Should Australia get Nukes?

[Bruce Tuncks]

My thinking has changed since the Ukraine war. These days, I reckon that we can no longer trust the US to protect us and so we are stupid to not have our own nukes.  We could start with some dirty bombs carried by modified Jabirus with no pilots and inertial nav systems. They would be designed to not need GPS stuff and they could fly really low all the way there.

When would they be used?   Never is my hope, but I would not trust Trump or Putin with my life.

[Mr.Vegemite]

My thoughts on nukes.

They don't achieve anything positive. 

If someone drops one on us ... then what? Retaliate (if possible)? What does that achieve? They drop more ....

If we drop one first? Annihilation ....

Mind you with us now getting nuclear submarines I think that is the first step in that direction despite us saying it is only for the propulsion.

The US and Britain will pressure us to outfit them.

 

[facthunter]

MAD stands for Mutually   Assured   Destruction but the two aforementioned dropkicks are too MAD to know what it means. What limited IQ they have is directed to  the FAR Q scheme of things. .   Nev

[Marty_d]

No.

[facthunter]

Einstein said "It's the worst way to heat water HE can think of". . Wide bay needs a lot of hot water in the local river if they have nuclear there, to cool it. Like is SKY channel  Murdoch and Credlin the people you should be taking your FACTS from?  Nev

[willedoo]

We could talk about until the cows come home but the simple fact is we're not allowed to have them.

 

https://www.nti.org/education-center/treaties-and-regimes/treaty-on-the-prohibition-of-nuclear-weapons/

[willedoo]

Plus if we wanted to go rogue and get nukes, our nuclear allies wouldn't help as they don't want us to have them. The only way to acquire the technology would be to get it on the sly from the very state actors we would be trying to protect ourselves from. So it doesn't make sense. If we ask for nukes, no ally will give us the technology and if we try to gain them illegally, we wouldn't have a responsible ally left in the world.

[Mr.Vegemite]

39 minutes ago, willedoo said:

We could talk about until the cows come home but the simple fact is we're not allowed to have them.

It's a treaty that in fact means nothing except a desire to reduce nuclear armament. Then you have the ones that haven't signed it and continue with nuclear testing. 

 

"Withdrawal"

"Each State Party has the right to withdraw from the Treaty if it decides that extraordinary events related to the subject matter of the Treaty have jeopardized the supreme interests of its country."

 

Edited March 23 by Mr.Vegemite
edit

[willedoo]

3 minutes ago, Mr.Vegemite said:

It's a treaty that in fact means nothing except a desire to reduce nuclear armament. Then you have the ones that haven't signed it and continue with nuclear testing. 

My following post explains the reality of it.

[willedoo]

Does anybody really think France, Britain or the US would help us to acquire nuclear weapons? In the real world I mean. We could always get them from the fairies at the bottom of the garden.

[spacesailor]

Just ask the " Kiwi's .

After all it was Mr Rutherford of NZ who invented it .

spacesailor

[Mr.Vegemite]

If you think we couldn't develop a nuclear weapon, when you consider the first was developed before the end of world war two, then you believe in fairies 😉

 

[Marty_d]

We would never have a large number anyway.  Therefore we would lose against any adversaries that did, if it came to nuclear war. So why do it.

Plus the fact that the world needs less nuclear weapons,  not more.

What we need is great intelligence agencies,  effective conventional forces, effective leadership and great diplomats. 

[Jerry_Atrick]

I don't think Australia has the appetite for nuclear weapons.

 

However, as @Mr.Vegemite says, it would be folly to think we could not develop our own. They may not be equivalent of the latest that US, UK, or France has, and possibly Russia, China, or North Korea, but I think we know enough about hoe to make them, and have all the raw materials and engineering capability to build the tooling/plants, and then build them. We also have the raw materials for the energy/ammo, and we have established nulcear testing sites already (though they may want to be refined a bit - like be done underground).

 

But, as soon as it becomes known we have or are building the capability - and for some reason I think it would be a secret we would find hard to hide - unless done with the cooperation with our allies, it will probably strain relations there. And, at the same time, it will make us a prime target of those who are not as friendly to us as our allies.

 

So, an easier way to become a prime target is to invite one of our allies to establish bases for themselves here? That way we get the tech, the people to operate it, and become a prime target.  As we will not naturally be the aggressor, we will only usew them to defend ourselves. If the allies assets are under attack here, they will retaliate, too.

 

 

Edited March 23 by Jerry_Atrick

[Mr.Vegemite]

11 hours ago, Jerry_Atrick said:

So, an easier way to become a prime target is to invite one of our allies to establish bases for themselves here?

That's already the case and has been for years. The US has intelligence/communications bases in South Australia. 

Bases in the NT with ongoing rotations. 

Once we get set up for our nuclear subs it will only be a matter of time before the UK and US bring theirs into our region for leave/maintenance/supplies so we will have nukes right on our door-step.

 

[Marty_d]

We have one bloody amazing advantage over most countries - we don't share a border.

 

Therefore if an invasion of Australia is attempted it won't be tanks, artillery and hundreds of thousands of troops as it is in Ukraine.  It'll be aircraft, drones, ballistic missiles and surface ships, and to a lesser extent subs.

 

In my opinion - which is pretty useless given I don't know any more about military matters than the rest of the civilian population - we'd be better off developing a comprehensive drone capability for air, sea and under sea.  For $50b which is supposedly going to get us 12 subs - well, probably 8, maybe 4 if we're lucky - we could build half a million $100k drones.  (Yes, I know we'd have to develop manufacturing facilities, component supply chains, training, ground stations, satellites, maintenance, etc etc, so we'd probably end up with less than half that number - but it's still a formidable arsenal).

 

That kind of shield, especially if we could develop effective anti-missile defences, would serve us far better than having nukes.

 

[Mr.Vegemite]

3 minutes ago, Marty_d said:

That kind of shield, especially if we could develop effective anti-missile defences, would serve us far better than having nukes.

True, it is one thing to have a good defence but another to stop your aggressor. 

 

[old man emu]

Nukes are really an offensive, not defensive, weapon. Letting one off in your own country is the same as shitting in your own nest. 

 

We are seeing in the current conflicts in Europe and the Middle East, that the most effective and economical ordinance carriers are drones. And look at what our young people have been training to do for the past quarter century - remotely controlling moving objects whilst sitting in a safe space, well away from where the object is going to do its job.

 

We must remember that remotely controlled ordinance carriers are only one element in a successful military action. As Australians we should always keep in mind the Monash Principles of co-ordinated military action. Remember the Battle of Hamel. What we need to defend our borders are independent, fully integrated small armies that can be rapidly deployed by air transport to arrive at invasion points to initially limit an invader's escape from the landing grounds until the first responders can be reinforced by units originally stations in other parts of the country.

 

[Mr.Vegemite]

54 minutes ago, old man emu said:

Nukes are really an offensive, not defensive, weapon. Letting one off in your own country is the same as shitting in your own nest. 

Insightful 😄

[spenaroo]

What makes the nukes so effective deterrents isn't the nuke - its the delivery mechanism.

ballistic missiles that can strike anywhere in the world.
 

Submarines that can hide just off the coast.

 

its the fear that it can all happen without warning - or at least without time to react.

especially with the subs - you can wipe out the country in minutes.... but the subs are still there to wipe you out in retaliation

[Jerry_Atrick]

Hi Bebek,

 

No.. and I am not a traitor, nor am I dumb (unless you consider leading a highly mathematical team, when I don't even have a degree as being dumb)...

 

I do agree with some of your post, bit as someone who has previously worked in both civil and military nuclear, it is not a cut and dry answer to your question. But, I do agree. there should be a discussion based on the provrb you quoted.

[willedoo]

Don't feed the troll.

[facthunter]

Surprised you didn't wise up to that Gerry. Chinese script,# 3 Post. Nev

[willedoo]

Always the possibility of someone testing an AI Bot on forums.