The Defense of Australia.

[geoff]

A nuke is not a defence. It's very clearly quite offensive to ever lob a nuclear missile at someone

Sure, you might say it's there as a deterrent. But by rights you have to be able to launch it if you've got it and this thread is full of support for such an absurd offensive weapon.

[bladeracer]

A nuke is not a defence. It's very clearly quite offensive to ever lob a nuclear missile at someone

Sure, you might say it's there as a deterrent. But by rights you have to be able to launch it if you've got it and this thread is full of support for such an absurd offensive weapon.

It's an effective pre-emptive defensive system that can knock an entire fleet of aircraft and/or ships out of an attack in one blow.
Whether we could ever deploy such a weapon effectively is a very different matter, but the concept is sound, particularly for us as we are surrounded by ocean.

[womble]

Other countries are allowed to have them

[on_one_wheel]

Some of those old sea tests are a big eye opener
Nothing in the water stands a chance, they'll cut hulls clean of at the waterline, massive tidal waves and columns of water in the air to behold

[Die Judicii]

Other countries are allowed to have them

Sounds familiar,,,,,,,, A bit like Cat C and Cat D compared to the old bolt action Cat A/B

[Oldbloke]

A nuke is not a defence. It's very clearly quite offensive to ever lob a nuclear missile at someone

Sure, you might say it's there as a deterrent. But by rights you have to be able to launch it if you've got it and this thread is full of support for such an absurd offensive weapon.

It's an effective pre-emptive defensive system that can knock an entire fleet of aircraft and/or ships out of an attack in one blow.
Whether we could ever deploy such a weapon effectively is a very different matter, but the concept is sound, particularly for us as we are surrounded by ocean.

.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austral ... ence_Force

Active personnel
59,095 (30 June 2020)
Reserve personnel
28,878 (30 June 2020)

Ummm IMO considering the number of personal we have in the ADF I thinks nukes are our only hope.

If Cina attacks and if the US can't help us we are fooked.

[bladeracer]

Keep in mind, about 85% of those troops are non-combat rear-echelon troops too.

A nuke is not a defence. It's very clearly quite offensive to ever lob a nuclear missile at someone

Sure, you might say it's there as a deterrent. But by rights you have to be able to launch it if you've got it and this thread is full of support for such an absurd offensive weapon.

It's an effective pre-emptive defensive system that can knock an entire fleet of aircraft and/or ships out of an attack in one blow.
Whether we could ever deploy such a weapon effectively is a very different matter, but the concept is sound, particularly for us as we are surrounded by ocean.

.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austral ... ence_Force

Active personnel
59,095 (30 June 2020)
Reserve personnel
28,878 (30 June 2020)

Ummm IMO considering the number of personal we have in the ADF I thinks nukes are our only hope.

If Cina attacks and if the US can't help us we are fooked.

[womble]

Some of those old sea tests are a big eye opener
Nothing in the water stands a chance, they'll cut hulls clean of at the waterline, massive tidal waves and columns of water in the air to behold

Shooting nuke tipped missiles from underwater out of submarines is pretty freaking awesome.

[womble]

Australia is number 18 on Russia’s official list of countries they dont like anymore.
Wankers.

Full list > https://m.jagranjosh.com/current-affairs/russia-releases-list-of-unfriendly-countries-and-territories-check-full-list-here-1646715376-1

Wanker >

[womble]

Other countries are allowed to have them

Sounds familiar,,,,,,,, A bit like Cat C and Cat D compared to the old bolt action Cat A/B

At least we’re allowed to have a submarine.
They’ve even put on another shift. Build time reduced from 35 years to 15.
Can’t wait.

[straightshooter]

Oh goody!
We might have both a nuke and a submarine.
Given Australia's current level of essential industrial capacity and consequential military capacity it would be like a lone person with a single shot rimfire pistol taking on a squad armed with AK74's.
All this talk about China makes me cringe somewhat.
Why is it that Australia's only real potential adversary may never be named or discussed?

[womble]

They will join the quad. But only when they think it's absolutely necessary.
Japan is working on those assurances behind the scenes.

[cz515]

Indonesia doesn't really care much about Australia. And for that matter nor does China.

There you go straightshooter

[straightshooter]

Indonesia doesn't really care much about Australia. And for that matter nor does China.

There you go straightshooter

So then, what's all the flap and cackle all about?

[cz515]

China?

My reading of it is simple. We have little dog syndrome. So we are barking and yelling obscenities at them. So they tell us off, put tarrifs on our things to hurt the public with hope the politicians learn. This is basic face saving from Chinese.

America is someone their equal, they respect America, us...we are just ants.

Its a little known fact that Chinese went on a shopping spree during covid and bought up a lot of the smaller shipping companies. And that just means they can screw the shipping prices. They still get to sell their stuff, people pay more and they make more money.

[cz515]

What are we really good for.

Digging up dirt for minerals and agriculture.
And education...aka universities.

All the they have put tarrifs on us. Look at Canada/NZ etc are not yelling like us, they don't have any tarrifs.

We still buying Chinese goods, we are not hurting them. But we are hurting ourselves.

[Bugman]

Australia is number 18 on Russia’s official list of countries they dont like anymore.
Wankers.

Full list > https://m.jagranjosh.com/current-affairs/russia-releases-list-of-unfriendly-countries-and-territories-check-full-list-here-1646715376-1

Wanker >

Wow. Only number 18!!!

[womble]

Adding even more credibility to our vision of militarising the maccas youth, famous American businessman Ronald McDonald has entered the war effort in Ukraine.
All 800 of his restaurants in Russia have been shut down. Full support for Ukrainian staff wages still being paid. https://corporate.mcdonalds.com/corpmcd/en-us/our-stories/article/ourstories.Russia-update.html
What a legend.

[geoff]

A nuke is not a defence. It's very clearly quite offensive to ever lob a nuclear missile at someone

Sure, you might say it's there as a deterrent. But by rights you have to be able to launch it if you've got it and this thread is full of support for such an absurd offensive weapon.

It's an effective pre-emptive defensive system that can knock an entire fleet of aircraft and/or ships out of an attack in one blow.
Whether we could ever deploy such a weapon effectively is a very different matter, but the concept is sound, particularly for us as we are surrounded by ocean.

The whole point of proliferating these is so that we're all eventually just standing in an international geopolitical alleyway pointing them at each other on the assumption that as soon as someone shoots, they get shot back. The general consensus is that the nuke game is largely closed to unarmed competitors - that is to say most owners of nuclear weapons are generally in agreeance that they are for pointing at others who, not typically others who do not.

Having a nuke, and being willing to fire it, is a tacit endorsement of being willing to receive one. It has to be. If you wanna play that game, you must be prepared to lose it at some point. Our military alliances haven't won a war in decades so I don't know why anyone would think we would start getting runs on the board after nuking up.

You'll be buggered if you ever see me saying I support getting nuked

[womble]

We already do have nukes as a deterent because of our alliance with the US.
So we’re already being targeted by nukes.
We’re already players in that game Geoff.
We just don’t hold the power. We dont count. We are collateral to be forfeited.
We are a far outreach of a distant empire, surrounded geographically by potential foes.
Why do you think Israel has nukes. Being small should not determine your might. Should not determine your right to exist.
Look treaties are awesome, but you just cant rely on them. They can be broken. Russia broke theirs with Ukraine.
That was their agreement, Ukraine surrendered their nukes on promise that they would never be invaded.

[straightshooter]

...... Russia broke theirs with Ukraine.
That was their agreement, Ukraine surrendered their nukes on promise that they would never be invaded.

That statement suggests an absolute cluelessness as to what the agreements and treaties were surrounding Ukraine becoming an independent state.

[cz515]

...... Russia broke theirs with Ukraine.
That was their agreement, Ukraine surrendered their nukes on promise that they would never be invaded.

That statement suggests an absolute cluelessness as to what the agreements and treaties were surrounding Ukraine becoming an independent state.

Agreed SS.

Sorry womble mate you gotta go look at history books or similar and stop watching YouTube live feeds to get your info. The agreement among other things said that Ukraine will not become a part of NATO, further NATO Agreed not to increase its membership towards.

Both of which in recent years have been broken.

[cz515]

Now I don't know any country in the world that has given another country nuclear weapons. It might be a part of the treaty that bans proliferation of nuclear weapons.

All have developed them themselves, by having nuclear plants, scientists and sometimes stealing from other countries. They are not lollies to be handed out at village fairs.

So hoping that uk/USA will throw us a nuclear missile or two as a bone is worse then wishful thinking.

Another thing that many people forgetting is that a huge majority of people and parties in Australia are against nuclear power. Ironic I know esp considering we are one of the biggest producers of uranium ore.

The only reason I can imagine we getting these nuclear subs is that the reactor is fully sealed until that never requires refilling.

[geoff]

...... Russia broke theirs with Ukraine.
That was their agreement, Ukraine surrendered their nukes on promise that they would never be invaded.

That statement suggests an absolute cluelessness as to what the agreements and treaties were surrounding Ukraine becoming an independent state.

Agreed.

The entire conflict is so complex and beyond the understanding of most casual Australian observers imo. There's a thousand years of history that people think started when the Union fell. I don't purport to be an expert on it at all and I am immediately skeptical of anyone who says they're all over it.

[bladeracer]

The whole point of proliferating these is so that we're all eventually just standing in an international geopolitical alleyway pointing them at each other on the assumption that as soon as someone shoots, they get shot back. The general consensus is that the nuke game is largely closed to unarmed competitors - that is to say most owners of nuclear weapons are generally in agreeance that they are for pointing at others who, not typically others who do not.

Having a nuke, and being willing to fire it, is a tacit endorsement of being willing to receive one. It has to be. If you wanna play that game, you must be prepared to lose it at some point. Our military alliances haven't won a war in decades so I don't know why anyone would think we would start getting runs on the board after nuking up.

You'll be buggered if you ever see me saying I support getting nuked

You do understand that we are targets of nukes without having to own them ourselves? There is no law of physics that makes us safe from nuclear weapons just by not having them here. A nuclear weapon is no different from any other weapon system when it comes to warfare. If the situation makes it most sensible to use nuclear that's what you use. Australia is vast enough that an enemy power could nuke all the coastal cities and happily build their own cities elsewhere on the continent.

[Oldbloke]

The whole point of proliferating these is so that we're all eventually just standing in an international geopolitical alleyway pointing them at each other on the assumption that as soon as someone shoots, they get shot back. The general consensus is that the nuke game is largely closed to unarmed competitors - that is to say most owners of nuclear weapons are generally in agreeance that they are for pointing at others who, not typically others who do not.

Having a nuke, and being willing to fire it, is a tacit endorsement of being willing to receive one. It has to be. If you wanna play that game, you must be prepared to lose it at some point. Our military alliances haven't won a war in decades so I don't know why anyone would think we would start getting runs on the board after nuking up.

You'll be buggered if you ever see me saying I support getting nuked

You do understand that we are targets of nukes without having to own them ourselves? There is no law of physics that makes us safe from nuclear weapons just by not having them here. A nuclear weapon is no different from any other weapon system when it comes to warfare. If the situation makes it most sensible to use nuclear that's what you use. Australia is vast enough that an enemy power could nuke all the coastal cities and happily build their own cities elsewhere on the continent.

Well said bladeracer. That's why we need them. If the "enemy" knows we have a dozen they will think twice before attacking.

[Oldbloke]

"The only reason I can imagine we getting these nuclear subs is that the reactor is fully sealed until that never requires refilling."

The US subs the reactor never need refuelling. Run it till it stops.

" hoping that uk/USA will throw us a nuclear missile or two as a bone is worse then wishful thinking"

Well back in the 70's or 80's the yanks made an offer. We said no, don't want them.

P.S. At the time I was astonished we said no.

"Ukraine surrendered their nukes". (Or perhaps they were retrieved)
I believe that's correct. As part of Russia they would have had a few parked in Ukrain.

[womble]

...... Russia broke theirs with Ukraine.
That was their agreement, Ukraine surrendered their nukes on promise that they would never be invaded.

That statement suggests an absolute cluelessness as to what the agreements and treaties were surrounding Ukraine becoming an independent state.

Agreed SS.

Sorry womble mate you gotta go look at history books or similar and stop watching YouTube live feeds to get your info. The agreement among other things said that Ukraine will not become a part of NATO, further NATO Agreed not to increase its membership towards.

Both of which in recent years have been broken.

The nato agreement has not been broken. Nato did’nt allow them membership because they assumed it would provoke Russia.

[womble]

...... Russia broke theirs with Ukraine.
That was their agreement, Ukraine surrendered their nukes on promise that they would never be invaded.

That statement suggests an absolute cluelessness as to what the agreements and treaties were surrounding Ukraine becoming an independent state.

Yeltsin himself probably did’nt remember either.
January 14th 1994. Ukraine disarmed in exchange for economic support and security assurances from Russia.
June 1st 1996 Ukraine transferred it’s last nuclear warhead to Russia.
Look it up. 1994 Budapest Memorandum
Re-certified again in 2009. The invasion of Ukraine is a direct violation (and also illegal under international law.)

[cz515]

Maybe they were offering to park them here.


Also I feel even crazy dictators haven't loved a few nukes is cuz others in their governments know if any country firs... the whole world would be a nuclear wasteland.

With only the middle of Australia safe.... but they rather die then live in Alice Springs