AH Challenge: Australia is a Great Power

[LordKalvan]

I'd argue that one factor which would make Australia a greater power is to not be a slave to oil, to have practical alternatives to driving cars ALL the time. If trains were faster, more convenient and cheaper we could still be very affluent and travel on our home produced energy resources. One of the keys to greater Australian power would be tailoring solutions to our situation, not borrowing entirely form one place like the US.

100% agreed. And it does not necessarily means to do without cars. I'm thinking more in terms of hydrogen technologies. Australia's resources should be the key to a bright future, but it takes leaders with vision

 

[Riain]

I don't advocate having any less car ownership, just living within our means with regards to energy consumption. If we produce enough oil to run 10 million cars and trucks we should guide ourselves away from a direction which requires us to have 12 million. That need/want for an extra 2 million motor vehicles needed should be taken up by other forms of transport which require a different form of energy which we can supply, ie electric trains.

 

[LordKalvan]

If Australia - given its population and resources - cannot live within affordable limits (in terms of energy consumption, but also in general in terms of resource management), no one in the world can.

My point is that we should not waste just because we can afford it today. It would be myopic, to say the least. We live in a time of changes, whe everything is in flux. Australia has the resources and IMHO the menpower to ride the storm and end up in an even better position.

 

[G.Bone]

Australia?

A great power?

The only thing comes to mind is the whacking of the UK with the exile government going there or more emphasis placed on that beloved continent with the detriment of other colonial growth (but of what event that spurred it, I have no idea)...

 

[Riain]

If Australia had the wealth and population of Canada in our strategic environment we would virtually beome a great power by defeault. Australia spends about US$16 billion on defence with a population of 21 million. With a population of 31 million we would spend $22 billion which is a hell of a lot in world terms, about 8th or so.

 

[David S Poepoe]

Now some thoughts...

After WWI Australia ignores the Washington Treaty ensuring that the navy becomes one of the strongest around. This strong navy, allied to the USA, becomes a major force in defeating the Japanese in WWII.

Can't be done. If any of the signatories broke the treaty then all the rest would have started building battleships. Australia would have been invited to attend and sign, if it didn't its likely the Treaty would fail.

 

[DaleCoz]

Yep. Environment is the key

Australia would be in a marginally better position in terms of sustainable carrying capacity minus rabbits and other introduced vermin. Whack the people who introduced rabbits, foxes, etc. over the head with a clue wand and Australia would have more potential. Ultimately though, water is the key issue, followed by poor soil and a fragile environment that has only recently had to cope with animals from the rest of the world.

I suppose some kind of early breakthrough on cheap bulk desalinization could help with the water issue, though getting the water where it was needed would be difficult and capital-intensive. Some kind of change in climate patterns that left Australia well-watered? If that change left North America and Europe arid, that could do it. I'm not sure how feasible that kind of climate change would be though, or what would cause it. Much of Australia was once covered by tropical rainforest, but that was at a time when it was considerable further south and North and South America were separate. I'm not sure which of those elements were crucial, but changing either of them would undoubtedly lead to an unrecognizable world in terms of human political development.

Just tossing ideas around here: I suppose you could have the US get nukes early (late 1930s) and use them to blast a new sea-level Panama canal. I'm not sure that (a) that would be feasible, (b) it would allow enough ocean current between the Pacific and Atlantic to make a difference in climate, or (c) That it wouldn't trigger some kind of nuclear winter type scenario.

In any case, somebody having nukes before World War II started has huge implications in terms of the course of that war, and is unlikely to lead to a world anything like our current one. World War II as a nuclear war could lead to Australia being one of the few unscathed areas, which could make it a major power relative to the devastated countries that took the brunt of any nuke exchange. The unscathed part would be tough to manage though unless the politics of the war changed considerable.

---------
Dale Cozort's Alternate History Newsletters - nine years of Alternate History ideas, scenarios, and fiction.

 

[DMA]

Can't be done. If any of the signatories broke the treaty then all the rest would have started building battleships. Australia would have been invited to attend and sign, if it didn't its likely the Treaty would fail.

Depends upon the size of the Australian navy in 1919. If it's the size of the USN, I'd agree, but if it's say only 2 battleships & 2 battlecruisers, I'd doubt the Treaty is in trouble just because Australia doesn't sign up. Instead I'd expect various sanctions against Australia forcing to isolation. Today, that could easily mean Australia could become like North Korea, but in the "Dark Valley" period, isolation wasn't overly uncommon - just look at the USA. More importantly, Australia misses much of the effects of the Great Depression, being in forced isolation, meaning Australia is in a far more powerful position in the long term. Then comes WWII...