Australia considering Nukes....

page: 7
10
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 21 2010 @ 10:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by BLV12
And if we are attacked, what makes you think the ADF can't respond?


With what? Some frigates and F111?

Maybe we can fly our elite troops in on blackhawks so they die before they even get a single boot on the ground?

The ADF is a waste of money in it's current and recent past incarnations. A nuclear deterrent would be just as good, cheaper to run and more effective if we ever get into a fight.

They should scrap the entire surface navy and replace them with subs, possibly nuclear, and get rid of the airforce and replace it with stealth only and then bury their bases underground.

We can whack up a more comprehensive missile shield than the yanks have given us. And then who could possibly ever attack? And what would they attack? Our subs and fighters they can't even see that are destroying their supply lines from hardened underground bases?



[edit on 21-4-2010 by belial259]




posted on Apr, 21 2010 @ 11:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by belial259

Originally posted by BLV12
And if we are attacked, what makes you think the ADF can't respond?


With what? Some frigates and F111?


Soldiers, frigates, destroyers(being built as I type), subs, FA18 Hornet/SuperHornet, F111(to be retired soon), F35(in the next 10-15 years), tanks/armoured vehicles(admittedly, not enough, although that's due to the size of the army)....

Why, what do you think other countries, or potential foes, will fight us with? Light sabers and magic?

We don't need to build a nuclear deterrent because we are part of the United States nuclear deterrent already...we are also a target as a result.



Maybe we can fly our elite troops in on blackhawks so they die before they even get a single boot on the ground?


Are people supposed to respond seriously to this?



The ADF is a waste of money in it's current and recent past incarnations. A nuclear deterrent would be just as good, cheaper to run and more effective if we ever get into a fight.


Yep. Because a nuclear bomb is going to stop enemy troops occupying Australian soil or Australian territorial waters.



They should scrap the entire surface navy and replace them with subs, possibly nuclear, and get rid of the airforce and replace it with stealth only and then bury their bases underground.


If only we lived in the fantasy world you do, where money grows on trees and logic and reality are of no relevance.



We can whack up a more comprehensive missile shield than the yanks have given us. And then who could possibly ever attack? And what would they attack? Our subs and fighters they can't even see that are destroying their supply lines from hardened underground bases?


lol. I got a good chuckle with this paragraph.

Our subs and fights they cant see? Really?
What makes you think stealth is undetectable?
What makes you think the stealth aircraft we are to receive, the F35 "export version", will be stealthy enough to evade advanced radars?
Our subs will be undetectable? See above.

Hardened underground bases? See above comment about money growing on trees.
Add to that, earth penetrating munitions.

Good luck with your virtual world of fiction.



posted on Apr, 24 2010 @ 02:57 AM
link   
reply to post by Tayesin
 


I can tell you with certainty that those weapons still existed when i was serving in late 90's. From my current contacts in the Forces, we still have them.
As to the delivery system, ours our designed to be Air delivered.
Bombs are bombs, and it matters not whether the payload is conventional or nuclear, not at least to the persons deploying it. It matters a lot to the persons on the receiving end
Our stock came from not the US but the UK, as a shoot off of the Nuclear Tests at Emu and Maralinga. It was one of the proviso's of allowing the tests on our soil.
The fact that they have made public announcements of acquiring 'nukes' means they are about to disclose their existence, or maybe, cover it up by buying new ones and claiming that the ones we have are part of the 'new' batch.
Sorry ASIO but i didn't break my Secrets Act!
I didn't give them the Serial No's yet



posted on Apr, 24 2010 @ 02:57 AM
link   
Disregard this Post stupid thingy

It posted twice and didnt tell me

[edit on 24/4/10 by starwarp2000]

[edit on 24/4/10 by starwarp2000]



posted on Apr, 25 2010 @ 07:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by starwarp2000
reply to post by Tayesin
 


I can tell you with certainty that those weapons still existed when i was serving in late 90's. From my current contacts in the Forces, we still have them.
As to the delivery system, ours our designed to be Air delivered.
Bombs are bombs, and it matters not whether the payload is conventional or nuclear, not at least to the persons deploying it. It matters a lot to the persons on the receiving end
Our stock came from not the US but the UK, as a shoot off of the Nuclear Tests at Emu and Maralinga. It was one of the proviso's of allowing the tests on our soil.
The fact that they have made public announcements of acquiring 'nukes' means they are about to disclose their existence, or maybe, cover it up by buying new ones and claiming that the ones we have are part of the 'new' batch.
Sorry ASIO but i didn't break my Secrets Act!
I didn't give them the Serial No's yet


When did anyone make a public announcement of acquiring nukes?

hm...



posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 05:00 AM
link   
reply to post by Tayesin
 


Silos with no hardened covers, no doubt full of water from the last time it rained.... woodside barracks, where the security is a single rent a cop in the guard shack, and he rarely seems to be around..... surrounded by farms and houses on all sides, the barracks area itself isnt that big, and theres no secure fencing.... hell even livestock get into the perimeter. But hey! maybe the silos are hidden under the footy oval! makes perfect sense.



posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 06:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Chadwickus
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]


Nope you are wrong. The best reason for having nukes kept secret is for purely defensive purposes.

for instance: A. "Australia does not have nukes". This causes surrounding countries to not look at us and think "shiot, we dont need nukes because no countries near us have nukes."

B: "Australia has nukes": If someone were to try and invade an australia with nukes they'd be prepared for a nuclear attack and might launch some of thier own. But if Australia is supposedly nuke free they'd try invasion first, in which case we'd simply nuke thier fleets of ships, then maybe nuke thier homeland or not?



posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 07:58 AM
link   
reply to post by amonza
 



HOWITZER, MEDIUM, TOWED:
155-MM, M198
(1025-01-026-6648) (EIC:3EL)

Thanks for playing.


Hypothetically, if Australia did have a secret atomics arsenal, there would likely be two options.

Sea Delivery and Air delivery.

Air delivery would likely be a B61/83 that could be delivered by F-111 or F/A-18. Most likely stored at Edinburgh AFB. Someone suggested old brititsh nukes leftover from thet testing, highly unlikely. They were as big as a bloody house and its not just a matter of bolting it onto an aircraft for delivery, it has to be compatible in weight, aerodynamics and triggering.

Sea delivery would be Ikara(Torpedo deliveryf rom AWD) or Tomahawk(Submarine delivery).

Obviously these options are tactical nuclear deterrents, not strategic. These would be used to attack an enemy sea or nearby land threat.

ICBM's require far more effort, maintenance and resources, and are far harder to hide than in some paddock in woodside. Not impossible, but far mroe unlikely.



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 12:50 AM
link   
reply to post by Gaderel
 


And of course let's not forget, Australian submarines do not use Tomahawk cruise missiles.
Hell, not even the surface combatants use Tomahawks.

The new submarines that will replace the Collins class, will more then likely be armed with them though. Or some other long range cruise missile.



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 01:26 AM
link   
reply to post by BLV12
 



true, but its not a stretch to deliver a warhead "you don't have" with a weapons platform "you don't have"


I know the DOD were looking at Tomahawk very seriously in 2004 to provide tactical coverage with the demise of the F-111. It never officially went ahead.


Essentially if will take a mark 48, it will take a UGM-109. It just has to have the guidance and control equipment interfaced.



posted on Mar, 6 2011 @ 05:58 PM
link   
Australia has never been nuclear free(other than smoke alarms) there are no nuclear power plants or anything like that but nuclear waste is buried in Australia



posted on Mar, 7 2011 @ 10:52 PM
link   
If you dont have nukes and threaten people with them,you wont get nuked?





top topics
 
10
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join