Past History - Australia's Bid for the Atomic Bomb.

[StevoJH]

Just on yahoo questions and answers and there was a question asking what to do about indias population bomb,what to do to save india from desertification,drying up of water resources,pollution,growing temperatures,jammed up roads,3 quarters of forrest gone and how to save india unless the reality is woken up to and acted upon.


So what i want to know is...what is a nation such as australia to do in the event of a sudden enviromental change that may cause a nation to implement drastic measures to overcome their dire situation?

A nation that may have to aquire resources or land by whatever means possible.
Is the possibilty of such an event enough of a justification for australia to go down the path of aquiring nuclear weapons so as to guarentee a no australia solution to enviromental change?

Why would we need nukes to prevent an indian Invasion? They don't have any aircraft capable of providing aircover over Western Australia from Indian territory and F/A-18's forward deployed at Learmouth and other bases could easily overcome any aircraft they could put up from their carrier, and saturate their air defenses with harpoons.

The worst situation I could think of would be a third party power being given basing rights in Indonesia. Then it would be time to worry....

 

[aussienscale]

Nuclear weapons seem to be heading towards Australia from both the Pacific and Indian ocean sides of Asia and pointing towards us, most countries in this region must be getting twitchy and nervous, would Australia move down that path if they get too close ? First India, then Pakistan and now Myanmar (Burma) is that now going to be too close for Indonesia to feel comfortable ? With North Korea in the Pacific, and them helping Myanmar and Pakistan, who else in our region will they help ? If Indonesia got the bomb, would that then move Malaysia and/or Thailand into action ? Forget about the middle east, Asia is very much an underestimated hot spot for global defence build up. With some countries not on the good list to have nukes

 

[OpinionNoted]

Nuclear weapons seem to be heading towards Australia from both the Pacific and Indian ocean sides of Asia and pointing towards us, most countries in this region must be getting twitchy and nervous, would Australia move down that path if they get too close ? First India, then Pakistan and now Myanmar (Burma) is that now going to be too close for Indonesia to feel comfortable ? With North Korea in the Pacific, and them helping Myanmar and Pakistan, who else in our region will they help ? If Indonesia got the bomb, would that then move Malaysia and/or Thailand into action ? Forget about the middle east, Asia is very much an underestimated hot spot for global defence build up. With some countries not on the good list to have nukes

all im seeing is that some of these nations have or a trying to aquire nuclear weapons and the world has done squat about it,so...we should bite the bullet and settle once and for all the question of "are we ready in our own eyes to become our own security guarantor"

or if not, do we accept the inevitable...that in the event of a nuclear exchange it will be us as a proxy that will be the play ground for such an exchange.

this is the choice we have as i see it...we become a playground for a nuclear exchange or we can have our approaches the play ground for such an exchange...if such a thing came to pass.

our own deterent would make the former less likely than the latter.

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

all im seeing is that some of these nations have or a trying to aquire nuclear weapons and the world has done squat about it,so...we should bite the bullet and settle once and for all the question of "are we ready in our own eyes to become our own security guarantor"

or if not, do we accept the inevitable...that in the event of a nuclear exchange it will be us as a proxy that will be the play ground for such an exchange.

this is the choice we have as i see it...we become a playground for a nuclear exchange or we can have our approaches the play ground for such an exchange...if such a thing came to pass.

our own deterent would make the former less likely than the latter.

Why on earth do you think Australia would become involved in a nuclear exchange between the great powers? Why would any of the nuclear powers attack Australia - as a proxy - when the reaction would undoubtedly be a swift nuclear response from our allies? Why would they even bother considering a nuclear attack on Australia would facilitate basically the exact same response as an attack on CONUS, when a counter-force strike would stand some chance at limiting said response? Sorry I'm just not following that logic.

 

[lopez]

im probably wrong but didn't australia have an experimental centrifuge running at some stage???

i know we had plans for a centrifuge facility in Jervis bay but they were scrapped with a change of government...

 

[Ananda]

Nuclear weapons seem to be heading towards Australia from both the Pacific and Indian ocean sides of Asia and pointing towards us, most countries in this region must be getting twitchy and nervous, would Australia move down that path if they get too close ? First India, then Pakistan and now Myanmar (Burma) is that now going to be too close for Indonesia to feel comfortable ? With North Korea in the Pacific, and them helping Myanmar and Pakistan, who else in our region will they help ? If Indonesia got the bomb, would that then move Malaysia and/or Thailand into action ? Forget about the middle east, Asia is very much an underestimated hot spot for global defence build up. With some countries not on the good list to have nukes

With all do respect, I think it's a bit far streches to say Asia (especially East and South East) is a global hot spot or put it in same leugue as middle east. Besides North Korea practically everything still under control. True there are spikes on conventional weapon expenditures, but mostly just to keep existing inventory ugrades.

The momentum for other Asian nations (besides India and Pakistan) to have nuclear bombs are long gone. If Indonesia want to have nuclear devices, then the momentum was at Soekarno era. At that time, from several thousands engineers that being send to study in USSR, big portion of them studying and preparing for nuclear enrichments technology. The Nuclear reactors that's being supply to Indonesia in the 60's (will be located in Serpong near Jakarta) will have plutonium breeder capability. This can be confirmed if you have access to old early 70's IAEA files which indicated many program by IAEA to channel previous Indonesian Atomic scientist from Nuclear enrichment path more to civil applications path.

However with Soekarno fall, part of that reactor which still in early stages was not completed by USSR technology, but later on with Western technology as low grade research reactor. I think you can see more than coincidence that the Australian demise on Nuclear Weapons ambitions in much part also related with the Demise of Soekarno regime in the 60's.

Thus again don't think any other East and SouthEast Asian nations in the present have inclinations to build Nuclear weapons. You can't put much credibility on Myanmar. Afterall a realtive isollated regime will say anything fortheir own agenda.

 

[OpinionNoted]

Why on earth do you think Australia would become involved in a nuclear exchange between the great powers? Why would any of the nuclear powers attack Australia - as a proxy - when the reaction would undoubtedly be a swift nuclear response from our allies? Why would they even bother considering a nuclear attack on Australia would facilitate basically the exact same response as an attack on CONUS, when a counter-force strike would stand some chance at limiting said response? Sorry I'm just not following that logic.

i dont know what the future holds and dont i know what may spark any serious clashes,but what i do know is that any nuclear exchange will MOST PROBABLY NOT be on the home soil of the protaginists...not if they can play else where first.



a strike on australia would be like a strike on conus?...my god

for the life of me i dont know why people allways fall back to the "we have allies" position and hold a straight face...promises and nothing more.
who in their right mind believes 1 nation would trade their soil for that of an ally?

the united states and great britain WILL NEVER put themselves in a position to be at the receiving end of an exchange in support of australia....to state otherwise is being an apologist.

 

[Todjaeger]

i dont know what the future holds and dont i know what may spark any serious clashes,but what i do know is that any nuclear exchange will MOST PROBABLY NOT be on the home soil of the protaginists...not if they can play else where first.

a strike on australia would be like a strike on conus?...my god

for the life of me i dont know why people allways fall back to the "we have allies" position and hold a straight face...promises and nothing more.
who in their right mind believes 1 nation would trade the soil for that of an ally?

the united states and great britain WILL NEVER put themselves in a position to be at the receiving end of an exchange in support of an ally....to state otherwise is being an apologist.

Something which you seem to have overlooked is how any of the leading powers need to respond to a potential nuclear attack. Take for instance, an ICBM launch. Given the speed at which such a strike can be carried out, the US, UK, France, or Russia might only have a few minutes to make a decision to counterstrike before a potential nuclear strike could impact them sufficiently to render them unable to launch a counterstrike. Now granted that the US near-space SIGINT systems are likely the most accurate and extensive in the world, they might not provide the US with sufficient information to know that an ICBM launch is targeting Australia instead of somewhere on the West Coast of the US. Or at least, not before the US would need to make a decision to launch. Indeed, that need to respond rapidly and decisively to a potential nuclear attack is one of the very strong arguments which have been made against fitted conventional munitions to an ICBM for a rapid strike capability. Such a launch can be detected all over the place, but the technology at present is insufficient to determine whether a munition is conventional or nuclear until after detonation.

Now, for an Australian perspective on building a nuclear stockpile... Which countries are currently or potentially threatening Australia with nuclear weaponry? Which countries have the sort of delivery system sufficient to allow it to strike Australia? Also, if Australia did establish a nuclear arsenal of some sort, what sort of delivery system would be required to allow it to be used against the hypothetical threats to Australia?

Right now, Australia is a mineral resource, what/how does using nuclear weaponry help those who might potentially be purchasing Australian minerals?

-Cheers

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

i dont know what the future holds and dont i know what may spark any serious clashes,but what i do know is that any nuclear exchange will MOST PROBABLY NOT be on the home soil of the protaginists...not if they can play else where first.

But any conflict between great power proxies would likely not involve the great powers themselves and thus why would anyone use nuclear weapons? If a great power - or indeed both great powers - was/were involved in a war between proxies it would no longer simply be a "proxy conflict" but a global conflict between competing alliance systems. Given that pretext why on earth would great power A use nuclear weapons on great power B's proxies when the centre of gravity rests on great power B itself? In simple terms why would you escalate the conflict to the nuclear level without trying to eliminate the enemy’s centre of gravity when by escalating the conflict you invite them to eliminate yours?

The only circumstance where I can see a nuclear exchange possible occurring on allied soil would be a "Fulda gap" scenario when both sides use tactical nuclear weapons on large land formations, but an isolated counter value strategic strike on an ally? That makes no sense whatsoever.

a strike on australia would be like a strike on conus?...my god

for the life of me i dont know why people allways fall back to the "we have allies" position and hold a straight face...promises and nothing more.
who in their right mind believes 1 nation would trade their soil for that of an ally?

the united states and great britain WILL NEVER put themselves in a position to be at the receiving end of an exchange in support of australia....to state otherwise is being an apologist.

It seems that you don’t fully understand the way the US's alliance structure works. The US enjoys a global alliance network because it provides a nuclear and conventional umbrella to its allies. That’s the reason why we DO NOT currently have a nuclear arsenal - something well within our capability to develop. Do you really think we would have given up a nuclear program if there wasn’t confidence in that guarantee? 40 years worth of Australian political and military leadership must be pretty stupid then?

The US doesn't extend this nuclear umbrella simply because they are nice people - though they are. By being the guarantor of security - especially at the strategic level - the US enjoys hegemonic domination of a massive alliance structure. That alliance structure is the cornerstone of the US's geopolitical position and the foundation of unparalleled global economic and political domination, and its long term security. Any attack on any part of that formal alliance structure - especially nuclear - is an attack on the US's global position, if the US fails to respond appropriately its entire alliance structure, and thus its global position, will crumble. This is because that entire alliance structure rests upon one fundamental contract - minor partners give up a level of political autonomy and in return the US promises to retaliate to any aggression by a major power. If a major power attacks a minor ally and the US fails to react out of self interest? No minor ally can be confident in US protection and the entire alliance network will dissolve.

Then you have to consider the effect of not reacting to a nuclear attack on a close ally would have on the credibility of US nuclear deterrent generally. Think about it, if you aren't willing to defend an ally out of fear then maybe you won’t retaliate to a nuclear attack on military infrastructure? The US fails to react to a counter value strategic strike on Australia and it not only forfeits its global position - preserving which is the reason it would be fighting a great power in the first place – but would likely facilitate a counter force strike on US soil.

Therefore any nuclear attack on an ally would facilitate a massive strategic response from Washington, likely a massive counter-force attack. The US maintains overmatch over every nuclear power (except one) for this very reason. Therefore an attack on a close US ally by a great power would facilitate a nuclear response from the US, and any nuclear response is likely to be massive simply in order to reduce the second (of as it would be, third) strike capability.

If you question Washington's resolve then look up some of the discussions that occurred during the Cuban Missile Crisis. US leadership saw the only response to and conventional attack on West Berlin as nuclear. They were more than willing to take on the Soviet Union - a nation which maintained the US maintained a MAD strategic relationship - in a nuclear exchange in order to defend West Berlin yet you think the US would be unwilling engage China - a nation the US enjoys Nuclear superiority over - in order to defend Australia? Explain that logic to me.

 

[OpinionNoted]

But any conflict between great power proxies would likely not involve the great powers themselves and thus why would anyone use nuclear weapons? If a great power - or indeed both great powers - was/were involved in a war between proxies it would no longer simply be a "proxy conflict" but a global conflict between competing alliance systems. Given that pretext why on earth would great power A use nuclear weapons on great power B's proxies when the centre of gravity rests on great power B itself? In simple terms why would you escalate the conflict to the nuclear level without trying to eliminate the enemy’s centre of gravity when by escalating the conflict you invite them to eliminate yours?

The only circumstance where I can see a nuclear exchange possible occurring on allied soil would be a "Fulda gap" scenario when both sides use tactical nuclear weapons on large land formations, but an isolated counter value strategic strike on an ally? That makes no sense whatsoever.



It seems that you don’t fully understand the way the US's alliance structure works. The US enjoys a global alliance network because it provides a nuclear and conventional umbrella to its allies. That’s the reason why we DO NOT currently have a nuclear arsenal - something well within our capability to develop. Do you really think we would have given up a nuclear program if there wasn’t confidence in that guarantee? 40 years worth of Australian political and military leadership must be pretty stupid then?

The US doesn't extend this nuclear umbrella simply because they are nice people - though they are. By being the guarantor of security - especially at the strategic level - the US enjoys hegemonic domination of a massive alliance structure. That alliance structure is the cornerstone of the US's geopolitical position and the foundation of unparalleled global economic and political domination, and its long term security. Any attack on any part of that formal alliance structure - especially nuclear - is an attack on the US's global position, if the US fails to respond appropriately its entire alliance structure, and thus its global position, will crumble. This is because that entire alliance structure rests upon one fundamental contract - minor partners give up a level of political autonomy and in return the US promises to retaliate to any aggression by a major power. If a major power attacks a minor ally and the US fails to react out of self interest? No minor ally can be confident in US protection and the entire alliance network will dissolve.

Then you have to consider the effect of not reacting to a nuclear attack on a close ally would have on the credibility of US nuclear deterrent generally. Think about it, if you aren't willing to defend an ally out of fear then maybe you won’t retaliate to a nuclear attack on military infrastructure? The US fails to react to a counter value strategic strike on Australia and it not only forfeits its global position - preserving which is the reason it would be fighting a great power in the first place – but would likely facilitate a counter force strike on US soil.

Therefore any nuclear attack on an ally would facilitate a massive strategic response from Washington, likely a massive counter-force attack. The US maintains overmatch over every nuclear power (except one) for this very reason. Therefore an attack on a close US ally by a great power would facilitate a nuclear response from the US, and any nuclear response is likely to be massive simply in order to reduce the second (of as it would be, third) strike capability.

If you question Washington's resolve then look up some of the discussions that occurred during the Cuban Missile Crisis. US leadership saw the only response to and conventional attack on West Berlin as nuclear. They were more than willing to take on the Soviet Union - a nation which maintained the US maintained a MAD strategic relationship - in a nuclear exchange in order to defend West Berlin yet you think the US would be unwilling engage China - a nation the US enjoys Nuclear superiority over - in order to defend Australia? Explain that logic to me.

What i read here is pax americana...your an australian,what about pax australiana?

Australia never gave up trying to aquire nukes on account of some alliance structure guarentee.
Australia did put in an effort with the brits but it all came to nought...why so?
Great power hegemonony works best when they have cleint states,ie someone to protect.
Result-subservience to great power policy...shots they call are in THEIR nations self interest first and foremost.
Banks operate on the same principle and we all know what their bottom line is.

Since the introduction of nukes,proxies are the only places conventional wars have been fought and nuclear war will be no different.

 

[Marc 1]

What i read here is pax americana...your an australian,what about pax australiana?

Australia never gave up trying to aquire nukes on account of some alliance structure guarentee.

What proof do you have that Australia has never given up on trying to acquire nukes? Given that all sorts of NATO countries were allowed to use the B61's (owned and issued by the Americans) why would Australia, if we had wanted to not been given access to the B61 freefall bombs? We certainly had the delivery system (F-111). Could it be that we just don't want nukes?

BTW, what "alliance structure guarentee" (sic)?

Australia did put in an effort with the brits but it all came to nought...why so?

Cost and a host of other geo-political considerations - not the least of which was lack of a serious threat.

Great power hegemonony works best when they have cleint states,ie someone to protect.
Result-subservience to great power policy...shots they call are in THEIR nations self interest first and foremost.

Explain this in plain english please - I'm not following you. Are you saying that as the Americans are our 'protectors' that we serve at their behest? You believe if we had nukes that we would not need the Americans eh? The real strength behind our alliance came about during the cold war - we felt we needed to align ourselves with the septics or we would be overtaken by the communist hordes. Therefore by your reasoning what we really needed to ensure independence from any protection from the US was to be able to stand toe to toe in any nuclear exchange with the biggest communist threat - Russia. How would we have been able to afford hundreds or thousands of nuclear warheads and the necessary delivery systems (a triad of subs aircraft and missiles) in an Australia of only 8 million people post WW2?

Other nations (Sweden, Finland etc) aren't nuclear armed, sat right alongside the Russians and yet were not part of NATO or WARPAC. You don't need nukes to be independant.

Banks operate on the same principle and we all know what their bottom line is.

Profit and self interest. Plain and simple - its a basic free enterprise tennant. We all do it. When you go to buy a car you buy the car that best fits your needs or do you consider where the jobs are located, and the environmental impact, and the impact on Australia's balance of trade, and the need to ensure sufficient patronage of the public transport network to see it flourish etc? No, you take care of your own needs first and formost. Businesses (at least successful ones) do the same - profits and shareholders, marketshare and despite protestations to the contrary the "touchy feely" stuff last.

Since the introduction of nukes,proxies are the only places conventional wars have been fought and nuclear war will be no different.

Are you saying that if we get nukes we will only need to fight nuclear proxy wars? Newsflash - apart from WW2 (and even that is arguable by some) we have not ever needed to defend Australia against imminent invasion. Nukes are no guarantee of peace, rather they will just ensure a regional arms race.

 

[StingrayOZ]

I think nukes would be put in a whole different leage to conventionals. Its bad for everybody if people start throwing them around.

Australia had a lot more to lose when gaining nukes than we had if we didn't have them. Because if we had them indonesia definately would have got them.

 

[OpinionNoted]

stuffed up so deleted...trying again now.

 

[OpinionNoted]

What proof do you have that Australia has never given up on trying to acquire nukes? Given that all sorts of NATO countries were allowed to use the B61's (owned and issued by the Americans) why would Australia, if we had wanted to not been given access to the B61 freefall bombs? We certainly had the delivery system (F-111). Could it be that we just don't want nukes?

BTW, what "alliance structure guarentee" (sic)?



Not that we have not given up but that we didnt give up an account of an allianace structure.
Yes the access to be given to US tactical nukes in the event of a need,but,for aus not wanting her own is not something thats agreeable with the effort and resourses expended in trying to aquire them in the first place...wasted resources.
AND
access to US tactical nukes is only feasible IF US policy coincides with australian neccessity.

Australian neccesity and US policy needs may not coincide to allow "Could it be that we just dont want nukes" mentality to hold any credence.

 

[OpinionNoted]

[inally Posted by Marc 1 View Post




Cost and a host of other geo-political considerations - not the least of which was lack of a serious threat.

Cost had nothing to do with it,not considering the time,money and resources already expended.
The over riding geo-political consideration was...the guarentee for australia to have the means to defend herself against all who could be a threat.

 

[Marc 1]

access to US tactical nukes is only feasible IF US policy coincides with australian neccessity.

Australian neccesity and US policy needs may not coincide to allow "Could it be that we just dont want nukes" mentality to hold any credence.

I'm sure our pollies and defence planners had thought about the chances that the US policy didn't co-incide with Australia's. And yet, despite having the scientists with the necessary brains, probably ample funds to start a nuclear prgram and about half the world's uranium resources, we still did elect to go ahead.

Again, could it be that our best minds and our polies agreed that nukes were just far too expensive, and created far too much trouble in the region and cost. If that was the case during the cold war, then its doubly the case now.

 

[OpinionNoted]

Explain this in plain english please - I'm not following you. Are you saying that as the Americans are our 'protectors' that we serve at their behest? You believe if we had nukes that we would not need the Americans eh? The real strength behind our alliance came about during the cold war - we felt we needed to align ourselves with the septics or we would be overtaken by the communist hordes. Therefore by your reasoning what we really needed to ensure independence from any protection from the US was to be able to stand toe to toe in any nuclear exchange with the biggest communist threat - Russia. How would we have been able to afford hundreds or thousands of nuclear warheads and the necessary delivery systems (a triad of subs aircraft and missiles) in an Australia of only 8 million people post WW2?









To a large degree australian policy does not contradict US policy,so yes australia does serve at their behest more often than not.
If we had nukes then ulitimately we would not need anyone to bid on our behest.
Why does australia need to match sytstem for system in a nuke triad?
Just having the means to hit a aggressor anywhere thay can hit you would suffice.

 

[OpinionNoted]

Other nations (Sweden, Finland etc) aren't nuclear armed, sat right alongside the Russians and yet were not part of NATO or WARPAC. You don't need nukes to be independant.


I cant speak for other nation,but in regards to finland...funny how they pressed Mig21's into service...bit of appeasment didnt go astray.

 

[OpinionNoted]

Profit and self interest. Plain and simple - its a basic free enterprise tennant. We all do it. When you go to buy a car you buy the car that best fits your needs or do you consider where the jobs are located, and the environmental impact, and the impact on Australia's balance of trade, and the need to ensure sufficient patronage of the public transport network to see it flourish etc? No, you take care of your own needs first and formost. Businesses (at least successful ones) do the same - profits and shareholders, marketshare and despite protestations to the contrary the "touchy feely" stuff last.


.Profit as in the meeting of great power policy with that of its proxy.

POST EDIT- what i meant to say was... profit as in a proxies policy meeting that of its great power.

 

[OpinionNoted]

Are you saying that if we get nukes we will only need to fight nuclear proxy wars? Newsflash - apart from WW2 (and even that is arguable by some) we have not ever needed to defend Australia against imminent invasion. Nukes are no guarantee of peace, rather they will just ensure a regional arms race.

Im saying that if australia has nukes then we will have the means to ABSOLUTELY defend our air sea gap ...therefor the means to prevent a move on australia in the first place.

A nuke arms race is the lesser fear...a greater fear is relying on others to guarentee our security...NO MATTER WHAT.