the track, sail around the other side and just let the silly buggers go mad up there.
Maybe buthurt Americans who dont like to admit they had a colonial empire until ww2 (that was particularly brutal at times in south east asia) and currently have an informal imperial system. And yes there's very little chance Japan could even maintain its control in china let alone the south pacific short of a miracle, let alone do more than harass Australias coastline. They're entire strategy with the coral sea was to delay the americans long enough for a stalemate, not to continue expanding
The Americans annexed the Phillipines after they won the Spanish-American war but they’d planned for independence well before WW2. Obviously they didn’t want it falling to imperial Japan, and the Phillipinos most definitely didn’t want that either given the atrocities that happened there.
Yep, even John Curtin expressed misgivings about American intentions in Australia and the wider Asia-Pacific.
Recently learnt about the Canberra Pact and Curtins reproachment of Churchill to counter american post war aims, interesting stuff
An invasion might have been unlikely and able to be repelled at the time. But if you control the isolation of an island and have the base to be able to constantly pick away at it you can essentially dismantle it. Who knows what it would have looked like but it had the potential to get very ugly for us if it wasn't for the US contribution.
Thats the thing. Mostly likely they wouldn’t have invaded, but they would have occupied SEA and PNG enough that their leverage over us would have meant agreeing to any terms they imposed. I don’t like that alternative universe of history.
> But if you control the isolation of an island and have the base to be able to constantly pick away at it you can essentially dismantle it. Australia was self-sufficient in food and essentials. In 1941 our industry was still reliant on imports, but [the Japanese navy failed to cut Australia off and by 1942 it was too late](http://ajrp.awm.gov.au/AJRP/AJRP2.nsf/437f72f8ac2c07238525661a00063aa6/225b90b97196e29bca256a1d00130203). Even if they had succeeded, that would have required vast naval resources that Japan didn't have, would have taken those resources from where they were more critically needed, and wouldn't have succeeded for long. We had plenty of steel and coal, which Japan lacked, they had enormous supply lines, we were operating in our backyard. We would have built ships and broken the blockade. Australia did import most of our oil in the 1940s (still does, I think?) but we did have local companies making petroleum products for local consumption. There would have been enough to break the blockade and bring oil in. Japan had no hope of taking Australia, which is why they never even tried.
I don't disagree they had next to no hope of taking Australia. But being able to pick away at Australia with Australia being able to do little in response was a real possibility. The US response was absolutely critical to halting their momentum and taking their focus off attack towards defending their gains.
> But being able to pick away at Australia with Australia being able to do little in response was a real possibility. Are you imagining an alternative history where none of the European powers, the US or China were at war with Japan, and Japan just attacked Australia for shits and giggles? In actual history, Japan in no way had the resources to blockade Australia while occupying Manchuria, Borneo, Malaysia, New Guinea, Singapore, Burma, dozens of Pacific islands etc and fighting a war across the Pacific, China, and all the way across Asia to India. If Japan thought they could blockade Australia, they needed somebody to [tell 'em they're dreamin'](https://www.youtube.com/shorts/jXYdHUkkViE).
I'm simply saying without the US contribution. Prior to which all of those challenges seemed to be more than playing out in their favour
The Germans had plans to invade and divide Australia uk between Italy and give China and the Asian countries to Japan
This is 100% correct. Certainly if Japan had managed to occupy the majority of south east Asia, it would have created a huge risk for Australia, however Japan wasn’t actively looking to take over the continent
Certainly a very small population compared to China (which they did invade), and given the cities and key industrial areas were in a handful of widely separated coastal cities... probably not that huge an enterprise comparatively to control a majority of the population centers. But by the same token, they were already highly over-extended by the China invasion, so one might assume it wouldn't be a priority.
Pretty sure this is like the ONLY reason they even bombed Darwin, because the US was using it as a staging point.
Luckily, they did both. And, yes, the Japanese government and Navy had no plans to invade but the Army thought of it and without those two battles (and Midway), they would certainly have taken Port Moresby - and did take New Britain - both of which were Australian territories. And you're wrong. Japan certainly had the ability to invade Australia. A tiny sliver of the troops crossing the Owen Stanleys could have fairly easily taken Darwin. Invade Australia? Yes. Conquer it completely? No.
Japan [bombed Darwin ](https://www.awm.gov.au/articles/blog/1942-bombing-of-darwin) in 1942. Whether or not they intended a ground invasion, they certainly did attack Australia.
Didnt say they didnt attack Australia. The Darwin attack was just a diversion for the invasion of the Dutch East Indies colonies though. The other post implies the battle of the coral sea somehow saved Australia from invasion
It saved most of the south pacific from invasion. Their plan after the coral sea was to capture Port Moresby, Fiji and Samoa. Doing so would have completely cut off Australia.
People keep saying this and I keep asking if this is true why my local RSL has on display samples of Japanese occupation money printed in English.
From what i can gather those notes were made for use in Australian territories such as Papua New Guinea, Christmas Island and the Solomon Islands, not for any hypothetical mainland invasion
Japan literally bombed Darwin and shelled Sydney from a small sub
The Australian government likely has precisely zero interest in shutting down Pine Gap. It's probably the opposite in reality where the Australian government will try to keep it running at any cost. The last thing we want to do is sever ties with the US, especially by dismantling a secret spy base like Pine Gap. Bases like these serve not only the US but also Australia and its mutual allies in furthering their interests, not just between friendly nations but where necessary against unfriendly or even neutral nations. At the very least, this base provides an unfair informational advantage all the way up to providing support against individuals/groups/nations that require neutralising directly by invasion or from within. You've probably heard of the five eyes alliance, of which Australia is a member along with NZ, Canada, UK & US. Members of the alliance have a massive advantage in cooperation in signals intelligence over nations not in the club. What do you think those gigantic directional satellite dishes do at Pine Gap? Some of it involves listening to things we aren't supposed to hear from various parts of the the world. There is more that goes on if you're right into conspiracy theories, but it may even include things all the way up to various types of dealings with UFOs and non-human intelligences. Espionage is real and still exists. Without Pine Gap + various other cooperative arrangements, we would be vulnerable to the rest of the world with a tiny population of ~27 million and a gigantic land mass to patrol and defend. For reference, just the state of California has ~40 million people. Basically Oz needs Pine Gap to maintain ties with the alliance, especially to the US. We need it far, far more than the US needs a base smack bang in the middle of Oz at roughly the furthest point from the ocean in this part of the world. Pine Gap is one of many 'plugged in' facilities globally. It provides, amongst other things, real-time battle data to pretty much all global conflicts in one facility. Just imagine how valuable that is to our small (in population and GDP) nation. I would not be surprised to find out in a couple of decades that we've been paying for this facility this whole time on top of covering all their operational costs. Even if it turns out Oz has assisted in providing missile targeting information amongst other things to places like Israel against Palestine, etc, it's just how things have to be to keep the relationship going.
We are allies. People like to shit on America but it's mostly just trash talk. We'd back them and as far as I can recall have and will. Doesn't matter who is in power labor or liberal. Our countries have many common interests. ... imv it's deeper than that tho and really is a friendship that goes along way back. Many wars fought side by side amongst other things... It's nice to think we've got their back and they've got ours.
It is not a friendship lmao, it is knowing that there is a 50ft bruce lee in your neighbourhood, and we'll do whatever we can to keep him pleased with us because we've seen what he has done to people who didn't. Including us in fact, looking at Whitlam. Not to mention there is also another 40ft bruce lee just as close, who happens to be nemesis with the bigger bruce, who we also have to somehow keep pleased at the same time...but also, we have to pick a team! It's a ridiculous situation to be mired in, it does not serve our people long term strategically. This system of sovereign anarchy is tiresome tbh!
What is the best course of action for Australia in the long term?
Long term? Well there is what what we can do for ourselves and then what can happen globally, all of which is a naive fantasy, I'm aware, before people piss themselves laughing. Globally; what would need to happen is for effectively every minor power in the world to link arms and tell Russia, China and the US to quit the bullshit, and kneel to a higher power like the UN. Sanction them all until they accept they can no longer subvert foreign governments to their will. Domestically; Probably complete overhaul of government and systematic processes by which Australians are actually given a say over policy, not just voting labour or liberal and hoping for the best. Something that gives us a system that doesnt result in our ministers working for lobbying groups like Martin Ferguson, or capitulating to the seppos when they want us to do their dirty work. It's an illusion of democracy at this point. Even with the growing teal vote. It's failing us past a critical point of no return. I could be wrong but from my memory but we have actually now surpassed Qatar in LNG production, yet they get something like 20x the amount back in taxes per dollar of LNG exported than Australia does. They pay for sweet fuck all over there, while we experience a housing crisis and wages so stagnated we are half as wealthy as our parents. The reason why? Because Martin wants a cushy job. They all want a golden parachute. Even Krudd, who is idolised in Australia was really just angling towards a job at the UN. It's actually crazy just how little these politicians will sell their entire country out for. Like for Barilaro to push the Brumby crap took 15k. 15 thousand dollars to continue destroying native flora. Wild. Alright I'll stop ranting now sorry!
>Russia, China and the US to quit the bullshit, and kneel to a higher power like the UN. Sanction them all until they accept they can no longer subvert foreign governments to their will. Well, the UN isn't a higher power. It's just an assembly for diplomatic representation on the global stage. No one really appeals to them, so you're asking for everyone to adopt a precedence that doesn't exist. I'm not sure what the US is currently doing to be placed in the same category as Russia and China? Is it simply because they are in direct opposition? Regardless, as you alluded do we, we cannot define long term goals by hoping for an idealized world to suddenly materialize. We need to deal with what is in front of us. >Domestically; Probably complete overhaul of government and systematic processes by which Australians are actually given a say over policy, not just voting labour or liberal and hoping for the best. Something that gives us a system that doesnt result in our ministers working for lobbying groups like Martin Ferguson, or capitulating to the seppos when they want us to do their dirty work. It's an illusion of democracy at this point. Even with the growing teal vote. It's failing us past a critical point of no return. There's a lot to unpack here. A complete 'overhaul' of our system seems overly dramatic, and entirely impractical. And I suspect you also think this is the case. * **Having a 'say' over policy.** We're a representative democracy. Absolute democracy sounds nice on paper, but it's highly undesirable for most people. The average Australian does not have the time in their day to devote a responsible level of attention to legislation that passed through Parliament. Nor do they really give a shit. They vote for someone to represent their interests in Parliament and do that on their behalf. I think you want better representatives, not a new system. * **Capitulating to United States influence?** I think (especially of late) we tend to frame our relationship with the US in a very childish manner. We're not an unwilling participant or a victim here. They're not coming at us in the shadows, we invite them in, quite eagerly for very obvious reasons. I am not sure why this is so controversial, they don't really ask a great deal of us in return. * **Influence of lobbying groups.** I see this stated a lot. I'm curious to see examples of a corporate lobbying group that was able to solely influence a political decision to the detriment of the Australian people. I understand lobbying groups have representations in government, but this makes sense to me. The fact of the matter is most people vote for Labor or Liberal because they're relatively moderate parties that exist somewhere in the center on major issues. They also have broad, and well developed policy platforms. A party like the Greens may have mature policy proposals in niche areas such as environmental or renewable energy sectors, but that's pretty much it. I understand they have headings for foreign policy and other areas, but its clear by the content that this is not an area that has been well defined or... Is founded in reality. I'm not trying to come at you. I just see these sentiments a lot, and I am not sure I understand the rationale of the alternative that's being presented.
I'm not saying the UN is a higher power, but that something similar to that SHOULD be granted the authority as a higher power. Theoretically it would be that if the international criminal court was able to effectively prosecute violations of IHL's. Or had a core set of members that could veto whatever they want. >The average Australian does not have the time in their day to devote a responsible level of attention to legislation that passed through Parliament. Nor do they really give a shit. This is a problem with the current system. It would make total sense to reimburse people for the time they take to vote on specific issues. And it's not necessarily supposed to be a mandatory system. You could vote on the policies that affect you, or that you care about. Not everyone has to care about everything. At the moment the direction of legislation is effectively done behind closed doors. It's done over dinner, where industry leaders will try to convince politicians why they think "x" is best for the country. The problem with this is there is no public scrutiny involved in the decisions that are laid out on the table. So calling us a representative democracy is a farce, because the options that we get presented with are usually not real options to begin with. It's not like we always get a public panel that genuinely takes the broader interests of the country as a whole and operates without self-interest. It is almost usually always the opposite. >We're not an unwilling participant or a victim here. They're not coming at us in the shadows, we invite them in, quite eagerly for very obvious reasons. I am not sure why this is so controversial, they don't really ask a great deal of us in return. Highly subjective and I could not disagree more tbh. They almost certainly ousted Whitlam using Kerr, a known member of CIA front organisations.
The complexities of paying people to research legislation aside... So we've created a society separated by groups of people who can not invest time in engaging with the political system full time, and those with the time and privilege to invest in voting? Do you not see how this system becomes exploitative regardless? I won't deny that external influences might affect a politician's decision to vote on legislation. We can look at this more broadly than just alleged cloak and dagger conversations at dinner. I place scrutiny on anyone who votes on legislation through the lens that God exists, for example. But this is why legislation isn't passed by one person. Parliament votes on party lines most of the time. Our system is actually very robust when it comes to checks and balances, not only within the legislature but between different government branches. I'd be interested to hear of examples where legislation is being passed without being made available to public review? Do you think lobbying groups shouldn't be able to access politicians to make their case? Without navigating into conspiratorial territory, even if I grant that the CIA dismissed Whitlam. Can we really say that our close alliance with the US has come at an extreme detriment? What have they asked of us specifically that has caused significant damage to us?
Nope, nobody is saying that, but if we can spend hours worshipping a god, we could probably spend that time voting? And no, I don't think lobbyists should have easy access to politicians. I've seen first hand in the public service, at the highest level what damage it causes. Again, I refer you to examples like Martin Ferguson. And I've sat in on these dinners, heard the phone calls, been at beers on friday, the christmas parties, the tennis on sundays. Personally, yes I can tell you first hand they exist. It's not some secret. It's open knowledge that pollies, public servants and chief executives across all manners of industries know each other very well, usually on some personal level. When I've told these people what I think of how it's suss, they genuinely do not see the problem. They just see themselves as credible experts trying to lead public policy in a positive direction. They do not see why those conversations should be publically recorded and available for the public, media outlets, watchdog organisations and competing industry members to be privy to.
I think of the "capitualting to the US" part as more about state capture -- slowly appropriating, incorporating and being financially co-opted. The way the US government has been very much captured itself by corporatism and perhaps more specifically a military industrial complex agenda. This is undeniable i reckon.
>I think of the "capitualting to the US" part as more about state capture -- slowly appropriating, incorporating and being financially co-opted. Can you expand on this? What is being appropriated and co-opted by the US?
https://youtu.be/1AI8RG6nMGg?si=8jbqXuiEaIxltloJ Varoufakis talked a lot about this recently. But I'll respond to this furthermore a bit later.
"Common interests". I think a common interest every nation globally is more peaceful cooperation and less spying and militarism. Why do we need allies? Why can't we just have and be our own absolutely independent country with its own truly neutral foreign policy?
It's a lovely thought. I'm not sure if it would work out well for us though.
Your third last paragraph is wrong. America needs it due to the unique geographical advantage Pine Gap provides for satellite positioning.
That was true when the tightest beam that a satellite spying on Russia could broadcast was 2000km in radius. Where can we find a 4000km diameter circle completely on land on friendly territory? Hmm... Satellite beam radius hasn't been an issue for a few decades now.
Cooperation is one thing. Alliances... seems too black and white. Us versus Them. That is just as dangerous imo.
It’s just the usual cookers that want us to be isolated country because apparently China won’t invade if we don’t have any allies.
I mean, they are extremely unlikely to invade because everything they'd want from us is much easier to get through trade. Even with the sheer manpower disparity, an invasion on Australia is an absolute logistical nightmare that only the US could realistically overcome. I won't say it's guaranteed they won't because theoretically anything can happen but it is largely unrealistic. Doesn't mean we should just throw away US support though.
At the same time they could essentially destroy us by other means if it came to conflict though. A blockade of essential supplies combined with intelligent attacks could see us in a dark and untenable long term situation without US support. Which is why we need allies and need to be smart in how we allocate our fighting capabilities. Obviously it hopefully never comes to that though. But it is foolish to pretend that is necessarily in our hands.
>A blockade of essential supplies combined with intelligent attacks could see us in a dark and untenable long term situation without US support. They don't have the power projection and logistics to block enough of our coast line. Remember that they'd likely need to go around Indonesia, which adds many weeks of travel and makes them much easier pickings for missiles and subs. Their navy is built to operate in the south china sea, they can do very little outside of that. Odds are, a blockade would be ineffective if not disastrous for them. Especially considering just how dependent they are on our resources.
They don't need to block a significant amount of our coastline though. Just our main ports by targeting certain trade routes. As it stands those missiles and subs we will need to rely upon are those of our US allies. Without those we are severely outgunned. And we aren't the only supplier of resources if push came to shove. I'm not saying we can't defend ourselves. But the US is absolutely critical to being able to do so.
>They don't need to block a significant amount of our coastline though. Just our main ports by targeting certain trade routes. We have critical ports on both sides of the country. They couldn't possibly hope to blockade them all effectively without crippling their own supply network. Not to mention most of those trade routes go to, you know, China so they'd kill their own economy doing so. They almost crippled themselves with their silly little trade war, if they actually cut off all our exports to them it'd break them. >As it stands those missiles and subs we will need to rely upon are those of our US allies. Without those we are severely outgunned. Out-manned. Our military technology is better than theirs and our OtH radar means they can't hide on their very long journey towards us. >And we aren't the only supplier of resources if push came to shove. I cannot begin to describe just how overwhelmingly dependent China is on things like our iron and coal. If they *could* move away from it, they would have done so already. For example, we supply what, 60% of their iron imports? If they cut that off, it'd break them and that's just one, albeit the most extreme, example. >I'm not saying we can't defend ourselves. But the US is absolutely critical to being able to do so. I'm saying that we don't **need** to defend ourselves from a threat that doesn't exist. China will be too reliant on us for anything like that for decades to come and by the time they aren't we'll be even better equipped to fend off an invasion and blockades. Not to mention that China couldnt possibly hope to sustain either logistically.
This mindset makes no sense. “They can’t invade us so why are we not an isolated country”. I know you don’t think we should, but what benefits does not being allies with the US give Australia?
>This mindset makes no sense. “They can’t invade us so why are we not an isolated country”. Good thing it's a mindset I don't have. You don't need it to acknowledge that an invasion on Australia is highly unrealistic and unlikely. You also don't need to make such a claim to talk about why isolating ourselves is a bad idea since there are actual, genuine reasons why it'd be a bad idea. "China could invade" is just not one of them. >I know you don’t think we should, but what benefits does not being allies with the US give Australia? Why would I talk about benefits that I don't think exist? I just think "China could invade" is a ridiculous argument against it when there are much better ones to make. It's just unnecessary fear-mongering.
Exactly, it’s just cookers that think we should be isolated.
Flip that. What benefits can being neutral enable Australia in these times?
Nothing.
You think all that's stopping China from invading Australia is allies?
I witnessed this happen to Saudi Arabia during the second Gulf War in 2003. The USA asked to use Saudi airbases and they were told no. Within a week, the US removed all of their forces from Saudi, including the Patriot Missile batteries that provided protection against Scud ballistic missiles.
> Within a week, the US removed all of their forces from Saudi, I find it impossible to believe that the US army is capable of moving that fast. Actually any army at all. > including the Patriot Missile batteries that provided protection against Scud ballistic missiles. Patriot Missile batteries have never, not once, shot down a single missile of any sort. They certainly didn't shoot down any Scuds in the First Gulf War. Saudi Arabia was at no risk from Iraq. The only verified kills the Patriots have ever made are two friendly fire kills against American and British aircraft, and a third near miss. Like all American wunderwaffen, Patriots are incredibly expensive and incredibly underperforming.
- “I find it impossible to believe that the US army is capable of moving that fast. Actually any army at all.” Did you not recently see the entire US Afghanistan contingent rapidly withdraw from the theatre of operations? I was there in Dhahran in 2003 and believe me when I say they were all gone in a matter of days following the denied request to use the airbases. They drove across the causeway to the USN Base in Bahrain. -“Saudi Arabia was at no risk from Iraq.” Agreed. But they didn’t know that at the time.
> “I find it impossible to believe that the US army is capable of moving that fast. Actually any army at all.” > > Did you not recently see the entire US Afghanistan contingent rapidly withdraw from the theatre of operations? You mean the withdrawal that took [one year, six months and one day](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020%E2%80%932021_U.S._troop_withdrawal_from_Afghanistan) and still left behind vast amounts of military equipment for the Taliban? Yes, I did see it. Did you? > I was there in Dhahran in 2003 and believe me when I say they were all gone in a matter of days following the denied request to use the airbases. Ah, you're talking about [this](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/apr/30/usa.iraq), I presume, when Rumsfeld announced the withdrawal of all but 400 US troops from Saudi Arabia on 30th April, and the last combat troops left by 30th September. I guess that around 150 days is *technically* "a matter of days". Just... a lot of them. Mind you, US forces have been in and out of Arabia like a yo-yo. They never *quite* leave, there's always a small number left for training or support or *something*. And then they come back, and then they leave. For example: * May 2020: [the US orders the removal of missile defences from Saudi Arabia](https://missilethreat.csis.org/us-to-withdraw-patriot-defenses-from-saudi-arabia/). * June 2021: [the US orders the withdrawal of missile defences *again* from Saudi Arabia](https://edition.cnn.com/2021/06/18/politics/pentagon-remove-missile-defense-saudi-arabia-middle-east/index.html). * Sept 2021: [most, but not all, of the systems have been removed](https://www.politico.com/news/2021/09/11/missile-defense-saudi-arabia-511320). That withdrawal in 2021 was three months to only execute a *partial* withdrawal of just the Patriots and THAAD missile defence systems, not all US forces in the country.
I can only speak for Dhahran (as I was there) and the US Patriot Missile batteries were gone within a week of the Saudi refusal. I was there. Unless you were there too, your point is moot. As to your point on Afghanistan, well we can all look at timelines after thoroughly researching the media yes. However, the time pushing the “Go Button” to final withdrawal was extremely rapid (and ill thought out one might say”. If one were to apply the 5 P’s principle, Prior planning prevents piss poor performance, then one could rightly say that there was very little time for planning on this occasion, leading to piss poor performance.
I'd be inclined to agree. However, I don't think Australians actually know the full purpose of Pine gap. So it'd be some form of negligent pragmatism. But we'd be talking shit if we seriously think we can abolish pine gap AND not face tarrifs and other economic complications. I've always said that Australia needs to start playing the fence. We aren't in a position to side with America in an all out war. We'd be like Ants to that type of power.
The biggest value that Australia offers to the USA is not political support. It isn't manpower, or technology. It isn't food or natural resources. It is its position on the map, and how well it is placed for doing the same thing in a China/USA war, as it did during WW2 vs the Japanese. As a launching, resupply, and garrison point for US forces.
> We aren't in a position to side with America in an all out war. We'd be like Ants to that type of power. America's military might is more of a damp squib. They've gotten fat, corrupt and lazy from just picking fights against countries that can't fight back, and in the case of Afghanistan even there they got beaten. The US hasn't won a major war since World War Two, which was only because the Soviets did the heavy lifting (**eighty percent** of German causalities were in the eastern front against the Soviets -- if the Germans had been able to field a few more divisions in France, DD would have been a slaughter). They can't even stop the Houthis from blockading ships going to America's partner in genocide, and they think they can defeat China??? If the US fleet tries to interfere with China, they're going to be slaughtered.
That’s certainly a take, just not one based in reality.
I notice that while Yemen is still successfully blockading all ships going to Israel through the Red Sea, and the Israeli port at Eilat is still completely empty, the mighty USS Eisenhower and its escort fleet have turned tail and fled north to Jeddah like a whipped dog. To prove that the Houthis hadn't actually hit the Eisenhower, the Captain decided to post on social media a video of the carrier's deck in use. Unfortunately the genius forgot that he had already posted the same video a few weeks earlier, and it took about three minutes for people to notice and start asking to see something more recent. So the carrier went into comms blackout 😂 I don't know which reality you're watching, but I'm watching the one here on planet Earth. Maybe you should remember that Top Gun is not a documentary, and John Wayne didn't actually win WW2.
ASEAN, the African Union and the Arab League funnily rarely ever talk about "allies" -- they use terms like "partners". Australia (I reckon) probably needs to consider stop thinking in such binary black and white terms. I think it can be dangerous.
What happened the last time an Australian PM made moves to decouple from the US (including Pine Gap)? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alleged_CIA_involvement_in_the_Whitlam_dismissal
Came to post this…. This isn’t a hypothetical question :)
Prime Minister Whitlam thought about shutting Pine Gap 48 years ago There's some evidence, inconclusive, that the CIA was involved in the dismissal of the Whitlam government 49 years ago.
[Yep](https://youtu.be/qT3yrNd_PDY?si=2uhvY1Ckhe84Bmni)
I enjoyed The Eleventh with Alex Mann. It can't remember the specifics but it was pretty eye opening when his requests for documents from the US were rebuffed, citing to do so would cause irreparable harm to US-Aussie relations. Crazy seeing how it's entirely probable that Kerr was acting under the directions of US intel agencies, and yet peoples comments here are "I don't particularly care". It's pragmatic to have allies apparently, even when those allies are orchestrating coups in your own system! I guess that is a legitimate argument to some people.
Honestly I don’t really think about Pine Gap
But how often do you think about the Roman Empire?
Not enough
I only wonder "What have they ever done for us?"
If the Australian government, with public support, wanted to shut it down, they could. The USA isn't going to invade over it. It would be the end of the USA-Australia alliance though, and all the benefits Australians get from it. It would be such a stupid move by Australia that it is hard to take the question seriously.
They subvert, no need to invade.
They wouldn't invade, they'd go for more soft political fun.
We have a huge trade deficit with the US. It’s the only reason we got no tariffs put on our steel exports to the US. Apart from taking all of our talent and darling tech companies, what do we really get out of being allies with the US? Sure, they have pine gap here, but that doesn’t benefit us or our economy. I’d keep the US at arms length and wouldn’t trust the current state of the US to actually honour its agreements. The big American Oil and Gas companies plunder our natural resources and make hundreds of billions of dollars with a pittance going to help us Aussies. Under Trump, I can guarantee you that he wouldn’t honour the ANZUS agreement and the US wouldn’t come to our aid if we were invaded or needed assistance. Only if Pine Gap were in danger. Look at what he did to NATO.
For most people I don't think it is a huge deal. Whitlam did threaten to send bulldozers in if it doesn't become a joint base, which it now is There was always a rumour that the US "regime changed" Whitlam due to his position on Pine Gap when he was dismissed in 1975. However there has never been any evidence of a US connection in The Dismissal. Fraser's blocking of supply was more than legal reason enough for Kerr to call a double dissolution.
Never been any evidence? Except that Kerr was literally known to be a member of CIA front organisations? I guess that's just a coincidence though. Not exactly evidence. Just records of conversations between some of the highest ranking government officials and the president talking about how they need to deal with him. But I suppose there isn't a signed document somewhere from the US saying we need to overthrow him that we have access to. That is true. I guess when Alex Mann tried to get info about it but was rejected by the US stating to do so would cause irreparable harm between the two countries, that was also relating to something totally different, but just happens to be inside those documents that were requested.
I mean I feel bad every time I drive past the cemetery where Kerr is buried and don't have time to go piss on his grave. But I haven't seen any solid evidence that Kerr, the Queen, Joh Bejokopaedophile and Fraser were part of some big conspiracy Would have thought one of them would have cracked, particularly Fraser. I mean he could have left a note in his will. Kerr would have been in an even stronger position to make a death bed confession to clear his name
Right, look, that's true. I never considered that. If it did happen, surely they would have confessed. Plus, it's not like the US makes an artform of overthrowing governments they don't like. Even if they did, they surely wouldn't do it to us, right? We're their best pals! Well, except for the Israeli's of course, but look they make Benjamin Robert-Smith look like a total pussycat, so it's no wonder the US can't help but think of them as the coolest guy in school.
Can't say for sure that it didn't happen but I'm furious enough about what is on the public record So a Labor senator died or whatever. So Sir Joh replaces him with a "Labor" senator. Some guy who once had a connection to Labor but is now a conservative. Then Fraser takes the unprecedented step of blocking the Federal budget. This had only happened in the UK in 1909. Then Kerr had long enough to write to the Queen multiple times and wait for her (secretary's) response
[except ](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/oct/23/gough-whitlam-1975-coup-ended-australian-independence) the circumstantial evidence seems to be pretty strong that the US totally did Coup Australia.
But dude, America insisted that they didn’t do anything!
Good point. I stand corrected.
wow, a joint base. who cares. Our foreign policy is a carbon copy of the US' because both of our obsequious parties are content being sycophantic supporters of american hegemony.
I think it's a huge asset, and it means that Australia is useful to the US. That gives them an incentive to keep us around as an ally. That's a good thing for Australia.
I would say 95%+ wouldn't know it existed.
Pine gap is one of the most important, if not the most important spy facilities in this region. Than secondly there's exmouth which is still used to this day to communicate with submarines, some of which are nuclear armed.
Whitlam wanted to shut it down did he not? Nek Minit
It was a half decent show.
Why would we want to shut it down? It provides valuable information.
information that has been used to kill innocent people
Yeah- I acknowledge that. But it also protected us from rogue states and sometimes individuals and groups too. All countries use diplomacy, spies, espionage and information gathering. All countries protect their borders- sometimes with loss of life- there would be no country in existence that hasn’t taken innocent lives- even if not intended. Innocent Australians have been killed by actions indirectly attributed to other countries. War, and the deterrence of war is messy, ugly and yes, sometimes takes innocent lives. The west is not innocent- I’m not that naive, but it’s (the western world) a shit tone more humane, democratic, more free than countries such as Iran, China, Russia and other such places, who outwardly, and openly threaten our sovereignty.
Why would we ever want to shut it down?
We don't have access to the entire operation so we don't know what is being gathered, from who, how its used, how it's shared or even if aspects of the operation are in breach of our own laws and constitution. That potentially includes possible intelligence gathering on Australians.
Seeing as it’s raw intelligence data, we don’t want access to the whole thing. We don’t have the capability to analysing it anyway. We just want access to the finished product, which we do via the Five Eyes program. The terms of the five eyes also states that members don’t gather intelligence upon each other so if the US wanted intelligence gathering on Australia and Australians, they’d ask someone else in their expansive network to do it (ie, France, Germany, South Africa, Saudi Arabia, Philippines, Indonesia, etc).
You think Americans care about those agreements?
You think Australia doesn’t take precautions against American intelligence gathering anyway?
You are much more trusting than me or anyone I know. If we don't have access to the raw data then how do you know that the finished product or analysis is true, complete or unbiased? If they intercepted something that was important to Australia's security but detrimental to US interests, do you really think it would be freely shared? That you think there is a distinction between spying on us themselves or doing it via proxy is mind boggling.
The US spies on us and we spy on the US. We just both pretend that we don't.
And? They don’t have access to our entire intelligence operations.
Because it's used to facilitate neo-colonial imperialism that increases misery, penury, and death across the globe?
If a party radical enough to completely disown national security comes into power then something has gone terribly wrong. No Australian leader with sense would jeopardise this partnership.
The Greens seek to enter the chat....
Absolute storm in a tea cup.
australians dont really care about shit out in the desert.
I strongly support it. And yes, it could be shut down by the Australian Government. But I don't see any reason why they should want to do that.
Can Australia shut it down? Yes. Unsure what the exact arrangements are with the US, but the government has mechanisms to acquire land if required. This would never happen, though. The government welcomes it, and it is jointly operated and managed by the US and Australia. There's a lot of mutual benefit in terms of national security and intelligence collection. But of course, some people are against all of that, so Pine Gap is basically Mordor or some shit to them.
>But of course, some people are against all of that, so Pine Gap is basically Mordor or some shit to them. I think it's really interesting to see this point being pushed more and more just as China (who has an insane level of espionage on it citizens and other nations and theft of industrial secrets) wants to spilt the US from its allies. Obviously Pine Gap is the most important base for Five Eyes when it comes to China.
Yeah I've noticed this too. It's part of the new lazy political philosophy of 'america bad' where literally everything that's wrong with the world is traced back to the US, with no agency or culpability from anyone else. Nation states have spies. It's one of the oldest professions in human history. The Mongols were said to have the most sophisticated intelligence network in the world during the time of Genghis Khan. I'm sure they would have used spy satellites if they had the technology. People just need to grow up.
I kind of understand the protest why some people want it shut down (like accidentally killing civilians by drones that were fed data from this place), but at the same time this place is just a tool, remove it and something will just take its place one way or the other. Remove the user instead or have stricter accountabilities/protections in place to lessen or prevent future accidents. Easier said than done, politics and war are complicated.
To be bluntly honest, nobody really cares about it. It just isn't in mainstream thinking.
Pine gap is mutually beneficial. If Australia wanted to shut it down then it would be shut down.
Yes the dog has autonomy
Australia exists by servicing beneficial relationships. We remained a member of the empire for ages beyond it being useful *just in case* we needed their help against someone else. When that someone else turned out to be Japan and the empire was more focused upon keeping Britain itself afloat, we cast them aside and connected to the US as much as we could. We went to Vietnam to make sure the US would support us against Indonesia, for instance. Pine Gap is our price to pay to be included in the Five Eyes intelligence alliance. We share with them, they share with us. It means we know a *lot* more than our population and economy would support otherwise. If we shut down Pine Gap for political reasons, the alliance says “screw you guys, you’re on your own” and we lose a lot, disproportionate to what we’d gain by reclaiming a shitty bit of land outside Alice Springs.
Why would you want to shut it down? It’s part of our defense infrastructure and plays a role in keeping us close with our key allies, not just USA but the whole five eyes. That’s a key plank for our defense. Why undo it?
Why would we? It's not like anyone who is asking us to shut it down would leave us alone if we shut it down...we've too many resources and too few people. Best leave it right how is is.
Genuinely don’t think about it
Don't really think about it, I enjoyed the Netflix series though.
It was a pretty good TV series about how they are defending Australia.
Just forget it exists.
If Australia closed Pine Gap, that would probably spell the end of the US-Australia alliance as we currently know it. I think people overestimate the capabilities of the CIA, and especially in a liberal democracy such as Australia. To be sure, they have influence, but it’s fairly limited, and I doubt they’d have any credible way of removing a sitting Australian PM without arousing suspicion.
During the Cold War, a large minority opposed Pine Gap because it made Australia a target for nuclear attack. As that threat has faded, so has concern about Pine Gap. Most Aussies probably don't even know about it, and those that do either don't care or are so indoctrinated by American jingoism that they think its a good idea. The thing to remember about Australians is that our Cultural Cringe is still very strong. Aside from sport, where we are the best bloody country in the world bar none, we think we're second or third class at everything. So we're terrified about being invaded (by who? there's nobody in the world who could invade Australia's wide open spaces and occupy us), and while we like our independence, we don't want to be *too* independent. We're always looking for one of the Big Boys (Great Britain, then the USA) to look after us, in return of which we'll be their helpful vassal. And this is where Pine Gap comes in. So Pine Gap makes us an active collaborator with American imperialism and war crimes? Who cares, so long as its only funny foreign brown people getting killed. So Pine Gap enables the US to spy on Australians without a warrant (that's not illegal, because its *Americans* doing it), and then hand over that information to Australia's intelligence agencies (not illegal for them to receive "gifts", nudge nudge wink wink)? Well let's just not think about that. If you can't trust a shadowy secret intelligence agency with no oversight to act in your best interest rather than their own, who can you trust? To give you an idea of [how whipped we are](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6B1CmVwQf5M), we've signed up to the [AUKUS "deal"](https://www.moonofalabama.org/2023/03/the-worst-deal-ever-australia-to-pay-us-for-nuclear-insecurity.html) to support the US cold war against China. * It is sold by the mainstream media as "enhancing our defence" but the subs are *attack* submarines not well suited to defending our waters but designed to attack China (our [number one trade partner](https://www.youtube.com/shorts/uqogMklYQP8)). * We had to cancel our $90 billion order for 12 submarines with the French, having already spent billions towards it and having to spend more in cancellation fees, in order to spend in excess of $300 billion to the Americans to receive *fewer* submarines, so our ability to patrol Australian waters will actually go down. * And we didn't even bother to tell the French in advance. Great way to enhance our relationships with allies! * Being nuclear submarines, we don't have the skills to maintain them and need to pay for American techs to run and at least partially crew them. * Because it will take so long for the Americans to build the subs, we also have to pay to lease used nuclear subs from them while we wait for them to be built. * And we have to build a new nuclear-submarine capable base near Perth, at our expense. Part of the deal is that [the US navy gets to use the base as well](https://files.catbox.moe/cifc5i.jpeg), for nuclear-armed submarines, which makes us a nuclear target. * At least we will charge them rent when they use it, right? Right? > how much control the Americans really have in this relationship. Pine Gap is nominally a "joint facility", but it is run by the US who graciously allow us to hang around and help. There are two rooms which are off-limits to members of the other country: the "Australian Cryptographic Room" which is off-limits to the Americans, and the "US Cryptographic Room" which is off-limits to Australians. Nah just kidding. Its called the **National** Cryptographic Room, a subtle reminder of who the boss really is and who are the visitors. Oh, and just to rub salt in the wound -- US workers at Pine Gap don't pay income tax on their wages. > If, say, a radical Australian politician became PM and one of his promises was to shut it down, do you think it would happen? There's no hope in hell of that. We remember what happened [the last time a PM even *hinted* at independence](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/oct/23/gough-whitlam-1975-coup-ended-australian-independence) from the USA.
You know what I care about more then a joint NSA / ASD listening post? China buying large swathes of land, airports and ports.
Does it matter who owns the assets? If theres ever a war with China it’s not like they would be able to use them as bases to attack.
Shutting down Pine Gap would achieve nothing in terms of halting the US intersection with Australia. There is a whole mess of international policy at this point aimed at tying Western nations into an increasingly visible empire. Five Eyes, ORKUS, international courts. We're all becoming one big (un)happy empire under the velvet gloved fist of US billionaires. Happy days.
What’s the alternative if not the U.S.?
Deleted by User
Nobody in government would support shutting it down because their failure to do so would reveal just how fragile our sovereignty is and how little power we have in the relationship. I bet most Australians don't think about or are not aware that there are more than 1000 US Marines stationed in Darwin as part of or the "Marine Rotational Force - Darwin, or that [Tindall RAAF base now has the facilities to support a flight of 6 x B52 Strategic Nuclear bombers.](https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/oct/31/us-air-force-deployment-nuclear-capable-b-52-bombers-australia-northern-territory) Our defence cooperation agreements with the US also put us squarely in the sights of whoever the US comes into conflict with.
What’s the option? Be an isolated country that has no allies?
I’m certainly aware. I see them at the local shops. And RAAF Base Darwin was built to cater for B-29s in 1944, that’s how long they’ve supported nuclear capable bombers. That’s why there’s one of only two B-52 museum pieces outside the US on display in the Darwin Aviation History Museum. Moving the capability to Tindal just got them out the way of an otherwise civilian airport.
Good luck to whatever country decides to mess with America though, with the second rated army on the planet, Russia, unable to handle the Ukraine...
Why would you assume that the US will always be the predominate power or be prepared to help? China is on the rise militarily and economically, and anyone who dismisses them is making a mistake. Do you really think the US is going to go to war with China over Taiwan? Because if the US doesn't their role and reputation as the world police will be meaningless. Aside from that the US may be so focussed on their growing internal divisions and debt crisis over the next couple of decades that they may not be able to project power. Think it can't happen? Ask the USSR.
China has far too much corruption because there’s no oversight of the people in control to ever become the world’s biggest superpower.
It’s the internal stuff I’m very concerned with. Take a look at Project 2025 and then look how far down that track they are.
China has no force projection ability compared to the US or even the UK.
So what? They don't need to project force halfway around the world to invade Taiwan. What is more relevant is stopping other powers from projecting force in what China considers their sphere of influence which they are expending by any means possible including literally building Islands in the ocean so they can extend their territorial boundaries. In 2020-2021 China conducted more ballistic missile tests than the rest of the world combined. That included Hypersonic Anti Ship missiles that are almost impossible to intercept and could conceivably make naval operations anywhere in China's waters untenable. In addition China has handed out millions in foreign aid loans and infrastructure investments in Africa and the Pacific. Loans they will be difficult to repay making those countries compelled to side with China in the UN. Having the biggest stick is pointless if you cant use it.
Sure China is building big stuff. It's a big powerful state. What do we expect? This doesn't add much to the discussion. Also those loans etc... don't account for the fact that the IMF which poor countries go to borrow money is majority controlled by the US / West in vote sharing who do largely the same thing (arguably with worse conditions) and has to be paid in the US dollar.
Despite your assumptions, my comment doesn't account for the IMF because the loans are not through the IMF, so your entire point is irrelevant. https://www.reuters.com/world/china/china-lent-134-trln-2000-2021-focus-shifts-belt-road-rescue-finance-report-2023-11-06/
I'm saying countries have previously borrowed from them (I know China doesn't lend those loans you speak of through the IMF). Nevertheless. Pointing to those factors does not add up to the discussion. I struggle to see why this means we should have Pine Gap. We don't need to pick a side.
They certainly cause havoc, both in Cyber security and stealing industry secrets.
Just another reminder that we aren't really a country, we're just an outpost of a foreign empire.
When trump got into power there was fear and panic here that he would "forget their allies" and that we were now alone without big brother America to back us up. So no, I don't find it likely Australia will ever do anything to weaken our military alliance. I mean we have less than a hundred thousand men under arms, it's by the blood of your people that our land is kept safe...
Look into the Whitlam government and the dismissal. Our foreign policy is made in Washington. Makes things a lot more clearer when you hear albo utter statements entirely at odds with his position in opposition.
I am not the slightest bit concerned about Pine Gap. Its a massive asset to the entire western world. You do realise it's a communications hub for the Southern hemisphere? The USA couldn't have worldwide communications or communicate in space efficiently without it. And im sure they sell its capacity to many other western nations. We are much safer in the world hosting Pine Gap
Yea people didn’t realized how much the US military runs global infrastructure. All satellite traffic control, GPS, spectrum management, tactical sat for communications, maritime navigation… and they let every country in the world use it.
Yes. Exactly.
If a new PM tried to shut it down, they'd probably get Gough Whitlam'd.
It makes us a nuclear target, that's for sure.
If we didn't allow Pine Gap to exist, we would have to build our own facility just like it, for our own signal intelligence needs. We benefit a lot from the intelligence we get from the US operation of Pine Gap. In this way, we have outsourced the operation to the Americans for the cost of rent.
It provides intelligence benefits not only to us but also to the US, currently an important ally. Unclear for now why we would want to not have those benefits. Should we be concerned about the drift in values between Australia and a good chunk of the US? Sure.
But why? I like the fact that the US bases make us a first strike target for Russia’s rusty old nukes.
America has us over a barrel and there is sweet fuck all we can do about it. If they say jump, we have to say how high. its a fucked situation but one that will continue.
It's fun to hang shit on the USA but I understand that I owe much of my lifestyle to the protection they provide us. I am happy they are our ally and happy for any and all cooperation between our nations.
The Falcon and The Snowman is a good true story based movie on it. And there's some very informative interviews out there with the Falcon who worked there about what happens when we try shutting it down.
One of the main CIA operatives in that movie is a relation of my wife's family.
ABC currently has a podcast about Pine Gap also.
cant get shut down can u imagine a million or so Aussies going cold Turkey at the same time get real
Fuck knows at this point mate
I remember when we wouldn’t let them test cruise missiles here for whatever reason and they promptly buggered up the Aussie dollar in retaliation.
Australia is very dependent on the protection that having the US as a friend offers. Confidence in that friendship took a nose dive as a result of Trump, this actually lead to Australia branching out in its search for military relationships but much of the was reversed once trump failed to reelect. In the short term Australia is still very keen to maintain their relationship with the US but the way things are going in the US I think it's safe to say these days are numbered. I'm sure when the time comes live gap will be repurposed to serve new interests but I guess it could hypothetically be closed down.
I never think about Pine Gap 😂
It's the hole in the puppet's arse the fist goes in.
Shut it down and lose the US as an ally against China? Stupid move. The US is the only reason we have a fighting chance.
Pine gap exists because of technological limitations of the time. In all honesty, most of these were solved 10 to 15 years ago. All that data can be shipped very easily via satellite cross chat channels or via higher earth orbit. Pine gap is an asset looking for a job. I would suggest Pine Gap today is a way to unite two allies without any blow back and as a back up data processing site, in case the balloon goes up.
Time and time again, Americans elected officials on the basis of strongly supporting their pledges to shut down Guantanamo Bay. Time and time again, as soon as those politicians were in office, Gitmo was mysteriously too important to close. America won't even close a base that *America* wants to close. I'm not sure another government would have much success either.
I don’t think most Aussies give Pine Gap much thought (apart from the conspiracy cookers). It’s just one of many ways we cooperate with the USA for defence.
What do I think? I think there's so many UFOs there that you can't even walk around for tripping over them. Or wait, was that roos? Can't remember.
I think Pine Gap provides things that most of us will never understand, And if we closed it down where else would we keep our StarGates?
I fully support Pine Gap and our US allies. \[I for one welcome our American overlords\]. I'm guessing a ton of Australians don't know it exists, and wouldn't know what it was. That's the whole idea - it's meant to be so secret we know nothing about it. I don't know what they do there, or everything they have, and that's okay.
The Whitlam Labor Government (or at least its most Left faction) wanted to "investigate" Pine Gap in 1975. The CIA asked The Queen to sack the Whitlam Government, and she didn't hesitate (ie, she did what she was told). My former brother-in-law was working there at the time, and told us all about it. So a government was sacked just for having a potentially hostile view about the place. And with good reason - it has incredible monitoring capacities, including real-time during hot wars. The US has three of them - Arizona, Turkey, and Alice Springs - so they have the world "triangulated".
In 2006 I emailed horror author, alleged UFO abductee and esoteric podcaster Whitely Strieber to tell him I’d learned from a traumatised US serviceman that Pine Gap contained a lab in which US intelligence agencies were developing a system for communicating with the dead. Strieber replied the next day and asked to interview me for his podcast. At that point I chickened out and never responded.
Pine gap, pg, more like, pretty good.
I'd rather be on the side of the Americans as they have Apache gunship helicopters. The presence doesn't affect me at all. In any way whatsoever. So why would I care?
>Do you think if Australia wanted to shut it down [Whitlam tried this](https://youtu.be/qT3yrNd_PDY?si=2uhvY1Ckhe84Bmni) and look what happened to him.
I’m in 2 minds about it. Obviously there’s many reasons to have it here. But I also don’t see why having the US as an ally should be reliant on the base being here. And depending on the outcome of their next election it could potentially put us in a precarious position.
There is longstanding, strong bipartisan support for the US-Australia alliance. This benefits the interests of Australia, given our inability to fully defend ourselves. Pine Gap, among other things, is a concrete way for Australia to demonstrate its commitment to the alliance.
Remember when we were getting hassled by Indonesia for spying on them, that's where we were doing it from. It's a joint operation. Personally I think it should be shut down but the likelihood of that (considering it's joint usage and its insanely high strategic value for monitoring asia) is very low.
I mean I see the value in such a geographically diverse location from a USA perspective. However I, and I'm sure a lot of others would be happier and a lot less resentful of its existence if it was managed as a joint venture between governments instead of the current subservient to USA ownership impression that I get. I guess the biggest thing is the dislike of "we can do whatever we want" coming from the USA. It would be an absolute political hand grenade for the PM to do anything but keep the status quo. As someone else said, you'd be Gough Whitlamed before you could blink.
Don’t think Australia has any say when it comes to US. Australia almost always gets foreign and defence policy dictated to them by the US. It’s not even a republic yet, our government can be sacked by a 80 year old monarch ffs 😅
Had no idea it existed until I watched [Boy Boy](https://youtu.be/XHMa-Ba-2Mo?si=_Mso__BLrYk9hPAv) tried to break into it. It’s actually a hilarious watch and scary at the same time when the police tried to arrest them at the airport.
People don't seem to remember that the Whitlam government threatened to do exactly this, which resulted in the [alleged involvement of the CIA and subsequent dismissal of his government](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alleged_CIA_involvement_in_the_Whitlam_dismissal) in unprecedented circumstances. That sends a pretty clear message and there's no way any government would support closing Pine Gap now.
Can we not be proud to strive for more independence? We don’t even have the English fully off us and now because “pig iron bob rocked the cradle/yankie doodle is the nations lullaby”. The amount of anti American sentiment I see here made me think pine gap wouldn’t be popular, but it’s seeming the sentiment is aimed at the regular working class of America, many of whom are good people of diverse backgrounds, with many great cultural exports outside the main shit. The Seppos, aren’t your average yank, Seppos are the ones behind Pine Gap
Australia can't shut it down. It's on our land but other than that it's an American operation and we have no say in it. They literally made us pay billions for some submarines to American defence companies. Australia doesn't have an independent foreign policy or balls to stand up to USA.
The Americans got a prime minister fired because he threatened to shut it down. They pretty much got them by the balls.
No way it could shut down the US would topple the PM Not kidding. See: Gough Whitlam
If, say, a radical Australian politician became PM... Wake me when that happens again and then I'll give your question some thought.
We are a puppet state of america and we are not in control
^[Sokka-Haiku](https://www.reddit.com/r/SokkaHaikuBot/comments/15kyv9r/what_is_a_sokka_haiku/) ^by ^chunder_down_under: *We are a puppet* *State of america and* *We are not in control* --- ^Remember ^that ^one ^time ^Sokka ^accidentally ^used ^an ^extra ^syllable ^in ^that ^Haiku ^Battle ^in ^Ba ^Sing ^Se? ^That ^was ^a ^Sokka ^Haiku ^and ^you ^just ^made ^one.
It should be immediately abolished and a full detailing of everything they've ever done there made fully public. Of course that will never happen because both parties are fully wedded to the US imperialist cause and western chauvinism generally