Should Australia Develop Nuclear Weapons (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Iron
- Start date
What the hell are the benefits of having nuclear weapons? Seriously, what a waste of money just to tell the world that "We have nuclear weapons". Australia is a small country, and we have far more problems to worry about and to mend than to go out of way to build nuclear weapons "just because". Germany and Japan are the 2nd and 3rd biggest economies in the world - where are their nuclear weapons, huh? What's wrong with just being a peaceful country and knowing our place in the world? One could argue that only troublemaker states have nukes. Pakistan, Israel, the USA, etc. Get over this obsession and move on. Australia will never have nukes. We MAY have nuke reactors though.
Atilla89
Member
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2007
- Messages
- 235
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- 2007
Believe or not nuclear weapons have been central in keeping the peace for the world. Why do you think USSR and US never went to war?
*Offtopic for a bit*
Also you point to the example of Israel starting wars - actually its been the other Arab country's who don't have nukes who have started these wars.
*Offtopic for a bit*
Also you point to the example of Israel starting wars - actually its been the other Arab country's who don't have nukes who have started these wars.
Serius
Beyond Godlike
actually they did go to war. It wasnt called a cold war for nothing, there were indirect clashes all over the globe. You are still right though, the main reason they didnt invade each other was because of MAD. Fun fact: the russian icbm's were aimed at military instilations and control points in USA[because they planned on invading and taking over after launching], the USA icbm's were aimed at population centres, cities, moscow etc in a plan to level the country.
An easy way to have-nukes-but-not-really would be to make an agreement that USA can build military bases on our soil, but they have to give us an equal share in it, and any major decisions. Then we ask them to provide said base with a few warheads, that way they can give is the nod to go ahead without directly selling us anything, they arent involved or can be condemned by other people, and we dont have to go to the expense of producing our own weapons.
An easy way to have-nukes-but-not-really would be to make an agreement that USA can build military bases on our soil, but they have to give us an equal share in it, and any major decisions. Then we ask them to provide said base with a few warheads, that way they can give is the nod to go ahead without directly selling us anything, they arent involved or can be condemned by other people, and we dont have to go to the expense of producing our own weapons.
marthastuart
Member
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2007
- Messages
- 35
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- 2007
Simple answer: No.
Why:
1 - If we to have nuclear weapons then we become a threat.
Being an ally of the US alone has made us a target, carrying around nukes just wouldn't be beneficial.
2 - They're fucking stupid. Fullstop. Essentially what you're promoting is the development of a weapon capable of destroying thousands of lives instantly. Einstein hated what he had created, and so should you. It's unnecessary and a waste of resources. Rather than building a nuke or going to war, why not spend that money in an area dedicated to preserving lives?
3 - Anyone who says we need them is clearly insecure about everything in their own lives. When you're calling Nuclear Weapons a necessity, you really should be shot or castrated as to stop your seed from spreading.
Why:
1 - If we to have nuclear weapons then we become a threat.
Being an ally of the US alone has made us a target, carrying around nukes just wouldn't be beneficial.
2 - They're fucking stupid. Fullstop. Essentially what you're promoting is the development of a weapon capable of destroying thousands of lives instantly. Einstein hated what he had created, and so should you. It's unnecessary and a waste of resources. Rather than building a nuke or going to war, why not spend that money in an area dedicated to preserving lives?
3 - Anyone who says we need them is clearly insecure about everything in their own lives. When you're calling Nuclear Weapons a necessity, you really should be shot or castrated as to stop your seed from spreading.
marthastuart
Member
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2007
- Messages
- 35
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- 2007
1 - It's not here.
2 - It is within Humanity's very nature to be destructive, and they will advocate any and all actions they need in order to achieve this, similarly to the notion of self-preservation. They are never a necessity, people only make them a necessity through base notions disguised with large words and a cross.
2 - It is within Humanity's very nature to be destructive, and they will advocate any and all actions they need in order to achieve this, similarly to the notion of self-preservation. They are never a necessity, people only make them a necessity through base notions disguised with large words and a cross.
Iron
Ecclesiastical Die-Hard
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2004
- Messages
- 7,765
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- 2004
On that point, I argue that they would actually save lives.marthastuart said:
It would be very unlikely that they would be used. It's unlikely that they will be neccessary.
Rather, they would prevent the possibility of death and destruction brought by conventional invasion.
The deterent is the value.
Surely there are meatier arguments against?
marthastuart
Member
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2007
- Messages
- 35
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- 2007
That's what I mean. Humanity assumes it is a necessity. Look at Sweden, no army and no Nukes, why would you invade them? You wouldn't. They are no more a deterrent than a fluffy kitten. If people really need to invade us, they will. We only become a target if we obtain nukes, no more and no less.
Iron
Ecclesiastical Die-Hard
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2004
- Messages
- 7,765
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- 2004
It's just a bizarre proposition for any independent nation to bank their defence on an ally. Likewise, it's madness to assume that the status-quo of international relations will always remain. Britain no longer defends us for instance.
Sure, weapons would attract suspicion and fear from our neighbours, but you'll have to elaborate about the increased risk.
And by the way, defence doesnt have to be narrowly interpreted as against our neighbours. I mean, there are asteroids and alien invasions to consider.
Also, as far as im aware Sweden certainly does have a nifty army which is self-sufficient - i.e. home grown and not dependent on allies' good will in giving spare parts (defence technology is largely under US copyright and unavailable to Aust). But they pay high taxes for it. They're willing to make that sacrifice though, because defence goes to the heart of an independent state's role.
Sure, weapons would attract suspicion and fear from our neighbours, but you'll have to elaborate about the increased risk.
And by the way, defence doesnt have to be narrowly interpreted as against our neighbours. I mean, there are asteroids and alien invasions to consider.
Also, as far as im aware Sweden certainly does have a nifty army which is self-sufficient - i.e. home grown and not dependent on allies' good will in giving spare parts (defence technology is largely under US copyright and unavailable to Aust). But they pay high taxes for it. They're willing to make that sacrifice though, because defence goes to the heart of an independent state's role.
marthastuart
Member
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2007
- Messages
- 35
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- 2007
Yes, I exaggurated a little bit on the no army part, just bad intel in my side of things, sorry for that.
Alien invasions? Wh--.. ho---... oh, and I suppose that these aliens are coming soon?
Australia is heavily dependant on HEAVY CHRISTIAN ANTI-COMMUNIST NATIONS for support, because the Australian government is a heavy christan anti-communist government. By nations i mean the US, so really it's a 'nation'. Australia is a target as a result of its relations with one of the worst offenders of the communist order. (Oi, i'm not a communist, it's just using expressive language) They are the largest supporter of the world's most actively and forcful christian nation, a nation who's president has been reported as saying:
"I felt that it was my duty to Bring Christianity to the Middle East."
Given that religion and politics are the two most touchy subjects on the freakin' planet, and we have, jointly with the US, offended heavily these 'potential threats', We are a weak nation in terms of defence, and if anti-US groups get wind of us creating a nuclear weapon, how do you think they will react? They attacked America regardless of the number of US Nukes, how do you think they will attack Australia who is developing one? They will want that development halted or eradicated in an attempt to reduce a future threat.
Also, as a reply to the 'America turns against its allies'
America won't turn against Australia for the very reason that we are a democratically ruled Christian nation, and we are a very powerful economic ally.
Alien invasions? Wh--.. ho---... oh, and I suppose that these aliens are coming soon?
Australia is heavily dependant on HEAVY CHRISTIAN ANTI-COMMUNIST NATIONS for support, because the Australian government is a heavy christan anti-communist government. By nations i mean the US, so really it's a 'nation'. Australia is a target as a result of its relations with one of the worst offenders of the communist order. (Oi, i'm not a communist, it's just using expressive language) They are the largest supporter of the world's most actively and forcful christian nation, a nation who's president has been reported as saying:
"I felt that it was my duty to Bring Christianity to the Middle East."
Given that religion and politics are the two most touchy subjects on the freakin' planet, and we have, jointly with the US, offended heavily these 'potential threats', We are a weak nation in terms of defence, and if anti-US groups get wind of us creating a nuclear weapon, how do you think they will react? They attacked America regardless of the number of US Nukes, how do you think they will attack Australia who is developing one? They will want that development halted or eradicated in an attempt to reduce a future threat.
Also, as a reply to the 'America turns against its allies'
America won't turn against Australia for the very reason that we are a democratically ruled Christian nation, and we are a very powerful economic ally.
Omnidragon
Devil
It's a waste of resources. Just sell the uranium overseas and make some quick money so the goddamn uranium stocks will stop crashing (e.g. CUY, AGS, PNN, MTN, DGR and just about every uranium hopeful in Australia).
On a more serious note, it's a waste of resources. Making 1 or 2 nuclear missiles won't change a thing in the world. But if you returned the resources to taxpayers, perhaps in the form of tax cuts (considering this is these are some of the worst taxes for a first-world country), it'll actually make a difference... at least to me!
On a more serious note, it's a waste of resources. Making 1 or 2 nuclear missiles won't change a thing in the world. But if you returned the resources to taxpayers, perhaps in the form of tax cuts (considering this is these are some of the worst taxes for a first-world country), it'll actually make a difference... at least to me!
Serius
Beyond Godlike
make tax cuts when our hospitals are like permanently on red alert status and our internet is like that of a third world country? i think not.
We wouldn't need to invest as much on conventional weapons because nuclear weapons serve as a sufficient deterrent. Also, we wouldn't need to send as many troops to places like Iraq to aid U.S. military campaigns and we would have sufficient defensive capabilities to back out of ANZUS. So ultimately it would save Australian lives even if it was never used.Omnidragon said:
Nebuchanezzar
Banned
Considering that one of the countries we'd be using it as a deterrent against, China, has a few more nukes than we do, wouldn't it be wise to stay in the ANZUS alliance, and continue to aid the US in their excursions overseas?dhj said:
I don't see how the number of nukes, so long as we develop at least a couple, is relevant. A couple of nuclear weapons is as good as thousands for the purpose of deterrence. The technology - land or submarine based, liquid or dry fuel, etc may be relevant (but not necessarily as we saw with North Korea). As far as I know China is lagging behind the US and Russia in terms of nuclear technology.Nebuchanezzar said: