Hey Indians, want some no questions asked yellowcake?

[Aussiegunner]

I never took that line seriously. If the ABRAMs can get to Australia, then it stands to reason that they can get out of Australia.

That being said, Australia will never deploy those tanks unless under Coalition conditions. If the American air cover can't or won't protect Australian tanks, Australian tanks ain't leaving Australia.

The last deployment of Australian MBTs was Centurions in Vietnam against insurgents, there was no air threat. Your own military has used MBTs against insurgents in Afghanistan where there is also no air threat. There is the real prospect that in the often unstable island nations in our immediate region, some group of protagonists will get hold of a couple of hundred RPGS. That could be achieved with the proceeds from one good dope crop and a fishing boat from North Korea. Australia would as always act and there would be no air threat, but we would sure as hell want MBTs on the ground to prevent our soldiers from having to face an anti armour threat in M-113s, ASLAVS and Bushmasters.

That is what shits me when people whinge about spending the money on these things, they are talking about denying our soldiers appropriate protection to do their very dangerous and important job. Then if we didn't deploy to these trouble spots they would bitch and moan about the Australian Government not meeting its regional obligations. If they actually ever gave enough of a damn to think rather than just to shoot from the lip, they would be calling for us to spend more money on defence than our measly 1.8% to 1.9% of GDP, to put the ability to support these things beyond doubt. But of course we'd rather spend money on government social programs directed at the lazy and the stupid, all in the name of "fairness".

It makes me want to spew.

[Aussiegunner]

Gee, and I thought you weren't talking to me.

I figured you go for 'the guys who run them don't know a thing', so I saved an ace in my back pocket. Hows about a logistics expert and DoD official (dealing with logistics) who has 35 years experience in the British & Australian armies - including...wait for it...handling logistics in the Falklands? let me guess, he doesn't know a thing either.

Without the Yanks backing up our logistics those things aren't going to get within a bull's roar of combat. But tha twas always the point anyway.

I like you AG. You funny.

Then if this guy is still working for DOD and if he was involved with the Abrams, then he has revealed a secret which would be subject to his security classification which could compromise the lives of our soldiers in the field. You in turn have broadcast this on the internet. I hope ASIO and the Federal Police turn up at your front door, get his address then go and bust his arse.

[Officer of Engineers]

The last deployment of Australian MBTs was Centurions in Vietnam against insurgents, there was no air threat. Your own military has used MBTs against insurgents in Afghanistan where there is also no air threat.

Thought you were a gunner. Opposing air forces are not the only requirement for air dominance. The last thing I want is my tanks being trapped by enemy guns and minefields. In both Vietnam and Afghanistan, reliance on USAF recce was not only required but essential to operational planning.

There is the real prospect that in the often unstable island nations in our immediate region, some group of protagonists will get hold of a couple of hundred RPGS. That could be achieved with the proceeds from one good dope crop and a fishing boat from North Korea. Australia would as always act and there would be no air threat, but we would sure as hell want MBTs on the ground to prevent our soldiers from having to face an anti armour threat in M-113s, ASLAVS and Bushmasters.

Then I would suggest that you wait one week and then find every big truck you can, fill them with water, food, and medicine and go rescue those poor buggers.

Cross country travel ain't for the untrained, especially in unfamiliar terrain. Perhaps you can enlighten me as to where these buggers actually trained for the Australian terrain?

That is what shits me when people whinge about spending the money on these things, they are talking about denying our soldiers appropriate protection to do their very dangerous and important job. Then if we didn't deploy to these trouble spots they would bitch and moan about the Australian Government not meeting its regional obligations. If they actually ever gave enough of a damn to think rather than just to shoot from the lip, they would be calling for us to spend more money on defence than our measly 1.8% to 1.9% of GDP, to put the ability to support these things beyond doubt. But of course we'd rather spend money on government social programs directed at the lazy and the stupid, all in the name of "fairness".

It makes me want to spew.

I'm not familiar enough with the Australian Army's view of the battlefield and frankly, I'm no longer able to understand my own army. However, in general terms, you need tanks, if only to know what they can and cannot do.

[Bigfella]

Then if this guy is still working for DOD and if he was involved with the Abrams, then he has revealed a secret which would be subject to his security classification which could compromise the lives of our soldiers in the field. You in turn have broadcast this on the internet. I hope ASIO and the Federal Police turn up at your front door, get his address then go and bust his arse.

He gave an opinion. Grow up.

[Officer of Engineers]

Sir, why are cluster bombs and Napalm/Agent Orange OK and a bio-chem attack not?

I was Google Image searching and the pictures are frankly HORRIFIC. Generations forward in the case of Agent Orange.

Cluster munitions fall under the Ottawa and the Dublin Treaties. Incendiaries have legitimate uses but with an unintended (or intended) side effect of burning people.

However, bio-chems fall under both the BWC and the CWC which have made their usage illegal and thus subject to WMD retaliation. The point here is that the US can still destroy a country without using nukes and while that maybe legitimate, it is a far weaker deterrent than a mushroom cloud.

[Aussiegunner]

1) If Australia can't make a gun type nuke in 3 weeks, you should close down all your reactors.

I am aware that gun type nuclear weapons are easy to manufacture as long as you have enriched Uranium or Plutonium. We only have one a light water reactor that is monitored under the NPT so accessing the fuel is a challenge for us. In addition I understand that gun type weapons are generally very large, which would make delivery difficult for us.

2) Why did you pick China when they don't have the numbers nor the doctrine to take on even a non-nuclear Australia. The country most likely to threaten Australia with nukes is Russia ... and good luck if you think Australia even have a chance in hell of deterring the Russian 15,000+ nukes arsenal within a reasonable time span.

You may not have read the entire thread but I am considering possibilities well into the future. China's capability will undoubtedly have progressed over that time, they may have expanded enough to come into conflict with Australia's interests or they may have acquired allies who do.

As for Russia, I have just spent a thread arguing with people who think that China is unlikely to have competing interests with Australia, so you can try to convince them that Russia is more likely to be a threat if you like. Personally I reckon the Russians would just make noise about the NPT but then would actually like an Australia taking a more independent stance from the US. And they would see us as a potential market if the US decided to cut off the supply of weapons to us.

3) Why are you advocating Australia to break Australian Law? The NPT is Australian Law whether you like it or not. To state that Australia could acquire nukes while hiding under the NPT specifically states that Australia will break Australian Law without any legal procedures. If this is the case, kiss your pension goodbye because Australian Law would be worth toilet paper.

This is a good point and one that I hadn't considered. However, I believe that if a situation where national survival had come into question, Australians would understand their Government taking necessary action to protect us - even if that action was "extra constitutional". You have to understand that Australians are different from Canadians in that we are more isolated from the interests of major allies and live in , so delusional peaceniks aside, we probably have a keener sense of our own vulnerability than you appreciate.

4) The world knew about Pakistan, India, Israel, South Africa, and North Korea. What makes you think that Australia would be any better at hiding nukes when all your materials are under IAEA watch? No, those four countries are not under IAEA watch when they made their nukes.

I had thought of that. The World suspected each of these had nukes, they didn't know - and they probably only knew about India because they let a bomb off in '74. So long as we have plausible deniability then nobody can do anything about it. The advantages for us though are that we don't generally bother anybody and the World probably wouldn't expect us to develop nukes under the IAEA's noses. We also have a friggin' big geographically stable continent to hide things on and lots of uranium. The problem for us would be secretly sourcing the expertise and money (too transparent unfortunately), but I'm sure their are ways and means.

5) What makes you think that Obama or any POTUS can ignore the ANZUS Treaty?

The US Government can do whatever the hell it wants ... it could scrap the ANZUS treaty any time it liked and what would we do about it? Given that there is an isolationist streak in the US as there always has been, we should be watching it closely to keep tabs on whether we need to take action to look after ourselves.

[Aussiegunner]

Thought you were a gunner. Opposing air forces are not the only requirement for air dominance. The last thing I want is my tanks being trapped by enemy guns and minefields. In both Vietnam and Afghanistan, reliance on USAF recce was not only required but essential to operational planning.

We have our own recce assets, not the least the SAS which was found to be pretty useful finding things like ballistic missiles in Iraq. Naturally though we would welcome the opportunity to work with allies.

Then I would suggest that you wait one week and then find every big truck you can, fill them with water, food, and medicine and go rescue those poor buggers.

Cross country travel ain't for the untrained, especially in unfamiliar terrain. Perhaps you can enlighten me as to where these buggers actually trained for the Australian terrain?

I'm talking about us undertaking a peace enforcement mission in their own territory, like a Solomon Islands or East Timor intervention with RPGs in the mix. It could happen easily. Sorry if I was unclear about that.

I'm not familiar enough with the Australian Army's view of the battlefield and frankly, I'm no longer able to understand my own army. However, in general terms, you need tanks, if only to know what they can and cannot do.

Good, I am glad we agree then.

[vsdoc]

Cluster munitions fall under the Ottawa and the Dublin Treaties. Incendiaries have legitimate uses but with an unintended (or intended) side effect of burning people.

However, bio-chems fall under both the BWC and the CWC which have made their usage illegal and thus subject to WMD retaliation. The point here is that the US can still destroy a country without using nukes and while that maybe legitimate, it is a far weaker deterrent than a mushroom cloud.

Sir without once again going into the dubious and one-sided morality and ethics of the above, and considering the ridiculous ease for any country with a half-decent vaccine industry to also clandestinely develop bio-weapons, would even the threat of a mushroom cloud truly be enough of an unbalanced deterrent in the face of a biological attack on the aggressor population as an implied if not clearly verbalized/established counter-deterrent?

I am from the industry, I am aware of the safe-guards (I deal with them daily), and I can tell you that today with newer yield, recombinant, stability and delivery technology platforms, this is no longer just the realm of a Robin Cook novel.

[Chunder]

So, now we've baited OoE back, how much longer do we have to continue? :)

[Officer of Engineers]

I am aware that gun type nuclear weapons are easy to manufacture as long as you have enriched Uranium or Plutonium. We only have one a light water reactor that is monitored under the NPT so accessing the fuel is a challenge for us. In addition I understand that gun type weapons are generally very large, which would make delivery difficult for us.

I don't get you. You're opting for a very difficult design, harder to manufacture, damned hard to high, needing outside foreign help who can blow the whistle on you at anytime ... when you can do all this inhouse with a guntype nuke.

As for delivery, you can kamakazie a 747, can't you?

You may not have read the entire thread but I am considering possibilities well into the future. China's capability will undoubtedly have progressed over that time, they may have expanded enough to come into conflict with Australia's interests or they may have acquired allies who do.

Then it behooves you to join with front line countries ready and willing to take on China. Canada and Australia are two countries who must depend on alliances for their defence. There is nothing shameful about it. We commit to our allies for the very reason that we would fight outside of our homes, in our friends' homes perhaps but not our homes.

You want to take on China? Commit to the defence of Taiwan. Win or lose, China would be in no position to do anything more than lick her wounds after Taiwan.

As for Russia, I have just spent a thread arguing with people who think that China is unlikely to have competing interests with Australia, so you can try to convince them that Russia is more likely to be a threat if you like. Personally I reckon the Russians would just make noise about the NPT but then would actually like an Australia taking a more independent stance from the US. And they would see us as a potential market if the US decided to cut off the supply of weapons to us.

I submit that you have not read Field Marshall Rie, the architect of Chinese nuclear strategy. The Chinese have a deterrence arsenal. The Russians have a war fighting arsenal.

This is a good point and one that I hadn't considered. However, I believe that if a situation where national survival had come into question, Australians would understand their Government taking necessary action to protect us - even if that action was "extra constitutional". You have to understand that Australians are different from Canadians in that we are more isolated from the interests of major allies and live in , so delusional peaceniks aside, we probably have a keener sense of our own vulnerability than you appreciate.

I strongly doubt that your courts would see it that way. Our shared heritage saw James got his head chopped off for breaking his own laws.

I had thought of that. The World suspected each of these had nukes, they didn't know - and they probably only knew about India because they let a bomb off in '74. So long as we have plausible deniability then nobody can do anything about it.

There's no plausible deniability with IRBM and ICBM batteries.

The advantages for us though are that we don't generally bother anybody and the World probably wouldn't expect us to develop nukes under the IAEA's noses. We also have a friggin' big geographically stable continent to hide things on and lots of uranium. The problem for us would be secretly sourcing the expertise and money (too transparent unfortunately), but I'm sure their are ways and means.

You have mines and factories under watch. How are you going to hide those?

The US Government can do whatever the hell it wants ... it could scrap the ANZUS treaty any time it liked and what would we do about it? Given that there is an isolationist streak in the US as there always has been, we should be watching it closely to keep tabs on whether we need to take action to look after ourselves.

The Treaty obligates the US to notify you. You can take action then.

We have our own recce assets, not the least the SAS which was found to be pretty useful finding things like ballistic missiles in Iraq. Naturally though we would welcome the opportunity to work with allies.

The SAS is not going to penetrate an opposing mech force.

I'm talking about us undertaking a peace enforcement mission in their own territory, like a Solomon Islands or East Timor intervention with RPGs in the mix. It could happen easily. Sorry if I was unclear about that.

I'm an engineer. My job was to stop and kill tanks.

Good, I am glad we agree then.

Doesn't change the fact that unless you're deploying at the brigade level, your tanks are going to be without your service battalions and thus reliant on someone else's service battalions.

[Officer of Engineers]

Sir without once again going into the dubious and one-sided morality and ethics of the above, and considering the ridiculous ease for any country with a half-decent vaccine industry to also clandestinely develop bio-weapons, would even the threat of a mushroom cloud truly be enough of an unbalanced deterrent in the face of a biological attack on the aggressor population as an implied if not clearly verbalized/established counter-deterrent?

I am from the industry, I am aware of the safe-guards (I deal with them daily), and I can tell you that today with newer yield, recombinant, stability and delivery technology platforms, this is no longer just the realm of a Robin Cook novel.

I doubt that any biological attack could be contained to the target population.

[Officer of Engineers]

So, now we've baited OoE back, how much longer do we have to continue? :)

When you ship me a bottle of Glenmorangie 18

[nvishal]

Not a consideration since Chinese aide to Pakistan was before her signature to the NPT and thus, all her efforts were at least not illegal.

The NPT is a political tool. From a political PoV, yes the chinese did no wrong. But from a military PoV, the chinese enabled pakistan to develop nukes. They gave ready-made ones or "helped" them, what is the difference? I did not say that it was illegal or legal. It is this unnecessary arbitrary argument to create a difference between the two is what i don't agree. What is the compulsion for disagreeing with pragmatic interpretation? We are not diplomats.

It means that the weaponization has failed. It means that before the Pakistani tests, Pakistani nukes will not work to expectations and, therefore, will not deliver the objectives as envisioned by Pakistani strategic planners.

What does it matter? A fizzle still has the capacity to make a killing. We are assuming that the state won't use under-performing nukes in times of an all out war.

Anyone and everyone who demands that any country signing a treaty will honour that treaty. India should be so concerned if Australia violates the NPT. It means that any treaty or contract that Australia signs with India is worth toilet paper.

I don't think so. Flexibility is still a trump card and a benefit. That explains why US created a consensus to enable india for the nuclear deal. A "way" would not be possible if it indeed were so rigid. In the end, security matters. In fact, it molds.

The moral authority is very Australian specific. There has been no indications that the US is willing to abandon the nuclear umbrella over Australia.

True

[vsdoc]

I doubt that any biological attack could be contained to the target population.

But if the premise is MAD as counter-deterrent?

Not taking into account different land mass, oceans, currents (wind and water), seasonal cycles, genetically engineered disease critical mass cycles, and self-containment by the target population and the quality of its medical/bio-containment capabilities.

[Ryan_TUK]

AussieGunner, I haven't read the entire thread so forgive me if you've already answered this but aside from the level of deterrence it will provide what do you think the effects of pursuing nuclear armament will be?

Heres my opinion: 1) Right now China views Australia as a valuable trade partner and so you remain relatively safe. If Australia pursues the path you desire then you shift from trade partner to regional enemy and chine tries to contain you as it has done by allying with Pakistan in regards to India.

2) Indonesia is now surrounded by 3 potential nuclear armed enemies and feels the need to attain its own sparking a regional arms race, one that Australia will most likely loose due its lack of population.

3) Australia's major allies will begin to shun her, one of their closest allies goes and does the exact thing they have been trying to prevent others achieving would weaken their power in general. The US, UK and France aren't just going to let this slide the sanctions and embargoes would be numerous. Australia would most likely have to rebuild its entire military from scratch when the US withholds spare parts.

4) Australia's political position will be weakened its word will mean for nothing in the eyes of other nations.

All in all I don't see what you propose benefiting Australia in the slightest.