AUKUS
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 1,571
Likes: 374
From: PLanet Earth
For the other half of 'M' out of MAD you would need more than just a handful of instant sunshine buckets. For MAD Australia is geografically not terribly favoured. Unless living in the desert appears as an attractive option...
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,798
Likes: 74
From: One Three Seven, Disco Heaven.
"Mildly" Eccentric Stardriver
Joined: Jan 2000
Aviation Qualifications: ATP+Mil
Posts: 4,332
Likes: 486
From: England
MAD only works when all the nuclear powers are pragmatic enough to realise the consequences. Worryingly, I suspect there are a few now who don't (or don't really care).
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 2,515
Likes: 151
From: A better place.
Sure, it seems apocalyptic and you'd get every fool from Helen Caldicott down on the streets in protest.
Hugh White has the view the discussion should be had - and he's a pretty sensible and well informed bloke.
From what I read - the USN is considering reintroducing a nuclear equipped cruise missile.
So, let's say we get the Virginia class.
The Block V will have a loadout of at least 28 TLAMs.
Assume that there is a TLAM-N or it's successor reintroduced.
Based on that - the numbers aren't as tilted in China's favour as might first appear.
Sure, they could effectively obliterate Australia with one missile... but that's not the point.
Being conservative and assuming earlier generation TLAM success rates of 85 per cent - that's a potential of 23 Australian nuclear warheads hitting Chinese targets in a second strike from one boat.
A nuclear equipped Australia using just one of it's boats could hold at threat a significant proportion of the Chinese population.
Pause for thought for Chinese decision makers - and that's the stabilising point of MAD.
Hugh White has the view the discussion should be had - and he's a pretty sensible and well informed bloke.
From what I read - the USN is considering reintroducing a nuclear equipped cruise missile.
So, let's say we get the Virginia class.
The Block V will have a loadout of at least 28 TLAMs.
Assume that there is a TLAM-N or it's successor reintroduced.
Based on that - the numbers aren't as tilted in China's favour as might first appear.
Sure, they could effectively obliterate Australia with one missile... but that's not the point.
Being conservative and assuming earlier generation TLAM success rates of 85 per cent - that's a potential of 23 Australian nuclear warheads hitting Chinese targets in a second strike from one boat.
A nuclear equipped Australia using just one of it's boats could hold at threat a significant proportion of the Chinese population.
Pause for thought for Chinese decision makers - and that's the stabilising point of MAD.
Last edited by tartare; 15th December 2021 at 21:56.
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 216
Likes: 54
From: Somerset
But whence cometh 23 or more Australian warheads? They will need to be thermonuclear ones to achieve the objective of holding the Chinese population at threat, and they have to fit TLAM Follow on.
The non proliferation treaty means they are not coming ready made, and even if you are slipped a design under the table, they are not easy to turn into reality. Turning yellow ore into HEU and or Pu ain't easy or cheap either.
Then you have to have won the political donnybrook, before you can even make a serious start.
Good Luck
N
The non proliferation treaty means they are not coming ready made, and even if you are slipped a design under the table, they are not easy to turn into reality. Turning yellow ore into HEU and or Pu ain't easy or cheap either.
Then you have to have won the political donnybrook, before you can even make a serious start.
Good Luck
N
Joined: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,619
Likes: 205
From: aus
But whence cometh 23 or more Australian warheads? They will need to be thermonuclear ones to achieve the objective of holding the Chinese population at threat, and they have to fit TLAM Follow on.
The non proliferation treaty means they are not coming ready made, and even if you are slipped a design under the table, they are not easy to turn into reality. Turning yellow ore into HEU and or Pu ain't easy or cheap either.
Then you have to have won the political donnybrook, before you can even make a serious start.
Good Luck
N
The non proliferation treaty means they are not coming ready made, and even if you are slipped a design under the table, they are not easy to turn into reality. Turning yellow ore into HEU and or Pu ain't easy or cheap either.
Then you have to have won the political donnybrook, before you can even make a serious start.
Good Luck
N
But silex is exclusively licensed to the US government. But nuclear weapons for australia is a pipe dream and wont ever happen
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 2,515
Likes: 151
From: A better place.
Indeed.
I agree with the earlier poster - that if a war wrecked and (at that time) artisanal economy like Britain can progress to a full CASD in ~20 years, then I reckon Australia now and in future is certainly technically capable of doing.
Even the nuclear powered boats alone are well within Australia's manufacturing and sustainment capabilities.
Australia prior up until the 60s had a vibrant manufacturing base - I seem to remember hearing that at that point up to 30 per cent of GDP was manufacturing related.
The rot set in after that.
The thing that's freaking ill informed commentators is that this project is a multi-decadal one of nation-building scale - but that doesn't mean it's not doable.
As to weapons - you're dead right.
The general public here are appallingly naive about nuclear power alone - and despite the ANZAC tradition, Australian culture is a lot less martial than that of Britain or the US.
The thought of Australian nuclear weapons would prompt hand wringing on an epic scale!
That said, I think the John Bradfields of Australia's past would be appalled by the spineless, short-termism and lack of vision of today's decision makers.
The though of the CCP invading Australia or directly attacking the mainland is likely a fever dream - but the possibility of them annexing neighbouring territories is not.
I can see a future where China might attack regional neighbours in continuous low-level conflicts and skirmishes, much like Russia is doing now, and raise a finger to anyone who objects.
A time when the RAN might not be able to sail through international waters to the north because there was a real risk of actually being sunk, or our P-8s being shot down.
Chinese intelligence agencies killing local dissidents here in Australia with impunity - not outside the realms of possibility.
And everyone here too scared to say anything for fear of provoking the CCP.
All because we didn't have the wick to properly stand up to them when we could.
Do we really want a near neighbour like that?
I agree with the earlier poster - that if a war wrecked and (at that time) artisanal economy like Britain can progress to a full CASD in ~20 years, then I reckon Australia now and in future is certainly technically capable of doing.
Even the nuclear powered boats alone are well within Australia's manufacturing and sustainment capabilities.
Australia prior up until the 60s had a vibrant manufacturing base - I seem to remember hearing that at that point up to 30 per cent of GDP was manufacturing related.
The rot set in after that.
The thing that's freaking ill informed commentators is that this project is a multi-decadal one of nation-building scale - but that doesn't mean it's not doable.
As to weapons - you're dead right.
The general public here are appallingly naive about nuclear power alone - and despite the ANZAC tradition, Australian culture is a lot less martial than that of Britain or the US.
The thought of Australian nuclear weapons would prompt hand wringing on an epic scale!
That said, I think the John Bradfields of Australia's past would be appalled by the spineless, short-termism and lack of vision of today's decision makers.
The though of the CCP invading Australia or directly attacking the mainland is likely a fever dream - but the possibility of them annexing neighbouring territories is not.
I can see a future where China might attack regional neighbours in continuous low-level conflicts and skirmishes, much like Russia is doing now, and raise a finger to anyone who objects.
A time when the RAN might not be able to sail through international waters to the north because there was a real risk of actually being sunk, or our P-8s being shot down.
Chinese intelligence agencies killing local dissidents here in Australia with impunity - not outside the realms of possibility.
And everyone here too scared to say anything for fear of provoking the CCP.
All because we didn't have the wick to properly stand up to them when we could.
Do we really want a near neighbour like that?
Joined: Oct 2018
Aviation Qualifications: PPL
Posts: 12,252
Likes: 1,663
From: Ferrara
As Tartare said - "that if a war wrecked and (at that time) artisanal economy like Britain can progress to a full CASD in ~20 years, then I reckon Australia now and in future is certainly technically capable of doing."
You might also look at N Korea - a genuine economic basket case, Israel - not a vast industrial complex, Pakistan & India - probably roughly equivalent to the UK around 1950 at the time they started building a bomb. The technologies are well known - the question is do you have the political will and sticking power to divert a very large amount of national wealth and expertise for a decade into building a bomb?
Looking at the current users you'd say you'd have to face a clear and overwhelming threat to the very existence of the the nation. I don't think the Australian public sees China in those terms as yet
You might also look at N Korea - a genuine economic basket case, Israel - not a vast industrial complex, Pakistan & India - probably roughly equivalent to the UK around 1950 at the time they started building a bomb. The technologies are well known - the question is do you have the political will and sticking power to divert a very large amount of national wealth and expertise for a decade into building a bomb?
Looking at the current users you'd say you'd have to face a clear and overwhelming threat to the very existence of the the nation. I don't think the Australian public sees China in those terms as yet
Joined: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,619
Likes: 205
From: aus
Kinda missed this, but apparently SK is looking at nuclear subs and some discussion that they might be bought into the submarine part of the aukus deal. There are various sources talking about, hard to tell if they just reprinting the same dodgy source or genuine multiple sources. If SK gets one going to assume japan might be try and jump aboard as well. H I Sutton wrote an article for naval news or you can just google to see a list of sources and look at your preffered one
Joined: Dec 2017
Posts: 639
Likes: 102
From: australia
India and France are talking nuke subs too.
https://economictimes.indiatimes.com...w/88267243.cms
https://economictimes.indiatimes.com...w/88267243.cms
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 2,515
Likes: 151
From: A better place.
In another life, was at a press conference in Wellington with the Indian ambassador in `98 just after their test had been announced.
"There's huge poverty in your country - how can you justify spending all that money on nuclear weapons?" asked me as a smart arse young journo.
He smiled wryly and said "Actually, developing weapons isn't that expensive at all."
Food for thought - no pun intended.
I agree - it's all down to political will.
I wonder if somewhere in Canberra, on some highly classified, air-gapped system, there are updated scenarios modelling how we'd rapidly get our hands on them from the cousins, or what a breakout time for a domestic capability might be.
Certainly would have been the case in Gorton's time.
"There's huge poverty in your country - how can you justify spending all that money on nuclear weapons?" asked me as a smart arse young journo.
He smiled wryly and said "Actually, developing weapons isn't that expensive at all."
Food for thought - no pun intended.
I agree - it's all down to political will.
I wonder if somewhere in Canberra, on some highly classified, air-gapped system, there are updated scenarios modelling how we'd rapidly get our hands on them from the cousins, or what a breakout time for a domestic capability might be.
Certainly would have been the case in Gorton's time.
Joined: Dec 2017
Posts: 639
Likes: 102
From: australia
In another life, was at a press conference in Wellington with the Indian ambassador in `98 just after their test had been announced.
"There's huge poverty in your country - how can you justify spending all that money on nuclear weapons?" asked me as a smart arse young journo.
He smiled wryly and said "Actually, developing weapons isn't that expensive at all."
Food for thought - no pun intended.
I agree - it's all down to political will.
I wonder if somewhere in Canberra, on some highly classified, air-gapped system, there are updated scenarios modelling how we'd rapidly get our hands on them from the cousins, or what a breakout time for a domestic capability might be.
Certainly would have been the case in Gorton's time.
"There's huge poverty in your country - how can you justify spending all that money on nuclear weapons?" asked me as a smart arse young journo.
He smiled wryly and said "Actually, developing weapons isn't that expensive at all."
Food for thought - no pun intended.
I agree - it's all down to political will.
I wonder if somewhere in Canberra, on some highly classified, air-gapped system, there are updated scenarios modelling how we'd rapidly get our hands on them from the cousins, or what a breakout time for a domestic capability might be.
Certainly would have been the case in Gorton's time.
Joined: Oct 2021
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
From: Oz
The nuclear option is a ship that sailed a long time ago. Billy McMahon canned it back in the ‘70s.
Probably the worst PM in Australian history.
Nuclear power should have been an established industry long ago.
But Australians are naive and content to rely on the USof A to guarantee their security.
Stupid but politically the only option.
Australians don’t want to face up to their strategic reality.
Or spend the money or effort required to be independent.
Curtin started it and not much has changed since.
Probably the worst PM in Australian history.
Nuclear power should have been an established industry long ago.
But Australians are naive and content to rely on the USof A to guarantee their security.
Stupid but politically the only option.
Australians don’t want to face up to their strategic reality.
Or spend the money or effort required to be independent.
Curtin started it and not much has changed since.
Joined: Oct 2021
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
From: Oz
You are being far too generous. He just continued Gortons policy and the job was finished by Whitlam.
He was a no idea light weight who nobody liked or trusted.
If we had a nuclear industry carbon emissions would have been sorted by now.
A Huge missed opportunity that we are paying for now.
He was a no idea light weight who nobody liked or trusted.
If we had a nuclear industry carbon emissions would have been sorted by now.
A Huge missed opportunity that we are paying for now.
Last edited by Alt Flieger; 20th December 2021 at 21:50.
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 4,401
Likes: 141
From: NSW
From today's Australian newspaper.
Nuclear subs to arrive ‘at earliest possible date’White House moves to quell concerns over delivery of subs as US, UK and Australia move to expand scope of AUKUS alliance."
Nuclear subs to arrive ‘at earliest possible date’White House moves to quell concerns over delivery of subs as US, UK and Australia move to expand scope of AUKUS alliance."
Last edited by Senior Pilot; 27th December 2021 at 01:13. Reason: Sort out font sizing
Joined: Jun 2001
Aviation Qualifications: ATPL
Posts: 1,898
Likes: 17
From: South Pole
Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States of America recently held the inaugural meetings of the AUKUS Trilateral Joint Steering Groups, which were established as part of the governance structure of AUKUS in September 2021. The Joint Steering Group for Advanced Capabilities met on December 9 and the Joint Steering Group for Australia’s Nuclear-Powered Submarine Program met on December 14. Both meetings were held at the Pentagon.
The delegations reaffirmed the Leaders’ vision that was laid out in September 2021 and discussed the intensive work underway across the governments and the significant progress made in the three months since the announcement of AUKUS.
The meetings were productive and the participants outlined next steps to continue the positive trajectory in implementation.
During the Joint Steering Group meeting on Advanced Capabilities, participants identified opportunities for collaboration on a range of critical capabilities and technologies. They committed to significantly deepen cooperation and enhance interoperability, and in so doing strengthen security and stability in the Indo-Pacific region and beyond. In particular, participants committed to finalizing a program of work in relation to advanced capabilities by early 2022. Beyond the four initial areas of focus outlined in the Joint Leaders’ Statement on AUKUS—cyber capabilities, artificial intelligence, quantum technologies, and additional undersea capabilities—participants also discussed other additional capabilities and agreed to identify potential opportunities for collaboration in those areas.
During the Joint Steering Group meeting on Australia’s Nuclear-Powered Submarine Program, the participants reaffirmed the trilateral commitment to bring the Australian capability into service at the earliest possible date. The delegations agreed on the next steps over the 18-month consultation period to define the optimal pathway for Australia to acquire nuclear-powered submarines, and for the Working Groups to examine in detail the critical actions necessary to establish an enduring program in Australia. The participants reviewed achievements since September, including the signing of the Exchange of Naval Nuclear Propulsion Information Agreement and the path forward to bring that into force, which will enable full and effective consultation between the governments over the 18-month period.
The participants also discussed how they will work to ensure that the submarine program upholds their longstanding leadership in global non-proliferation, including through continued close consultation with the International Atomic Energy Agency. The participants underscored that the three countries remain steadfast in support of the nuclear non-proliferation regime and its cornerstone, the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. They reaffirmed that the three governments will comply with their respective non-proliferation obligations and commitments and that they intend to implement the strongest possible non-proliferation standards.
Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States look forward to continuing to build on this momentum as they work together to deliver advanced defense and technology capabilities, including an Australian nuclear-powered submarine capability.
Last edited by Senior Pilot; 27th December 2021 at 01:14. Reason: Sort out font sizing
Joined: Oct 2018
Aviation Qualifications: PPL
Posts: 12,252
Likes: 1,663
From: Ferrara
well 18 months consultation from Sept 2021 suggests deployment is a long way off - Going Boeing in her/his post of 27th November suggests 2038 for first vessel in service