Senator Scott Ludam is asking questions of Defence to determine if their are nuclear armed aricraft in Australia. He was interested
What is interesting about interviewing Defence is that the questions depend on the information at Senator can access. There was mention of public source which is for public consumption. Where is the real line drawn in respect of national interest and concealment. Always in these hearings you can hear responses but it is not clear what is being said as people ensure they cover their bases, so to speak,
The Australian/US Defence relationship requires more scrutiny, particularly given the endless war approach to terrorism, the industrial military complex and its own defence industries Minister, corruption in the US government using defence to profit from energy markets (corporate profit is US national interest) and global strategic interests.
Australian Defence sees itself on the same page with US Defence given the likeness. However, where is the line drawn between Australian security interests and US security interests and at what point does Australian interests depart from US interests or are they seamless?
New Zealand banned nuclear ships as a public safety risk when nuclear armed. In Australia the US is allowed to not declare if they are carrying nuclear weapons (neither confirm or deny). What happens if one malfunctions in Sydney Harbour or up in Darwin?
Do nuclear weapons ensure peace or is it an approach that is based on the use of fear to frighten the enemy to deter conflict? What happens when leaders are mentally unwell, dictators, pathological or corrupt private interests?
is it possible that nuclear armed bombers are transitting through Australia. The Secretary of Defence makes a statement where he makes a vague response referring to common sense. I think common sense is that they absolutely are.
The officer indicates we are in a diarchy, I didn’t know this word.
A diarchy or duumvirate is a form of government characterized by corule, with two people ruling a polity together either lawfully or de facto, by collusion and force. The leaders of such a system are usually known as corulers.
I note the Secretary of Defence gives him a look. I can understand why as he has admitted we have TWO RULERS – US and Australia is my common sense conclusion. Thus foreign interference in the polity.
The wording on ‘common sense’ actually undermines other views as not common sense. This is subtle power. He says look at the authorities that sit round nuclear policy in the US, he thinks it is a non common sense approach. I smile at the ‘yes Minister’ approach.
Senator Ludnam say’s that on the 4th March 46 legal experts on international law wrote to Minister Payne expressing concern Australia’s extended nuclear deterrents and the lawyers urged government to review its doctrine on the extended nuclear deterrents. He asks if the review is taking place. Senator Payne says no review.
I note the voice ‘breaking for tea’. This was at a point where it was significant. I believe it was a form of diversion. As a citizen I am very concerned about the interests that are not neutral or working in the public interest.
What if we had a look at other ways of seeing outcomes. For example as a peacemaker what I know is what you think about you bring about. How does this impact planning for war? Another approach is the law of attraction, to envisage the world you want, peaceful engagement and problem solving to ensure a win/win for all. Rather than competitive approaches where he who wins gets the spoils, as the mainstay of wealth, influence and power. What if the real power was in looking at the enemy within – fear, greed, corruption, financiers, corporate power, political donations etc. What if these were regarded as threats to peace and real security? What if we did the hard work of training for peace not war? What if the relationship was to build cultural understanding rather than defence postures? What if profiting from war (or misery) was a card taken off the table as governments balanced defence with prioritised resource appropriations that ensured the public interest? What if violence feeds insecurity, impacts sovereignty and leads the world to a zero sum game? What if the greatest defence was no defence as we drop postures to recognise that like attracts like? What then?
It was Einstein who said ‘no problem can be solved from the same consciousness that created it’.
When the world’s militaries spends 1 trillion a year and at the same time we haven’t solved poverty, we haven’t fed the millions starving, they live in inadequate shelter, suffer from communicable diseases, have insufficient or no education, insufficient health care and life choices truncated by poverty? How does military spending be justified? How is the nuclear posture be justified? What of the nuclear silos shut down by UFO’s, what does that tell us about how dangerous nuclear weapons are? How does war define us as a species when nuclear fall out, depleted uranium and exposure kills humanity and pollutes the environment?
Can we put all the cards on the table so we can solve these problems and advance our civilisation to a level where the extraordinary human potential can be maximised rather than divide and conquer? What about real conversations that question why we fight as we seek to resolve all conflict recognising the real power is in bringing out world together to move into a future with infinite possibilities? Can we reach beyond our limited world views? I wonder.
Dialogue, critique and questioning is essential in the public interest to ensure that our government is not unduly affected by other interests and is open to questioning to make them think through their perspective with input that is not military.
The video is below: