This was my first foray into the world of philosophy...and probably my last. Not to say I don't enjoy arguing a case, its just all the maths/algebra/logics don't interest me on bit:-P Plus I got a pretty bad mark for this too: so, yeah.
In this world where the news is often fueled by violence each day, it is hard to imagine why any country would not want to invest in defence to defend the country if there ever was any need to in the future. In David Day’s argument, he asserts that Australia does not need a defence system based on the diminishing threat of attack by the Japanese in March 1942, in reference to World War 2. From the attacks by the Japanese during that year though, it is clear that Australia’s defence force was very important not only to fight off the Japanese attacks, but to provide assistance and security to the cities under attack in Australia as well as fighting abroad in the war with other countries. Not only was Australia severely unequipped to defend against the Japanese during 1942 because of the ill preparation, the attacks would continue until 1943. For this reason, and learning from past mistakes, I am going to argue against Day’s argument, which asserts that Australia had no need to commit troops and equipment to the defence of Australia because of the diminishing Japanese threat.
While the invasion by Japan of Australia was being realized in the wake of the Darwin attack in 1942, Day is probably right in saying it would have been a strategic blunder by the Japanese to actually invade Australia. The amount of troops needed, and shipping and equipment required was just too much of a task, and Australia would have been too far away to control, even if Japan had successfully gotten control over Australia (Bullard, S 2004). While Japan probably never seriously considered invading Australia, this does not mean that Australia should not have a defence system at all. Day’s conclusion - that Australia should not commit troops or equipment to the defence of Australia is actually based on weak, if not nil evidence, even though the premise is true.
This argument contains major fallacies, and does not provide acceptable support at all for its conclusion – that Australia should not commit troops and equipment to the defence of Australia. The first premise of this argument is in fact a fallacious appeal to ignorance – where the argument asserts something without providing background knowledge, which would be useful in this argument. As this argument concludes Australia does not need a defence system based on the threat of Japan, it doesn’t provide further knowledge as to why. Despite the threat of security to any country, a defence system is important in maintaining order and security in the country. They are also useful in maintaining relations between other countries. Even in a period of stability, a defence system is crucial in the unwarranted case of emergency, attack or invasion, or aiding others in need of military help. Also, any country is viable for attack if their defence is down, especially if there is no defence force in the way for an invasion. Based on the history of World War 2, a defence force is important when there is a high risk of attack, especially during a war as large scale as World War 2.. As Day was arguing his point in 1942 - a time where a world war was occurring, not committing a proper defence force to the country would now be seen as absurd and irresponsible. Without knowing what the future holds, committing troops and equipment to the defence of Australia is a worthwhile cause for security and in preparation for an unforeseen emergency in Australia.
Australia committed to war against the Nazis in 1939, 3 years before the Japanese attack on Australia in 1942. By 1942, most of Australia’s defence force was centered elsewhere in the world, leaving Australia vulnerable to attack. Attacks of course did happen – where Japan centered their attacks against South East Asia, including Australia. The heaviest hit was in Darwin in February 1942, Broome and Sydney (War Declared, n.d). Extensive air and sea attacks also occurred during this time, in which the Australia defence would surely have had trouble maintaining. At this time, the Australia defence was serving elsewhere in North Africa and the Middle East. Some were also training in America, and the warships were in the Mediterranean Sea or the Indian Ocean - far away from Australia (Australia under attack 1942-1943, n.d). This in effect damaged Australia’s ability to control the situation, and lengthened the time to remove/control the Japanese threat. Because Australia had hardly been involved with major conflicts, or hardly even taken part in international affairs (Key, L.C. 1945), it shows that they were quite unprepared for the attacks that occurred during that time.
The missing premise in Day’s argument – that Japan was the only threat to Australia (based on the first premise) is also flawed. Background knowledge on the topic of defence and threats to Australia during this time shows that while Japan eventually became a threat to Australia, the original reason why Australia entered the war in the first place was because of the Nazi threat and German expansion. While they were compelled to join by the British (World War 2 History, 1998), it is obvious the threat of the Nazis was very significant, which included world domination, hence affecting Australia. The premise of Day’s argument is thus misleading in inferring Japan was the only threat to Australia.
The main conclusion of the argument – that we should not commit troops or equipment to the defence of Australia is thus based on a true, yet irrelevant premise. The fact is, it would actually be a strategic blunder if Australia didn’t commit troops or equipment to the defence of Australia. In World War 2, the defence force in Australia was critical for security and maintaining order within cities that were attacked by Japanese forces, particularly areas in Australia including Sydney and Darwin. The defence force of Australia is also crucial for maintaining security and relations between countries, and is often used today for humanitarian and aid work overseas. They also help countries overseas in need of military help - eg. Solomon Islands (Australian Government, Department of Defence, n.d.). Even if there is no threat of attack, a prepared strategy and defence is always better than an unprepared one - this point emphasized during the attacks in 1942. Based on past mistakes in World War 2, it is obvious Australia needs a defence system in place permanently to avoid major conflicts and emergencies within Australia. Not only is it beneficial for Australia’s security, it is also plays a role in relations between countries as well.
Bibliography: