Australia considering Nukes....

page: 2
10
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 15 2009 @ 07:02 AM
link   
Australia has been a long time manufacturer of WMD.
I thought a couple of our most successful deployments of long range WMD were Crocodile Dundee 1 and 2, Mad Max:Beyond Tina Turner's Domes, BMX Bandits and The Time Guardian.

Check out this Nuclear Powered weapon.


Don't mess with us, mate.

[edit on 15/12/09 by atlasastro]




posted on Dec, 15 2009 @ 07:04 AM
link   
reply to post by Chadwickus
 


I understand what your saying but the main reason Australia began its quest for nukes in the 60's was because we couldn't rely on the US coming in to defend us if the # hit the fan.....

www.nautilus.org...


the emphasis had shifted from purchasing nuclear weapons from abroad, to manufacturing them in Australia. W. C. Wentworth, Liberal parliamentarian and former Chairman of the AAEC, advocated a home-grown weapon 'because the United States could not be trusted to come to our defence'.


Here's a quote by Kim Beazley, presentation to Seminar on the ANZUS alliance, Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, Parliament of Australia, 11 August 1997.


Secondly, we accepted that the joint facilities were probably targets, but we accepted the risk of that for what we saw as the benefits of global stability. We did not believe that port visits and exercises posed any such risks. On the one hand, we found ourselves dealing with genuine nuclear risk.


Australia admits that we are a nuclear attack risk due to out joint bases with the yanks......a perfect reason for a nuclear deterence of our own.

www.globalcollab.org...


The United States has extended assurances of extended nuclear deterrence to its major allies from the earliest days of the Cold War. At present, the US appears to count some 31 countries - mostly the NATO allies - under its nuclear umbrella. Both Japan and Australia have incorporated explicit statements of reliance on United States extended nuclear deterrence into their formal defence policies. In the Japanese case these public statements reach back at least until the 1970s. In the Australian case, while the assurance has been taken as given more many years, the earliest Australian government official public statement is in the Defence White Paper of 1994. The United States has frequently provided public confirmation of its promise of extended nuclear deterrence to Japan and its European allies. However, there is no known record of comparable public assurance of extended nuclear deterrence to Australia, notwithstanding the assumption that such a promise exists.


The US still has about 480 nuclear weapons stationed within Europe......
www.nrdc.org...


This February 2005 NRDC paper pieces together evidence from an array of sources to show that the United States is still deploying 480 nuclear weapons in Europe.


Lets be naive for a second and assume that Australia does not have its own secret nuclear weapons program.....do you seriously beleive that with the joint defence facility we have here between the US and Australia that the US would not be stationing a large amount of nuclear weapons for us to deploy at our will should we ever come under a threat?



posted on Dec, 15 2009 @ 07:13 AM
link   
reply to post by Melbourne_Militia
 


There is always the possibility of there being nukes here but in regards to the jointly run bases here, I would have thought a missile defense system would be preferable over a missile attack system.

Anyway, these couple of vids may be of interest to you:


(click to open player in new window)



(click to open player in new window)



posted on Dec, 15 2009 @ 07:31 AM
link   
All of the main countries have nukes, so why the hell not Australia? i firstly think it should be used for power, however It'd help make Australia be taken more seriously anyways. I'd be more then happy for nuclear weapons to be built it Australia. For any country to say that Australia should not have nuclear weapons is almost certainly hypocritical.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Dec, 15 2009 @ 08:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Chadwickus
reply to post by Melbourne_Militia
 


Look I'm sure Israel do have secret nukes, maybe even India and USA.

BUT. Those countries are already known to have nukes, Australia is known to NOT have nukes.

Like I said, the second mot important reason for having and letting everyone else that you have nukes is for bluffing purposes.

[edit on 15/12/09 by Chadwickus]


I guess keep it secret as to not get in conflict with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty[which Australia signed]. It also would be a bad signal now with Iran in the crosshairs. But if an Asian power wants harm surely it would know with some intel ["privided" by] Australia does have nukes so deterrence would work..I understand if they do, but what happens if the snowball starts rolling and South Africa, Brazil, Argentina and all the other former nuclear [experimental] forces starts building them again? No reason for countries such as Iran to listen to the international public anymore..



posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 09:22 AM
link   
austalia has had nukes for years but no you they didn't design them or the delivery systems they are us orginated and operated. but there have been nukes there for years.



posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 11:46 AM
link   
Secret document exposes Iran’s nuclear trigger - (times online co uk site)

Confidential intelligence documents obtained by The Times show that Iran is working on testing a key final component of a nuclear bomb.

The notes, from Iran’s most sensitive military nuclear project, describe a four-year plan to test a neutron initiator, the component of a nuclear bomb that triggers an explosion. Foreign intelligence agencies date them to early 2007, four years after Iran was thought to have suspended its weapons programme.

An Asian intelligence source last week confirmed to The Times that his country also believed that weapons work was being carried out as recently as 2007 — specifically, work on a neutron initiator.

The technical document describes the use of a neutron source, uranium deuteride, which independent experts confirm has no possible civilian or military use other than in a nuclear weapon. Uranium deuteride is the material used in Pakistan’s bomb, from where Iran obtained its blueprint.

“Although Iran might claim that this work is for civil purposes, there is no civil application,” said David Albright, a physicist and president of the Institute for Science and International Security in Washington, which has analysed hundreds of pages of documents related to the Iranian programme. “This is a very strong indicator of weapons work.”

The documents have been seen by intelligence agencies from several Western countries, including Britain. A senior source at the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) confirmed that they had been passed to the UN’s nuclear watchdog.

A Foreign and Commonwealth Office spokeswoman said yesterday: “We do not comment on intelligence, but our concerns about Iran’s nuclear programme are clear. Obviously this document, if authentic, raises serious questions about Iran’s intentions.”

Responding to The Times’ findings, an Israeli government spokesperson said: “Israel is increasingly concerned about the state of the Iranian nuclear programme and the real intentions that may lie behind it.”

The revelation coincides with growing international concern about Iran’s nuclear programme. Tehran insists that it wants to build a civilian nuclear industry to generate power, but critics suspect that the regime is intent on diverting the technology to build an atomic bomb.

In September, Iran was forced to admit that it was constructing a secret uranium enrichment facility near the city of Qom. President Ahmadinejad then claimed that he wanted to build ten such sites. Over the weekend Manouchehr Mottaki, the Iranian Foreign Minister, said that Iran needed up to 15 nuclear power plants to meet its energy needs, despite the country’s huge oil and gas reserves.

Publication of the nuclear documents will increase pressure for tougher UN sanctions against Iran, which are due to be discussed this week. But the latest leaks in a long series of allegations against Iran will also be seized on by hawks in Israel and the US, who support a pre-emptive strike against Iranian nuclear facilities before the country can build its first warhead.

Mark Fitzpatrick, senior fellow for non-proliferation at the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London, said: “The most shattering conclusion is that, if this was an effort that began in 2007, it could be a casus belli. If Iran is working on weapons, it means there is no diplomatic solution.”

The Times had the documents, which were originally written in Farsi, translated into English and had the translation separately verified by two Farsi speakers. While much of the language is technical, it is clear that the Iranians are intent on concealing their nuclear military work behind legitimate civilian research.



posted on Dec, 26 2009 @ 11:24 PM
link   
I wish people wouldn't talk utter sh&$ in their opening posts.

Australia is not considering obtaining nuclear weapons.

Here is the opening part of the article.


A DRAMATIC deterioration in Asian security may push Australia to acquire nuclear weapons, a strategy it abandoned four decades ago, a strategic report argues.

Australian Strategic Policy Institute analyst Dr Rod Lyons says such a decision certainly isn't close, nor is it inevitable.



What it says is nothing new. It is a well known fact that Australia has the capability to build a nuke quickly, if it needed to.

It is also a well known fact that Australia once, in the 60's, considered a nuclear deterrent of it's own, but that was abandoned.

It is also a well known fact that should security and stability in South East Asia and the wider Asia region detereorate, that possibility will be on the table again. And in all likelyhood, if the security/stability situation detereorated, the development of nuclear weapons by Australia will be done with complete secrect with assistance from western allies.

In fact it's also a possibility the United States will "loan" Australian some nukes as a last resort. Similar to the NATO nuclear weapon sharing program during the cold war for use by NATO air forces against the Warsaw Pact.


Nukes aren't being considered right now, and wont be for a long time(unless the unlikely happens in Asia), because to put it simply and probably hurt some peoples feelings, Australia doesn't need nuclear weapons or any weapons of mass destruction to maintain it's regional supremacy.
And beyond Australias immediate region, it's not like anyone is a threat, yet. China and Australia rely on each other for trade. China needs Australian resources, Australia needs money.

It's a win win. Why would China or Australia upset that balance?

Indonesia is no threat and never will be. It has too many mouths to feed and can't divert massive amounts of funding to the armed forces.
It operates 13 frigates from the 1950's and 1960's. It has just over a dozen fighter aircraft. Three submarines.
Nearly 1 million soldiers including reserves, with a budget of just under 5 billion dollars.

Australia spends between 20 and 30 billion dollars on around a military of roughly 70,000 personnel. It has some of the most sophisticated military equipment going around.

If the situation deteriorated in Asia, there's more chance a national draft of sorts would be brought back rather then Australia obtaining nukes.

Nukes are great, sure, but how will they stop enemy soldiers from invading?
We need soldiers, pilots, and crews for ships and submarines. And that is what will happen before nukes.



posted on Dec, 26 2009 @ 11:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Chadwickus
 


Australia is joining the missile defence shield, at least the ship born missile defence shield.
That is what our new air warfare destroyers are for.
That is why the South Koreans and Japanese also have in recent times built their own destroyers armed with the same AEGIS systems our new destroyers will feature.



posted on Dec, 26 2009 @ 11:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Max_TO
Does Australia have rockets to throw a nuke far enough to matter ? Seems to be a much better first step .


Well considering all the US and British rocket tests were carried out here on joint Australian/ International programs, I think we have access to rocket technology


I know this as the town I live in was where they were all tested, and these programs still occur occasionally



posted on Dec, 27 2009 @ 04:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by proteus33
austalia has had nukes for years but no you they didn't design them or the delivery systems they are us orginated and operated. but there have been nukes there for years.


the f-111s are / where the delivery system.
when they are gone then the 12 new subs will have the nukes



posted on Dec, 27 2009 @ 04:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by OzWeatherman

Originally posted by Max_TO
Does Australia have rockets to throw a nuke far enough to matter ? Seems to be a much better first step .


Well considering all the US and British rocket tests were carried out here on joint Australian/ International programs, I think we have access to rocket technology


I know this as the town I live in was where they were all tested, and these programs still occur occasionally


and other goodies at woomera
all the ucavs there



posted on Dec, 27 2009 @ 05:44 AM
link   
The way I see it is that if we get nukes it makes us a target to be nuked ourselves.
How about we just have a large amount of ground-to-air missiles and upgrade our Air Force's inventory.



posted on Dec, 27 2009 @ 06:07 AM
link   
reply to post by BLV12
 


mmmm please tell me where you think this is misleading or"s%^t", bit hard to see cause what you quoted pretty much states what I posted.????



posted on Dec, 27 2009 @ 06:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Nventual
 


I hate to admit it but I can see the pros and cons to this, but as I stated in my opening post, it will be a very sad day when we finalise something like this. For a no Nuke country to be concerned enough to let people know that they are thinking about somehing like this......
Dont matter how far down the track it may be, its still a BIG decision for a country like Aus.



posted on Dec, 28 2009 @ 01:27 AM
link   
reply to post by Tayesin
 


Sorry I missed that post somehow, I want to add the validity of your account by saying I talked recently with an Oil Executive who now lives in this country who had CIA clearances that he was flown over this silo 30 years ago and shown the facility from the air. He said they appeared to be Minute Men but he could not confirm that with any assurance.

I have to say I took the conversation lightly but now reading your post today I have had second thoughts and must admit it seems that even if we didn't have Nukes here the Americans or British would.



posted on Dec, 28 2009 @ 01:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nventual
The way I see it is that if we get nukes it makes us a target to be nuked ourselves.
How about we just have a large amount of ground-to-air missiles and upgrade our Air Force's inventory.


Australia is already a target to be nuked, if a nuclear war between the US/Russia breaks out. There are some very important and key American/Australian bases in Australia, such as Pine Gap and another one over in Western Australia, used to be one in South Australia too.
Pine Gap for example, was used during the Iraq wars, Afghanistan, etc.
They are part of the Anglo-American global network.

If we get nukes, what will happen is a domino effect throughout the region. India and China already have nukes, North Korea supposedly has a few.
The military build up and arms race in the region will intensify, it will push other countries into obtaining more offensive weapons, to gain the capability for first strike, rather then the defensive posture most if not all countries in the region have today.

reply to post by The_Seeker
 


Your title says Australia considering nukes..

Australia, the GOVERNMENT, are NOT considering nuclear weapons.
A think tank has, and that's it.

Your misleading people, and sensationalizing nothing. Do you work for NewsCorp?



posted on Dec, 28 2009 @ 01:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nventual
The way I see it is that if we get nukes it makes us a target to be nuked ourselves.
How about we just have a large amount of ground-to-air missiles and upgrade our Air Force's inventory.


Australia is already a target to be nuked, if a nuclear war between the US/Russia breaks out. There are some very important and key American/Australian bases in Australia, such as Pine Gap and another one over in Western Australia, used to be one in South Australia too.
Pine Gap for example, was used during the Iraq wars, Afghanistan, etc.
They are part of the Anglo-American global network.

If we get nukes, what will happen is a domino effect throughout the region. India and China already have nukes, North Korea supposedly has a few.
The military build up and arms race in the region will intensify, it will push other countries into obtaining more offensive weapons, to gain the capability for first strike, rather then the defensive posture most if not all countries in the region have today.

reply to post by The_Seeker
 


Your title says Australia considering nukes..

Australia, the GOVERNMENT, are NOT considering nuclear weapons.
A think tank has, and that's it.

Your misleading people, and sensationalizing nothing. Do you work for NewsCorp?



posted on Dec, 28 2009 @ 01:37 AM
link   
Damn! I thought we were finally gonna grow a spine & have our own nukes for protection. Damn sure the Yanks will let us down when the chips fall, it will be every man for himself, & I'd be happy to just have us to rely on & not our "allies"!!



posted on Dec, 28 2009 @ 01:39 AM
link   
reply to post by BLV12
 


Because I missed out on the word Government, sorry but I find that a little picky??? Dont mean to be rude!
Plus we as a Nation are supposed to be represented by our government, so yes it may read the way I have posted.
Not sensationalising - again not meaning to be rude, but what is your real problem
?





new topics
top topics
 
10
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join