Hey Indians, want some no questions asked yellowcake?

[Doktor]

My guess is he plans to smuggle few working nukes from India and to keep them in secret.

But what good in it? Since they are secret, they are no deterrence. They are not enough to retaliate with (assuming to be in position), as far as Ozies are concerned they might not even work (can't test).

[Aussiegunner]

OOE,

1. We are a little short of kamakaze pilots but in any case, a 747 is pretty easy to shoot down. A deterrant needs to be demonstrably effective to the enemy to deter them.

2. What makes you think Taiwan will even be an issue in the timeframe I am talking about? They are as likely as not to vote themselves into the PRC in the 20 years. In any case they are strategically insignificant so China can act elsewhere and get around to them at it's leisure.

3. I am familiar with the Chinese nuclear strategy, no tac nukes, security of a small number of weapons over readiness of a large number. It is a deterrant for countries the size of the US and Russia but a warfighting arsensal against a country the size of Australia ... and doctrine can change with circumstances.

4. Our courts needn't be involved unless the deterrant needs to be revealed because of a threat. After scare like that I think the Justices might see it the governments way.

5. There is plausible denialbility for a sub launched cruise missile. We already have the building blocks for those in sub harpoon and our latest White Paper canvasses the next subs we get being CM capable. Get those first and it gives us time to work on truck mounted BMs which we can hide in any shed.

6. We have a big continent with lots of uranium. I'm pretty sure we could find an approprate bit of land with a uranium vein to purchase as a defence facility under another guise.

7. Waiting for the US to abandon us could well be to late. We need to keep tabs on thier level of commitment and act proactively if needed

8. Our readiness levels require our army to be able to undertake one major brigade level operation and one minor battalion level op simulaniously. In East Timor we deployed four battalions plus support. The type of medium intensity peace enforcement deployment I am talking about would be conducted at no less than a brigade, so the capacity to service the tanks would come with it.

[Aussiegunner]

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.

Hi Ryan,

The premise that you have missed is that I am only proposing this if our major ally's conmitment to providing a nuclear umbrella weakens. That means your point three would be moot. Under such circumstances I'd be more worried about national survival than other nation's opinion of us.

Regarding China's relationship with us, I don't think us having nuclear weapons would prevent us trading with them. It would just mean the relatinship stays on even terms.

You are right that Indonesia would then probably want nukes too, an Indonesian poster has said as much. That would be a consequence of US withdrawl that we would all have to live with. However, MAD would then apply in our region and the chances of conflict would then be reduced. To paraphrase the gun lobby, a nuclear armed region is a polite region.

[Ryan_TUK]

Hi Ryan,

The premise that you have missed is that I am only proposing this if our major ally's conmitment to providing a nuclear umbrella weakens. That means your point three would be moot. Under such circumstances I'd be more worried about national survival than other nation's opinion of us.

Regarding China's relationship with us, I don't think us having nuclear weapons would prevent us trading with them. It would just mean the relatinship stays on even terms.

I don't see why point three would be moot even if the umbrella is removed entirely the US still wont appreciate a nuclear armed Australia every nation that manages to attain nuclear weapons weakens the US's ability to continue what its has been doing since the collapse of the SU. The embargoes will still happen maybe at less of an extreme but it will still be enough to weaken Australia tremendously.

How sustainable is Australia in terms of self producing its daily needs? I ask this because China sure as hell wont allow it to be equal terms just because of a stalemate in destructive ability. China has demonstrated that it excels in long term economic warfare I suspect they would try to make it so that maintaining a nuclear arsenal would be too costly to pursue.

You are right that Indonesia would then probably want nukes too, an Indonesian poster has said as much. That would be a consequence of US withdrawl that we would all have to live with. However, MAD would then apply in our region and the chances of conflict would then be reduced. To paraphrase the gun lobby, a nuclear armed region is a polite region.

They said before WW1 that the major powers would never go to war due to the destructive nature of their military capabilities, those people were wrong. It only takes one minor escalation or event in those types of situation for things to explode in a very short time. The same can be applied to nuclear deterrence.

[Cedz]

Pari

Suez, Grenada. But you've already had those pointed out to you. You seem to believe repeating the same incorrect statements somehow validates them?

Bigfella

Seriously man, where do you get this stuff? Do you have the slightest idea of the impact on Britain's intended role in the world that the Suez Crisis had? That little bitchslap from Eisenhower - a man who had served in war alongside the British - pretty much doomed any pretensions that Britain would remain a global power. Additionally, having just fought one war alongside France, bankrolled the French in Indochina, sent US advisors in & seriously contemplated going to war alongside them again the US bitchslapped France too. Both of them key NATO allies into the bargain. Personally I think the British & French got what they deserved, but it was hardly history as you appear to percieve it.

Oh, and if you want to see what our WW2 alliance & 300 dead Australians in Korea got us, do a bit of digging into what the Americans told Menzies when he sounded them out on US support for an Australo-Dutch bid to keep West New Guinea out of Sukarno's hands. Not quite Suez, but evidence that banked favours aren't worth the paper they are printed on. Sadly it appears that Menzies takeaway from that was that we needed to get even more Australians killed to prove just what a valuable ally we were. Then came the Nixon Doctrine. So much for alliances forged in blood & all that.

I really must be missing something as I don't know how Isreal, Britain, and France conducting hostile operations against Eqypt in 1956 and having the US and USSR reign them in equates to what I was trying to get across? The Suez Crisis seems to be a somewhat different issue to me. If anything it seems that bringing up that little crisis points more to the argument that its ok for the US to conduct acts of agression (ie Iraq) but not other nations. My argument was just that if one's ally is in danger of being invaded (Falklands) then shouldn't supporting them be somewhat black and white? The issue of whether your ally should help you if you are conducting acts of agression against another nation is to me a different matter and much more complicated. So yeah I'm not quite sure what I'm meant to be so obviously seeing here as it relates to whats been discussed over the last week. I'm honestly confused.

If we ever call for American help it will be provided because America sees that as being in its interests. That didn't just become the case when the current incumbent took office in the White House. it has been that way for generations & under Presidents who were warriors & warmongers. Defence planners have known about it since the 70s (at least), don't know why this is even news. All this teenaged girl-like hysteria over the Falklands is so far beyond bizarre that even someone well acquainted with the flights of fancy Australians are prone to when it comes to our threat perceptions is struggling with it. Go read some history & get a grip. This too shall pass.

Gunner pretty much responded to this better than I could but I just have to say exactly what 'flights of fancy' do you think we are refering to? From what I can tell both me and Gunner are well aware of the logistical barriers preventing both Indonesia and China from being a serious threat in the next 20 years or so, but thats not what we are talking about. We are talking far future and what our defense planners should be taking into account right now to give our future generations the tools necessary to ensure Australia's national survival should the day come when we can no longer rely on the US for protection in the case of hostile action by another powerful nation (whoever that might be). Is it so far fetched that we would want our strategic thinkers to be taking all of this into account considering the multitude of possiblities the future may hold?

Also I don't remember anyone becoming hysterical regaridng Argentina's chances of actually taking and holding the Falklands in either threads? Thats never been the point of what we have been trying to argue for the past week. As much as you guys feel that I am not taking on board various points you have brought up, I on the other hand feel that you are missing the point a little bit. That might of course be because I am not arguing any of this very well (which is something I would not be at all surprised about as its not really something I do often!).

Pari

One of the things that make me shudder about this is the notion that country A will send troops to assist country B, no matter what country B is actually doing. "Oh we've got a treaty and we've fought side by side before so we have to do it now'. Uggh....

Look I'm not trying to say that allies should always provide military support in all possible situations. Obviously there are some situations where it shouldn't be given such as if Australia suddenly conducted hostile attacks against Singapore without provocation or something similar. In that scenario the US shouldn't give us aid as we are the unprovoked agressors, which is also why I don't quite understand the whole Suez Crisis point in relation to all this. However if Australia was attacked then I would hope that our defense treaty with the US and a request for aid would actually amount to aid. What about that makes you go 'Ugh'?

S2

Too true. Should you be surprised? Personally I say we drop ten nukes off via Fed Ex at Canberra's door step tomorrow as a "gift from the American people" and leave a thank you card for Aussiegunner.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by this S2?

Anyway I find myself somewhat out of my depth in this discussion and think it might be best for me to bow out a bit and let some of the more experienced posters continue (I'm sure I can learn a lot from them). I have to say this has been a very interesting discussion for me and although some of you think we are being 'hysterica' or 'spouting tripe' I honestly believe that its a topic that needs to be discussed.

[vsdoc]

every nation that manages to attain nuclear weapons weakens the US's ability to continue what its has been doing since the collapse of the SU.

And what is that Ryan?

[Officer of Engineers]

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.

The distinction is the casus belli.

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.

The Pakistanis did not know that they were duds until after the test and even still don't know if they have the right fix in or not. This essentially means that they would have to double up or even triple up on target (ie, instead of 3 nukes per target, it would be 6 or 9 nukes per target) or they can count on only 10 percent targets destroyed, ie they fired off at 100 targets with one nuke each and can only expect 10 destroyed. In short, don't count on a Pakistani nuke to stop an Indian armoured thrust.

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.

That goes counter to your argument actually. The Indian deal was done in the open with very specific legal language (and not so open back door deals, India to this date has not asked for enrichment technologies, not even asked to be grandfathered) that does not aide, in fact, hindered Indian nuclear weapons development.

1. We are a little short of kamakaze pilots but in any case, a 747 is pretty easy to shoot down. A deterrant needs to be demonstrably effective to the enemy to deter them.

You've got F-18s. Punch through.

2. What makes you think Taiwan will even be an issue in the timeframe I am talking about? They are as likely as not to vote themselves into the PRC in the 20 years. In any case they are strategically insignificant so China can act elsewhere and get around to them at it's leisure.

You're the one who chose China. As such, it behooves you to study and exploit their weaknesses rather than a general "I want nukes" chest thumping. I submit an alliance with Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan would do more for Australian security than 100 nukes.

3. I am familiar with the Chinese nuclear strategy, no tac nukes, security of a small number of weapons over readiness of a large number. It is a deterrant for countries the size of the US and Russia but a warfighting arsensal against a country the size of Australia ... and doctrine can change with circumstances.

And weaken themselves against the big 2? Your view of the strategic picture is extremely narrowed and unrealistic. China fought wars against her neighbours and not once did she threatened nukes, mainly because they can't afford to.

4. Our courts needn't be involved unless the deterrant needs to be revealed because of a threat. After scare like that I think the Justices might see it the governments way.

Australia is breaking her own laws and the courts don't need to be involved? I strongly doubt the Supreme Court in Australia would share that view.

5. There is plausible denialbility for a sub launched cruise missile. We already have the building blocks for those in sub harpoon and our latest White Paper canvasses the next subs we get being CM capable. Get those first and it gives us time to work on truck mounted BMs which we can hide in any shed.

You get cruise missiles and you think the USN has no way of knowing if you have nukes or not? Don't be that coy.

6. We have a big continent with lots of uranium. I'm pretty sure we could find an approprate bit of land with a uranium vein to purchase as a defence facility under another guise.

You can't hide roads, sewers, a big hill of garbage, and a small city.

7. Waiting for the US to abandon us could well be to late. We need to keep tabs on thier level of commitment and act proactively if needed

The warning signs would be long time coming. Even if the US decides to secret leave today, it would take months for them to leave.

8. Our readiness levels require our army to be able to undertake one major brigade level operation and one minor battalion level op simulaniously. In East Timor we deployed four battalions plus support. The type of medium intensity peace enforcement deployment I am talking about would be conducted at no less than a brigade, so the capacity to service the tanks would come with it.

A brigade commitment would drain Australia of any capacity to act elsewhere. And you're not shipping a service battalion with a tank regiment. That's a waste of resources, especially when other coalition partners can do the job better/

[Ryan_TUK]

And what is that Ryan?

Maintain its position as the worlds dominant military power. Each time a nation develops nuclear weapons its a new threat to that dominance as its another country that can begin its accession to great power status.

[vsdoc]

Maintain its position as the worlds dominant military power. Each time a nation develops nuclear weapons its a new threat to that dominance as its another country that can begin its accession to great power status.

Thank you.

And that is bad/unacceptable to others (besides the US) because?

[Officer of Engineers]

Thank you.

And that is bad/unacceptable to others (besides the US) because?

Because it's bad for business. The NSG makes money on civilian trade and charges a premium on weapons trade (between the N5).

[Ryan_TUK]

Thank you.

And that is bad/unacceptable to others (besides the US) because?

Depends which other countries you refer too.

For Britain and France its because they rely on the US's dominance to keep them in the forefront of influencing world issues.

For China it depends on the region, a nuclear Venezuela for instance would likely not be a problem to them as it would tie up US forces on a threat close to home which in turn could mean they may have to divert forces that were previously in what China considers its sphere of influence. Australia falls under what China would consider to be its backyard, and so a nuclear Australia will hamper their own rise to dominance and would need to be dealt with before they can exert full control of the region.

[vsdoc]

Because it's bad for business. The NSG makes money on civilian trade and charges a premium on weapons trade (between the N5).

So all the better. Lets all go nuclear.

The NSG should be swimming in money both from civilian trade as well N5 weapons trade as they bolster to keep the pesky upstart non-N5's at bay.

Because obviously that's the better option than all of us together going non-nuclear.

[vsdoc]

Depends which other countries you refer too.

Thank you. That's exactly it.

[Officer of Engineers]

So all the better. Lets all go nuclear.

The NSG should be swimming in money both from civilian trade as well N5 weapons trade as they bolster to keep the pesky upstart non-N5's at bay.

And break the monopoly? What's to stop AQ Khan deals where they buy civilian products for military use? There's more money in the civilian trade to break that mode.

[vsdoc]

And break the monopoly? What's to stop AQ Khan deals where they buy civilian products for military use? There's more money in the civilian trade to break that mode.

Sir sorry to burst the bubble but AQ Khan happened in spite of the NPT and the NSG. So what did they achieve?

What happens if an AQ Khan happens to a country that is a member of the NSG with enough access to uranium reserves on their own soil?

Are you also saying that in spite of civilian supply being more profitable, the NSG is beholden to supply the N5 with more uranium for posterity(?) to build MORE nukes?

And that too at LOWER rates?

WOW! I am so floored its not even funny anymore .....

Talk about cabals.