Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Hey Indians, want some no questions asked yellowcake?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Hey Indians, want some no questions asked yellowcake?

    I'm just wondering what Indian posters think your government's reaction would be if Australia asked for finished nuclear weapons and missiles, plus nuclear know how, with you for under the table shipments of yellowcake for your nuclear weapons program?

    You see, I'm hoping that one day befor it is too late that Australia will wake up to the fact that we can't rely on the US to be willing to lose a city over us by holding true on the 'nuclear umbrella', if ever we had a conflict with China. By shipping you yellowcake from say a secret source on defence land acqured for 'training', we could keep it outside the NPT inspection treaty process so you can build bombs with it. We ould even fly in vetted Indian miners (with training) to avoid the secret getting out here. It would benefit us by allowing payments to be made outside our budget approprations process, which is transparent.

    Once we have our missiles we can announce that we are joining you in the non-aligned movement, transport weapons grade uranium between us openly and generally ignore all the complaints it would generate and other peoples wars, just like you do now.
    Does this work for you?
    Last edited by Aussiegunner; 14 Dec 11,, 16:53.
    "There is no such thing as society" - Margaret Thatcher

  • #2
    It wouldn't be that hard for Australia to build nukes by yourselves. Involving outsiders usually increases the amount of headaches you have to deal with.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Skywatcher View Post
      It wouldn't be that hard for Australia to build nukes by yourselves. Involving outsiders usually increases the amount of headaches you have to deal with.
      If it was that easy everybody would be doing it.
      "There is no such thing as society" - Margaret Thatcher

      Comment


      • #4
        IMO, Every "first world" - technologically modern nation could probably do it today - some have chosen not to (like Japan and Germany) perhaps because of history? I think Australia probably could do it if they wanted too, and the rest of the world wouldn't object as much as they would if one of the historically agressive non-nuclear nations did it. A lot of the nuclear weapons tech that was unattainabe 20-30 years ago is attaintable now. It would be very expensive, and there would be consequences.
        sigpic"If your plan is for one year, plant rice. If your plan is for ten years, plant trees.
        If your plan is for one hundred years, educate children."

        Comment


        • #5
          You'd also have to make a lot of investments to have a respectable deterrent (a lot of costs would come from the C&C system). Otherwise Australia just becomes a target for China, France, India, Russia, et al.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Aussiegunner View Post
            I'm just wondering what Indian posters think your government's reaction would be if Australia asked for finished nuclear weapons and missiles, plus nuclear know how, with you for under the table shipments of yellowcake for your nuclear weapons program?

            You see, I'm hoping that one day befor it is too late that Australia will wake up to the fact that we can't rely on the US to be willing to lose a city over us by holding true on the 'nuclear umbrella', if ever we had a conflict with China. By shipping you yellowcake from say a secret source on defence land acqured for 'training', we could keep it outside the NPT inspection treaty process so you can build bombs with it. We ould even fly in vetted Indian miners (with training) to avoid the secret getting out here. It would benefit us by allowing payments to be made outside our budget approprations process, which is transparent.

            Once we have our missiles we can announce that we are joining you in the non-aligned movement, transport weapons grade uranium between us openly and generally ignore all the complaints it would generate and other peoples wars, just like you do now.
            Does this work for you?
            Non Aligned Movement is not for the cause of making one self segregate from the others.

            Plus Indians are not known to be good at keeping secrets (politically) dont put your money for such an option.
            Last edited by payeng; 14 Dec 11,, 19:23.

            Comment


            • #7
              IMO, I dont see how the "US would lose a city over you" the ABM shield is not only ship based and believe it or not they already have many positions in place not counting the land based positions that protect the continental US.

              If we consider how close the US is to Austrailia in relations right now, IMO, if the US chose to arm them with a sub deal (pretty remarkable considering the US hasnt armed anyone with submarines) then missles like the S-2 and perhaps somewhere down the road the S-3 missle could possibly become available. I wouldnt think the US is going to lose a city for anyone. But at the same time help protect its allies, especially those allies that allow forward basing as they have agreed to. Take Spain for instance right now, Russia is pissed off because we intend to keep some CG's with ABM capability there as part of the ABM shield. Spain has welcomed the idea. And they are non nuclear.

              Just a comparison.
              Last edited by Dreadnought; 14 Dec 11,, 19:50.
              Fortitude.....The strength to persist...The courage to endure.

              Comment


              • #8
                Would you be asking your question of our Indian friends if Iran had not put the NPT in jeopardy with its surreptitious efforts to build nukes?

                We tend to think of Iran's ambitions in terms of ME regional security, but if allowed to realize its ambitions, we may have a global problem on our hands with current non-nuke countries racing to get the bomb.

                That would be a setback for nuke disarmament which some think is never going to happen, but which would at least be easier to accomplish from where we are today than from where we might be if the floodgates were opened and more countries joined the club.
                To be Truly ignorant, Man requires an Education - Plato

                Comment


                • #9
                  We knew the world would not be the same. A few people laughed, a few people cried, most people were silent. I remembered the line from the Hindu scripture, the Bhagavad-Gita. Vishnu is trying to persuade the Prince that he should do his duty and to impress him takes on his multi-armed form and says, "Now, I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds." I suppose we all thought that one way or another.

                  -J. Robert Oppenheimer
                  J. Robert Oppenheimer | Media Gallery | atomicarchive.com

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Skywatcher View Post
                    You'd also have to make a lot of investments to have a respectable deterrent (a lot of costs would come from the C&C system). Otherwise Australia just becomes a target for China, France, India, Russia, et al.
                    We have an OTH radar network which can apparently detect missile launches at great distance into Asia, so at least some of the CC costs may have been met. The only nuclear state we have a potential problem with is China. France, India and Russian have no mor reason to target us than the US.
                    "There is no such thing as society" - Margaret Thatcher

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by JAD_333 View Post
                      Would you be asking your question of our Indian friends if Iran had not put the NPT in jeopardy with its surreptitious efforts to build nukes?

                      We tend to think of Iran's ambitions in terms of ME regional security, but if allowed to realize its ambitions, we may have a global problem on our hands with current non-nuke countries racing to get the bomb.

                      That would be a setback for nuke disarmament which some think is never going to happen, but which would at least be easier to accomplish from where we are today than from where we might be if the floodgates were opened and more countries joined the club.
                      Iran hasn't come into my thinking at all.
                      "There is no such thing as society" - Margaret Thatcher

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Dreadnought View Post
                        IMO, I dont see how the "US would lose a city over you" the ABM shield is not only ship based and believe it or not they already have many positions in place not counting the land based positions that protect the continental US.

                        If we consider how close the US is to Austrailia in relations right now, IMO, if the US chose to arm them with a sub deal (pretty remarkable considering the US hasnt armed anyone with submarines) then missles like the S-2 and perhaps somewhere down the road the S-3 missle could possibly become available. I wouldnt think the US is going to lose a city for anyone. But at the same time help protect its allies, especially those allies that allow forward basing as they have agreed to. Take Spain for instance right now, Russia is pissed off because we intend to keep some CG's with ABM capability there as part of the ABM shield. Spain has welcomed the idea. And they are non nuclear.

                        Just a comparison.
                        My understanding is that Obama has wound down the US commitment to ABM defence and in any case hou srr presuming that it will keep pace with concurrent bm developments. Thats a big assumption.
                        "There is no such thing as society" - Margaret Thatcher

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by payeng View Post
                          Non Aligned Movement is not for the cause of making one self segregate from the others.

                          Plus Indians are not known to be good at keeping secrets (politically) dont put your money for such an option.
                          You kept your own nuclear development secret for a long time.
                          "There is no such thing as society" - Margaret Thatcher

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by USSWisconsin View Post
                            IMO, Every "first world" - technologically modern nation could probably do it today - some have chosen not to (like Japan and Germany) perhaps because of history? I think Australia probably could do it if they wanted too, and the rest of the world wouldn't object as much as they would if one of the historically agressive non-nuclear nations did it. A lot of the nuclear weapons tech that was unattainabe 20-30 years ago is attaintable now. It would be very expensive, and there would be consequences.
                            Less expensive and with less consequences than than potential to be extinguished as a free nation in 100 years time.
                            "There is no such thing as society" - Margaret Thatcher

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              If that is the case, avoid confrontation with China. There is no reason you would come into conflict with China unless you have a pissing contest in the South China sea or you ally with the United States in a Taiwan straits scenario.
                              sigpic

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X