We have let our defences down when it comes to China

It seems obvious the next large-scale military engagement will be fought not at close quarters like previous wars but at a great distance using missiles, drones and other high-tech armaments of great accuracy and devastating power.

Australia has a defence organisation that has designed itself around the concept of assisting our major ally in pursuing relatively small-scale regional adventures. We are equipping ourselves with World War II-style submarines that will be ready in 20 or 30 years’ time, fighter aircraft that appear to suffer from serious design flaws and tanks, presumably for local skirmishes.

We are not ready to repel any form of large-scale military incursion by a hostile power, whether assisted by our major ally or not. We have no land-based missiles, no significant stock of drones or any other hardware designed to make an aggressor think twice about delivering a coercive blow, or worse.

Given the amount of taxpayers’ money Defence has consumed over the decades, the question is simple: why not?

K. MacDermott, Binalong, NSW

John Lee, in his article “US commitment to allies will be closely watched” (15/9), places the right emphasis on the importance of the forthcoming AUSMIN conference. Its outcome is strategically important for Australia but equally for others, in particular, Japan, South Korea and, of course, the Chinese-claimed territory of Taiwan.

It is fortunate Peter Dutton and Marise Payne are “opening the batting” for Australia at the AUSMIN conference as their combined experience and Dutton’s outspokenness will set the tone for what is required, which is an unfeigned physical commitment from the US to the Indo-Pacific and concomitant strategic leadership for those countries with a vested interest in deterring China’s economic coercion and military pugnaciousness.

As Lee emphatically states: “Preparing for a fight is not reckless warmongering”; he argues, in effect, for a collective force of like-minded nations to develop and increase their respective military assets to deter China from provoking conflict. To fail to modernise Australia’s defensive and offensive weapons urgently and markedly is repeating the lax attitude and wishful thinking of the UK in the years immediately before WWII, where it has been said the rearmament policy was “tempered by appeasement”.

Unlike the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts, where Australia joined the US-led coalition in lands far away from Australia, future provocations and ultimate conflict will occur in our region and our continent will, in one way or another, feel the shock waves. In other words, Australia is at the stage where we, as a nation, must recognise the threat and commit to increased military spending.

Demonstrating a united national and international commitment will go a long way toward deterring China and avoiding conflict.

Jerome Paul, Exeter, NSW

Robert Gottliebsen’s column “Has lesson been learned from defence debacles?” (14/9), when added to the words of John Lee on Wednesday and Jim Molan’s last week, and other columns from various defence, security and strategic thinkers in recent times, needs to be taken seriously by our federal government.

That we can spend billions of dollars on various projects that will not come into play until the 2030s, if then, beggars belief, especially when the Port of Darwin is already in the hands of China. A serious wake-up call in Canberra is desperately needed.

Robin Billen, Toorak, Vic

China doesn’t need the Port of Darwin to take Australia. The entire security ruckus over this is a furphy. Essentially, it’s a cover-up. Like the thimble and peas trick it’s designed to keep our eyes looking elsewhere. The Chinese fleet can come directly to Sydney Harbour if it chooses. China’s navy is arguably bigger than that of the US. There’s no Australian fleet to stop this. There’s no US fleet any closer than Japan.

Australia being vulnerable because the Chinese own the Port of Darwin is bunkum. Australia is vulnerable because we have a grab-bag of mostly useless or superannuated defence equipment. And we seem paralysed about doing anything to remedy our sad position. If you take Sydney, you take Australia. Take Darwin, you take Darwin.

Paul Everingham, Hamilton, Qld