Australia Twilight War & After...

[Webstral]

Looking back over the old comments in the thread, I’m struck by a few ideas.

1) The idea that nuclear strikes on targets in Australia might not be “worth it”.
2) The idea that Australia might sit entirely on the sidelines
3) The idea that there is some sort of spirit of fair play such that the light treatment given to CONUS results in an even lighter treatment of Australia
4) The idea that the absence of evidence of Aussie and Kiwi involvement in the fighting in Korea amounts to evidence of absence

In 1997, the Soviets have thousands of warheads and hundreds of delivery systems. France and the UK might have to worry about whether a given strike is “worth it”. The US and the USSR don’t have to worry about wasting nukes. Even if 75% of the delivery systems are destroyed prior to November 1997, they have more than enough to do all of the work discussed in the written materials and have hundreds left over. Their issue is whether they want to pay in form of absorbing retaliatory strikes.

Long before 1997, the Soviets have allocated more than enough resources to turn Australia into Mad Max land. By the 1980’s, they’ve already figured out how they are going to get enough warheads there to turn the urban centers into glass parking lots. Just as there are redundancies for ensuring every other target of interest is incinerated three times over, there are redundancies for getting warheads to Australia. The Soviets aren’t the sort of people to allow their strategic planning to be upended by the loss of a single boomer.

At the risk of beating a dead horse, Australia and New Zealand are partners in ANZUS. I know the US-New Zealand part of ANZUS is dysfunctional as of 1996. However, the New Zealand-Australia part is functioning just fine, as is the Australia-US portion. That amounts to guilty by association in the Soviet book.

I’ve said it many times, but it seems to bear repeating yet again. The US gets lighter treatment than a general exchange because the US is in a position to retaliate in kind. The USSR also gets lighter treatment than we’d expect from a general exchange for the very same reason. This has nothing to do with good-heartedness or fair play on the part of the Soviets. They’d love to go after York, PA. But they aren’t willing to have the US hit a major Soviet arms factory in return. That logic changes when it comes to the non-nuclear Western allies, since none of them can retaliate with nuclear weapons.

One of the arguments for distinguishing between Canada and Australia is that Canada actively participates in combat against the Pact. It would be great if a Korea sourcebook had been published such that the presence of Australian troops in Korea could be established. But let’s think it through. The DPRK invades the ROK in late 1996. The Left in Australia probably would argue that the North invades the South only in response to German and Anglo-American provocation in Europe. There would be some validity to this viewpoint. However, the fact remains that the ROK has been invaded by another country. Australia can fight to defend the ROK’s sovereignty without endorsing any of the actions undertaken by NATO in Europe or the West in the Persian Gulf. Moreover, there’s ANZUS. US forces are under attack in the ROK. Australia is signatory to a treaty that states that an attack on one signatory in the Pacific basin is an attack on the other signatories.

We don’t have much knowledge regarding events in Korea. The history of 2nd Infantry Division states “The division was first engaged against North Korean commando units on 12/19/96 and by 1/3/97 was actively engaged against mechanized elements of the North Korean Army. The division participated in holding actions along the 38th Parallel throughout the first half of 1997…(US Army Vehicle Guide, p. 5)” The other US formations in Eighth US Army arrived in Korea after the fighting started. This is a reasonable basis for concluding that the North Koreans initiated offensive action. Therefore, regardless of what Australia thinks of the war in Germany, the ROK is under attack by a foreign power not associated with events in Europe or the Middle East. A fellow ANZUS signatory is under attack by a foreign power not associated with events in Europe or the Middle East. Surely this constitutes a reasonable basis for the deployment of a ANZAC brigade, plus supporting sea and air assets. Thus while we have no categorical evidence one way or another, we have good reason to believe that Australia was involved in the fighting in Korea on the side of the Allies.