Should Australia Develop Nuclear Weapons (1 Viewer)

[onebytwo]

a)Israel has never admitted they have nuclear weapons

bullshit!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction

In a December 2006 interview, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said Iran aspires "to have a nuclear weapon as America, France, Israel and Russia."

freudian slip

 

[Forbidden.]

in the name of defence we should have nuclear power/weapons.

we're a more western country we watch bush's backside we should be let free to make such mean green weapons without trouble like them north koreas did

 

[Serius]

- The US already have 183 operational and appear unlikely to order any more for themselves. Although foreign sales are currently still prohibited by law, that looks like it's about to change very soon (the same situation existed with previous US fighters such as the f-15). Lockheed have suggested that if the F22 is not exported, then its production line will have to be shut down by 2011.

- Due to the US now classfying the R&D expenses of the F22 as a "sunk cost", it is likely that a stripped down export variant of the F22 will have a variable cost as little as $US100 million, compared with the $US50 million of the JSF (which may still blowout further, and is also stripped down in the case of the Australian version), and currently nothing comes close to the F22 in air superiority capability. Also, the performance of the F22 is proven, while the JSF is not.

- They can be adopted for a ground strike role, in any case, I am not suggesting that instead of purchasing JSF's that we purchase F22's, but rather purchase some F22's to compliment JSF's. (in a ratio of about 1 F22: 4 JSF).

With neighbouring nations such as Malaysia and India soon to acquire the very latest in Russian air superiority fighters such as Su30MKI, Su37, MiG35 and possibly even the PAK-FA (the Russian answer to the F22) in the case of India, it is questionable whether the JSF will be clearly superior in air to air combat, and local air superiority is required before ground strike aircraft can function effectively. The F22's will be required to clear out the skies before the JSF are sent in.

In any case, Australia is planning to purchase 24 Super Hornets at a cost of $A6 billion to plug the gap in between the retirement of the F1-11 in 2010 and the delivery of the JSF (earliest 2013, latest 2018). It would be much wiser to spend this money on F22's rather than acquiring another fourth generation fighter with very little stealth capability.

Dont worry, i dont think NTB understands the advantages to be gained by controling the air. Dont get me wrong, the JSFs are fine but its like in any war you dont send a heap of the same units that are generalised in their ability, you send a mixed airforce that can be more versatile and handle any threat. Most likely we would never have a use for f-22s because australia hasnt been in a dog fight in like...forever but if we took that gamble and didnt have any, it would open us up for attack.

You sound like a kid playing with toys.

Other people in other nations can also sound like kids playing with toys.

Everyone then gets nukes.

We then live in a world more dangerous than what it already is.. Simply because you think they are "cool".

It's funny that something as abstract as the desire to have nuclear weapons can be found in people who have a national penis inferiority complex.

It was an intentionally childish remark, nuclear weopons are not toys they are a deterent first and foremost. If i was in charge dont think i would be afraid to use them if needed, its not like someone fires a nuke and then everyone fires their shit[like in that flash] there are situations where a tactical nuke can be highly useful, they dont just have to be for defence.

In either case if we had them, then any other country would be crazy to attack us, not because we would be using them on their invading force [even though we could, we have plently of uninhabited desert up north where they would most likely land] but because we would level Pyongyang with one hit if they tried anything funny. No country wants to risk war with a nuclear superpower, and i think we have earned our right to be known as a superpower.

 

[lengy]

I don't trust the United States to protect anyone's interests but themselves.

 

[S1M0]

Hell no. We don't need nuclear weapons. End of discussion.

 

[Forbidden.]

Hell no. We don't need nuclear weapons. End of discussion.

Doesn't mean we can't mine for uranium

In fact I support nuclear power, one day the thirst for fossil fuels will be met with an undesirably miserable end, manufacturing of plastics will be severely crippled, unless we can develop very efficient solar power technology, nuclear power will take over in decades or centuries.

Recycle your plastics, paper and so on ...

Recently, a massive oil reserve found in China could give us an extra 40 years worth of supply, so enjoy your life.

 

[lengy]

Anything to strike fear into Indonesia is a good thing.

 

[S1M0]

Doesn't mean we can't mine for uranium

In fact I support nuclear power, one day the thirst for fossil fuels will be met with an undesirably miserable end, manufacturing of plastics will be severely crippled, unless we can develop very efficient solar power technology, nuclear power will take over in decades or centuries.

Recycle your plastics, paper and so on ...

Recently, a massive oil reserve found in China could give us an extra 40 years worth of supply, so enjoy your life.

Never said anything against Nuclear power. Actually i support it....provided we have compentent people running the stations. The very idea that Australia should develop Nuclear weapons is nothing more than wasting taxpayer money. Why? Because we don't NEED nuclear weapons.

 

[banco55]

bullshit!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction

freudian slip

Freudian slip (assuming that's what it was) does not equal them confirming it dumbass.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Dont worry, i dont think NTB understands the advantages to be gained by controling the air.

Perhaps I do and simply don't imagine such a role as being important for Australia.

- The US already have 183 operational and appear unlikely to order any more for themselves. Although foreign sales are currently still prohibited by law, that looks like it's about to change very soon (the same situation existed with previous US fighters such as the f-15). Lockheed have suggested that if the F22 is not exported, then its production line will have to be shut down by 2011.

When it happens I'll conceed the point, but to me it's more auxiliary. I don't think Australia has the option on the cards at the moment and even if we did it would still be the wrong choice.

- They can be adopted for a ground strike role, in any case, I am not suggesting that instead of purchasing JSF's that we purchase F22's, but rather purchase some F22's to compliment JSF's. (in a ratio of about 1 F22: 4 JSF).

I don't think we need any air superiority units in particular for any time in the near future and if we do the JSF is most likely going to be enough. I also tend to trust the assessments of the independent bodies that have been set up to investigate the situation.

With neighbouring nations such as Malaysia and India soon to acquire the very latest in Russian air superiority fighters such as Su30MKI, Su37, MiG35 and possibly even the PAK-FA (the Russian answer to the F22) in the case of India, it is questionable whether the JSF will be clearly superior in air to air combat, and local air superiority is required before ground strike aircraft can function effectively. The F22's will be required to clear out the skies before the JSF are sent in.

Well this is true and I am rather undecided to be honest (with little thought on the topic other than some research before when it's been in the papers, seeing what various internet pundits etc think) mainly due to the possibility of having to conceed that other nations could conquer our air superiority. I tend to sway more to the thinking that this at most should be our back up plan and as such buying a fewer amount of dogfighting aircraft as you've suggested might be a good idea, but I don't have all the facts before me and the assurances by brendan nelson and various comittee's that i have read out-trump my initial fear - admittedly without factual reason - but I imagine it's probably due to the same sort of pragmatic weighing up as I've imagined.

Australia will never go to war with india.

Dont get me wrong, the JSFs are fine but its like in any war you dont send a heap of the same units that are generalised in their ability, you send a mixed airforce that can be more versatile and handle any threat. Most likely we would never have a use for f-22s because australia hasnt been in a dog fight in like...forever but if we took that gamble and didnt have any, it would open us up for attack.

Unfortunately I don't think australia has the option to send in a versitile force that is not more 'general'.

 

[Iron]

A nuclear weapons program is damn expensive. Plus you'd need delivery systems etc. which would sap manpower and heaps of money from the conventional forces.

Ideally we would buy existing ones, and confine them to our submarines or bombers.

I accept we dont need them. We would never plan to need them. It would just be a very handy deterent to any unpredictable state development, such as Indonesia going feral, or America turning inwards - both likely after defeat in Iraq.

 

[Atilla89]

Ideally we would buy existing ones, and confine them to our submarines or bombers.

I accept we dont need them. We would never plan to need them. It would just be a very handy deterent to any unpredictable state development, such as Indonesia going feral, or America turning inwards - both likely after defeat in Iraq.

Interesting assessment about America turning on itself (I am not sure if you mean that or the U.S. turning on her allies). Why do you think that would happen (I am generally curious)?

 

[Iron]

Interesting assessment about America turning on itself (I am not sure if you mean that or the U.S. turning on her allies). Why do you think that would happen (I am generally curious)?

Logic + Vietnam precedent.
Vietnam emboldened countries like Iran to go feral, because America didnt have the will or resources to stop them.
Also, Nixon's Guam Doctrine, which is a bit iffy, essentially stated that we could no longer rely on American aid. That has vaguely been reversed (eg clarification when NZ withdrew from ANZUS), but the implication would remain that we could not rely on a weary and weak America for our serious defence needs after a very draining war on Islam. Meanwhile we're left with the world's biggest Muslim population, already ticked-off over East Timor, bearing over us.

But sure, that's open to other interpretations too.

 

[Atilla89]

Logic + Vietnam precedent.
Vietnam emboldened countries like Iran to go feral, because America didnt have the will or resources to stop them.
Also, Nixon's Guam Doctrine, which is a bit iffy, essentially stated that we could no longer rely on American aid. That has vaguely been reversed (eg clarification when NZ withdrew from ANZUS), but the implication would remain that we could not rely on a weary and weak America for our serious defence needs after a very draining war on Islam. Meanwhile we're left with the world's biggest Muslim population, already ticked-off over East Timor, bearing over us.

But sure, that's open to other interpretations too.

I don't see why America would attack us (is that what you mean by 'turning' on its allies? But I see what you mean about America growing war weary with the war on terror and turning a blind eye to an invasion. It could happen but I'm not sure, America owes us big time for all the times we've stood up for them.

 

[onebytwo]

Freudian slip (assuming that's what it was) does not equal them confirming it dumbass.

yes it does, an unintentional confirmation anyway.

 

[loquasagacious]

My position is yes.

Why:
*They are a proven deterent to attack and indeed have bought about the end of large-scale warfare.
*They are a realistic and independent guarantee of our own security.
*Australia is one of the very few countries who could feasibly deploy them against an enemy advancing over our own territory - eg nuking outback australia imposes little cost on coastal australia, as proved by womera testing.
*Many of our near neighbours are island or penisula states making them vulnerable to cost-effective delivery systems like submarines.
*We have lots of uranium rather than selling it all to other people we should use some ourselves. Nuke weapons would boost the mining industry even further.

Why not?
*Cost of building them. Easy don't. We could just buy suitable missiles/warheads from countries which already make them. The best bet would be the US because they would appreciate the export dollars to fund their own nuke upgrade programme.
*Cost of maintaining them. This is outweighed by the benefit to have them and as we would not have ICBMs the costs is comparitively low.
*Scare our neighbours. Partly the aim, given the costs and politics involved it is unrealistic that they will be able to get their own very quickly. And even if they do the net result is stability because after the enormous expense you can be damned sure they won't be giving them away willy-nilly.
*China. We're most likely already targetted by their missiles - call it evening the playing field.

How:
*Negotiate with the US or UK for the actual missiles/warheads - possibly a unranium+money for nukes deal.
*Submarine based weapons would be cost-effective given we already have the delivery vehicles - to cut down on modification costs we could use smaller harpoon missile based nukes which can be fired from torpedo tubes - long term a polaris like missile is better as it offeres a more potent payload.
*Aeroplane based missiles such as nuclear-equipped tomahawk cruise missiles would enable a stand-off strike delivered from aircraft we already have or that are on order. Tomahawk missiles would also be deployed from our naval vessels.
*A nuclear weapons programme would go hand-in hand with a uranium mining, enrichment and nuclear power programme.
*In terms of heavier hitters Australia has an infant space industry and if in partnership with say the EU (who currently launches from relatively insecure positions in south america), Russia (who was in pre-limenary talks about such a programme several years ago) or even with private investors we developed a satellite launch capability then this could serve the dual-use of future ICBM launches (using US sourced MIRV warheads).

 

[jimmayyy]

I disagree, countries that wield economic power (particularly these days in the form of resources) are ones that wield 'real' power as well.

fat lot of good economic power is going to do us if theres a 12 megaton war head headed for australia.

i say we develop 'em.

 

[jimmayyy]

My position is yes.

Why:
*They are a proven deterent to attack and indeed have bought about the end of large-scale warfare.
*They are a realistic and independent guarantee of our own security.
*Australia is one of the very few countries who could feasibly deploy them against an enemy advancing over our own territory - eg nuking outback australia imposes little cost on coastal australia, as proved by womera testing.
*Many of our near neighbours are island or penisula states making them vulnerable to cost-effective delivery systems like submarines.
*We have lots of uranium rather than selling it all to other people we should use some ourselves. Nuke weapons would boost the mining industry even further.

Why not?
*Cost of building them. Easy don't. We could just buy suitable missiles/warheads from countries which already make them. The best bet would be the US because they would appreciate the export dollars to fund their own nuke upgrade programme.
*Cost of maintaining them. This is outweighed by the benefit to have them and as we would not have ICBMs the costs is comparitively low.
*Scare our neighbours. Partly the aim, given the costs and politics involved it is unrealistic that they will be able to get their own very quickly. And even if they do the net result is stability because after the enormous expense you can be damned sure they won't be giving them away willy-nilly.
*China. We're most likely already targetted by their missiles - call it evening the playing field.

How:
*Negotiate with the US or UK for the actual missiles/warheads - possibly a unranium+money for nukes deal.
*Submarine based weapons would be cost-effective given we already have the delivery vehicles - to cut down on modification costs we could use smaller harpoon missile based nukes which can be fired from torpedo tubes - long term a polaris like missile is better as it offeres a more potent payload.
*Aeroplane based missiles such as nuclear-equipped tomahawk cruise missiles would enable a stand-off strike delivered from aircraft we already have or that are on order. Tomahawk missiles would also be deployed from our naval vessels.
*A nuclear weapons programme would go hand-in hand with a uranium mining, enrichment and nuclear power programme.
*In terms of heavier hitters Australia has an infant space industry and if in partnership with say the EU (who currently launches from relatively insecure positions in south america), Russia (who was in pre-limenary talks about such a programme several years ago) or even with private investors we developed a satellite launch capability then this could serve the dual-use of future ICBM launches (using US sourced MIRV warheads).

post of the day

 

[ccc123]

Erm, i don't really see why we'd need to develop our own, America's got billions of dollars worth, and since we're basically a microcosm of the Us anyway, i'm sure we can just buy from them. But why would we need to?

 

[Serius]

for the same reason team australia helped out east timor. So we can look like bad ass motherfuckers and show those moslems[sic] whose boss!

nah the real answer is because every youth seems to hate the US right now, everyone is anti-america...until it comes time for our ass to be saved in which case they are all like "omgz america is our ally, why do we need nukes when they can just save us?"
its the same reason we have an armed force, the US-Aus alliance is extremely tight right now, i beleive we are their biggest global supporter and even though our military might isnt all that great, at least we are the most loyal ally. This doesnt mean we dont need the means to defend ourself, and even then the deterent alone is pretty big. Whose going to want to attack us if we have nukes? but without them, i can see a "tomorrow when the war began" type thing happening, where America is stonewalled politically and ecconomically so they cant interfere if we get attacked[taking into consideration recent events though, i am inclined to beleive they would just be all like "fuck it" and come save us anyway]

Nuclear warheads means security. Thats the big picture. Modern warheads have never even been used, Hiroshima was something pathetic like 100kton, modern warheads are about 10MEGAton, and missiles dont have just one warhead, they spray out like 20 of these 10megaton warheads. No country wants to risk that kind of destruction.