US planned to fire missile at Australia, secret Cabinet papers from 1980s reveal

US planned to fire missile at Australia, secret Cabinet papers from 1980s reveal

www.news.com.au

A SECRET US plan to test MX missiles by firing them from California to the coast of Australia was signed off on by then prime minister Malcolm Fraser.
And it can be revealed that the federal Cabinet agreed to keep the intercontinental ballistic missile tests secret because it was "preferable for the matter not to become an election issue".

(visit the link for the full news article)

As an Australian, i myself am not surprised at the fact that an Australian Prime Minister at the time secretly agreed for the US to test new missiles close to the country's border, but i am a bit concerned. First and foremost, this was in the 80's, i can only imagine what type of crap noth the US and Australia are agreeing to now.

www.news.com.au
(visit the link for the full news article)

I can also see Gillard agreeing to a false flag happening here in Australia secretly coordinated by the US.

reply to post by aRogue


Yes unfortunately, she seems to be the kind that would sell Australia out for personal gain. For example the Carbon Tax. I remember reading an official pdf file, which was signed by all the big anti-carbon companies. It stated that Gillard should pursue a carbon tax once in office, mind you it was signed about a week or two before the re-election between her and Abbot. Therefore, she did in fact lie.

This is my favourite mx deployment system. I think we should fund a new version of it.

The land mobile system coupled with modern ABM technology is a great way to spend our dollars:

reply to post by aRogue


Forget the fact that this plan was passed by Fraser at the time, that is by no means the most concerning thing about this article, and its implications. The bit that grabbed my attention (and by grabbed my attention, I mean grasped it firmly about the neck and began to squeeze) was the excuse given, as to why this missile test remained a secret, and was not made public.

Normally , when a government keeps something hush hush, they claim that the reason behind thier obsfucation is that the incident or operation that they are keeping quiet is " a matter of national security" and that is all you hear about it.
But in THIS instance, the reason given for the staggering silence on this issue up to now, is that it was "prefferable for the matter not to become an election issue" ... I BEG YOUR PARDON? I think I understand what is meant by that, and it goes a little something like this:

The prime minister of Australia at the time, did want the test to go ahead, but did not want to deal with the political fallout, and the consequences when time came to elect the next leader of the nation. Boiled down, he wanted to avoid the ire of the people at the voting booths.
If a nation, or a nations prime minister can organise silence this effective on an issue, for such paltry reasons as keeping his hide in power, despite the very legitimate concerns that would be raised on the issue were it made public, then how the hell can the people ever hope to have oversight over thier employees?

Democracy is supposed to mean that the people choose a functionary to enforce thier will over the land in which they live, a person who will hear the word of the people, and make it iron, tangible. They are supposed to represent the will of the people made flesh, and acting all across the land to ensure that things work as the voting public would have them work. We all know it rarely works that way in practice, no matter how established a democracy is however, the damned thing CANNOT work AT ALL if persons in power can keep things secret, purely because they do not wish to be affected by a voter backlash at the polls!

If a leader does something , or allows something to be done which is against the will of the people in his land, he should be forced to face whatever consequence there may be from that action. Otherwise there can be no honesty, no true democracy what so ever.
Do not mistake my concern for idiocy, I am more than aware of the circumstances which prevailed in world politics at the time as the cold war is very well documented as a period of history. However, regardless of the political situation, and the possibility of nuclear war hanging over the heads of the entire world, this callous disregard for democratic process is absolutely disgusting.

reply to post by TrueBrit


This is what grabbed me too.

But, I think a lot of us on ATS know just how corrupt our elected are, and that they will do anything to retain power and keep things from their people. I'm often stunned by the level of trust the people have with their elected, even after all the examples of complete incompetence, corruption and manipulation.

And when you consider what we do know, all the little things that we have discovered, imagine all those other little things that we never find out about!

reply to post by detachedindividual


Detatchedindividual, I understand completely what you are saying. I suppose the thing that really grabbed me about the explanation for the secrecy in this matter, was just how brazen and obvious they made it, that the entire reason for the hush up was a pure matter of politics.

I feel for the people of Australia. At least Britains leaders TRY to lie thier way out of peoples crap book. I dont like that any better, but the cynic in me appreciates thier effort in a way!

Originally posted by TrueBrit
reply to post by aRogue

 

If a nation, or a nations prime minister can organise silence this effective on an issue, for such paltry reasons as keeping his hide in power, despite the very legitimate concerns that would be raised on the issue were it made public, then how the hell can the people ever hope to have oversight over thier employees?

The short answer is they cannot.

The long answer is that the expectation, people having an oversight over their "employees" (I think you mean the government), is itself wrong.

Employees, at their own discretion, cannot keep secrets from employers. But that is exactly what governments are supposed to do, in matters of "national security". But what constitutes "national security" is determined by the "employee" and not the "employer". In this case, even that pretention is not there. But I don't find it a big deal.

Representative democracy assumes there are trustworthy and wise people who are also popular for the same reasons and will come to occupy positions of power But if a society does not have trustworthy and wise people or those that exist are either not popular enough to get elected or not interested in political power a democracy will eventually become a demagoguery as Plato predicted while contrasting democracy with polity, which is what most of today's democracies are.

Im sure the fired missile would be null, like non explosive

I wouldn't have a problem with the US firing missiles off the coast of australia (I live about 1000km from cape pillar) but the secrecy is something to worry about. The public has a right to know about these things, especially when it's an american test in australian waters.

Howard the coward agreed to Port Arthur.

Im yet to see my country be led by somebody with vertibrae.

reply to post by C0bzz



Just to clarify the plan was:

FROM: California
TO: the coast of Australia

"If it was in today's world, I wouldn't have agreed to it," Mr Fraser said.

www.news.com.au

Poor Malcolm Fraser appears to be suffering from dementia.

He can't even remember what happens to world leaders who say "no" to the US anymore...

Originally posted by mileysubet
reply to post by C0bzz

 

Just to clarify the plan was:

FROM: California
TO: the coast of Australia

In this instance the "coast of Australia" being referred to is the eastern seaboard which is THE most densely populated part of the country. You have Queensland at the northern end which is a huge tourist area and then going south to New South Wales with the largest populated city of Sydney.

So, what would the politicians of the day have used as an explanation in the (remote, but not inconceivable) scenario where one of the "test fired" MX missiles malfunctions out of control and impacts say, Sydney city centre with casualties and property damage ? Even if the missile was unarmed, such an impacting missile would be devastating in a densely populated area.

What was Fraser even thinking ? Was he EVEN thinking ??

Such agreements are made regularly to test defences i'm sure
There's not really anything wrong with it except for it being under the rug

Truth is not many would accept it even though it may be quite normal
But then again people do nothing for real corruption everyday

just saying
I wouldn't call this huge news

Originally posted by ModernAcademia
Such agreements are made regularly to test defences i'm sure
There's not really anything wrong with it except for it being under the rug

Truth is not many would accept it even though it may be quite normal
But then again people do nothing for real corruption everyday

just saying
I wouldn't call this huge news

Perhaps you could refresh MY memory on the last time the US agreed to let us here in Australia test fire OUR missiles against their US west coast ... I seem to have forgotten that agreement.

I would certainly agree to that as long as the target was parliment house whilr the parliment is sitting

wow i guess american politicians and Australian are cousins
never trust anyone who tells you one thing and your sister another
the people of this planet need to quit voting for whoever says what they want to hear and changes his or her mind depending on the audience
NO MORE CAREER POLITICIANS
when politics pays more than crime criminals become politicians

This is another example of the two Australian government factions and the media working together to keep secrets from Australian people that the Australian people have every right to have.

It is not for these powerful organisations to determine what Australians can and should know, it is for us to make that decision.