ISSUE 75 : Mar/Apr - 1989 - Australian Defence Force Journal

4 DEFENCE FORCE JOURNAL No. 75 March/April 89need a minimum of a 3 to 1 capability and forceratio before contemplating large scale conventionaloperations against Australia. Thereforeeach $1 spent on Australian capability means atleast $3 spent by an aggressor to retain capabilityratios. This is still too simplistic an equation,for an adversary would need additional investmentin the maritime capabilities to transportand support his forces. Few economies in ourADM1 could be expected to support that levelof military expansion without suffering severeconsequences. This will not mean an arms raceeither. Even our current forces, regular andreserve, indicate that an adversary would needat least a reinforced corps with significant navaland air support to even contemplate this type ofoperation.Thus the primary deterrent value of the ADFlies not in its use pre-emptively or in threat ofretaliation, but as an economic deterrent in thelonger term.Consequently there is a place for a strategy ofdeterrence within Australia's geostrategic environment.Its place is at a national level wherecorrectly applied it could be supported ingeneral terms by the current capabilities of theADF.MA. F. WebsterMajorTable of DecorationsDear Sir,Receipt is acknowledged with thanks of additionalcopies of Issue No. 73 of the Journal,availability of which is greatly appreciated byour Association.There is a printing error on page 24, where inthe table of decorations awarded to 2/14 Battalionin 1942, the number of MM's is shown as"1" instead of "11". We would be grateful if acorrection could be included in a future issue. QJ. C. McA Hester