OpinionNoted
Banned Member
deleted try again now.
Past History - Australia's Bid for the Atomic Bomb.
- Thread starter gf0012-aust
- Start date
OpinionNoted
Banned Member
In regards to how nukes could be used?...leave that to government/military.
In regards to when?...well defending the air sea gap comes to mind.
Why would australian nukes dissolve our allied status with the united states?
If anything id think it would strengthen it on account we would be more secure in the knowledge we can defend ourselves,so i think that would translate into greater australian conventional contributions to allied campaigns...the ones we chose to be in.So i dont see the need for australia to come to any grief.
And yes we are closely aligned to the united states because we share a common language,common cultural and belief systems and also in equal or greater measure we have and do continue to see the need to hide in a great powers shawdow to guarentee our security.
Other countries without nukes?..im talking about australia and her unique situation,ie huge sparsly populated mineral rich land mass.
People have and will continue to fight over such things,so lets be sure australia can hold her own against any who would turn their sights this way.
At the end of the day we are the only ones who give a damn about our well being,so to be beholden to anothers military only results in favours we owe.
Id rather we made our own decisions on how to engage the world...and australian miltary self sufficently is the only way that this will be realized.
Dont you want an australia that has the ability to operate on her own security terms?
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
So far, no rational or convincing argument that I can see has been put forth for Australia to develop a nuclear arsenal. Could Australia do so? Certainly, given the required dedication of time, effort and resources. The question becomes, is such a capability valuable to Australia, and what would or could the cost be?
In terms of defending the Air-Sea gap, why would nuclear weapons be needed? Apart from the US, who is able to project power sufficiently to have enemy troops able to reach the shores of Australia? Australia already possesses sufficient conventional military capability to essentially detect and repel a conventional invasion. A nuclear weapon would just be overkill.
This leaves a nuclear arsenal as something to have for deterence value. Given the there are likely only four nuclear states capable of reaching Australia (US, UK, France, Russia) and that to my knowledge, none of these countries consider Australia to be a 'threat' nation. If Australia sudddenly began researching nuclear weapons, and also began developing an appropriate long-ranged weapon to deliver a nuclear weapon, then Australia would being a potential threat nation.
In short, the argument keeps being brought up that Australia would be safer with nuclear weapos, but no rational explanation has been made to state why/how Australia would be more secure. Hence everyone essentialy dismissing the idea, as it does not seem rational or logical, nevermind the impact such a weapon would have.
-Cheers
OpinionNoted
Banned Member
Yes at the present time no one other than allies could breach the air sea gap.
If aus developed nukes she then could be seen to enter threat nation status?..to who?..the united states?
Well using that logic you can reverse the situation and call the united states a threat nation to australia,could you not?...she does have nukes.
I mean no disrespect to you tod jaeger and any americans that browse these forums,BUT...the untied states wants are not the be all and end all of the global security situation...she represents her needs and wants first and foremost.
My thinking is australia needs to research and develop the weapons and means to deliver them because if change comes to the global order it may be very much more sudden than anticipated.
As you all know a nuclear detterent isnt aquired over night so the luxury of seeing a threat approach that we can arm ourselves for may not be there.
And in regards to everyone (australians)dismissing the idea of aus nukes..i read that simply as an apologists position,being seen as to not be ruffling our great allies feathers...deep down they would be smitten we could guarentee our own nations security...each and every one of them.
post edit...and anyways isnt nukes just a tool to be seen as a threat to other nations in the 1st place?...so as to say "dont get too excited we have the means to negate your potential plans?"
Last edited:
No, Indonesia, for starters and any other nation within range of whatever delivery system we utilise.
And as unlikely as it may seem at the moment, who is to say that the US will always be best buddies with us?
And given the richness of our resources, I'd say she would intervene to protect us - as this is in her national interests as well.
Not this little black duck. We would be going from a region that presently has no nukes to living in a region with nukes. Is a world with less nukes a better place than a world with more nukes?
Last edited:
You talk complete nonsense mate. Almost to the point whereby you could legitimately be embarrassed by what you are putting into the public domain. (See Exhibit A above)
Just relax and let this issue go (...you have had 5 pages to propagate a valid argument...)
Take heart in the knowledge that people with significantly more intelligence are all over the issue of what constitutes appropriate force projection and/or threat deterrence to maximize our long term sovereign security.
I roll out of bed every day to defend this country and I will give you the hot tip right now - we are never going to include long range nukes in our arsenal. I plan on being around for quite a while and its never going to happen on my watch.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
You keep arguing for Australia to develop/have nuclear weaponry, yet seem to not grasp, or just outright ignore the actual impact of Australia doing so.
The ability of a nuclear device to destroy a city in an instant, to kill potentially millions of people in a blinding flash of light, searing heat, and with a tremendous pressure wave is something that is at once both great and terrible. In many (virtually all) respects, the world would be a better and safer place if all such weapons were destroyed, and the ability make more lost.
However, given that such devices do exist, considerable effort and pressure is exerted to limit the number of countries which have such capacity to kill and destroy others. The world has been fortunate in that those nations which are able to do so, have been reluctant to unleash such power against other nations/people/cultures. As a result of this potential, the world community is concerned about the possibility of 'rogue' nations and/or non-state actors being able to develop, purchase of steal such a capability for themselves. Hence the effort to keep development of such weapons to a minimum, to maintain as much control as possible over existing stockpiles.
In the specific case of Australia, if nuclear weaponry were to be developed, it is a seriously mistaken notion to think that they would "guarantee" Australia's security. What such weapons would actually do give Australia the capability to inflict terrific damage on targets within reach of the delivery systems, and 'up the ante' like in poker, if a potential enemy was contemplating a conflict with Australia.
As a result of this increase in threat potential that Australia would start presenting, nearby nations would need to then decide for themselves, whether or not they would then need to establish some form of nuclear arsenal and the associated delivery systems, to ensure that Australia would not be able to use the Oz arsenal against them with impunity. This then has a ripple effect in that other nations, the near-neighbors of Australia's near-neighbors, would then need to reevaluate their defence situations in response to the potential (or actual) development of nuclear weaponry by nations near Australia. This trend could then continue to ripple across parts of Asia, and possibly into Africa as well.
All because Australia would have developed the ability to destroy a city with a single device. And Australia is less safe, because not only does Australia maintain the conventional capability overmatch it already has currently, but has now driven other area nations into developing overt and/or covert nuclear weapons programmes.
Now if there were other nations nearby that as a matter of routine, had Australian populations centres 'dialed-in' as targets for their nuclear arsenals, the situation might be somewhat different. But of the closest nations with such weapons (Pakistan, India and China) they are all believed to have fairly small arsenals, with limited means to deploy them against far away targets. The other minor little fact is that these particular weapons are largely targeted at each other, or other nuclear-armed states. Australia, having little ability to inflict massive damage against one of these countries' respective cities, has little reason to be targetted to deter such a strike. If Australia developed the ability to annihilate Shang Hai, Mubai or Karachi, then these respective nations would need to re-think their defensive postures with respect to Australia. And again, Australia ends up less safe, since now there is a greater likelihood that someone at some point could launch a weapon at Australia.
Another (somewhat juvenille) way to think about this sort of situation, if to think of different nations as being children in school. If one of them started to bring a knife into school 'for protection', how much time would pass before other students followed suit and brought in their own knives, since they now need 'protection' either from whomever is a threat to the first student that started the trend, or to protect themselves from the first student.
The example is quite simplistic, but does serve to illustrate the potential for escalation. Given Australia's status as a middle power, geographic location, and existing capability overmatch, if Australia just continues to maintain the existing, conventional overmatch capability, then Australia would be well defended.
-Cheers
OpinionNoted
Banned Member
Can anyone tell me how do you defend a 7.6 million square kilometre nation continent with only 22 point something million people in the face of a major attack?
how do we as a nation defend ourselves independantly?
how do we as a nation defend ourselves independantly?
We don't. That would be why we have alliances. Nuc's aren't the answer.
The same question could be asked of many different countries.
OpinionNoted
Banned Member
If nuclear weapons are not the answer to australias security,is it the answer to other nations security?...whats the justification for other nuclear detterents?...why do they exist?
Its simple mathematics. You draft 1 in 3 Australians into the Army and allocate each of these seven million soldiers a square kilometre to defend!
We’ve kind of being doing a pretty good job of that. 40,000 years of human history and only one successful invasion of Australia! If only we were as good at cricket!
I agree, Australia trying to possess nukes for its defense is an overkill, there are no threats right now or in the future and even if there is its nuke allies like the US, Uk, France will be there to defend Australia in case of an attack but Australia already has a well equip armed forces and if Australia decides to have nukes then it will be a threat to other countries and there maybe some intentions to be imperialistic to it. This will also add to an arms race in the region. soon Indonesia or Myanmar will want to have nukes too, what about the US and UN prevention of proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, this will be against their foreign policy the UN and US is trying to stop Iran from pursuing making nukes then now Australia will be allowed, thats double standard then that will be an excuse for others to do the same and then we now have a real prolifteration of nukes and the potential of nuclear war will just be more realistic plus this will be another added to nuclear waste problem and more nuclear testing in the pacific ocean, what is best for Australia is to stay neutral and be in a low profile and concentrate on building more in its economics and be in soft power, you can get more friends this way than enemies. Lets save this planet
OpinionNoted
Banned Member
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
How so? A nuclear-armed terrorist (individual or organization) is not vulnerable to the same things which a nation/government or people are. The theory of Mutually Assured Destruction does not apply. Which is all part of the reason why there is such interest worldwide in reducing or eliminating nuclear weaponry, and those weapons are not deactivated and destroyed must be kept in secured areas. Specifically to keep such weaponry out of the hands of people whom would use it to further their own political, idealogical, social or religious ends, with little or no regard to the lives or well-being of others.
As I have posted before, the world would likely be a better and safer place, if nuclear weaponry was never discovered, but they were, and therefore strict control must be maintained over such weaponry, to prevent any future use. How do those words ring hollow?
OpinionNoted
Banned Member
We keep hearing how terrorists may seize or buy a nuclear weapon and that the more nations that have the bomb increases the likelihood of a nuclear exchange.
We hear nuclear non proliferation is the way to go and serious efforts have and are being expended to realize that goal.
What we dont hear is why do the current nuclear weapons states have the bomb...why do they after 5 or 6 decades STILL have the bomb and how long do they think we are meant to believe its meant to take to disarm themselves of their stockpiles.
Current nuclear weapons states ARE NOT planning and WILL NOT get rid of their respective stockpiles and to say that they are sincere in trying to is an insult to common sense...
I've been asked to justify the need for an australian nuclear detterent so i ask... why the united states have the bomb?
Why does russia?
Britain?...France?...
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
If one has not been hearing about a global push towards nuclear disarmament, then I suggest one has ones hearing checked. That or perhaps lookin into the Zero movement.
At present, complete disarmament does not seem possible, but arms reductions certainly is.
One potential issue with achieving complete disarmament, is that all nuclear capable countries in the world would need to agree, and establish some sort of system to conduct the disarmament, and also enable monitoring to prevent rearmament.
As for why does the US, Russia, France and the UK all have 'the bomb'. Try picking up a history book, try reading up on secret programmes from WWII, and then read about the Cold War. The events from these eras are why the countries in question have nuclear arsenals.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
I suggest re-reading my post more carefully. I have never said that Australia was not involved in WWII or the Cold War.
The question had been posed as why the US, Russia, UK and France all have nuclear arsenals. As I indicated, the answer to that question stems from historical events during WWII and the Cold War.
In a legal sense, Australia does not have a right to have nukes, nor does the vast majority of the world either, due to signing the NPT. There are currently seven (known) nuclear powers, namely China, France, India, Pakistan, Russia, the UK and US. Additionally, Israel and North Korea are both believed to have nuclear arsenals. Of these nations, four are not signatories of the NPT or had signed but since opted out, being India, Israel, Pakistan and North Korea. Due to the NPT, the only countries which can develop/have nukes are either those whom already had them when they ratified the treaty, or those countries which either never ratified the treaty or have since opted out. Since Australia like much of the rest of the world, has not chosen to opt out at present, then Australia does indeed have the same right to have nukes as just about everyone else, which means no right at all.
OpinionNoted
Banned Member
And why does complete disarmament seem not possible?...does it have something to do with the nations who posess them have the means to ultimatley force the hand of those who do not?..and isnt that the true reason why they have not been given up?
Yeah those nantions have the bomb and thoses nations didnt and dont want the proliferation of wmd elsewhere on account that they would loose their ability to force the hand of the bomb have nots.
Agreement on disarmament isnt going to happen lol...i mean why would they reach agreement,they'd have to give up their arsenals...and they dont want that.
So instead we have this half baked reduction in stockpiles and proliferation control with the bogeyman terror cells who are going to buy or seize nuclear weapons.
GIve me a break...Untill such a time as the nuclear weapon states give up their stockpiles then all the talk of managing their spread, reduction, and eventuall disarmament,is all complete and utter crap...here we are half a century latter and we are still going round in circles as to how to agree on their elimination...because we all know there has not been and is not now or will be any time soon any conviction on the part of any and all parties to make it happen.
Last edited:
OpinionNoted
Banned Member
So if australia withdrew from the NTP then does that now mean australia has no legally binding reasons to then not go down the nuclear weapons aquisition path?...or will the some other reasons be concocted by the haves to maintain their nuclear monoploy?
There is allways going to be an effort by the abomb wmd haves to try and prevent the have nots from being able to get into a position of being able to blunt the power projection ambitions of the haves...its that simple.