geoff wrote: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.
womble wrote:Other countries are allowed to have them
bladeracer wrote:geoff wrote: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.
Oldbloke wrote:bladeracer wrote:geoff wrote: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.
on_one_wheel wrote: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 wrote:womble wrote: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
cz515 wrote:Indonesia doesn't really care much about Australia. And for that matter nor does China.
There you go straightshooter
womble wrote: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 >
bladeracer wrote:geoff wrote: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 wrote:...... Russia broke theirs with Ukraine.
That was their agreement, Ukraine surrendered their nukes on promise that they would never be invaded.
straightshooter wrote:womble wrote:...... 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.
straightshooter wrote:womble wrote:...... 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.
geoff wrote: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
bladeracer wrote:geoff wrote: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.
cz515 wrote:straightshooter wrote:womble wrote:...... 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.
straightshooter wrote:womble wrote:...... 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.