Australia should nuke up [Archive]

tartare

9th Jul 2019, 09:17

Interesting little debate going on down here.
Hugh White - quite a respected Govt advisor - has just written a book saying Oz needs to ask itself the question again whether it needs a nuclear deterrent.
For those who can't be bothered to read his carefully worded and soundly reasoned book he's essentially saying:

Uncle Sam can't be relied on anymore for the nuclear umbrella
The geopolitical picture is changing more quickly than at any time in the past 50 years
The speed of military technological development is unprecedented
China cannot be trusted to be benign

He's suggesting Oz may need to consider a lift to 3 per cent GDP defence spending, a minimal retaliation SLBM force - 24 subs as opposed to the current 12 Collins successors, more JSFs.
Now - before you all jump down my throat - yes - i know - we can't even organise a working broadband network, or agree on coal, wind, solar etc.
But it's an interesting debate... even if I have to ignore muppets like Helen Caldicott surfacing again.
And it's dredged up all the John Gorton era stuff - how Gorton told Dean Rusk he didn't trust the Yanks - and started to build the Jervis Bay reactor etc, etc.
I took the kids to see the foundations when we were down there watching whales - I'm a lot of fun like that!
Personally, I think White is correct.
We're going to be in a world of pain in 20-30 years unless someone makes some hard decisions.
Hopefully by that time - I'll be in some old folks home, shouting at the TV...

junior.VH-LFA

9th Jul 2019, 09:41

I agree with Hugh White. We need to be looking ahead, to a world where the USA isn't the worlds biggest stick.

LateArmLive

9th Jul 2019, 10:57

Right.......... so in a world where the West is trying to stop nuclear proliferation, a new Cold War and arms race, you think Aus should just "nuke up"?

And what would we say to Iran and North Korea. "It's ok, Australia needs nukes and can be trusted"...

Imagegear

9th Jul 2019, 11:09

If OZ feels they are needed, Iran and North Korea are irrelevant, Aussies will make their own decisions based on their perceived threat level. Where has softly, softly got US anywhere with those two nations. Go for it I say,

In this case "Jaw, Jaw allows time to prepare for War, War.. If you haven't noticed, the world is proliferating while we are sleeping. Anyway we could do with a bit of forward support in that region if only to balance out our own short comings.

IG

.

melmothtw

9th Jul 2019, 11:44

If you haven't noticed, the world is proliferating while we are sleeping.

On the contrary, I think it has been quite remarkable how few nations have sought 'the bomb' over the years.

sandiego89

9th Jul 2019, 12:57

On the contrary, I think it has been quite remarkable how few nations have sought 'the bomb' over the years.

I also think it is quite remarkable that there has not been a pure first world war since 1945. Sure plenty of conflicts, but nothing like previous centuries. I do think nuclear deterrence has been part of formula.

hoss183

9th Jul 2019, 14:43

I also think it is quite remarkable that there has not been a pure first world war since 1945. Sure plenty of conflicts, but nothing like previous centuries. I do think nuclear deterrence has been part of formula.

No the first world war was definitely 1914-18 ;)

ORAC

9th Jul 2019, 15:11

The UK, France, USA, Russia and China developed nuclear weapons before signing the Nuclear non -proliferation treaty.

Israel, Pakistan, India and South Sudan have never signed it.

iran and North Korea are under sanctions because they signed the treaty but have tried to withdraw. The sanctions being because the other signatory nations (every one but the above four) do not accept their withdrawal meets the conditions of Article X of the treaty which only allows withdrawal when - "extraordinary events, related to the subject matter of this Treaty, have jeopardized the supreme interests of its country".

If Australia wished to develop nuclear weapons they would also have to announce their withdrawal, and meet the conditions of Article X, in order to avoid sanctions.

josephfeatherweight

9th Jul 2019, 15:54

Herod

9th Jul 2019, 16:52

How about a joint venture with the UK? When we replace Trident, build one more sub and have that one stationed in the Pacific. Just a thought.

West Coast

9th Jul 2019, 17:04

How about a joint venture with the UK? When we replace Trident, build one more sub and have that one stationed in the Pacific. Just a thought.

One boomer is only a part time deterrent.

ShotOne

9th Jul 2019, 17:33

But it could be pooled with the rest of ours in Scotland: all the Ozzies would need would be a spare button!

dead_pan

9th Jul 2019, 18:20

Surely this would only provoke New Zealand to acquire its own deterrent too?

yellowtriumph

9th Jul 2019, 18:57

Surely this would only provoke New Zealand to acquire its own deterrent too?

Are New Zealand and Australia likely to attack each other then? Apart from when it comes to sport naturally!

West Coast

9th Jul 2019, 19:15

But it could be pooled with the rest of ours in Scotland: all the Ozzies would need would be a spare button!

Still a part time answer to a full time threat. The sub wouldn’t have to be located in the pacific btw.
I’m not sure the UK citizens or govt would want to be in the financial hook to dedicate a boat to the defense of Oz.

Just not a viable option.

ORAC

9th Jul 2019, 19:23

Why build a boomer? Plenty of room for silos in the GAFA. Or buy the technology off the Russians and have train convoys roaming the interior.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RT-23_Molodets

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BZhRK_Barguzin

rattman

9th Jul 2019, 20:58

Are New Zealand and Australia likely to attack each other then? Apart from when it comes to sport naturally!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7xUYbI64QHI

tartare

9th Jul 2019, 23:29

Well - the kiwis are further ahead - they've already developed the duluvery system ;)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QfBCuK6wEYA

SASless

10th Jul 2019, 02:18

I’m not sure the UK citizens or govt would want to be in the financial hook to dedicate a boat to the defense of Oz.

The Brits are exactly spending extravagantly for their own defense.....so why ever would anyone think they would spring for defending Aussies!:rolleyes:

Asturias56

10th Jul 2019, 08:16

The ability of the RAN to operate submarines hasn't been brilliant to date

But I can't see the voters being happy at having missile convoys wandering about the neighborhood................

Seriously tho' what circumstances could happen that would lead an Australian Govt wanting to nuke China?

josephfeatherweight

10th Jul 2019, 09:00

Seriously tho' what circumstances could happen that would lead an Australian Govt wanting to nuke China?
It's not about "wanting to", it's about being "able to".
Having said that, I'm not a believer that this is necessary...

jonkster

10th Jul 2019, 09:16

We (us Ozzies) can't even manufacture our own AVTUR to fuel our jets. How anyone in their right mind reckon's we'd develop a home-grown nuclear weapon capability, I have no idea.
We'd probably outsource it to China... :E
worth thinking about. Be cheaper and faster than making them here - we could probably could buy them direct off the rack.

Ascend Charlie

10th Jul 2019, 09:31

Maybe we should look at "Nookular Power" as a more reliable source of electricity - cleaner than coal, no smoke or ash, and it provides an afterglow for 30,000 years. We have our own uranium, and I'm sure Huawei would either have the technology to build it, or be able to steal it from somebody who has.

But nookular weapons - nah.

Asturias56

10th Jul 2019, 13:22

I think you'd get a better deal from the N Koreans.............

tartare

10th Jul 2019, 23:37

Well my two cents worth.
Blind Freddy can see what's coming.
Just 6000 kms to the north of Australia sits a nation of 1.1bn people with an economy that will be double the size of the US by mid century.
It is nuclear armed, communist run, led by a man who has declared himself ruler for life.
He's 66 now - so we can assume he's going to be around for another 20-30 years.
It's military is rapidly modernising, it is spreading influence throughout Australian politics and academia, threatening the Chinese diaspora, hacking current IT infrastructure and attempting to embed itself in IT future infrastructure.
It's just effectively annexed the South China Sea.
Meanwhile there is every sign that an isolationist, populist and erratic US president will not only be re-elected, but that his ideas will be used by cynical politicians that follow him.
And we are relying on the United States to protect us?
Will we be invaded?
Probably not.
Will we be attacked - or have our nearby interests attacked or threatened and/or annexed - more likely.
Would the US or the UK, or France come to our aid - in my view - not a chance in hell.
All of the above regarding China says both capability - and more importantly - possible intent.
I think what will happen - is that the lucky country (read dumb luck) will continue arguing and hoping for the best, only to wake up in 20 years time and find that it is utterly dictated to by a bellicose and expansionist China.
These things happen very slowly over long periods of time.
And the Australian military is completely wrongly configured to deal with the sorts of threats we'll face.
When you read White's book, it's clear that somewhere in Canberra there are studies that have been done and are being continuously updated on how long it would take for Australia to acquire nuclear weapons.
Firms like Silex have developed some very interesting technology.
I only hope that someone has the foresight to take the threat seriously, and the wick to start acting - but I doubt it.

Ascend Charlie

11th Jul 2019, 01:09

The Chinese are being extra nice to various Pacific nations, by kindly building ports and an airport, and in return it would be awfully un-neighbourly for that nation to stop the chinese from using such stuff, seeing as how they built it, and all...and the creeping forward of their interests goes on.

Large sections of Sydney have chinese-only apartment blocks - gwailohs are unable to buy them.

At least the Barangaroo casino won't be full of them, since the Crown people were jailed trying to recruit the Whales.

tartare

11th Jul 2019, 02:50

...and I should add - I have nothing against the average Chinese punter.
I think it's the same as the Iranians - good people, led by @rseholes.

Buster Hyman

11th Jul 2019, 05:32

The Chinese are being extra nice to various Pacific nations...Have a glance at the Vanuatu thread. :ok:

Gnadenburg

11th Jul 2019, 05:53

Large sections of Sydney have chinese-only apartment blocks - gwailohs are unable to buy them

Which ? Any references ? Are they of Chinese ethnicity and loosely aligned with Australia or even part of the Chinese diaspora ? Taiwanese, Malay, Hong Kong etc .

Maybe you are right . The invasion is underway via pretty modest Sydney apartments only foreigners are stupid enough to buy .

Gnadenburg

11th Jul 2019, 05:59

A permanent American presence is more palatable than nuclear weapons btw. A fighter squadron based in Tindal for example.

The US, I understand , is the biggest investor into Australia, whereas the mainland Chinese is our biggest trading partner. The US is here to stay and even the Brits need to return to SEA after their spectacular exit in 1941.

WingNut60

11th Jul 2019, 06:18

Still a part time answer to a full time threat. The sub wouldn’t have to be located in the pacific btw.
I’m not sure the UK citizens or govt would want to be in the financial hook to dedicate a boat to the defense of Oz.

Just not a viable option.

Unless things have changed, ALL nuclear weapons in the U.K. arsenal are owned by the U.S.A. and are provided on lease.
I don't know what caveats on usage are included in the lease agreement, but you can be reasonably sure that sub-leasing is prohibited.

ORAC

11th Jul 2019, 06:55

Unless things have changed, ALL nuclear weapons in the U.K. arsenal are owned by the U.S.A. and are provided on lease. The UK nuclear warheads are manufactured at AWE Aldermaston and UK owned. The Trident D5 missiles, however, are leased from the USA and drawn from a common maintenance pool with the USN.

The UK warheads do not contain permissive active links are under the sole control of the crew.

The production of the warheads does rely on components purchased from the USA and depend on US systems such as GPS, but then so does the JSF.......

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmselect/cmdfence/986/986we13.htm

safetypee

11th Jul 2019, 07:43

A distant view, with little knowledge of the geopolitics of the area, questions why would a deterrent be required. Speculative aggression - who is from the North, but why, what is to be gained.
Do they seek space - GAFA, there’s plenty of sunshine energy there, similar to the outer reaches of China.
Resources, not necessarily to own them, but to isolate or minimise world supply to an aggressors advantage. The physical destruction or strategic isolation of Oz would be an immense, if not impossible task, thus consider some form political isolation with threat; how, has this been done before, geographicaly and time scales.

Don’t discard any U.K. input, we respect and remember friendship, our word is our bond, treaties are upheld.

Seeking deeper understanding.
However, anticipating this might be in short supply for the next few hours - Edgbaston, or even longer depending on the result, a lesson might be how to play ‘spin’ on a sticky wicket; sport or politics

Asturias56

11th Jul 2019, 07:51

"Don’t discard any U.K. input, we respect and remember friendship, our word is our bond, treaties are upheld."

REALLY???? Tell that to the people of Hong Kong, or the Chagos Islands................... and the Czechs and Poles in WW2... and the Ukrainians you handed back in '45...............

Didn't someone say the only reason the sun never set on the British Empire was because God couldn't trust the Brits in the dark.................

Mil-26Man

11th Jul 2019, 08:11

Please tell us what you really think, Asturia.

Torquelink

11th Jul 2019, 09:31

Traffic_Is_Er_Was

12th Jul 2019, 04:56

Well - the kiwis are further ahead - they've already developed the duluvery system ;)
I think this is their current delivery system
NZ Nuclear Delivery System (https://stamps.nzpost.co.nz/new-zealand/2018/2019-year-pig)

West Coast

12th Jul 2019, 05:32

I think this is their current delivery system
NZ Nuclear Delivery System (https://stamps.nzpost.co.nz/new-zealand/2018/2019-year-pig)

Shows stamps, are they going to mail it to the enemy?

no return address I’m sure.

racedo

12th Jul 2019, 09:51

...and I should add - I have nothing against the average Chinese punter.
I think it's the same as the Iranians - good people, led by @rseholes.

Think you can pretty much substitute most nations here.

racedo

12th Jul 2019, 09:58

People on massive Island in Oceania worried about foreign power using military to gain foothold in country and strip it of its natural resources while disregarding the rights of the people living there.

Then Captain Cook landed.

History just repeats itself so that the decendants find what their ancestors did gets visited on them.

Asturias56

12th Jul 2019, 10:16

Do you think the Chinese will bring a flag?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uEx5G-GOS1k

Fliegenmong

12th Jul 2019, 12:54

I've long been an advocate of Nuclear power in Oz...the power stations can be miles & miles from anywhere...safe from seawater etc....We sell Uranium to other countries to enrich...but we do not do it here...madness

Its as ridiculous as we claim 'Green", and shut down coal fired plants.....but sell unknown tonnes of coal to other countries...we then laud electric vehicles, forgetting they are actually coal fired vehicles....we are a dumb nation no two ways about it...we are stupid in many things...very smart in others,..but essentially stupid.

Lets get clean energy from the resources that lie in the land upon which we live, and currently export and use it ourselves....if we are serious about this rubbish, its more than removing freee plastic bags from supermarkets...and making people pay...use it for cheaper energy....but no we are stupid!

And YES to a nuclear arsenal!...let China know we can punch back! Apparently people are appaled at the idea of being Nuclear arms capable,,,.I don't get that...it gets you a seat at the table!

As for letting China colonise the South China Sea....well Bush / Obama / Trump did nothing

Fliegenmong

12th Jul 2019, 13:33

SASless

12th Jul 2019, 14:03

As for letting China colonise the South China Sea....well Bush / Obama / Trump did nothing

Who all did you leave out in that statement....start with Australia, New Zealand, and a bunch of other nations....even the United Nations.

Exactly what would you have the Nations of the World do to stop the Chinese expansion into the area?

racedo

12th Jul 2019, 16:00

Exactly what would you have the Nations of the World do to stop the Chinese expansion into the area?

You mean looking after its own interests in the area adjacent to its territory.

I will start to worry when China starts having 100 miltary bases thousands of miles from home.

racedo

12th Jul 2019, 16:27

We have the 'dirt' (Uranium soil) that we sell to others..so why are we not utilising own resorce!?..We are a dumb Country...always have been...how can you be against nuclear power...wel, 'cos a dume electorate is..

If only the sun shone in Australia you could be self sufficient with solar power with no need to spend $30 billion on 1 reactor (Hinkley estimate). Of course if you were setting up nuclear power stations in Australia then probably need to set up 3-4 sites so that is $150 billion for a start.

Bearing in mind the Estimate for a 1 MW solar power farm is circa $1 Million. One wonders why Australia produces 8 times more from wind than it does from large scale Solar PV or 100 times more from fossil fuels than large scale Solar.

Lonewolf_50

12th Jul 2019, 19:20

As for letting China colonise the South China Sea....well Bush / Obama / Trump did nothing The sell out began when Reagan left office. Some of us were seeing this begin back in the early 90's. W Bush's dad and Clinton were part of the policy problem. All they could see were dollar signs.

As to nuclear power for electricity: yeah, I am an advocate.
Nuclear weapons: Mr Kim has a few, as insurance. If one can afford them, then why not? But the harder policy problem is:
OK, we can make them, but what do we want them for?

ORAC

12th Jul 2019, 19:22

Good old racedo, no western military endeavour he won’t criticise, and no Russian/Chinese military endeavour he won’t defend.

As for China, they’re working on it......

https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/china/overseas-bases.htm

Ethel the Aardvark

12th Jul 2019, 23:38

Well the Aussies have trouble mining uranium with out a stuff up. Can you really think they could build a nuclear power station with the current labour force. Lots of little Chinese welders on 457 visas constructing the cooling system would be scary.
News today that the French sub order will be obsolete before they hit the water. Just as well as we won’t have the crews to operate them anyway.
certainly not ‘the clever country’
maybe they could sell Darwin Port to the Chinese. Oops to late.

racedo

12th Jul 2019, 23:45

etudiant

13th Jul 2019, 00:28

If only the sun shone in Australia you could be self sufficient with solar power with no need to spend $30 billion on 1 reactor (Hinkley estimate). Of course if you were setting up nuclear power stations in Australia then probably need to set up 3-4 sites so that is $150 billion for a start.

Bearing in mind the Estimate for a 1 MW solar power farm is circa $1 Million. One wonders why Australia produces 8 times more from wind than it does from large scale Solar PV or 100 times more from fossil fuels than large scale Solar.

I think the answer to that is in the details of the government subsidy contracts.
Industry hires top notch lawyers to wrangle the maximum of profit out of the minimum of investment. Efficiency and common sense are not relevant to the outcome.

Separately, rather than Australia nuking up, it surely would be more economical to supply uranium to China's neighbors, such as Viet Nam, Indonesia and Taiwan, to develop their own nuclear deterrent.
China has been throwing its weight around a bit, a reminder that other people also have a say would be useful.

Whenurhappy

13th Jul 2019, 03:46

This isn’t a new issue. In the 1960s Britain, Australia, New Zealand and Canada discusses the possibility of developing a Commonwealth nuclear force. This was at the time Britain was testing the black knight rocket which was intended to be a launch body for nuclear weapons. Weapons had been tested in Australia, as we well know, However the problem (as ever) was sheer cost of such a proposal and then the command and control aspects of it.

racedo

13th Jul 2019, 04:18

I think the answer to that is in the details of the government subsidy contracts.
Industry hires top notch lawyers to wrangle the maximum of profit out of the minimum of investment. Efficiency and common sense are not relevant to the outcome.

Separately, rather than Australia nuking up, it surely would be more economical to supply uranium to China's neighbors, such as Viet Nam, Indonesia and Taiwan, to develop their own nuclear deterrent.
China has been throwing its weight around a bit, a reminder that other people also have a say would be useful.

So lets have more people with Nuclear bombs..................

Asturias56

13th Jul 2019, 07:48

the problem is they are expensive to acquire and even more expensive to keep them in operation - I think the Brits pay over £1Bn a year just to keep their atomic weapons establishments ticking over

then you have to have a delivery system - that is believable - ............... look at the cost of the new SSBN's for the USN & RN....

then the threat - say Canberra threatens the Chinese - with (maybe) 8 missiles on boat somewhere N Of Darwin

One Chinese SSBN could take out Perth, Adelaide, Melbourne, Sydney, Canberra & Brisbane and have a few war heads left over

It doesn't make any sense

Spend the money arming the Indonesians and the Philippines if you must

Planemike

13th Jul 2019, 08:25

We (us Ozzies) can't even manufacture our own AVTUR to fuel our jets. How anyone in their right mind reckon's we'd develop a home-grown nuclear weapon capability, I have no idea. We'd probably outsource it to China... :E

Surely that would rather defeat the purpose of Australia having a nuclear weapon?? I hope and trust Australia will not become involved with nuclear weapons.

etudiant

13th Jul 2019, 23:40

So lets have more people with Nuclear bombs..................

That was very much the thrust of an Adelphi paper I read long ago.

The author, likely of Arabic origin judging by his name, emphasized that mutual respect among nations requires some degree of mutual fear.
Otherwise, the lesser states are to China as the Delian League was to the Athenians.

Fieldmouse

14th Jul 2019, 04:19

If we have 'em, Indonesia will get them, then Malaysia, and that way, my friends madness lies. Don't want to start that little race to oblivion with our northern neighbors.

LateArmLive

14th Jul 2019, 06:48

If we have 'em, Indonesia will get them, then Malaysia, and that way, my friends madness lies. Don't want to start that little race to oblivion with our northern neighbors.

Thank goodness someone sees sense!

TBM-Legend

14th Jul 2019, 09:41

The principal of MAD has worked since 1945....

beardy

14th Jul 2019, 09:47

The principal of MAD has worked since 1945....
Not necessarily. You conflate effect and cause. The fact that there has not been a nuclear exchange may not be because of MAD. And the date of the MAD doctrine is much later than 1945.

TBM-Legend

14th Jul 2019, 12:09

And the date of the MAD doctrine is much later than 1945.

As my teacher once told me, please read the question or statement!

I said the principal of MAD, not doctrine of MAD.

beardy

14th Jul 2019, 13:22

As my teacher once told me, please read the question or statement!

I said the principal of MAD, not doctrine of MAD.
For MAD to be considered and effective at least 2 protagonists must be nuclear armed. That was not the case in 1945. Even with both or all sides nuclear armed there must be the ability to survive a first strike and be able to retaliate.

I may be wrong, but I would have called it a principle (not principal) which, when becomes policy is a doctrine.

weemonkey

14th Jul 2019, 14:14

So lets have more people with Nuclear bombs..................

Yep actually seems to work quite well..

racedo

14th Jul 2019, 19:29

That was very much the thrust of an Adelphi paper I read long ago.

The author, likely of Arabic origin judging by his name, emphasized that mutual respect among nations requires some degree of mutual fear.
Otherwise, the lesser states are to China as the Delian League was to the Athenians.

Here we go back to Rationality and where it falls down.

Wars are primarily done for economic reasons, generally to do with theft or attempted theft. All you need is someone to invade somewhere like some barren islands sparsely populated off coast of say South America, Tell everybody we are keeping them if any attempt made to retake then you will detonate a nuke.

Asturias56

15th Jul 2019, 07:32

weemonkey

15th Jul 2019, 08:59

One slight problem with racedoooos argument.

theredbarron

15th Jul 2019, 14:21

When Scotland becomes independent and makes England remove Trident from HMNB Clyde, you guys down in OZ will be able to buy the UK's Trident kit at a knock-down price as England hasn't got anywhere else to keep it.:D

racedo

15th Jul 2019, 20:37

But that wasn't economic reasons - it was done by one side as they were trying to distract the population who were screaming for them to resign due to gross mismanagement and it was claimed back by another govt who couldn't survive another PR disaster

"Wars are primarily done for economic reasons," is I'm afraid , a classic Marxist statement made to absolve the population for getting all fired up ("Nach Paris!" "We've got the ships, we've got the guns" etc etc)

It has been the classic capitalist or pseudo capitalist countrys not the Marxists one who have started most wars.

The selling of oil in other than US $, opening a bank that is a threat to Western ones or a threat to nationalise ill gotten gains has a predictable response.