Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Indonesia cosying up to Russia shows why Australia needs to consider nukes

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

  • #16
    Current TOMAHAWKS are conventional strike only per Arms Reduction Treaties. They've since been modified not to be able to fit a nuke. Tac nukes are being phased out of our inventories as thermobarics and submunitions can do the equivelent (not equal) jobs. To use your example, a single 5 kt warhead is Hiroshima size damage, about 10 square city blocks. Against a hardened target (10 foot concrete walls), you pretty well have to hit it straight on. Anything else and the blast is channel away from the target. You can do the same with two bombs, a penetrator to introduce cracks into the concrete and then the thermobaric to introduce explosive force from anywhere inside the concrete where the cracks have allowed air in. To render an entire airbase inoperational, you need to crater the runway with the nuke. You can do the same with penetrators. As for carrier battle groups, our doctrines have them pretty spaced out to avoid nuclear strike and to extend the battlezone well beyond the carrier. A tac nuke hitting a carrier would do zero damage to the Australian frigate task force protecting her flank.

    If you have hypersonic weapons, you don't need nukes. You don't even need explosives. E=0.5mv^2. That's a hell of a lot of impacting energy for a 1000lb bomb. Incidentally, 80% plus of a nuke's energy goes into the mushroom cloud, useless. So you can understand how focused energy can do the equivelent damage (really don't care if the grass gets burned). Difference between a flame thrower and a shotgun blast. The flame thrower has a hell of a lot more energy but buck shot will turn you into fertilizer just as well.

    My experience, the 4th Canadian Mechanized Brigade Group which were tasked with a battery of HONEST JOHNS tac nukes. The HONEST JOHNs belonged to Ottawa. The nukes belonged to the US but the Brigade Colonel determines the release. You can imagine our exercises.
    Last edited by Officer of Engineers; 02 Mar 22,, 11:40.
    Chimo

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
      Current TOMAHAWKS are conventional strike only per Arms Reduction Treaties. They've since been modified not to be able to fit a nuke.
      So what, we could modify them back or produce our own cruise missiles, developing a missile industry is a current Australian government priority. It isn't like it is exactly new technology,

      Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
      Tac nukes are being phased out of our inventories as thermobarics and submunitions can do the equivelent (not equal) jobs. To use your example, a single 5 kt warhead is Hiroshima size damage, about 10 square blocks. Against a hardened target (10 foot concrete walls), you pretty well have to hit it straight on. You can do the same with two bombs, a penetrator to introduce cracks into the concrete and then the thermobaric to introduce explosive force from anywhere inside the concrete where the cracks have allowed air in. To render an entire airbase inoperational, you need to crater the runway with the nuke. You can do the same with penetrators.
      The Little Boy bomb at Hiroshima was 15 kt, not that that matters as we have this reference from the Indian nuclear explosion at Pokran in 1974. It had an estimated yield of 4 to 6 kt and blew a crater 45m to 75m in diameter and 10m deep. .

      https://nuke.fas.org/guide/india/nuke/first-pix.htm

      If that isn't enough to take out an airbase the Sedan crater in Nevada is still within my nominated yield range at 104kt. It is 390m in diameter, 100 m deep and shifted 12 million tons of soil.

      https://www.ctbto.org/specials/testi...-contamination

      In contrast you can see the 1000 ton bomb crater in the middle of the Port Stanley airfield, in the section titled "The Raids on Port Stanley" at this link. The crater is a fraction of the width of the runway.

      https://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/port-...nd-after-1982/

      I would suggest that the nuclear craters would effectively make an airfield inoperable for the duration of the conflict, in addition to the damage that blast, heat and debris would do to surrounding infrastructure. Conventional munitions can achieve equivalent results if we hit the airfield with lots of them, but Australia cannot rely on doing that against a more capable opponent. What works for the US and NATO won't work for us if we have to fight alone.

      Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
      As for fleets, our doctrines have them pretty spaced out to avoid nuclear strike and to extend the battlezone well beyond the carrier. A tac nuke hitting a carrier would do zero damage to the Australian frigate task force protecting her flank.
      I'm not suggesting firing the missile at an Australian fleet, but I think you may mean Chinese or Russian. In Operation Castle the USS Independence received disabling damage by a 23kt nuclear explosion at half a mile, the Saratoga was later sunk by an underwater blast of the same blast 400 yards away. The Russians use a 120kt warhead on the Moskit missile, so a carrier and any other warship would be disabled or destroyed at a longer range than that. That means the missile can achieve a kill on the major offensive asset of the fleet without even having to face close in weapons systems, while multiple conventional warheads would have to achieve direct hits to achieve the same result. That is why the Russians tip their anti ship weapons with nuclear warheads, they are far more effective.

      Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
      If you have hypersonic weapons, you don't need nukes. You don't even need explosives. E=0.5mv^2. That's a hell of a lot of impacting energy for a 1000lb bomb. Incidentally, 80% plus of a nuke's energy goes into the mushroom cloud, useless. So you can understand how focused energy can do the equivelent damage (really don't care if the grass gets burned). Difference between a flame thrower and a shotgun blast. The flame thrower has a hell of a lot more energy but buck shot will turn you into fertilizer just as well.
      As above, you need multiple direct hits without nukes, you only need one near miss if you have them.

      Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
      My experience, the 4th Canadian Mechanized Brigade Group which were tasked with a battery of HONEST JOHNS tac nukes. The HONEST JOHNs belonged to Ottawa. The nukes belonged to the US but the Brigade Colonel determines the release. You can imagine our exercises.
      Undoubtedly highly relevant experience, but you need to fully consider the possible Australian context of being a small nation having to defend itself against a much larger enemy. In that instance the risk appraisal is likely to be a lot different to two roughly large equivalent forces facing off, our problems and doctrine would be more akin to Israel than NATO.
      Last edited by Aussiegunner; 02 Mar 22,, 12:00.
      "There is no such thing as society" - Margaret Thatcher

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Aussiegunner View Post
        So what, we could modify them back
        No, you can't. Intellectual Property Rights and all.

        Originally posted by Aussiegunner View Post
        or produce our own cruise missiles, developing a missile industry is a current Australian government priority. It isn't like it is exactly new technology,
        Then you do so from scratch, not allowed to use any American technology at all as the Americans are restricted from helping you to develop nukes as per the NPT which Australia would also haev to withdrawl from. Added to this, you will not be allowed to use American GPS nor any American mapping system (again per NPT). So you will have to launch your own satellite constellation. How much money do you have?

        Originally posted by Aussiegunner View Post
        The Little Boy bomb at Hiroshima was 15 kt,
        It's a guntype nuke, a wholey unreliable consistent yield design. It could have been anywhere from 5 kt to 22 kt. I went with the 5 kt because it was guarranteed at 5kt. Anything more was iffy.

        Originally posted by Aussiegunner View Post
        not that that matters as we have this reference from the Indian nuclear explosion at Pokran in 1974. It had an estimated yield of 4 to 6 kt and blew a crater 45m to 75m in diameter and 10m deep. .
        It was also buried

        Originally posted by Aussiegunner View Post
        https://nuke.fas.org/guide/india/nuke/first-pix.htm

        If that isn't enough to take out an airbase the Sedan crater in Nevada is still within my nominated yield range at 104kt. It is 390m in diameter, 100 m deep and shifted 12 million tons of soil.

        https://www.ctbto.org/specials/testi...-contamination
        As was the Sedan test which was also buried, allowing the full energy of the nuke to transfer directly into the ground. You will have no such luxury with surface impact and definetely not as an air burst.

        Originally posted by Aussiegunner View Post
        In contrast you can see the 1000 ton bomb crater in the middle of the Port Stanley airfield, in the section titled "The Raids on Port Stanley" at this link. The crater is a fraction of the width of the runway.
        I don't see the problem. The runway is still out of operations.

        Originally posted by Aussiegunner View Post
        I would suggest that the nuclear craters would effectively make an airfield inoperable for the duration of the conflict, in addition to the damage that blast, heat and debris would do to surrounding infrastructure. Conventional munitions can achieve equivalent results if we hit the airfield with lots of them, but Australia cannot rely on doing that against a more capable opponent. What works for the US and NATO won't work for us if we have to fight alone.
        No, it won't. You misunderstood my service. 4Bde was the US VII Corps strategic reserves. We were a WWIII army. CFB Lahrs was designed to receive and to repair nuclear damage. An airbase is wide open space for a reason. If need be, I can have a new runway up in 5 days. All I have to do is to pave a new runway. The ground is already level and firmed up. Plus, the hangers and depots are hardened, meaning they're designed against nuke strikes. Even with nukes, you have to come back and kill us engineers to stop CFB Lahrs from being operational again and within the week. The Russians? They can fly off the gravel side skirts.

        Originally posted by Aussiegunner View Post
        I'm not suggesting firing the missile at an Australian fleet, but I think you may mean Chinese or Russian. In Operation Castle the USS Independence received disabling damage by a 23kt nuclear explosion at half a mile, the Saratoga was later sunk by an underwater blast of the same blast 400 yards away. The Russians use a 120kt warhead on the Moskit missile, so a carrier and any other warship would be disabled or destroyed at a longer range than that. That means the missile can achieve a kill on the major offensive asset of the fleet without even having to face close in weapons systems, while multiple conventional warheads would have to achieve direct hits to achieve the same result. That is why the Russians tip their anti ship weapons with nuclear warheads, they are far more effective.
        You do understand that cruisers carrying cruise missiles are stationed 50-60 miles away from the carrier. Even if the carrier is sunk, you still have over 300 cruise missiles to contend with.

        Originally posted by Aussiegunner View Post
        As above, you need multiple direct hits without nukes, you only need one near miss if you have them.
        You are seriously over-estimating the nuclear weapons. Our standard doctrine (both the Soviets and ours) is to use 3 nukes per target because chances are 2 might not work as intended. We still target Russian silos after they supposedly have launch because there was a 35+% chance there was a malfunction (same as ours per open source) and the nuke is still there. I'm not going to account our HONEST JOHNs). You have 100 nukes. That means at most you have 33 confirmed targets, not 100.

        And again, I re-iterate. Do you have any idea how much energy a hypersonic bolt carries? Do you know of Project THOR? It's basically dropping telephone poles made of tungstun from low earth orbit. The impact alone is 2-6 kt depending on the size of the pole, zero need for a nuke. If you're relying on a proxmity fuse for this nuke, then why not just shred the bolt into fletches, each travelling at hypersonic speeds. I just don't understand why you would want to over-complicate such a simple devastating system with a nuke.

        Originally posted by Aussiegunner View Post
        IUndoubtedly highly relevant experience, but you need to fully consider the possible Australian context of being a small nation having to defend itself against a much larger enemy. In that instance the risk appraisal is likely to be a lot different to two roughly large equivalent forces facing off, our problems and doctrine would be more akin to Israel than NATO.
        Israeli nukes are designed against being over-runed by Arab tank armies. They were scared shitless when the Soviets threatened intervention. Whether Israeli, Canadian HONEST JOHNs, or your supposed Australian nukes. There is one unescapble truth about nukes. When one flies, they all fly.

        You don't want yours to fly and hence of no real military use other than sitting there looking pretty. Best to spend your money on something you really can use rather on something that you die once you use.
        Last edited by Officer of Engineers; 02 Mar 22,, 13:48.
        Chimo

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
          No, you can't. Intellectual Property Rights and all.

          Then you do so from scratch, not allowed to use any American technology at all as the Americans are restricted from helping you to develop nukes as per the NPT which Australia would also haev to withdrawl from. Added to this, you will not be allowed to use American GPS nor any American mapping system (again per NPT). So you will have to launch your own satellite constellation. How much money do you have?
          At least a much as Taiwan, which make their own cruise missiles. There are plenty of nations who do it, I am sure we would cope.

          Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
          It was also buried

          As was the Sedan test which was also buried, allowing the full energy of the nuke to transfer directly into the ground. You will have no such luxury with surface impact and definetely not as an air burst.

          I don't see the problem. The runway is still out of operations.
          Actually no, the runway was open for transport operations for the entire war and that was all it was ever going to be used for anyway. ,

          You also miss the point, you aren't seriously going to argue that a 5kt or a 100kt nuclear device which would be set to penetrate the earth under propulsion, isn't going to make a far bigger crater and do far more damage to an airbase, than a 0.00045kt conventional warhead are you? Had the Argentines had runway repair crews, the crater could have been repaired and sustained aircraft traffic within four hours.

          https://www.ctscement.com/assets/doc..._AR_028_EN.pdf

          Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
          No, it won't. You misunderstood my service. 4Bde was the US VII Corps strategic reserves. We were a WWIII army. CFB Lahrs was designed to receive and to repair nuclear damage. An airbase is wide open space for a reason. If need be, I can have a new runway up in 5 days. All I have to do is to pave a new runway. The ground is already level and firmed up. Plus, the hangers and depots are hardened, meaning they're designed against nuke strikes. Even with nukes, you have to come back and kill us engineers to stop CFB Lahrs from being operational again and within the week. The Russians? They can fly off the gravel side skirts.
          Interesting but five days is a lot longer than four hours, the war could be over by then. Also, has anybody actually tested nukes on an airfield? I would suggest that there would be a lot of debris that would hinder ongoing flight operations.

          Finally if we have nukes the logical thing to do would be to hit the runway again while the engineers are in the middle of repairing it. Perhaps in the unlikely instance that your air warning systems were intact, the personal would have enough warning to take cover against a cruise missile, but they aren't going to get their equipment to safety and it would all be destroyed or rolled over. Against hypersonics, I think you would all be ash.

          Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
          You do understand that cruisers carrying cruise missiles are stationed 50-60 miles away from the carrier. Even if the carrier is sunk, you still have over 300 cruise missiles to contend with.

          You are seriously over-estimating the nuclear weapons. Our standard doctrine (both the Soviets and ours) is to use 3 nukes per target because chances are 2 might not work as intended. We still target Russian silos after they supposedly have launch because there was a 35+% chance there was a malfunction (same as ours per open source) and the nuke is still there. I'm not going to account our HONEST JOHNs). You have 100 nukes. That means at most you have 33 confirmed targets, not 100.
          From what I have just read Canada hasn't operated the Honest John since the mid-1970s, so I would suggest that your assumptions might be very out of date with respect to weapon accuracy and reliability. You are also not grasping the point, which is that this is a comparative exercise with the conventional weapons that we would otherwise have to use. Even applying your out of date assuptions, there is no way that we could rely on taking out 33 major targets with 100 conventionally tipped weapons. Nukes would be a massive force multiplier for Australia.

          Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
          And again, I re-iterate. Do you have any idea how much energy a hypersonic bolt carries? Do you know of Project THOR? It's basically dropping telephone poles made of tungstun from low earth orbit. The impact alone is 2-6 kt depending on the size of the pole, zero need for a nuke. If you're relying on a proxmity fuse for this nuke, then why not just shred the bolt into fletches, each travelling at hypersonic speeds. I just don't understand why you would want to over-complicate such a simple devastating system with a nuke.
          I dare say that dropping poles of Tungsten from low Earth orbit, would be a lot more expensive than sticking a nuclear warhead on missiles that we already have or could easily design.


          Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
          Israeli nukes are designed against being over-runed by Arab tank armies. They were scared shitless when the Soviets threatened intervention. Whether Israeli, Canadian HONEST JOHNs, or your supposed Australian nukes. There is one unescapble truth about nukes. When one flies, they all fly.

          You don't want yours to fly and hence of no real military use other than sitting there looking pretty. Best to spend your money on something you really can use rather on something that you die once you use.
          Nope, better to spend our money on something that will kill both us and the enemy if either of us uses them. That way they would be MAD to invade us.
          Last edited by Aussiegunner; 02 Mar 22,, 14:41.
          "There is no such thing as society" - Margaret Thatcher

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Aussiegunner View Post
            I don't see it as beyond the realms of possibility that under pressure to access sufficient energy resources to drive economic development in such a vast country, that they might want to "aggressively renegotiate" some of the sea bed treaties agreed with Australia in the 1970s.
            They might want to push that seabed boundary south. Even though they ratified it in 1972

            Click image for larger version  Name:	aus-timor-leste-maritime-arrangement-large-1024x718.jpg Views:	0 Size:	197.4 KB ID:	1582049

            https://www.lowyinstitute.org/the-in...-boundary-news


            Originally posted by Aussiegunner View Post
            Or perhaps they might want to bring East Timor back into their area of influence, or perhaps Papua New Guinea. This might especially be the case if the need for energy resources was combined with domestic political trouble, with Australia making an obvious scapegoat.
            Wanting and getting are two different things. The people of Timor l'este and Papua new Guinea wanted things the way they are now. To push against that is going to get Indonesia into wider trouble.

            I seem to recall an incident in Papua new Guinea recently where its defense minister had the Chinese ambassador escorted out of a meeting for being too aggressive. So these people can push back with the right encouragement

            Originally posted by Aussiegunner View Post
            So for Australia we might face an resurgently aggressive Indonesia backed by nuclear China (or even Russia for that matter, it has happened before), with the America being disinterested in foreign entanglements. Without nuclear weapons under that circumstance I would delicately describe our prospects of protecting our sovereignty as .... fucked"
            So we have to make plans for these eventualities.
            Last edited by Double Edge; 02 Mar 22,, 14:52.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Double Edge View Post
              They might want to push that seabed boundary south. Even though they ratified it in 1972

              Click image for larger version Name:	aus-timor-leste-maritime-arrangement-large-1024x718.jpg Views:	0 Size:	197.4 KB ID:	1582049

              https://www.lowyinstitute.org/the-in...-boundary-news



              This will be a harder problem to deal with. It will take creative thinking to handle.


              So we have to make plans for these eventualities. It's going to require more than nukes.
              Correct, but we have or are acquiring the conventional capabilities necessary to deal with those sorts of contingencies. It is the nukes that are missing from the equation.
              "There is no such thing as society" - Margaret Thatcher

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Aussiegunner View Post
                At least a much as Taiwan, which make their own cruise missiles. There are plenty of nations who do it, I am sure we would cope.
                All of them uses American tech and therfore, forbidden to be developed for nuclear weapons. Sorry, that one is out of reach.

                Originally posted by Aussiegunner View Post
                Actually no, the runway was open for transport operations for the entire war and that was all it was ever going to be used for anyway. ,
                Yes and you know how they did it? They used the sides of the runway, using the vernearble C130 HERCs.

                Originally posted by Aussiegunner View Post
                You also miss the point, you aren't seriously going to argue that a 5kt or a 100kt nuclear device which would be set to penetrate the earth under propulsion, isn't going to make a far bigger crater and do far more damage to an airbase, than a 0.00045kt conventional warhead are you?
                I am going to argue that point precisely because that's EXACTLY our job, the 1st Combat Engineers Regiment. Other than a direct hit, our hangers and storage were to be operational right after the hit. You do understand the term HARDENED.

                Originally posted by Aussiegunner View Post
                Had the Argentines had runway repair crews, the crater could have been repaired and sustained aircraft traffic within four hours.
                Not in that South Atlantic Cold and rain.

                Originally posted by Aussiegunner View Post
                Interesting but five days is a lot longer than four hours, the war could be over by then.
                Then you don't understand how we and the Soviets were going to fight.

                Originally posted by Aussiegunner View Post
                Also, has anybody actually tested nukes on an airfield? I would suggest that there would be a lot of debris that would hinder ongoing flight operations.
                Don't need an airbase. Neveda gave us plenty of data in air, impact, and buried detonation. I didn't pull my job out of thin air. The part I refer for operations is to get our CF-5 nuke delivery trucks back into the air. We were expecting our C130s to continue landing and taking off over unprepared surfaces.

                Originally posted by Aussiegunner View Post
                Finally if we have nukes the logical thing to do would be to hit the runway again while the engineers are in the middle of repairing it. Perhaps in the unlikely instance that your air warning systems were intact, the personal would have enough warning to take cover against a cruise missile, but they aren't going to get their equipment to safety and it would all be destroyed or rolled over. Against hypersonics, I think you would all be ash.
                You do understand an engineer regiment is 4 squadrons.

                Originally posted by Aussiegunner View Post
                From what I have just read Canada hasn't operated the Honest John since the mid-1970s, so I would suggest that your assumptions might be very out of date with respect to weapon accuracy and reliability. You are also not grasping the point, which is that this is a comparative exercise with the conventional weapons that we would otherwise have to use. Even applying your out of date assuptions, there is no way that we could rely on taking out 33 major targets with 100 conventionally tipped weapons. Nukes would be a massive force multiplier for Australia.
                Oh, please. My day was a world of 60,000 nukes. My day was of the BORMAC nuke tipped SAM, nuke tipped GENIE AAM, nuke tip torpedoes, and sea mines. All Canadian systems. I've forgotten more about nuclear war than you can ever imagine knowing. You just assumed a tac nuke is all you need. I know its role and blast radius. You didn't even know standard Carrier Battle Group doctrine and how taking out a carrier battle group is still a potent offensive system without the carrier, all because it was designed to fight a nuclear war. I STRONGLY state it is you who lacks knowledge. I'm trying to educate you in the ins and outs and you just come up with imaginary what-ifs. You don't even know that Western cruise missiles uses just a hell of a lot of American tech which is forbidden by American law to be used in nukes not authorized by them, ie the NPT. You actually think taking 33 Chinese targets is going to kill China? They lost 20 times more than that during WWII. And the Chinese currently have enough fissile materials for 400 nukes. They only have around 200 actual nukes. We and the Russians today by treaty limit ourselves to 1,000 to 1,200 deployed nukes with another 2000 to 2500 in reserve (again by Treaty). Again, in my day, it was a world of 60,000+ nukes. I posted more about nuclear war in one paragraph than you did in this entire thread. It is quite clear you lack all sorts of knowledge here.

                And you missed the reference if one fly, they all fly. Australia falls under the American nuclear umbrella, even if Australia did get nukes. Australia is an extremely important trading partnet and trade route. You actually think the Russians are going to allow you to attack their cash cow, China? You nuke China, the Russians will kill you and we would have no choice but to kill Russia and they us. Why did you think nuclear Israel didn't get nuked by Moscow? It certainly wasn't because of Israeli nukes. We went to DEFCON 3. That means NATO loaded and cocked the nukes.

                Originally posted by Aussiegunner View Post
                I dare say that dropping poles of Tungsten from low Earth orbit, would be a lot more expensive than sticking a nuclear warhead on missiles that we already have or could easily design.
                I gave you the reference, Project THOR. The point was to educate you what hypersonic kinetic energy can do, not to argue about Australia dropping telephone poles from space. You can do your research why Project THOR was never built and it was not because it was expensive.

                Originally posted by Aussiegunner View Post
                Nope, better to spend our money on something that will kill both us and the enemy if either of us uses them. That way they would be MAD to invade us.
                100 nukes ain't going to kill any nuclear weapons power. 100 nukes only makes it painful, not lethal, for the Russians to kill you.

                Before you go on, I STRONGLY you google the late Stuart Slade's writings, especially Nuclear Warfare 101, 102, and 103. He was a nuclear weapons targeteer. You sounded like every tin-pot dictator who gets a hard on for nukes.

                Here, read, educate yourself. https://www.giantbomb.com/forums/off...xt-alert-6857/
                Last edited by Officer of Engineers; 02 Mar 22,, 19:26.
                Chimo

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
                  And you missed the reference if one fly, they all fly.
                  Aka why the Paks can't use tac nukes against India. circa 2014 on the board some where

                  Why it made no sense for Pakistan to acquire them in the first place. And no matter how much BS the Paks put out it still did not compute.

                  Also the comparison with Israel is flawed. The Israeli's aren't going up against nuclear armed opponents. They did their best to ensure that by taking out suspect installations.


                  Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
                  Australia falls under the American nuclear umbrella, even if Australia did get nukes. Australia is an extremely important trading partnet and trade route. You actually think the Russians are going to allow you to attack their cash cow, China? You nuke China, the Russians will kill you and we would have no choice but to kill Russia and they us. Why did you think nuclear Israel didn't get nuked by Moscow? It certainly wasn't because of Israeli nukes. We went to DEFCON 3. That means NATO loaded and cocked the nukes.
                  He is assuming no American presence. It's just Australia defending Australia. Here is prof Hugh White



                  The argument for nukes is they deter nuclear blackmail. That is the lesson of the cold war. So why should AUS spend 3.5% - 4% GDP on conventional without nukes.

                  Thing is this is true only with warfighting powers. China isn't going to resort to this sort of tactic as a deterrence power. They have other levers. Look at what they're doing to the US and other powers.

                  Want to decouple ? go ahead. Not so easy. Takes a long time and more importantly a consistent will.

                  China's aim is to render everyone China neutral. See how the muslim states do not say a word about Uighurs.

                  Then so should we just take it as well. Don't question China. Don't do or say anything that upsets China.

                  Those are the orders !!

                  I'm a very long way from advocating that Australia should acquire nuclear weapons or predicting that we will.

                  What I am predicting is that if and when US leadership in Asia declines, even as we find ourselves trying to make our way strategically in a region of competing great powers that are nuclear armed we will have to reconsider for ourselves whether or not we need nuclear weapons ourselves and what I'm trying to do is to it at least begin the analysis what that might be.
                  A lot of countries that signed NPT did so under the knowledge at the time they were under or could get under a nuclear umbrella.

                  If that option is no longer available then what ?

                  Watch the Japanese & Koreans. If the Japanese think the alliance is failing and then decide to go nuclear then its a clear sign for Australia to follow.

                  The common argument i hear from the Japanese is will US sacrifice San Francisco for Tokyo ?

                  What happens to the other powers in the region,
                  What do we learn about China's strategic intentions, What kind of of power China requires to be
                  What we learn about the way India projects itself
                  What we learn about the kind of country that Indonesia becomes whether it starts to act like a great power and what kind of great power it starts to act as

                  I don't expect we will face this decision this decade or even next decade. I think it's a longer timeframe decision than the decisions on conventional capability.

                  So I don't think we need to rush, we don't need to be the first and I would argue strongly against being the first but if we see in Asia in which Japan has gone nuclear and South Korea has gone nuclear and Indonesia is considering its options then whilst I still think it would be a tragic and very difficult decision and one that I'm still not sure what the answer would be I am sure that we'd find ourselves considering the issue much more seriously.
                  The ASEAN we know and love and it has been very beneficial for Australia is itself an artifact of the long era of uncontested US primacy that ASEAN has been able to flourish as an association of middle powers dedicated to keeping themselves free of major power influence over the decades since the early nineteen seventies in which there ceased to be major power competition in Asia.

                  China accepted America as the primary power in Asia and Nixon went to Beijing in 1972 and China continued to accept it right up until probably 2011

                  When they abandoned bide and hide and started overtly challenging American leadership and now of course that challenge is absolutely overt, what we see
                  happening as a result is that as those two great powers compete and India's in the game as well then those great powers do what great powers always do they reach into the middle power groupings and try and pull them apart and pull them on one another and that's what we've been seeing with Cambodia and Vietnam, Philippines and so on now they'll fight back against that.

                  Lee Hsien Loong gave an outstanding speech at the shangri-la dialogue this year (2019)in which he said to both the US and China but very pointedly to the US we don't want another cold war in Asia. We've been here before, we remember what it was like but I don't think that's going to stop it myself.

                  We have to be realistic that ASEAN is going to find it hard to hold together if only for reasons of geography. With the best will in the world Vietnam is never going to have the same set of equities and priorities in relation to China that Indonesia will. Geography alone tells you that one has a land border with China and the other one doesn't so I think Indonesia, well ASEAN is going to become more diffuse, more contested itself.

                  Indonesia has a huge challenge to how it defines its own security interests in an era in which it doesn't benefit from US primacy being uncontested and I think we will be dealing most probably with an Indonesia which is either very different strategically or is useless strategically.

                  I find it very hard to read Indonesia's strategic future but if it's gonna play a significant strategic role then it's going to be very different from the Indonesia that we've got used to really since the introduction of the new order in the late 1960s. We shouldn't be too confident that we know the direction Indonesia will head in and if as I say Indonesia adopt some more forthright strategic personality then for them to the question of nuclear capability will come to the fore.

                  What the historians may judge is that the period since the NPT was established in the early 70s very successful constraint on proliferation might prove to have been a historical moment that doesn't last and not just here of course but could well be true in the Middle East as well
                  Last edited by Double Edge; 03 Mar 22,, 13:30.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
                    All of them uses American tech and therefore, forbidden to be developed for nuclear weapons. Sorry, that one is out of reach./[/url]
                    The Israeli Popeye Turbo is indigenously designed as the Tomahawk was denied to Israel and is tipped with nuclear weapons now, clearly the Americans weren't able to veto it, despite having denied the Israelis TLAMS. The same goes for the Jericho missiles, they were built to get around the American unwillingness to export the Pershing 2.

                    In any case all that a country needs to do to get around IP requirements, is to change a design enough so that it is no longer under patent. Not that it would matter so long as we didn't try to sell the missile overseas, as the Americans wouldn't get to see the design.

                    Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
                    Yes and you know how they did it? They used the sides of the runway, using the vernearble C130 HERCs.
                    I would suggest that they would have found that a lot more difficult with a 50 to 400 metre wide crater, which had destroyed the sides of the runway as well.

                    Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
                    I am going to argue that point precisely because that's EXACTLY our job, the 1st Combat Engineers Regiment. Other than a direct hit, our hangers and storage were to be operational right after the hit. You do understand the term HARDENED.
                    Yes, but we are talking about hitting the runway.

                    Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
                    Not in that South Atlantic Cold and rain.
                    That would have impacted your ability to rebuild a runway hit by a nuke as well.

                    Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
                    Then you don't understand how we and the Soviets were going to fight.
                    No, you don't understand that I am not talking about fighting the Soviets. Heard of the Six Day War?

                    Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
                    Don't need an airbase. Neveda gave us plenty of data in air, impact, and buried detonation. I didn't pull my job out of thin air. The part I refer for operations is to get our CF-5 nuke delivery trucks back into the air. We were expecting our C130s to continue landing and taking off over unprepared surfaces.
                    There are plenty of wars where pet theories have been proven wrong. The fact is that you can't be certain what would have happened, because you never did.

                    Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
                    You do understand an engineer regiment is 4 squadrons.
                    Well if Canada has enough engineering squadrons that during WW3 most of them could be sitting in hardened shelters, providing redundancy in case the squadron repairing the tarmac for five days go roasted by an incoming nuke, more power to you. However, I would be surprised if anybody else is so invested in their runway repair capability.

                    Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
                    Oh, please. My day was a world of 60,000 nukes. My day was of the BORMAC nuke tipped SAM, nuke tipped GENIE AAM, nuke tip torpedoes, and sea mines. All Canadian systems. I've forgotten more about nuclear war than you can ever imagine knowing.
                    What, so you had experience in all of those systems, despite the fact that your actual job was to organise bobcats and graders to repair bombed runways? What amazing diversity of experiences one gains in the Canadian Armed Forces, a construction engineer one day, submarine captain the next and fighter pilot after that.

                    Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
                    You just assumed a tac nuke is all you need. I know its role and blast radius. You didn't
                    You keep making comments about the hole blown by a device at least 10000 times less powerful than a tac nuke, having an equivalent effect to it, so I will assume that role and blast radius are one of those things about nuclear warfare you have forgotten.

                    Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
                    even know standard Carrier Battle Group doctrine and how taking out a carrier battle group is still a potent offensive system without the carrier, all because it was designed to fight a nuclear war.
                    The obvious point is that destroying a carrier is a massive degradation of capability, which improves the odds of destroying the rest of the fleet, which would most likely win Australia a war.

                    Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
                    I STRONGLY state it is you who lacks knowledge. I'm trying to educate you in the ins and outs and you just come up with imaginary what-ifs.
                    I STRONGLY suggest you are more interested in engaging in an ego trip, than you are in having a considered discussion.

                    Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
                    You don't even know that Western cruise missiles uses just a hell of a lot of American tech which is forbidden by American law to be used in nukes not authorized by them, ie the NPT.
                    You didn't even know that the Popeye Turbo already operates with a nuclear warhead and was indigenously designed and built in Israel.

                    You didn't even know about basic intellectual property law, that a design can be changed to avoid it.

                    You didn't even know that the Americans don't get inspection rights over the equipment of allied nations, to ensure that they don't breach IP.

                    Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
                    You actually think taking 33 Chinese targets is going to kill China? They lost 20 times more than that during WWII. And the Chinese currently have enough fissile materials for 400 nukes. They only have around 200 actual nukes. We and the Russians today by treaty limit ourselves to 1,000 to 1,200 deployed nukes with another 2000 to 2500 in reserve (again by Treaty). Again, in my day, it was a world of 60,000+ nukes. I posted more about nuclear war in one paragraph than you did in this entire thread. It is quite clear you lack all sorts of knowledge here.
                    You clearly don't understand the concept of increasing the cost of military action, to the point where it is not worthwhile. The Chinese actually apply that doctrine, "You can defend Taiwan if you want, but are you prepared to lose Los Angeles?" Replace Los Angeles with Shanghai and the same principal applies, they aren't stupid, they aren't going to risk military action against Australia, which could cost them more than they stand to gain.

                    Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
                    And you missed the reference if one fly, they all fly. Australia falls under the American nuclear umbrella, even if Australia did get nukes. Australia is an extremely important trading partnet and trade route. You actually think the Russians are going to allow you to attack their cash cow, China? You nuke China, the Russians will kill you and we would have no choice but to kill Russia and they us. Why did you think nuclear Israel didn't get nuked by Moscow? It certainly wasn't because of Israeli nukes. We went to DEFCON 3. That means NATO loaded and cocked the nukes.
                    The idea that "if one flys they all fly" is just another untested Cold War theory, there are other theories. The Americans have proposed to use nukes in a more limited fashion, so have the British, the Israelis base their entire doctrine on them.

                    As for the Russians nuking us for "attacking" China, we wouldn't be attacking them, we would be defending ourselves against their attack. The prospect of Australia engaging in nuclear retaliation and accidentally setting off a global nuclear war as you have described would undoubtedly give both them and the Russians pause. As you say we are an important trading nation, so weighing up trading with Australia versus getting into a nuclear war with us, should lead them to the right conclusion. That is what deterrence is about for a small, exposed nation, the Swiss have used the same theory for hundreds of years, they will take a load of skin from you if you invade them and they produce enough value through trade, that it isn't worth it.

                    Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
                    I gave you the reference, Project THOR. The point was to educate you what hypersonic kinetic energy can do, not to argue about Australia dropping telephone poles from space. You can do your research why Project THOR was never built and it was not because it was expensive.
                    So your reference was irrelevant for a reason other than expense then.

                    Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
                    100 nukes ain't going to kill any nuclear weapons power. 100 nukes only makes it painful, not lethal, for the Russians to kill you.
                    Now you are getting somewhere, our objective is to make it painful enough for it not to be worth their while.


                    Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
                    Before you go on, I STRONGLY you google the late Stuart Slade's writings, especially Nuclear Warfare 101, 102, and 103. He was a nuclear weapons targeteer. You sounded like every tin-pot dictator who gets a hard on for nukes.
                    It seems to be working ok for Kim Jong Il, every time he fires a rocket or sets off some crappy bomb, the US, China and South Korea send him oil.


                    Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
                    No worries, I will read this person's perspective.
                    Last edited by Aussiegunner; 03 Mar 22,, 00:23.
                    "There is no such thing as society" - Margaret Thatcher

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Aussiegunner View Post
                      You clearly don't understand the concept of increasing the cost of military action, to the point where it is not worthwhile. The Chinese actually apply that doctrine, "You can defend Taiwan if you want, but are you prepared to lose Los Angeles?" Replace Los Angeles with Shanghai and the same principal applies, they aren't stupid, they aren't going to risk military action against Australia, which could cost them more than they stand to gain.
                      Chinese can't use that argument to deter the US from defending Taiwan.

                      Can't threaten over what you do not own. US is not taking something they did not own from them.

                      I know there's commentators that say this but its BS.


                      Originally posted by Aussiegunner View Post
                      The idea that "if one flys they all fly" is just another untested Cold War theory
                      Tell the Paks that because that is who you will be like against China.

                      See, if Paks dare launch any on India in the event of an Indian invasion.

                      Originally posted by Aussiegunner View Post
                      there are other theories. The Americans have proposed to use nukes in a more limited fashion, so have the British, the Israelis base their entire doctrine on them.
                      There is no such thing as limited nuclear war. Use them or lose them. If one flies they all fly.

                      Originally posted by Aussiegunner View Post
                      As for the Russians nuking us for "attacking" China, we wouldn't be attacking them, we would be defending ourselves against their attack. The prospect of Australia engaging in nuclear retaliation and accidentally setting off a global nuclear war as you have described would undoubtedly give both them and the Russians pause.
                      It means you will have to have enough to deter the Russians. Much harder problem now.

                      You will have to become a deterrence power like India or China for the simple reasons of cost should you choose to go down the nuke route. It's a different set of rules to the ones the Russians or Americans play by. They are the ones engaging in nuke blackmail. The rest of us don't get to do that because we don't have the numbers.

                      Lose the term tactical. Think strategic. Think triad and second strike. That's about it.

                      No one can threaten you now except the US or Russia in which case you save yourself by surrendering your nukes and deterring them from striking.
                      Last edited by Double Edge; 03 Mar 22,, 00:45.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Double Edge View Post
                        Aka why the Paks can't use tac nukes against India. circa 2014 on the board some where

                        Why it made no sense for Pakistan to acquire them in the first place. And no matter how much BS the Paks put out it still did not compute.

                        Also the comparison with Israel is flawed. The Israeli's aren't going up against nuclear armed opponents. They did their best to ensure that by taking out suspect installations.
                        India also can't use tac nukes against Pakistan and can't even risk a full scale conventional conflict.

                        "There is no such thing as society" - Margaret Thatcher

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Double Edge View Post
                          Aka why the Paks can't use tac nukes against India. circa 2014 on the board some where

                          Why it made no sense for Pakistan to acquire them in the first place. And no matter how much BS the Paks put out it still did not compute.
                          Keeping up with the Singhs. India has ample more fissile materials than Pakistan and could get 100 warheads with ease. Pakistan could only do 80 with the same yield. To get that extra 20 more, they cut the yield and call it a great military decision that India has no answer to but frankly, it's 10 Pakistani 5 kt yield warheads vs 10 Indian 15 kt yield warheads. The only thing Pakistan can do to justify it is to call them tac nukes but really it's jsut an attempt to keep up with the Singhs.

                          Originally posted by Double Edge View Post
                          The argument for nukes is they deter nuclear blackmail. That is the lesson of the cold war. So why should AUS spend 3.5% - 4% GDP on conventional without nukes.
                          Damned easy answer. Host American nukes. Want even more involvement? Deliver American nukes. The warheads belong to the US. The delivery vehicles belong to the host nation. Problem solved without violating the NPT and spending god awful monies you don't have. Virtually every NATO country was prepared to deliver American nuclear warheads in their own vehicles. BORMAC, GENIE, CF-5 were all Canadian owned and operated. The nukes they carried were American. And it ain't trading San Franscio for Tokyo. It's do you dare to attack American nukes.
                          Chimo

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
                            Damned easy answer. Host American nukes. Want even more involvement? Deliver American nukes. The warheads belong to the US. The delivery vehicles belong to the host nation. Problem solved without violating the NPT and spending god awful monies you don't have. Virtually every NATO country was prepared to deliver American nuclear warheads in their own vehicles. BORMAC, GENIE, CF-5 were all Canadian owned and operated. The nukes they carried were American. And it ain't trading San Franscio for Tokyo. It's do you dare to attack American nukes.
                            The entire premise of this discussion is an isolationist America. Do you think an isolationist America is going to keep nukes in other countries and dare third countries to attack their nukes? Get out of the Cold War Man, it is an entirely different scene to what you know. Professor Hugh White even starts with that very statement at the beginning of the video that Double Edge just reposted.

                            "There is no such thing as society" - Margaret Thatcher

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Aussiegunner View Post

                              India also can't use tac nukes against Pakistan and can't even risk a full scale conventional conflict.
                              We don't have any for that purpose because we don't have enough to piss them away on tactical targets. Same for China.

                              You've been away from the board for a long time. We discussed these all at length over the last ten years.
                              Last edited by Double Edge; 03 Mar 22,, 00:56.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Aussiegunner View Post
                                we could develop our deterrent in secret like Israel has
                                You will have to do that to avert opposition from an unlikely source. Your military !

                                Nukes are not military weapons. They are political weapons.

                                Military does not like nukes because its costly and takes budget away from them.

                                Indira when we tested in 1974 gave the military two weeks notice of the test.

                                Everything up to that point was a secret.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X