“Dustoff inbound” was the message crackling over the radio that troops wounded in Vietnam most wanted to hear.

The message using the “Dustoff” call sign meant that an unarmed UH-1 “Huey” helicopter air ambulance with a red cross painted on the nose was coming for them no matter the weather, no matter whether the landing zone was “hot,” no matter whether there even was a landing zone — some 8,000 hoists while the aircraft hovered were conducted during the war.

To honour those who flew more than 496,000 Army medevac missions from May 1962 through March 1973, the House last week passed the Dustoff Crews of the Vietnam War Congressional Gold Medal Act.

The bipartisan bill to award the highest honour Congress can bestow was sponsored in the House by Reps. Derek Kilmer, D-Wash., and Cathy McMorris Rodgers, R-Wash. The Senate in May passed the bill, which will now go to the White House for President Joe Biden’s signature.

The bill states that the Dustoff crews, consisting of a pilot, co-pilot, crew chief and combat medic, carried out “rapid medical evacuation and transported almost 900,000 United States, South Vietnamese, and other allied sick and wounded, as well as wounded enemy forces” in 11 years of operations in Vietnam.

The focus was on getting the wounded from the battlefield to a field hospital within the “golden hour” that greatly increased the chances for survival.

As a result of the Dustoff missions, “we would see patients so much more quickly than had ever happened before in a war zone, where you couldn’t depend on ambulance runs through rotten roads and muddy hills,” Dr. Michael Mittelmann, a surgeon with the 8th Field Hospital in Nha Trang, said in an oral history for the Vietnam Centre and Sam Johnson Vietnam Archive at Texas Tech University.

Newcomers to Dustoff units were immediately told what was expected of them in their missions: “No hesitation. No reservation. No compromise. You get the wounded out,” said retired Army Lt. Col. Steve Vermillion, a Dustoff pilot who flew 1,452 missions and picked up 2,217 casualties.

In a video call, Vermillion, 76, of Altadena, California, now president of the Vietnam Dustoff Association, recalled his first mission in Vietnam in January 1969 when he had to put the UH-1 Huey into a hover while under fire. “It was a hoist off a tank” of two badly wounded soldiers, he said. “It was controlled chaos.”

The red crosses painted on the unarmed helicopters signifying a medical mission offered little protection from the anti-aircraft fire of the North Vietnamese Army or the Viet Cong, said former Dustoff crew chief Gary Hagen, 72, of Medford, Oregon.

“We picked up a lot of guys and we got shot up a lot, almost every time going and coming out,” Hagen said at a recent press event with Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore.

Of the approximately 3,400 Dustoff crew members who served during the Vietnam War, 211 were killed in action and 925 were wounded, retired Lt. Col. Chris Seidor, 77, of Barkhamsted, Connecticut, a pilot who flew Dustoff missions out of Binh Thuy in Vietnam, said in a phone call.

The dedication of the Dustoff crews to the rescue mission was epitomized by Maj. Charles Kelly, who commanded the 57th Medical Detachment and was posthumously awarded the Distinguished Service Cross, the nation’s second-highest award for valor after the Medal of Honor.

On July 1, 1964, Kelly “demonstrated exceptional courage, strong determination, and complete disregard for his own personal safety while participating in an aerial medical mission to evacuate wounded soldiers from an area under heavy attack by hostile forces,” the DSC citation said.

Ground commanders repeatedly told Kelly he was in grave danger and recommended that he take off and leave the area, but Kelly refused: “Not without the wounded,” he said. Kelly succeeded in taking aboard the wounded “moments before he was mortally wounded by hostile gun fire,” the citation said.

Army Gen. William Westmoreland, commander of the Military Assistance Command in Vietnam from 1964 to 1968, cited Kelly as an example of “the greatness of the human spirit” and highlighted his “not without the wounded” reply as an inspiration to all combat troops.

Gen. Creighton Abrams, who succeeded Westmoreland as overall commander in Vietnam, said of the Dustoff crews that “courage above and beyond the call of duty was sort of routine to them,” and “it meant so much to every last man who served there. Whether he ever got hurt or not, he knew Dustoff was there.”

Todd Mikolop, a lawyer with the Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP firm, which assisted the Vietnam Dustoff Association in mustering support for the Congressional Gold Medal, said in a video call that in the course of lobbying he heard from several veterans who had been wounded in Vietnam and told him, “When I heard the Huey coming, I knew I was going to be OK.”

The Australian government has announced a firm stance on dealing with individuals waving Hezbollah flags at recent pro-Palestine demonstrations in Sydney and Melbourne. The displays have drawn significant concern, with Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke stating that authorities are reviewing the visa status of any protesters who may pose a threat to public order.

“I won’t hesitate to cancel the visas of visitors spreading hate in our country,” Burke asserted. This decisive action aims to send a strong message that supporting terrorist organizations has no place in Australia.

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese echoed this sentiment at a cabinet meeting, warning that such behaviour threatens Australia’s multicultural harmony. “We cannot allow radical ideologies to take root here. Our social cohesion and peaceful society must be preserved,” Albanese said, emphasizing that the government will not tolerate any efforts to bring conflict from abroad into Australian communities.

Opposition spokesman James Paterson added his voice to the call for action, stating that individuals displaying Hezbollah flags, who are on visas, should have them immediately revoked. “It’s a clear breach of the Commonwealth Criminal Code,” he said, noting that Parliament had amended the code last year to include the prohibition of symbols from terrorist organizations such as Hezbollah. “This is not a matter of free speech—it’s criminal behaviour that undermines national security.”

Australian Federal Police (AFP) confirmed on Monday that they are investigating at least six reports of crime from Victoria Police related to the display of prohibited symbols and chants. These cases are being examined for breaches of counter-terrorism laws. However, AFP clarified that the mere display of a prohibited symbol might not necessarily constitute a federal offense unless it meets specific criteria outlined in the Criminal Code. These criteria include incitement to hatred or violence, or the promotion of racial or religious superiority.

The government’s move to cancel visas and prosecute supporters of terrorist organizations sends a clear signal: Australia will not tolerate the spread of hate or extremism. The tightening of visa controls on those connected with terrorist groups is a necessary step to protect the nation’s values and the safety of its citizens. Such actions are in line with Australia’s robust counter-terrorism laws and aim to safeguard the social fabric from individuals who seek to undermine it.

Additionally, the government has appointed Aftab Malik as a special envoy to combat Islamophobia, further demonstrating its commitment to promoting social cohesion. Malik, recognized globally for his work on Muslim affairs, will engage with various communities and experts to tackle religious discrimination.

The appointment has been criticized by the Australian Palestine Advocacy Network (APAN), which called for a more inclusive anti-racism strategy that addresses the concerns of all marginalized communities. Despite these criticisms, the government remains focused on ensuring the safety of all Australians and preventing the spread of divisive ideologies.

The government’s proactive measures—including the potential deportation of visa holders who support terrorist organizations—underline its zero-tolerance policy towards extremism. Australia’s commitment to preserving peace and security within its borders is unequivocal.

For years, the Labor/Greens/Teal alliance has been pushing a dangerous agenda that threatens the very core of free speech in Australia. These so-called “misinformation” laws are just the latest step in a broader plan to control the flow of information and restrict the rights of everyday Australians to speak their minds.

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has been relentlessly working on these laws since taking office. Last year, his initial attempt faced massive backlash, with over 20,000 Australians voicing their strong opposition through submissions to Parliament. This overwhelming rejection forced Albanese to go back to the drawing board. But now, these laws are back—more extreme and dangerous than ever before.

What’s at stake here is nothing short of the creation of a government-controlled “Ministry of Truth.” Under this legislation, social media companies will be given a powerful incentive to censor what everyday Australians are saying online. If they fail to censor enough so-called “misinformation,” they could face crippling fines.

But who gets to decide what qualifies as “misinformation”? Not you, not me, and certainly not the Australian public. Instead, the government will wield the power to determine what is “true” and what is not—a clear attack on the free flow of ideas and public discourse.

Even more troubling is that these laws carve out special exemptions for academics, scientists, and journalists from mainstream media. They can say whatever they want, free from the threat of being accused of spreading “misinformation.” However, if a regular citizen dares to criticise their views, they could be silenced or even punished for misinformation. This double standard reinforces an elitist “us vs. them” dynamic, where the voices of everyday Australians are suppressed in favour of those in privileged positions.

Shadow Communications Minister David Coleman has rightly called this legislation “rotten to the core.” It’s a direct attack on our freedom to speak, to question, and to challenge the prevailing narratives.

Peter Dutton and the Coalition deserve praise for their unwavering opposition to these draconian laws. Their resistance is crucial, as it brings us one step closer to defeating this dangerous assault on free speech.

This isn’t just a political issue—it’s about protecting the fundamental rights of all Australians. And with Dutton and the Coalition standing firm, there’s hope that these laws can be stopped before they take away the freedoms we hold dear.

Australia showcased its F-35A in Indonesia for the first time during the Bali International Air Show at I Gusti Ngurah Rai International Airport from 18 to 21 September. Australian aircraft and personnel attended, including Wing Commander Phil Eldridge, who met with Indonesian Air Force Chief of Staff, Air Chief Marshal M. Tonny Harjono.

Defence stated, “Australia’s participation highlights the deepening strategic partnership with Indonesia.” The F-35 was accompanied by a German Air Force Airbus A400M.

The air show, organized by Indonesia’s Coordinating Ministry for Maritime and Investment Affairs, the Ministry of Transportation, and the Indonesia Air Force, attracted participation from 100 companies and delegations from over 35 countries. Major aerospace and defense companies like Airbus, Boeing, Dassault Aviation, and others were present.

Minister Luhut Binsar Pandjaitan emphasized Indonesia’s growing aviation industry, projecting a 5% annual fleet growth and positioning the country as the fourth-largest aviation market by 2037. The show featured 16 military and commercial aircraft, including the F-16, Sukhoi Su-27, and C-130J Super Hercules.

China’s naval ambitions have suffered a major blow after one of its newest nuclear-powered attack submarines sank earlier this year. The incident occurred at a shipyard near Wuhan in late May or early June and has remained largely concealed by Chinese authorities, adding to the country’s ongoing struggles.

The ill-fated submarine, the first of a new class of Chinese nuclear-powered vessels, was undergoing its final equipping before its planned launch at sea when the accident occurred. The exact details remain unclear, but reports indicate that large floating cranes were deployed in early June to salvage the submarine from the riverbed. The situation is a significant embarrassment for the China State Shipbuilding Corporation (CSSC), the entity responsible for constructing the sub.

The vessel’s damage will take months to repair, delaying its deployment and dealing a blow to China’s aspirations to modernize and expand its nuclear submarine fleet.

The sinking of the submarine has fuelled criticism of corruption and inefficiency within the Chinese military and defence industry. As one of the first of its class, this submarine was part of China’s broader effort to challenge U.S. naval dominance, particularly in the Indo-Pacific region. The setback hampers these goals, not only delaying the expansion of China’s submarine force but also raising questions about the reliability of its defence manufacturing processes.

There are additional concerns regarding the potential for nuclear leaks and environmental consequences, given the nature of the vessel. While China has not released any official information on this front, the possibility of radiation hazards has raised alarm among analysts.

For the United States, the incident serves as a moment of both caution and reflection. The Pentagon considers China its principal long-term “pacing challenge” as it aims to keep up with China’s growing military might. This submarine mishap, however, reveals weaknesses in China’s defence infrastructure, potentially slowing its progress toward becoming a dominant maritime power. The U.S. has pointed to the incident as evidence of corruption and systemic issues plaguing China’s defence industry, giving it room to maintain its technological edge in undersea warfare.

Despite the setback for China, U.S. officials remain vigilant. The long-term threat posed by China’s expanding military capabilities continues to shape the U.S. defence strategy, particularly in the Indo-Pacific.

The sinking of submarines during construction is not unique to China. In 1969, the U.S. Navy faced a similar disaster when the USS Guitarro, a nuclear-powered attack submarine, sank at a shipyard in California due to construction errors. It took 32 months to fully repair and commission the vessel, a timeline that China’s military may face as it works to restore its sunken submarine.

While such setbacks are rare, they highlight the complexities of submarine design and construction. In both cases, these incidents delayed naval expansion plans, embarrassed government officials, and caused broader public scrutiny.

The sinking of China’s newest nuclear-powered attack submarine marks a significant setback in its naval ambitions. As the country seeks to grow its military influence, this incident underscores the challenges it faces in achieving its objectives. For now, the world’s focus remains on how China addresses this internal crisis and how it will impact the geopolitical landscape of maritime power in the coming years.

The Impact of Wind Farms in Queensland: Costs, Numbers, and Environmental Considerations

There are currently 3,365 wind turbines proposed for Queensland, delivering a nameplate capacity of approximately 22,874 MW. This number does not include additional wind farms that are in the planning stages but lack specific turbine quantities. For example, the proposed Proserpine Wind Farm will have over 200 turbines, making it reasonable to estimate that the total number of turbines planned in the state is already over 4,000.

However, given that wind turbines typically operate at a capacity factor of around 25%, we would need to double the number of turbines to approximately 6,600 in order to ensure electricity supply during summer nights when wind may be available. If Queensland experiences several windless nights, even with the proposed Eungella Pumped Hydro project, the grid could only sustain power for a limited number of hours.

To achieve true Net Zero, which involves removing carbon emissions from agriculture and the transport fleet, the state may need to install over 20,000 turbines. If there’s no wind, additional gas plants would be required to maintain energy supply. Furthermore, should Queensland pursue theoretical hydrogen energy, another 10,000 to 25,000 turbines may be needed—provided there is enough land with consistent wind conditions to support them.

While some wind farms in the southern part of the state are situated on cleared or mostly cleared land, many of the wind farms proposed from Gladstone northward are located in areas of high biodiversity. These locations are often characterized by untouched, rugged, and remote topography. Notably, the Chalumbin Wind Farm remains a point of contention, as it could reappear in the planning stages depending on who secures transmission capacity first.

The future of Queensland’s energy transition will showcase the trade-offs between renewable energy expansion and the preservation of some of the state’s best high-elevation refugia forests, especially in the areas north of Gladstone.

Cost Considerations: Each wind turbine can range from $3 million to $4 million, meaning that the current proposal of 3,365 turbines represents an investment between $10 billion and $13.5 billion. If the number of turbines increases to 6,600 or more, the total cost could climb to over $20 billion, with further investments needed if additional turbines are required for hydrogen production.

CLICK LINK to view the video

Bing Videos