All News

When an unexpected staff shortage left 7th Signal Regiment workshops without an artificer sergeant major (ASM) in June 2022, Sergeant Leighton Wilson was the only one capable of filling the position.

With a small crew and a significant backlog of work, Sergeant Wilson took over the workshop to ensure the unit’s fleet of protected mobility electronic warfare vehicles were kept running.

By using part-time soldiers to supplement the full-time tradesmen, the team cut their backlog in half over six months, with Sergeant Wilson floating between administration and on the tools to help out.

“I was doing corporal through to ASM jobs, just trying to get as much production out of a very small crew, but trying not to burn them out,” Sergeant Wilson said.

“I’d decided to take on most of the burden myself, and protect the workshop members. To put it into perspective, I was coming to work and going home in the dark.”

Sergeant Wilson also leveraged support from the local Capability Sustainment and Acquisition Group workshop, as well as Thales, to assist with the workload.

During this period, a significant maintenance issue was identified on the protected mobility electronic warfare vehicles’ ancillary power units.

After some investigation, Sergeant Wilson was approved to run trials and recommended changing the maintenance regime.

Sergeant Wilson remained in the position until the end of 2022, when a new artificer sergeant major and platoon commander marched into the unit.

“It was a good experience. I’m someone who likes to work, and being given a bit of free rein by the CO (Commanding Officer) to run the workshop and do what needed to be done was quite good,” he said.

For his efforts, Sergeant Wilson was awarded a Conspicuous Service Medal as part of the 2024 King’s Birthday Honours.

Although he felt he was only doing his job and wasn’t expecting a nomination, Sergeant Wilson said it was good to be recognised.

“It’s impressed a few people, to do the job to the standard that we did and achieve all the required maintenance we needed to for the year and with no real hiccups,” he said.

“You often feel like you go around the same old tree over and over again, and no one seems to notice. But when you get the recognition, it is quite a proud moment.”

California-based energy expert Michael Shellenberger argues that the media’s portrayal of the planet’s health is misleading, citing significant declines in natural disasters and related deaths over the past decades. Speaking at the Alliance for Responsible Citizenship (ARC) Conference in London, Shellenberger described the lack of accurate reporting as “one of the worst cases of climate misinformation and disinformation.”

High Energy Societies as a Solution

Shellenberger advocates for increased energy consumption to protect the environment, promoting a “pro-human vision” that includes “energy abundance, unlocking prosperity, and environmental progress.” He argued that conserving nature requires substitutes for natural resources, achieved through intensified energy consumption. “We save nature by using more energy so that we can produce more food on less land and return our farmed areas to grasses and forests,” he explained.

Energy advancements have lifted many people out of poverty and reduced land use for food production by over 60 percent since 1960, benefiting endangered species. “There is no rich low-energy country just as there is no poor high-energy one,” Shellenberger said. He identified nuclear energy as the “safest, cleanest” source, requiring significantly less land compared to solar and wind energy.

Shellenberger criticized Germany’s approach to reducing energy consumption, arguing that increasing gas consumption would effectively reduce coal use. “If you want to increase your carbon emissions, shut down your nuclear plants and follow the example of Germany,” he warned.

Challenges with Renewable Energy

Shellenberger also contended that the costs of renewable energy increase as their use scales up. He pointed out that the value of wind and solar energy decreases significantly when they make up a larger portion of an electricity grid. He argued that renewable energy’s advocates often overlook the costs of necessary infrastructure such as transmission lines and storage. “The more renewable you have, the higher the cost of your electricity,” he stated.

He also criticized the ethics of relying on solar panels produced by persecuted minorities in concentration camps, calling for an end to such practices.

Climate Change as a Modern Religion

Shellenberger suggested that the fervour of the climate change movement stems from the rise of atheism and secularization, drawing parallels between the climate change narrative and religious beliefs. “If we don’t have a God to believe, and if we don’t have a religion, we will create one, consciously or unconsciously, and that’s what’s occurred,” he concluded.

On June 19, the federal opposition announced plans to construct seven nuclear reactors across Australia. The Liberal-National Coalition intends to repurpose retiring coal-fired power stations into nuclear facilities. The proposed sites include Loy Yang Power Station in Victoria’s Gippsland area, Callide and Tarong in Queensland, Port Augusta in South Australia, Collie in Western Australia, as well as Mount Piper in Lithgow and Liddell in the Hunter Valley in New South Wales.

These privately owned sites will be acquired by the government and managed by a Commonwealth corporation, similar to the operations of the National Broadband Network and Snowy Hydro companies. The Coalition plans to initially develop two projects: either the AP1000 by Westinghouse or the APR1400 by Korea Electric Power Corporation, aiming for completion between 2035 and 2037. A full rollout is projected for the 2040s, ahead of the 2050 net zero target.

“We know the [Labor] government has a renewables-only policy which is not fit for purpose,” said Opposition Leader Peter Dutton. He emphasized the need for reliable baseload power to ensure continuous operation of essential services like hospitals and cold storage facilities, which he argues can only be achieved with nuclear energy.

Dutton highlighted the potential for utilizing existing infrastructure, such as the poles and wires currently serving coal-fired power stations, to distribute energy from the new nuclear reactors. He claimed the project would cost significantly less than the government’s net zero policy, which is expected to exceed $1 trillion and includes new transmission infrastructure, wind turbines, solar panels, and battery storage.

Despite the lack of a detailed cost analysis, Dutton argued that countries with nuclear power experience lower energy prices and smoother transitions for workers from coal to nuclear facilities. He noted that the primary difference between nuclear and coal power plants lies in how water is heated to generate steam, allowing most downstream employees to transition easily to nuclear sites.

“We will have more to say in relation to the cost in due course, and as you know, we’ve done this in a step-by-step process,” Dutton added.

Taking his cue from fauxborigine Bruce Pascoe, reader Frank Pledge shares the pride he felt on becoming an Aborigine:

At the next census, please tick the box that says you are an Aboriginal indigenous first nations native of this once great country. This request is prompted by my recent experience filling out a medical form when I was referred to see a specialist. One section asked:

“Are you an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander?”

I thought about, then ticked ‘Yes’. The receptionist knew I have no Aboriginal DNA but did not bat an eye as she said: “There will be no charge for your consultation.” I shook my head and she smiled.

If Bruce Pascoe can grow rich and famous by daubing on the ochre and making up a tommyrot lineage, why not me? If Australia can accept a Sudanese man with 25 criminal convictions (including rape, assault and armed robbery) because he ‘feels Aboriginal’, then I ‘feel’ I am every bit as worthy as him. I recommend that every Australian claim to be indigenous too.

I acknowledge and welcome to modern Australia my mythical ancestors. They managed to survive without inventing the wheel, medicine, pottery, writing, weaving, agriculture, animal husbandry, commerce (money) or stone buildings while devoting 60,000 years to perfecting ‘the world’s oldest continuous culture’. You invaders just never gave us enough time.

I recognise the benefits provided to all Australians by science, philosophy, engineering, British law, fossil fuels, agriculture and the inspiration of Renaissance thinking. Now I demand my share! (Bank account details to follow, plus an accounting of how much you owe me.)

I respect those of our political leaders, past and present and irrespective of their race or origin, for providing all modern Australians with tremendous lifestyle advantages through innovations in science, mining, agriculture, manufacturing, technology, medicine, literature and education.

Now, in the noble cause of diversity, equity and inclusion, I demand those Australians reluctant to assert their notional indigeneity begin immediately transferring ever more of Australia’s wealth and real estate to claimants like me.

I hate to be picky, but I ask that you please pay me in gold. The way the country is going, your WMDs — white man’s dollars — don’t strike me as stable long-term propositions.

gab.com/system/media_attachments/files/143/442/586/original/81eb37cbe76fc552.mp4

UGVs are just starting to be used in large numbers. But with the war becoming ever-more deadly, robots like the D-21-11 are set to provide some much-needed relief for the Armed Forces of Ukraine, where many soldiers are now well into their third year of war. They can be fitted with a machine gun and used to assault, but also to evacuate dead or wounded as well as bring supplies to the trenches.

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) is contemplating the deployment of additional nuclear weapons as a strategic response to escalating global threats. This consideration is driven by a series of geopolitical tensions and perceived aggressions from major world powers.

Rationale Behind the Nuclear Deployment Discussions

NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg has suggested that showcasing the alliance’s nuclear capabilities could serve as a potent deterrent against potential adversaries. In light of these threats, consultations are underway regarding the removal of missiles from storage to be placed on high alert.

Key Factors Influencing NATO’s Nuclear Strategy

1. Deterrence Strategy: Stoltenberg emphasizes the need for a visible nuclear arsenal to prevent hostile actions from nations such as Russia, China, and North Korea. He contends that the presence of NATO’s nuclear weapons serves as a critical counterbalance in maintaining global stability.
2. Ongoing Consultations: Discussions among NATO member states are focused on the logistics and implications of readying nuclear missiles. This includes evaluating the strategic benefits and potential risks associated with such a move.
3. Nonproliferation vs. Security: Despite NATO’s commitment to nonproliferation, Stoltenberg argues that a scenario where adversaries possess nuclear capabilities while NATO does not pose a greater risk. The alliance believes that maintaining a robust nuclear arsenal is essential for deterring aggression and ensuring collective security.

Reactions and Geopolitical Tensions

The proposal to bolster NATO’s nuclear posture has elicited strong reactions, particularly from Russia. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov condemned Stoltenberg’s comments, characterizing them as an escalation of nuclear rhetoric. President Vladimir Putin regards the discussion of nuclear armament with utmost seriousness, reflecting the high stakes involved in such deliberations.

Additionally, Russia’s joint nuclear drills with Belarus have further exacerbated the situation, highlighting the growing military tensions in the region.

Conclusion

As NATO navigates the complexities of modern global threats, the alliance’s consideration of expanding its nuclear arsenal underscores the delicate balance between deterrence and escalation. The outcome of these discussions will have significant implications for international security and the future of nuclear nonproliferation efforts.

The gun salute is a traditional military honour used to mark significant royal events such as birthdays, anniversaries, and funerals. These salutes serve as a sign of respect or to extend a formal welcome. According to military tradition, an even number of rounds are fired for funerals, while an odd number of rounds are fired for all other occasions. The total number of rounds can vary depending on the event and location, but the standard number of rounds fired is 21, with additional rounds added in certain circumstances. For instance, in England gun salutes held at Green Park and Hyde Park include an extra 20 rounds because both sites are designated as Royal Parks.

This tradition is recognized by many nations worldwide and is considered one of the highest honours that can be bestowed upon an individual. The origins of the gun salute date back to the 15th century during the early days of sailing. Ships visiting friendly ports would fire their guns toward the sea to demonstrate to those onshore that they posed no threat.

The responsibility for performing the gun salute in the United Kingdom falls to the King’s Troop Royal Horse Artillery. This unit was established by Royal Decree after World War II to maintain “a Mounted Battery to fire salutes on state occasions, dressed in the traditional style.” Originally known as The Riding Troop, the unit was renamed by King George VI, Queen Elizabeth II’s father, who crossed out “Riding” in the visitor’s book and replaced it with “King’s.”

The gun salute remains a prominent and revered military custom, symbolizing honour and respect at significant events and reflecting a long-standing naval tradition of peaceful intentions.

Up to his waist in mud, with a pack and the oppressive Amazon jungle humidity weighing him down, Sergeant Matthew Reid began to think he made a mistake.

A few weeks earlier, the training adviser from Jungle Training Wing arrived in French Guiana to undertake one of the world’s toughest jungle warfare courses.

Run by the French Foreign Legion, the eight-week Jaguar course is designed to train French lieutenants and sergeants to lead soldiers in jungle environments.

Those who successfully complete it are permitted to wear the coveted jaguar brevet.

Despite some initial nerves and a slight language barrier, Sergeant Reid settled in with the other participants, some of whom were also international.

“I learned some basic French – introductions and counting, left and right. There’s a minimum vocabulary to learn before the course,” he said.

After a week of acclimatisation, including environmental briefs, kit issue, weapon and physical training, participants had to pass a physical test to move onto the next phase.

“They basically run everywhere on the course, so it was good that before I left I did lots of running, bodyweight, and a lot of upper body strength,” Sergeant Reid said.

The next phase was two weeks of aguerrissement, which translates to hardening. This is when Sergeant Reid found himself covered in mud, rethinking his choices.

His section was conducting a stretcher carry over a 600m course, through waist-deep sucking mud the whole way, with two hours to complete it.

“I had to use my hands to lift up my leg and put that foot in front and then I’d fall over to the side. I was a bit of a liability on that one,” he said.

“I really enjoyed the rest of the course; there were definitely other difficult parts but that was the only time I thought about quitting.”

Despite being physically drained, knowing the task was only two hours long kept Sergeant Reid pushing until the end.

None of the sections completed the obstacle.

Participants then dropped into the jungle for a three-day survival exercise with patrol orders and tasks to complete, including building a shelter and fire, and eating only what they could forage or hunt.

Next was the combat phase, which comprised a week learning the Legions’ tactics, techniques and procedures, before two weeks of back-to-back missions, hand-to-hand combat, shooting, and finishing with SERE-B (Survival/Evasion/Resistance/Escape).

Instruction was given in French and those who couldn’t understand were paired with English-speaking francophiles to translate. This happened in reverse when English-speaking students gave orders.

The final phase of the course was synthesis, or combining elements, held on the island of Martinique. Students took turns leading a section through multi-day full-mission profiles, which culminated in a five-day, battalion-level exercise with the 3rd Foreign Infantry Regiment in the village of Cacao.

Surviving to the last day of course didn’t guarantee a pass. Students only found out if they were successful a few minutes before their graduation ceremony.

Names were read out in order of performance, and Sergeant Reid was relieved when his name was called – ranked 18th of 35 students – to become the first Australian to pass the course.

“I was very happy, like a big weight lifted off me,” he said.

“I loved it, probably not while I was doing it. There were definitely parts where I was like ‘this is rough’ but afterwards, I absolutely loved it. The staff from the Legion were extremely professional and incredibly proficient.

“I learned a lot about operating in jungle environments thanks to them. It was honestly a once-in-a-lifetime experience and I highly recommended it to anyone that wants to do it.”

Angry people keep chanting ‘free Palestine’ on our streets. They shout that ‘Palestine’ should stretch from the river (the Jordan River) to the sea (the Mediterranean Sea)-covering the territory currently occupied by the nation of Israel.

But what does this name ‘Palestine’ refer to? And where does it come from?

This area (which used to be called the ‘fertile crescent’ in the Ancient Near East) was first known as Canaan. It was occupied by the Jewish people over a period of time between 1200 and 1000 BC when it was named Israel.

That area continued to be called ‘Israel’ for the next thousand years. The region was conquered by the Roman Empire in 63 BC under Roman general Pompey. The Romans divided it into provinces, naming the central province ‘Judea’ (meaning ‘land of the Jews’).

Then, starting in 70 AD the Jews revolted against their Roman overlords. The Romans decided to suppress Jewish nationalism and prevent any future uprisings. As a part of this they changed the name.

The new name was chosen by the Romans from the ancient Philistines, who had lived along part of the coastline. By that time the Philistines had long disappeared as a distinct people. It was a deliberate choice by the Romans to erase Jewish historical and cultural ties to the land, as the Philistines were seen as foreign to the region.

That old word ‘Philistine’ became Palestina in Latin, which, in turn, became ‘Palestine’ in English (recorded from 1628).

Although many Jews were driven out of the area by the Romans (and scattered around the known world) many Jews still remained, and still thought of the area as their ancestral homeland.

Then in the seventh century Arabs began to flood into the area, under the military leadership of Mohammad and his powerful army. The area continued by the called ‘Palestine’ over the following centuries and, for a long time, was part of the Ottoman Empire.

When that empire collapsed after the First World War the area became the British Protectorate of ‘Palestine.’ After the Second World War the newly formed United Nations divided up the old British protectorate into a Jewish state (to be called ‘Israel’) and an Arabic state (to be called ‘Palestine’).

The Arab Palestinians rejected the United Nations declaration of their share of the territory and took up arms against Israel. The rest, you know.

That’s a whole lot of history in just a few words. But (it seems to me) two things emerge clearly:

(1) ‘Israel’ is a far more ancient name for this area than ‘Palestine’ as the ancestral homeland of the Jewish people; and

(2) people keep using the word ‘Palestine’ ignorant of the history behind the name.

You can catch up with the most recent edition of ‘Words Matter’ online. There’s a link at ozwords.com.au