MovieChat Forums > Tomorrow, When the War Began (2012) Discussion > USA + UK wouldn't let Australia fall...

USA + UK wouldn't let Australia fall...

posted 12 years ago by TheCornProject
12 replies | jump to latest

In a situation like this where a foreign invader (insert Asian nation) seeks to invade Australia, there is no way that America &/or England would sit by with idle hands. That kinda destroys the premise of this movie. Who would be stupid enough to take on a developed nation like Australia with strong ancestral & political ties to the world's strongest military(s)? That's basically the equivalent of Iran engaging in war with Israel (in a modern context).

Take the case study of Japan in WW2. Australia was under great siege in Papua New Guinea holding back the advancing hordes of yellow invaders. The UK did it's best to help but they were a little preoccupied (with the Nazis). In comes America & a little thing called 'The Nuke'. Game over. See my point?

The Golden Rule: He who has the gold makes the rules.

[–] Return_of_the_STAR 12 years ago

No i don't see it. Please expand a little further, but this time with diagrams as i'm a bit simple.

[–] jeffyoung1 12 years ago

Both of you should read my posts below which explains the strategic military, economic, and geopolitical reasons why the United States will not allow Australia to fall in to the hands of a hostile foreign power. An occupying hostile foreign power would attempt to quickly transform Australia into a massive forward military base in order to secure the entire southwestern Pacific ocean area. This is something the United States simply cannot allow to happen. The U.K. will undoubtedly assist the Americans, as long as Britain is not tied down in Europe. Britain makes no excuses, Europe comes first because Great Britain is IN Europe. Canada will undoubtedly lend assistance to the Americans and the British. Even if NATO does not become involved, a grand coalition of the USA, UK, and Canada will mount an overwhelming expeditionary force to defend or liberate the Australian island continent. It would be nice if Ireland helps out instead of stubbornly remaining neutral; after all, a lot of Aussies of Irish descent live in Australia. It's just that the Irish government can't stomach the possibility of Irish soldiers falling under the command of British senior officers, a real possibility in coalition warfare.

[–] Comsat Angel 12 years ago

Okay - Australia is part of the British Commonwealth and has very strong ties to the UK. The UK traditionally takes a very very dim view of other people invading it's territory/Commonwealth territory. Mr Reagan got an enraged response from Margaret Thatcher when Grenada got <ahem> liberated without asking first. Argentina also discovered it's better to ask first rather than invade.

Given the sheer size of Australia and the corresponding time taken to invade and occupy, any attempt at conquest might be effectively countered by a Commonwealth response that would include Canada, New Zealand, Fiji, Nigeria and - the heavy hitter - India.

Another, more historic reason for the UK weighing-in to help Oz is the unstinting Australian contribution to Britain's war effort in World War One and World War Two - look up Pozieres or Tobruk for examples.

[–] genovese05-1 12 years ago

"Given the sheer size of Australia and the corresponding time taken to invade and occupy, any attempt at conquest might be effectively countered by a Commonwealth response that would include Canada, New Zealand, Fiji, Nigeria and - the heavy hitter - India. "

Not India for sure. You can definitely expect Malaysia and Singapore to get involved on the side of Australia given our level of military cooperation with them. Also we always remember the Australian commitment to our safety and defence, especially in our early years as newly independent countries. If not for the UK and Australia back then defending our borders, we woulda been squashed like a bug by the Indonesians. If the need arises I'm very sure we would repay that favor. Besides, if Australia goes down in this region, it spells trouble for both Malaysia and Singapore, more so the latter which is aligned with the West.

I would never expect India on the side of Australia. Infact in the long run, given their increasing power and dominance on the global stage, I see them more of a threat than anything else. They have always been aligned with Russia, and no, they don't really have much respect for 'colonial ties'. They would probably join up eventually with China and Russia in the SCO and I see them becoming more of a Russia in the long run than a partner to the USA or NATO.

[–] Royalcourtier 8 years ago

The UK and probably Canada would assist. New Zealand would certainly try, but its armed forces are so small as to be virtually useless. India would not be likely to assist. Its fascist government would be more likely to assist the invaders. Nigeria cannot control its own people, and would never send forces overseas. In any event Australia has enough crime already, and wouldn't want Nigerians loose in the country. The Fijian armed forces are busy ruling the country.

[–] InTheirClothes 12 years ago

That is why it is fiction.

It's been a while since I read the books, but to my knowledge, it wasn't exactly like the US and the UK were like 'meh, NZ, you deal with it, we'll just chill'. I think there were more reasons, but like I said, it's been a while since I read them (and the books definitely go into much more detail... the first book and movie is about the initial invasion itself).

ETA: Forgot to mention, the books were written in the early 90's so well before 9/11 and the events that followed, I don't think Australia's ties with the US were as strong as what they are now when the books were written.

[–] Bozohead 12 years ago

Rubbish. Churchill was quite happy to let Australia fall to the Japanese.

Take the case study of Japan in WW2. Australia was under great siege in Papua New Guinea holding back the advancing hordes of yellow invaders. The UK did it's best to help but they were a little preoccupied"

Hardly. The British resisted Curtin removing troops from North Africa. Churchill tried to divert Australian troops to Burma until Curtin stopped him.

I'm not even aware of any treaty we have with the UK like ANZUS that we have with NZ and the USA.

Britain wouldn't lift a finger to help Australia unless it was in their interests. I'm not saying the average Briton would agree with sitting back and doing nothing, a lot would criticise their government but the British have always done what was in their interests.

[–] raf-33 11 years ago

Britain wouldn't lift a finger to help Australia unless it was in their interests. I'm not saying the average Briton would agree with sitting back and doing nothing, a lot would criticise their government but the British have always done what was in their interests.

I wish you pomme-haters would give up this century old hostility towards Brits, the world is a different place today and though our governements may not have many treaties between them the 'average joe' is incredibly fond of your country.
If you were invaded our govt. would have no choice but to act or our airports would be abuzz with people trying to get down there to sign up with your own military. I would be one of them, I have relatives over there, and many people I know do too.

Australians are held in the highest possible regard over here along with Canadians and New Zealanders, jesus we fight with each other, calling our own neighbours jocks, w**ers, leprechauns, kilt wearers etc, but I've never known anyone to have a bad word towards an Ozzy.

You may not notice but no British govt. has ever sided with what it's people want, regardless of which Eton-educated tw@t we elect, Americans are generally not held in the highest regard here yet they are our #1 ally, Brits today are quite favourable towards Germans, our govt. hates them and wants us to float away from Europe and drop anchor off New England.

Ignore our govt. and believe the people, hell we took Rolf Harris and Dame Edna of your hands, what more proof do you need that we have your best interests at heart?

We don't however have carriers anymore and won't til 2015, this means our airforce and navy would be pretty much useless in a land war on the other side of the world, so other than troops, of which we could have tens of thousands over within maybe a week, we could only really assist the US navy with escorts.

America on the other hand would throw everything at potential invaders because Australia is a pivotal nation in that region and that region is vital to the US.

Opinions are just onions with pi in them.

[–] subase 12 years ago

It's unrealistic to expect the U.S to declare war against China or Indonesia if they invaded Australia. This becoming less likely as China and Indonesia grow in power in comparison to the U.S.

If China and the U.S are at war, Australia becomes a legitimate target due to it's resources and strategic location.

I wish Australia had a quick militia raising ability like Switzerland. That would make successful occupation practically impossible.

Australia will probably never get a nuke due to it's green movement which is anti-nuclear and our support of the non proliferation treaty.

[–] kaboomboomboom 12 years ago

They'd probably attempt to negotiate and would condemn actions but it would be a long while before any action was taken as it would be an incredibly difficult situation. Politics are vastly different than they were 50 years ago. Look at Rwanda, Iraq and most recently Syria where tens of thousands of civilians have been killed; soldiers have rounded up hundreds of boys as young as 6 years old in villages, lined them in the street and shot them, Western governments will give non-military aid to the rebel fighters but not actually get involved. Regarding America's policies, I'm sure they would be supportive of Australia, but argue that that a wealthy country should have adequate military power to defend itself.

It is fiction though, and I'm sure Australia's army could fight off invaders.

[–] toallitas 11 years ago

It wouldn't happen today, but it could in a dystopian future. If the U.S. declines economically and China continues to grow economically and militarily.

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]