Australia - nuclear weapon capable state?

**longbow66** · 19 Oct 04, 19:49

Hello Everyone - I would like to put forward the proposition that Australia is a nuclear weapons capable state.

The reasons for this belief is as follows;

1) Australia allowed the UK to conduct nuclear weapons testing on Australian territory in the 1950's & 60's - on the proviso that Australian scientists (and therefore, by logical extension, the Australian Government) were party to the program and data.

2) In the 1960's, Australia purchased F-111 aircraft, which were nuclear-strike capable. This was an unusual purchase, given Australia's geopolitical position and military needs. Australia has subsequently been reluctant to relinquish these aircraft. These aircraft are now due for retirement. Despite objections from neighbouring countries, Australia is intending to replace these aircraft with Tomahawk cruise missiles - another weapons system capable of nuclear weapons delivery.

3) Australia is a major producer of Uranium

4) Australia has steadfastly maintained a nuclear reactor at Lucas Heights in Sydney. The justification for this to maintain Australia's expertise in nuclear science and medicine. Currently the government is seeking to replace the Lucas Heights reactor, the only reactor in Australia.

The proposition is this;

1) Australia is well positioned, as a result of its involvement with British nuclear testing, to have the scientific expertise to manufacture nuclear weapons.

2) Australia sought, purchased and retains a weapons system capable of delivering nuclear weapons. It is seeking to replace the existing system with a new delivery system, despite objections from its neighbours.

3) Australia produces the raw materials for the construction of nuclear weapons.

4) Australia retains a nuclear reactor which may be capable of producing fissile weapons-grade material for use in nuclear weapons.

5) Australia is an advanced industrialised nation with an well-educated workforce - and has the technical ability to manufacture the specialised equipment needed to produce weapons components.

6) Australia has a highly secretive government.

6) Whilst there is no empirical evidence to suggest that Australia has an actual assembled nuclear weapon, it is not unrealistic to suppose that it COULD have the required components in an unassembled form, thus adhering in fact (if not in spirit) to it being a signatory to the NPT.

Are the Aussies hiding something?... any comments?

**Officer of Engineers** · 19 Oct 04, 21:00

For auxillary forces like Canada and Australia, nukes make no sense. Though I wouldn't be surprised if the ADF had plans to employ nukes back when nobody knew any better (50s and 60s). Canada was a nuclear weapons state up until the early 70s, most dominating in the 50s to early 60s with American designed nukes and warheads. Canadian ground forces had tac nukes. The CF-101 Voodoo carried the nuke tip GENIE AAM (never mind fire-and-forget, it's fire-and-run), and the CF-104 Starfighter were nuke missioned against Warsaw Pact assembly and staging areas.

As weapons and knowledge evolved, alot of these weapons simply did not make sense. Nuke tip AAMs? And precision has replaced the blind usage of fire. TOT was found to be just as effective as a tac nuke. Cluster munitions can deliver just as much kill as a tac nuke though with far less environmental damage.

**Jay** · 19 Oct 04, 22:27

Sir,
Not to mention that a CBU97 is way cheaper than a tact nuke

**-{SpoonmaN}-** · 20 Oct 04, 11:30

While it is true that we once wanted nukes, Australia was a very different nation back then. We were fundamentally a racist state, in which Indiginous people couldn't vote and anyone who wasn't of European ancestry wasn't allowed entry.
We were paranoid about communism (Who wasn't in the West?) and we figured that nukes would be a good way to fight of the "Communist Asian masses" that we were so certain would attack us.
Now of course we know better and I doubt that we have any serious plans to produce nuclear weapons. If anything we have the reactor as a fall back in case there is a regional arms race, say between the USA and China.

**Franco Lolan** · 21 Oct 04, 00:11

is their an arms race presently in SE Asia?
doesnt it seem PLA is "racing" to catch up w/ US + may have surpassed already?

**Jay** · 21 Oct 04, 00:41

China catching up with US?? Quantitatively or qualitatively?? US will win in both the categories. Remember China still needs Russia for its advanced weapon needs. But we cannot discount the fact that China has built a lot of clones in the recent past and will do the same in recent future. It'll take a giant leap for China to catch up with US.

**Officer of Engineers** · 21 Oct 04, 02:50

Not a chance in hell in both qualitive nor quantitive nor does it seemed the Chinese want to.

The Chinese are aiming for SURVIVABILITY of their retallitory force, not superiority. By this, they mean stealth and mobility, not numbers.

**Franco Lolan** · 21 Oct 04, 14:12

dont they already have superiority in some area? as sea surface missiles and attack subs? they dont need 2 match Us though, right? they need 2 b able 2 wage littoral warfare w/ massive missile salvos. isnt US in bad shape in dealing against that right now? everything indicates carriers would get scratched

**Officer of Engineers** · 21 Oct 04, 15:58

Originally Posted by Franco Lolan

dont they already have superiority in some area? as sea surface missiles and attack subs? they dont need 2 match Us though, right? they need 2 b able 2 wage littoral warfare w/ massive missile salvos. isnt US in bad shape in dealing against that right now? everything indicates carriers would get scratched

They have 4 KILOs that have not seen much sea time. There's a new YUAN dissel attack sub. Have not gone to trials yet. They have 2 SSBNs that has not been put to sea in 2 years.

Most of their AShM batteries are shore based. None has been nuke tipped.

Against a CVBG, not a chance in hell.

**Ziska** · 25 Oct 04, 02:53

I guess it's possible we have nukes, but personally I think it would be too expensive.

We don't need them, especially since the US and the UK have them.

**Franco Lolan** · 25 Oct 04, 05:09

Officer of Engineers,
I understand their Kilos aren't ready on a training level; however, in 3-5 yrs they will, and the updated-Kilos that they have are reputed to be as quiet or quiter than even Seawolf class.
They don't need missile strike, although they would prob anyways, torpedo hits, especially wake homing torpedoes they have. look at USN exercises w/ Dutch+Australians. i think US needs to get away from Red flag + do it all blue v. blue.

**Officer of Engineers** · 26 Oct 04, 21:14

Originally Posted by Franco Lolan

Officer of Engineers,
I understand their Kilos aren't ready on a training level; however, in 3-5 yrs they will, and the updated-Kilos that they have are reputed to be as quiet or quiter than even Seawolf class.

Until they get more seatime, anything else is just pure speculation.

Originally Posted by Franco Lolan

They don't need missile strike, although they would prob anyways, torpedo hits, especially wake homing torpedoes they have. look at USN exercises w/ Dutch+Australians. i think US needs to get away from Red flag + do it all blue v. blue.

You can add in the Canadians. However, the context is that these were unit prosecutions, not force prosecutions, which are two very different things. Just because you can suceed against unit prosecution does not mean you can suceed against force, not by a long shot.

What do you mean by blue v blue? That's a term for friendly fire.

**Jay** · 26 Oct 04, 21:29

I understand their Kilos aren't ready on a training level; however, in 3-5 yrs they will, and the updated-Kilos that they have are reputed to be as quiet or quiter than even Seawolf class.

China has 2 Type 636, the other 2 are 877EKM. Seawolf is old, so Type 636 cannot be compared with them. USN's new attack submarine is Virginia class, and it is nuclear powered for a start. Remember Kilo's dont have AIP, so how ever quiet they may be, they dont have the endurance to stay submerged.

look at USN exercises w/ Dutch+Australians. i think US needs to get away from Red flag + do it all blue v. blue.

Again you have to really look in to the units they deploy during these exercises and the limitations of the exercises. They are trained for any eventuality, and they would never see/experience most of them. Surprises are always there, so I dont want to really go there. So MK-1's beating F-15 or F-16's may not work in favour of India, If India is to ever fight USAF as a whole.

**Franco Lolan** · 27 Oct 04, 03:30

type 093 + kilos DO have AIP

**Franco Lolan** · 27 Oct 04, 03:31

what are "wake homing torpedoes" ? how do they work? i hear PLAAN subs r bein equiped w/ them

Thread: Australia - nuclear weapon capable state?

LinkBack

Thread Tools

Rate This Thread

Display

Australia - nuclear weapon capable state?

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

Similar Threads

The Causes & Consequences of Strategic Failure in Afghanistan & Iraq

Iran to be refered to U.N. Security Council

A Preemptive Attack on Iran's Nuclear Facilities: Possible Consequences

Nuclear Terrorism

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions