This is it

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wjvynXoJZcw

Joe Biden's 'Building Back'(wards) America is Putin building back the USSR.

Might be better to bring back Trump.

Russia wants more than Ukraine - Putin wants NATO countries

So Nukes will soon be used

Read this Topic Boris.
You're trapped in the 'past'.
https://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1677582606/5#5

Boris wrote on Mar 1^st, 2023 at 8:04am:

This is it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wjvynXoJZcw

Nonsense.

Puttie Poot can either back down or double down

Time will tell

Boris wrote on Mar 1^st, 2023 at 9:23am:

Puttie Poot can either back down or double down Time will tell

The Baltic states, Poland, Bulgaria, Roumanis, Finland are not up for grabs for Russia, as they were when the diving was done between Russia and Germany.
Now it isn't.

Who would Putin nuke? Kiev, the heart of Rus?
Berlin? London?

Boris wrote on Mar 1^st, 2023 at 8:04am:

This is it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wjvynXoJZcw

The global Covid19 experience/experiment whatever ... has provided China and Russia with so much data!

BIOLOGICAL
WARFARE
IS
COMING!

Fact!

Jasin wrote on Mar 1^st, 2023 at 8:09am:

Might be better to bring back Trump.

Why?

It's a worry -

the last time nukes were used in war 2 cities were destroyed to bring
Japan to the surrender table.

Could Russia do the same?
Could Putin wipe Kiev off the map?
What could anyone do about it? -
if the West nukes a city in Russia in retaliation it would start WW3
and we'd all be wiped out.
The West would have to stand back and watch and do nothing.

Way back in the 1980s I did a Nuclear War Fighting course as part of my Masters at ADFA.  We had a seminar with Des Ball Professor of Strategic Studies at the ANU.  This was just before he was sucked into the Pentagon.  When asked if he believed that Australia was a nuclear target he sat and thought for a while and said, "No, the Soviets are too concerned with the US and Europe to worry about Australia.  They might strike at Pine Gap but apart from that we are too far south for them to worry about."  He added that the Soviets'  missiles were generally unreliable and about 30% of them would fail to launch or strike their targets accurately.  Bobby, we are basically safe from Russian missiles, their missile are even more unreliable nowadays with approximately 40-50% will fail, rather than just 30%.   They are even more worried about Europe and the US, so overall we are not going to have much to worry about.   ::) ::)

Bobby. wrote on Mar 1^st, 2023 at 10:00am:

It's a worry - the last time nukes were used in war 2 cities were destroyed to bring Japan to the surrender table. Could Russia do the same? Could Putin wipe Kiev off the map? What could anyone do about it? - if the West nukes a city in Russia in retaliation it would start WW3 and we'd all be wiped out. The West would have to stand back and watch and do nothing.

Kiev is the heart of Rus. The modern nations of Belarus, Russia, and Ukraine all claim Kievan Rus' as their cultural ancestor,[d] with Belarus and Russia deriving their names from it.

Nuking Kiev would be like Italians nuking Florence or Rome. Or Germans nuking Aachen.

People are buying Bunkers - because Nukes are coming

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EL7xW5zTh6M

Matty, America is not Australia, you realise?  They are a nuclear target while Australia is not.  They are facing Russian/Chinese missiles, we are not.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::)

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 1^st, 2023 at 3:53pm:

Matty, America is not Australia, you realise?  They are a nuclear target while Australia is not.  They are facing Russian/Chinese missiles, we are not.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::)

Yeah, we dont have 12% black population causing 60% of gun murders among blacks. Big diff.

While Black Americans made up 12.5 percent of the U.S. population in 2020, they were the victims in 61 percent of all gun homicides.
https://www.americanprogress.org/article/gun-violence-disproportionately-and-overwhelmingly-hurts-communities-of-color/

Frank wrote on Mar 1^st, 2023 at 4:23pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 1st, 2023 at 3:53pm: Matty, America is not Australia, you realise?  They are a nuclear target while Australia is not.  They are facing Russian/Chinese missiles, we are not.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::) Yeah, we dont have 12% black population causing 60% of gun murders among blacks. Big diff. While Black Americans made up 12.5 percent of the U.S. population in 2020, they were the victims in 61 percent of all gun homicides. https://www.americanprogress.org/article/gun-violence-disproportionately-and-overwhelmingly-hurts-communities-of-color/

Wrong thread, Soren.  Try again with your Racism there.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...   ::) ::)

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 1^st, 2023 at 3:53pm:

Matty, America is not Australia, you realise?  They are a nuclear target while Australia is not.  They are facing Russian/Chinese missiles, we are not.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::)

You might want to think strategically in terms of whether Australia could be used as an example of the seriousness of the Russians or the Chinese in making a nuclear strike. If the Russians fire their missiles to a regional area of Australia, the Americans might be willing to talk of a compromise with the Russians. However, if the Russians fired a missile into the United States, you could imagine that the Americans would respond in kind (and then some).

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 1^st, 2023 at 3:53pm:

Matty, America is not Australia, you realise?  They are a nuclear target while Australia is not.  They are facing Russian/Chinese missiles, we are not.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::)

We are a nuclear target.    tsk  tsk    ::)  ::)

Bobby. wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2023 at 5:51am:

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 1st, 2023 at 3:53pm: Matty, America is not Australia, you realise?  They are a nuclear target while Australia is not.  They are facing Russian/Chinese missiles, we are not.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::) We are a nuclear target.    tsk  tsk    ::)  ::)

According to whom, Bobby?  Seriously, I have studied nuclear strategy at a high level and Australia barely rates a mention in the writing of the professional strategists.   ::) ::)

UnSubRocky wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2023 at 2:33am:

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 1st, 2023 at 3:53pm: Matty, America is not Australia, you realise?  They are a nuclear target while Australia is not.  They are facing Russian/Chinese missiles, we are not.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::) You might want to think strategically in terms of whether Australia could be used as an example of the seriousness of the Russians or the Chinese in making a nuclear strike. If the Russians fire their missiles to a regional area of Australia, the Americans might be willing to talk of a compromise with the Russians. However, if the Russians fired a missile into the United States, you could imagine that the Americans would respond in kind (and then some).

Yes.  There is though a problem with your rationale, Unsub - the unreliability of Russian missiles in general does not guarantee they could even hit a target the size of Australia when they fire at it.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::)

Boris wrote on Mar 1^st, 2023 at 2:06pm:

People are buying Bunkers - because Nukes are coming...

No they're not... and no they're not.   You're batshit stupid mate.    >:(

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2023 at 1:16pm:

UnSubRocky wrote on Mar 2nd, 2023 at 2:33am: Brian Ross wrote on Mar 1st, 2023 at 3:53pm: Matty, America is not Australia, you realise?  They are a nuclear target while Australia is not.  They are facing Russian/Chinese missiles, we are not.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::) You might want to think strategically in terms of whether Australia could be used as an example of the seriousness of the Russians or the Chinese in making a nuclear strike. If the Russians fire their missiles to a regional area of Australia, the Americans might be willing to talk of a compromise with the Russians. However, if the Russians fired a missile into the United States, you could imagine that the Americans would respond in kind (and then some). Yes.  There is though a problem with your rationale, Unsub - the unreliability of Russian missiles in general does not guarantee they could even hit a target the size of Australia when they fire at it.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::)

Then there is no reason to call the Americans a target, if the Russians have unrealiable missiles. Tsk, tsk, tsk.

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 1^st, 2023 at 11:28am:

Way back in the 1980s I did a Nuclear War Fighting course as part of my Masters at ADFA.  We had a seminar with Des Ball Professor of Strategic Studies at the ANU.  This was just before he was sucked into the Pentagon.  When asked if he believed that Australia was a nuclear target he sat and thought for a while and said, "No, the Soviets are too concerned with the US and Europe to worry about Australia.  They might strike at Pine Gap but apart from that we are too far south for them to worry about."  He added that the Soviets'  missiles were generally unreliable and about 30% of them would fail to launch or strike their targets accurately.  Bobby, we are basically safe from Russian missiles, their missile are even more unreliable nowadays with approximately 40-50% will fail, rather than just 30%.   They are even more worried about Europe and the US, so overall we are not going to have much to worry about.   ::) ::)

Brian,
only one has to get through and that's end of a whole city.

Bobby. wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2023 at 5:51am:

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 1st, 2023 at 3:53pm: Matty, America is not Australia, you realise?  They are a nuclear target while Australia is not.  They are facing Russian/Chinese missiles, we are not.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::) We are a nuclear target.    tsk  tsk    ::)  ::)

Some Moslem in a little white van parked in Parramatta will shout "Allah Akbar" before detonating a nuke smuggled in via the Kazakhstan black market of former Soviet nukes.
Don't need a missile to hit Sydney for its biggest Real Estate boom ever.

Personally, if I was a crazed powerful dictator, etc - I would nuke Antarctica with as many nukes as possible and Tsunami flood the world as Operation Noah.

Jasin wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2023 at 10:08pm:

Personally, if I was a crazed powerful dictator, etc - I would nuke Antarctica with as many nukes as possible and Tsunami flood the world as Operation Noah.

If you set off a considerable number of nukes in Antarctica, you would hope that you could melt a lot of ice to the point that weather patterns change around the world. The theory of melted ice in Antarctica is that it becomes 90% of its ice volume as water. And whilst the ice and snow would melt into water and flood the surrounding southern ocean with fresh water, the amount of ice melt would be barely noticeable in changing ocean levels.

Even a crazed powerful dictator would have enough common sense to know this.

Bobby. wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2023 at 9:59pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 1st, 2023 at 11:28am: Way back in the 1980s I did a Nuclear War Fighting course as part of my Masters at ADFA.  We had a seminar with Des Ball Professor of Strategic Studies at the ANU.  This was just before he was sucked into the Pentagon.  When asked if he believed that Australia was a nuclear target he sat and thought for a while and said, "No, the Soviets are too concerned with the US and Europe to worry about Australia.  They might strike at Pine Gap but apart from that we are too far south for them to worry about."  He added that the Soviets'  missiles were generally unreliable and about 30% of them would fail to launch or strike their targets accurately.  Bobby, we are basically safe from Russian missiles, their missile are even more unreliable nowadays with approximately 40-50% will fail, rather than just 30%.   They are even more worried about Europe and the US, so overall we are not going to have much to worry about.   ::) ::) Brian, only one has to get through and that's end of a whole city.

It has to hit a city.  Russian ICBMs or SLBMs are unreliable.  They had to first launch successfully, they have to then guide successfully.  They are less to be successful against a southern target as against a northern one because they have never been tested in the southern hemisphere and the magnetic field is vastly different down here.  Bobby you worry unnecessarily.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...   ::) ::)

Jasin wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2023 at 10:08pm:

Bobby. wrote on Mar 2nd, 2023 at 5:51am: Brian Ross wrote on Mar 1st, 2023 at 3:53pm: Matty, America is not Australia, you realise?  They are a nuclear target while Australia is not.  They are facing Russian/Chinese missiles, we are not.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::) We are a nuclear target.    tsk  tsk    ::)  ::) Some Moslem in a little white van parked in Parramatta will shout "Allah Akbar" before detonating a nuke smuggled in via the Kazakhstan black market of former Soviet nukes.

Ah, the old spectre of a stray Soviet nuclear warhead.  In reality, all Soviet nukes were accounted for at the end of the Cold War, in the early 1990s.  ::) ::)

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2023 at 9:26am:

It has to hit a city.  Russian ICBMs or SLBMs are unreliable.  They had to first launch successfully, they have to then guide successfully.  They are less to be successful against a southern target as against a northern one because they have never been tested in the southern hemisphere and the magnetic field is vastly different down here.  Bobby you worry unnecessarily.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...   ::) ::)

The Iranians are capable of hitting cities in Australia with their nuclear missiles. I see no reason why the Russians, with a longer history of nuclear weapon and missile development could not hit Australia. It would only take 15 minutes for the missile to get here. I doubt that the targeting system would get lost on the way.

UnSubRocky wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2023 at 2:50pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 3rd, 2023 at 9:26am: It has to hit a city.  Russian ICBMs or SLBMs are unreliable.  They had to first launch successfully, they have to then guide successfully.  They are less to be successful against a southern target as against a northern one because they have never been tested in the southern hemisphere and the magnetic field is vastly different down here.  Bobby you worry unnecessarily.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...   ::) ::) The Iranians are capable of hitting cities in Australia with their nuclear missiles. I see no reason why the Russians, with a longer history of nuclear weapon and missile development could not hit Australia. It would only take 15 minutes for the missile to get here. I doubt that the targeting system would get lost on the way.

Iran's ICBM Project Koussar has a reported range between 4000-5000 kilometers.  Iran is approximately 8000 kilometres from Perth the nearest city.  That is from a region remote to the Tehran in the far South-East corner of the nation where it unlikely Iran would put it's most valuable defence asset, near the coast with Pakistan.  Now as their stated enemy is Israel they are hardly to put their most valuable defence asset in a place where the Israeli Navy can easily strike it, now are they?   ::) ::)

It would be a pretty fast interceptor missile to strike down an ICBM. You would need a missile defence system nearly underneath the incoming missile to shoot it down. And Iran could reach any target in Australia with their missile capability. Probably New Zealand, too.

UnSubRocky wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2023 at 4:29pm:

It would be a pretty fast interceptor missile to strike down an ICBM. You would need a missile defence system nearly underneath the incoming missile to shoot it down. And Iran could reach any target in Australia with their missile capability. Probably New Zealand, too.

Did you read what i typed, Unsub?  They possess, at best, an IRBM, not an ICBM.  You do understand the difference between the two missile types, Unsub?  Tsk, tsk, tsk...   ::) ::)

UnSubRocky wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2023 at 2:50pm:

The Iranians are capable of hitting cities in Australia with their nuclear missiles...

Not so.

Table of Iran's Missile Arsenal, 27 July, 2022.

A couple of points.

1)The fallout from a nuclear detonation in Europe would be in China in a few days.

2) Ozpol should be renamed Ratbag Central.

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2023 at 4:35pm:

UnSubRocky wrote on Mar 3rd, 2023 at 4:29pm: It would be a pretty fast interceptor missile to strike down an ICBM. You would need a missile defence system nearly underneath the incoming missile to shoot it down. And Iran could reach any target in Australia with their missile capability. Probably New Zealand, too. Did you read what i typed, Unsub?  They possess, at best, an IRBM, not an ICBM.  You do understand the difference between the two missile types, Unsub?  Tsk, tsk, tsk...   ::) ::)

No, I do not understand the difference. Nor do I find that it has any relevance, as Iran has the capability to hit targets in Australia with their nuclear missile arsenal.

Tsk, tsk, tskity, tsk.

AusGeoff wrote on Mar 4^th, 2023 at 2:03pm:

UnSubRocky wrote on Mar 3rd, 2023 at 2:50pm: The Iranians are capable of hitting cities in Australia with their nuclear missiles... Not so. Table of Iran's Missile Arsenal, 27 July, 2022.

Maybe my information is a little out of date. Or maybe your information is out of date. What I do know is that Iran has the capability of reaching Australia with nuclear missiles.

issuevoter wrote on Mar 4^th, 2023 at 3:16pm:

A couple of points. 1)The fallout from a nuclear detonation in Europe would be in China in a few days.

The fallout from a nuclear detonation would depend on the yield of the explosion. After a week, the area that had been hit would have radiation levels near safe. And a nuclear explosion in Europe would not even get close to China.

UnSubRocky wrote on Mar 4^th, 2023 at 3:31pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 3rd, 2023 at 4:35pm: UnSubRocky wrote on Mar 3rd, 2023 at 4:29pm: It would be a pretty fast interceptor missile to strike down an ICBM. You would need a missile defence system nearly underneath the incoming missile to shoot it down. And Iran could reach any target in Australia with their missile capability. Probably New Zealand, too. Did you read what i typed, Unsub?  They possess, at best, an IRBM, not an ICBM.  You do understand the difference between the two missile types, Unsub?  Tsk, tsk, tsk...   ::) ::) No, I do not understand the difference. Nor do I find that it has any relevance, as Iran has the capability to hit targets in Australia with their nuclear missile arsenal. Tsk, tsk, tskity, tsk.

Really?  Can you name their ICBM system that can do that, Unsub?  Tsk, tsk, tsk...   ::) ::)

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 4^th, 2023 at 4:25pm:

Really?  Can you name their ICBM system that can do that, Unsub?  Tsk, tsk, tsk...   ::) ::)

No, I cannot.

Tick-tick-tick-tick BOOM!

UnSubRocky wrote on Mar 4^th, 2023 at 4:26pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 4th, 2023 at 4:25pm: Really?  Can you name their ICBM system that can do that, Unsub?  Tsk, tsk, tsk...   ::) ::) No, I cannot. Tick-tick-tick-tick BOOM!

So, in otherwords, you're talking pure bullshit, now, aren't you, Unsub.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...   ::) ::)

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 4^th, 2023 at 4:38pm:

UnSubRocky wrote on Mar 4th, 2023 at 4:26pm: Brian Ross wrote on Mar 4th, 2023 at 4:25pm: Really?  Can you name their ICBM system that can do that, Unsub?  Tsk, tsk, tsk...   ::) ::) No, I cannot. Tick-tick-tick-tick BOOM! So, in otherwords, you're talking pure bullshit, now, aren't you, Unsub.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...   ::) ::)

No, I am not talking "pure bullshit". I am restricted from saying anything on the matter in detail because I could get into legal trouble. You, on the other hand, are just dribbling fecal matter with a whole lot of naivete.

UnSubRocky wrote on Mar 4^th, 2023 at 4:57pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 4th, 2023 at 4:38pm: UnSubRocky wrote on Mar 4th, 2023 at 4:26pm: Brian Ross wrote on Mar 4th, 2023 at 4:25pm: Really?  Can you name their ICBM system that can do that, Unsub?  Tsk, tsk, tsk...   ::) ::) No, I cannot. Tick-tick-tick-tick BOOM! So, in otherwords, you're talking pure bullshit, now, aren't you, Unsub.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...   ::) ::) No, I am not talking "pure bullshit". I am restricted from saying anything on the matter in detail because I could get into legal trouble. You, on the other hand, are just dribbling fecal matter with a whole lot of naivete.

You have never worked for the Department of Defence or Foreign Affairs, have you, Unsub?  Oh, dearie, dearie, me.  What could anyone in Oz do to you legally?  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::)

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 4^th, 2023 at 5:44pm:

UnSubRocky wrote on Mar 4th, 2023 at 4:57pm: Brian Ross wrote on Mar 4th, 2023 at 4:38pm: UnSubRocky wrote on Mar 4th, 2023 at 4:26pm: Brian Ross wrote on Mar 4th, 2023 at 4:25pm: Really?  Can you name their ICBM system that can do that, Unsub?  Tsk, tsk, tsk...   ::) ::) No, I cannot. Tick-tick-tick-tick BOOM! So, in otherwords, you're talking pure bullshit, now, aren't you, Unsub.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...   ::) ::) No, I am not talking "pure bullshit". I am restricted from saying anything on the matter in detail because I could get into legal trouble. You, on the other hand, are just dribbling fecal matter with a whole lot of naivete. You have never worked for the Department of Defence or Foreign Affairs, have you, Unsub?  Oh, dearie, dearie, me.  What could anyone in Oz do to you legally?  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::)

What the hell are you doing talking about the capabilities of the Iranian nuclear weapons development? Should you be sharing your information with the United Nations? I think you are just guessing the situation about nuclear armaments and capabilities and hoping that your credentials working in the Australian Army will hold you as the most knowledgeable.

Meanwhile, I have probably forgotten more about the capabilities of nuclear weapons and who has them than what you would know. You would know by now that Australia has nuclear weapons.

Wicka-wicka wah-wah wicka-wicka wah.

UnSubRocky wrote on Mar 5^th, 2023 at 2:55pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 4th, 2023 at 5:44pm: UnSubRocky wrote on Mar 4th, 2023 at 4:57pm: Brian Ross wrote on Mar 4th, 2023 at 4:38pm: UnSubRocky wrote on Mar 4th, 2023 at 4:26pm: Brian Ross wrote on Mar 4th, 2023 at 4:25pm: Really?  Can you name their ICBM system that can do that, Unsub?  Tsk, tsk, tsk...   ::) ::) No, I cannot. Tick-tick-tick-tick BOOM! So, in otherwords, you're talking pure bullshit, now, aren't you, Unsub.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...   ::) ::) No, I am not talking "pure bullshit". I am restricted from saying anything on the matter in detail because I could get into legal trouble. You, on the other hand, are just dribbling fecal matter with a whole lot of naivete. You have never worked for the Department of Defence or Foreign Affairs, have you, Unsub?  Oh, dearie, dearie, me.  What could anyone in Oz do to you legally?  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::) What the hell are you doing talking about the capabilities of the Iranian nuclear weapons development? Should you be sharing your information with the United Nations? I think you are just guessing the situation about nuclear armaments and capabilities and hoping that your credentials working in the Australian Army will hold you as the most knowledgeable. Meanwhile, I have probably forgotten more about the capabilities of nuclear weapons and who has them than what you would know. You would know by now that Australia has nuclear weapons. Wicka-wicka wah-wah wicka-wicka wah.

Yeah, yeah, sure, what ever you want to believe, Unsub.  Pity it is all bullshit, mate. I studied nuclear war fighting as part of my Masters degree, which while it was largely about Russian and American systems, I have kept up with the latest developments in other nations.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...   ::) ::)

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 4^th, 2023 at 4:25pm:

UnSubRocky wrote on Mar 4th, 2023 at 3:31pm: Brian Ross wrote on Mar 3rd, 2023 at 4:35pm: UnSubRocky wrote on Mar 3rd, 2023 at 4:29pm: It would be a pretty fast interceptor missile to strike down an ICBM. You would need a missile defence system nearly underneath the incoming missile to shoot it down. And Iran could reach any target in Australia with their missile capability. Probably New Zealand, too. Did you read what i typed, Unsub?  They possess, at best, an IRBM, not an ICBM.  You do understand the difference between the two missile types, Unsub?  Tsk, tsk, tsk...   ::) ::) No, I do not understand the difference. Nor do I find that it has any relevance, as Iran has the capability to hit targets in Australia with their nuclear missile arsenal. Tsk, tsk, tskity, tsk. Really?  Can you name their ICBM system that can do that, Unsub?  Tsk, tsk, tsk...   ::) ::)

Maybe with Subs or aircraft....Not that I believe it will ever happen???

:-? :-? :-?

UnSubRocky wrote on Mar 5^th, 2023 at 2:55pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 4th, 2023 at 5:44pm: UnSubRocky wrote on Mar 4th, 2023 at 4:57pm: Brian Ross wrote on Mar 4th, 2023 at 4:38pm: UnSubRocky wrote on Mar 4th, 2023 at 4:26pm: Brian Ross wrote on Mar 4th, 2023 at 4:25pm: Really?  Can you name their ICBM system that can do that, Unsub?  Tsk, tsk, tsk...   ::) ::) No, I cannot. Tick-tick-tick-tick BOOM! So, in otherwords, you're talking pure bullshit, now, aren't you, Unsub.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...   ::) ::) No, I am not talking "pure bullshit". I am restricted from saying anything on the matter in detail because I could get into legal trouble. You, on the other hand, are just dribbling fecal matter with a whole lot of naivete. You have never worked for the Department of Defence or Foreign Affairs, have you, Unsub?  Oh, dearie, dearie, me.  What could anyone in Oz do to you legally?  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::) What the hell are you doing talking about the capabilities of the Iranian nuclear weapons development? Should you be sharing your information with the United Nations? I think you are just guessing the situation about nuclear armaments and capabilities and hoping that your credentials working in the Australian Army will hold you as the most knowledgeable. Meanwhile, I have probably forgotten more about the capabilities of nuclear weapons and who has them than what you would know. You would know by now that Australia has nuclear weapons. Wicka-wicka wah-wah wicka-wicka wah.

Says the aprt time waiter who hasn't held a full time job in his life.....

now you're privvy to classified info on Iranian weapons systems?  ;D ;D ;D ;D

FFS change hands.

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 5^th, 2023 at 3:38pm:

Yeah, yeah, sure, what ever you want to believe, Unsub.  Pity it is all bullshit, mate. I studied nuclear war fighting as part of my Masters degree, which while it was largely about Russian and American systems, I have kept up with the latest developments in other nations.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...   ::) ::)

So, in other words, you do not know Australia has nuclear weapons. And I doubt you know what happens to humans in the immediate area of the nuclear attack, let alone the environmental and economic impact has during and after a deployed nuclear attack.

anotheronebitesthedust...

Gnads wrote on Mar 5^th, 2023 at 6:18pm:

Says the aprt time waiter who hasn't held a full time job in his life..... now you're privvy to classified info on Iranian weapons systems?  ;D ;D ;D ;D FFS change hands.

Brian says Iran is not capable of launching nuclear missiles that could reach the western side of Australia, let alone the eastern part of Australia. He seems to think the same about Russia's nuclear capabilities.

I figure that my part-time waiter who has not held a full-time job arse would know more about hypersonic missiles being capable of getting from halfway around the world to Australia in about 15 minutes than what a full-time Australian Army employee would have known about in the 1980s.

And for that matter, if you don't know about Iran's nuclear capabilities by now, you have not been paying attention.

a nuke doesnt have to hit oz for a nuke to wipe out most of australia.

one nuke and you would find the oil trade ceased almost immediately .
so no cars, no tractors, no food production, no food distribution.

all our energy and technology relies on imports from OS and that would likely take a huge hit.

a nuke would probably see china russia and the USA use cyber attacks to close down each others critical infrastructure.

it will be back to subsistence living in OZ real quick.

no more internet for a while, no more internet banking, super funds at zero, the stock market down 80 %.

it makes preppers seem less of loons and more rational actors.

The reality is that a nuclear weapon being deployed anywhere in the world would be condemned internationally. And depending on who deployed the missile, world governments would respond according to why the aggressor nation fired the missile. The world would not shut down over one nuclear attack. A series of nuclear missiles being deployed to one country would bring about a severe crisis. But it would take multiple nuclear exchanges for the world economy to collapse. Even then, commonsense would have to take place.

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2023 at 9:26am:

Bobby. wrote on Mar 2nd, 2023 at 9:59pm: Brian Ross wrote on Mar 1st, 2023 at 11:28am: Way back in the 1980s I did a Nuclear War Fighting course as part of my Masters at ADFA.  We had a seminar with Des Ball Professor of Strategic Studies at the ANU.  This was just before he was sucked into the Pentagon.  When asked if he believed that Australia was a nuclear target he sat and thought for a while and said, "No, the Soviets are too concerned with the US and Europe to worry about Australia.  They might strike at Pine Gap but apart from that we are too far south for them to worry about."  He added that the Soviets'  missiles were generally unreliable and about 30% of them would fail to launch or strike their targets accurately.  Bobby, we are basically safe from Russian missiles, their missile are even more unreliable nowadays with approximately 40-50% will fail, rather than just 30%.   They are even more worried about Europe and the US, so overall we are not going to have much to worry about.   ::) ::) Brian, only one has to get through and that's end of a whole city. It has to hit a city.  Russian ICBMs or SLBMs are unreliable.  They had to first launch successfully, they have to then guide successfully.  They are less to be successful against a southern target as against a northern one because they have never been tested in the southern hemisphere and the magnetic field is vastly different down here.  Bobby you worry unnecessarily.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...   ::) ::)

Hi Brian,
so you're saying that even though in 1970 the Russians put
a space probe on Venus they still couldn't hit Australia with a nuke in 2023?

Magnetic fields?
They don't use a compass to guide an ICBM.    tsk  tsk   ::) ::)



https://coolcosmos.ipac.caltech.edu/ask/44-Has-a-spacecraft-ever-landed-on-Venus-


On December 15, 1970 an unmanned Soviet spacecraft, Venera 7,
became the first spacecraft to land on another planet.
It measured the temperature of the atmosphere on Venus.
In 1972, Venera 8 gathered atmospheric and surface data for 50 minutes after landing.

UnSubRocky wrote on Mar 6^th, 2023 at 2:03pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 5th, 2023 at 3:38pm: Yeah, yeah, sure, what ever you want to believe, Unsub.  Pity it is all bullshit, mate. I studied nuclear war fighting as part of my Masters degree, which while it was largely about Russian and American systems, I have kept up with the latest developments in other nations.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...   ::) ::) So, in other words, you do not know Australia has nuclear weapons. And I doubt you know what happens to humans in the immediate area of the nuclear attack, let alone the environmental and economic impact has during and after a deployed nuclear attack. anotheronebitesthedust...

You have no idea about what I know, Unsub.  Absolutely, no idea.  Australia is a signatory and ratifier of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Pact.  It is also a signatory and ratifier of the Pacific Nuclear Non-Proliferation Pact.  In both it has relinquished the right and ability to develop and have nuclear warheads.  Both are cornerstones of Australia's anti-nuclear stance.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::)

Bobby. wrote on Mar 6^th, 2023 at 3:38pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 3rd, 2023 at 9:26am: Bobby. wrote on Mar 2nd, 2023 at 9:59pm: Brian Ross wrote on Mar 1st, 2023 at 11:28am: Way back in the 1980s I did a Nuclear War Fighting course as part of my Masters at ADFA.  We had a seminar with Des Ball Professor of Strategic Studies at the ANU.  This was just before he was sucked into the Pentagon.  When asked if he believed that Australia was a nuclear target he sat and thought for a while and said, "No, the Soviets are too concerned with the US and Europe to worry about Australia.  They might strike at Pine Gap but apart from that we are too far south for them to worry about."  He added that the Soviets'  missiles were generally unreliable and about 30% of them would fail to launch or strike their targets accurately.  Bobby, we are basically safe from Russian missiles, their missile are even more unreliable nowadays with approximately 40-50% will fail, rather than just 30%.   They are even more worried about Europe and the US, so overall we are not going to have much to worry about.   ::) ::) Brian, only one has to get through and that's end of a whole city. It has to hit a city.  Russian ICBMs or SLBMs are unreliable.  They had to first launch successfully, they have to then guide successfully.  They are less to be successful against a southern target as against a northern one because they have never been tested in the southern hemisphere and the magnetic field is vastly different down here.  Bobby you worry unnecessarily.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...   ::) ::) Hi Brian, so you're saying that even though in 1970 the Russians put a space probe on Venus they still couldn't hit Australia with a nuke in 2023? Magnetic fields? They don't use a compass to guide an ICBM.    tsk  tsk   ::) ::) https://coolcosmos.ipac.caltech.edu/ask/44-Has-a-spacecraft-ever-landed-on-Venus- On December 15, 1970 an unmanned Soviet spacecraft, Venera 7, became the first spacecraft to land on another planet. It measured the temperature of the atmosphere on Venus. In 1972, Venera 8 gathered atmospheric and surface data for 50 minutes after landing.

Venus is approximately 12,104km in diameter.  Australia is approximately  4000km, a quarter of that size.  Venus is approximately 61 million kilometers from earth, Australia is approximately 9,977 km from Russia.  A space probe launched from Russia would have to traverse a decreasing magnetic field to reach Venus and could be equipped with an active radar system to guide it.  A missile launched from Russia would not be guided, except ballistically and would have to traverse a significantly decreasing and then a re-increasing magnetic field.  No Russian missile has done that.  Try again, Bobby.  I find it interesting that you don't mention the numerous Soviet and Russian space missions that failed to reach Venus, Mars and the Moon of approximately same or earlier periods.  I wonder why?  Tsk, tsk, tsk...   ::) ::)

UnSubRocky wrote on Mar 4^th, 2023 at 3:32pm:

AusGeoff wrote on Mar 4th, 2023 at 2:03pm: UnSubRocky wrote on Mar 3rd, 2023 at 2:50pm: The Iranians are capable of hitting cities in Australia with their nuclear missiles... Not so. Table of Iran's Missile Arsenal, 27 July, 2022. Maybe my information is a little out of date. Or maybe your information is out of date. What I do know is that Iran has the capability of reaching Australia with nuclear missiles.

This claim needs a link.   Thank you.

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 6^th, 2023 at 5:15pm:

UnSubRocky wrote on Mar 6th, 2023 at 2:03pm: Brian Ross wrote on Mar 5th, 2023 at 3:38pm: Yeah, yeah, sure, what ever you want to believe, Unsub.  Pity it is all bullshit, mate. I studied nuclear war fighting as part of my Masters degree, which while it was largely about Russian and American systems, I have kept up with the latest developments in other nations.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...   ::) ::) So, in other words, you do not know Australia has nuclear weapons. And I doubt you know what happens to humans in the immediate area of the nuclear attack, let alone the environmental and economic impact has during and after a deployed nuclear attack. anotheronebitesthedust... You have no idea about what I know, Unsub.  Absolutely, no idea.  Australia is a signatory and ratifier of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Pact.  It is also a signatory and ratifier of the Pacific Nuclear Non-Proliferation Pact.  In both it has relinquished the right and ability to develop and have nuclear warheads.  Both are cornerstones of Australia's anti-nuclear stance.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::)

I have some idea about what you know, Brian. Some idea. That being what you have already told me. And therefore I know that you do not know much. I do not know what our status is with the Pacific Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. But, Australia does possess nuclear warheads.

AusGeoff wrote on Mar 6^th, 2023 at 6:42pm:

UnSubRocky wrote on Mar 4th, 2023 at 3:32pm: AusGeoff wrote on Mar 4th, 2023 at 2:03pm: UnSubRocky wrote on Mar 3rd, 2023 at 2:50pm: The Iranians are capable of hitting cities in Australia with their nuclear missiles... Not so. Table of Iran's Missile Arsenal, 27 July, 2022. Maybe my information is a little out of date. Or maybe your information is out of date. What I do know is that Iran has the capability of reaching Australia with nuclear missiles. This claim needs a link.   Thank you.

Back to bed for you.

But, I will give you a few links in the next 24 hours.

The longest theoretical range for an Iranian missile is 5,000 kilometres. Australia and Iran are 10,000 kilometres apart.   

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 6^th, 2023 at 5:29pm:

Bobby. wrote on Mar 6th, 2023 at 3:38pm: Hi Brian, so you're saying that even though in 1970 the Russians put a space probe on Venus they still couldn't hit Australia with a nuke in 2023? Magnetic fields? They don't use a compass to guide an ICBM.    tsk  tsk   ::) ::) https://coolcosmos.ipac.caltech.edu/ask/44-Has-a-spacecraft-ever-landed-on-Venus- On December 15, 1970 an unmanned Soviet spacecraft, Venera 7, became the first spacecraft to land on another planet. It measured the temperature of the atmosphere on Venus. In 1972, Venera 8 gathered atmospheric and surface data for 50 minutes after landing. Venus is approximately 12,104km in diameter.  Australia is approximately  4000km, a quarter of that size.  Venus is approximately 61 million kilometers from earth, Australia is approximately 9,977 km from Russia.  A space probe launched from Russia would have to traverse a decreasing magnetic field to reach Venus and could be equipped with an active radar system to guide it.  A missile launched from Russia would not be guided, except ballistically and would have to traverse a significantly decreasing and then a re-increasing magnetic field.  No Russian missile has done that.  Try again, Bobby.  I find it interesting that you don't mention the numerous Soviet and Russian space missions that failed to reach Venus, Mars and the Moon of approximately same or earlier periods.  I wonder why?  Tsk, tsk, tsk...   ::) ::)

Brian,
the magnetic field has nothing to do with it.     tsk tsk tsk   ::) ::)

UnSubRocky wrote on Mar 6^th, 2023 at 6:49pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 6th, 2023 at 5:15pm: UnSubRocky wrote on Mar 6th, 2023 at 2:03pm: Brian Ross wrote on Mar 5th, 2023 at 3:38pm: Yeah, yeah, sure, what ever you want to believe, Unsub.  Pity it is all bullshit, mate. I studied nuclear war fighting as part of my Masters degree, which while it was largely about Russian and American systems, I have kept up with the latest developments in other nations.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...   ::) ::) So, in other words, you do not know Australia has nuclear weapons. And I doubt you know what happens to humans in the immediate area of the nuclear attack, let alone the environmental and economic impact has during and after a deployed nuclear attack. anotheronebitesthedust... You have no idea about what I know, Unsub.  Absolutely, no idea.  Australia is a signatory and ratifier of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Pact.  It is also a signatory and ratifier of the Pacific Nuclear Non-Proliferation Pact.  In both it has relinquished the right and ability to develop and have nuclear warheads.  Both are cornerstones of Australia's anti-nuclear stance.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::) I have some idea about what you know, Brian. Some idea. That being what you have already told me. And therefore I know that you do not know much. I do not know what our status is with the Pacific Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. But, Australia does possess nuclear warheads.

Do we, Unsub?  Where are they?  How does this not contravene the two treaties that I mentioned.  How does this not contravene numerous Australian Government statements of the past?  Where have we tested these warheads?  On what do we carry these warheads?  Inquisitive minds want to know.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...   ::) ::)

Bobby. wrote on Mar 6^th, 2023 at 7:10pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 6th, 2023 at 5:29pm: Bobby. wrote on Mar 6th, 2023 at 3:38pm: Hi Brian, so you're saying that even though in 1970 the Russians put a space probe on Venus they still couldn't hit Australia with a nuke in 2023? Magnetic fields? They don't use a compass to guide an ICBM.    tsk  tsk   ::) ::) https://coolcosmos.ipac.caltech.edu/ask/44-Has-a-spacecraft-ever-landed-on-Venus- On December 15, 1970 an unmanned Soviet spacecraft, Venera 7, became the first spacecraft to land on another planet. It measured the temperature of the atmosphere on Venus. In 1972, Venera 8 gathered atmospheric and surface data for 50 minutes after landing. Venus is approximately 12,104km in diameter.  Australia is approximately  4000km, a quarter of that size.  Venus is approximately 61 million kilometers from earth, Australia is approximately 9,977 km from Russia.  A space probe launched from Russia would have to traverse a decreasing magnetic field to reach Venus and could be equipped with an active radar system to guide it.  A missile launched from Russia would not be guided, except ballistically and would have to traverse a significantly decreasing and then a re-increasing magnetic field.  No Russian missile has done that.  Try again, Bobby.  I find it interesting that you don't mention the numerous Soviet and Russian space missions that failed to reach Venus, Mars and the Moon of approximately same or earlier periods.  I wonder why?  Tsk, tsk, tsk...   ::) ::) Brian, the magnetic field has nothing to do with it.     tsk tsk tsk   ::) ::)

How do you know, Bobby?  Tsk, tsk, tsk...   ::) ::)

More Nuke targets in Australia. ::)

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 6^th, 2023 at 7:19pm:

Bobby. wrote on Mar 6th, 2023 at 7:10pm: Brian Ross wrote on Mar 6th, 2023 at 5:29pm: Bobby. wrote on Mar 6th, 2023 at 3:38pm: Hi Brian, so you're saying that even though in 1970 the Russians put a space probe on Venus they still couldn't hit Australia with a nuke in 2023? Magnetic fields? They don't use a compass to guide an ICBM.    tsk  tsk   ::) ::) https://coolcosmos.ipac.caltech.edu/ask/44-Has-a-spacecraft-ever-landed-on-Venus- On December 15, 1970 an unmanned Soviet spacecraft, Venera 7, became the first spacecraft to land on another planet. It measured the temperature of the atmosphere on Venus. In 1972, Venera 8 gathered atmospheric and surface data for 50 minutes after landing. Venus is approximately 12,104km in diameter.  Australia is approximately  4000km, a quarter of that size.  Venus is approximately 61 million kilometers from earth, Australia is approximately 9,977 km from Russia.  A space probe launched from Russia would have to traverse a decreasing magnetic field to reach Venus and could be equipped with an active radar system to guide it.  A missile launched from Russia would not be guided, except ballistically and would have to traverse a significantly decreasing and then a re-increasing magnetic field.  No Russian missile has done that.  Try again, Bobby.  I find it interesting that you don't mention the numerous Soviet and Russian space missions that failed to reach Venus, Mars and the Moon of approximately same or earlier periods.  I wonder why?  Tsk, tsk, tsk...   ::) ::) Brian, the magnetic field has nothing to do with it.     tsk tsk tsk   ::) ::) How do you know, Bobby?  Tsk, tsk, tsk...   ::) ::)

Because magnetic fields are very weak and missiles use
inertial guidance and computers to guide the missiles

not a compass like a boy scout.   tsk  tsk  tsk      ::) ::)

Bobby. wrote on Mar 6^th, 2023 at 7:34pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 6th, 2023 at 7:19pm: Bobby. wrote on Mar 6th, 2023 at 7:10pm: Brian Ross wrote on Mar 6th, 2023 at 5:29pm: Bobby. wrote on Mar 6th, 2023 at 3:38pm: Hi Brian, so you're saying that even though in 1970 the Russians put a space probe on Venus they still couldn't hit Australia with a nuke in 2023? Magnetic fields? They don't use a compass to guide an ICBM.    tsk  tsk   ::) ::) https://coolcosmos.ipac.caltech.edu/ask/44-Has-a-spacecraft-ever-landed-on-Venus- On December 15, 1970 an unmanned Soviet spacecraft, Venera 7, became the first spacecraft to land on another planet. It measured the temperature of the atmosphere on Venus. In 1972, Venera 8 gathered atmospheric and surface data for 50 minutes after landing. Venus is approximately 12,104km in diameter.  Australia is approximately  4000km, a quarter of that size.  Venus is approximately 61 million kilometers from earth, Australia is approximately 9,977 km from Russia.  A space probe launched from Russia would have to traverse a decreasing magnetic field to reach Venus and could be equipped with an active radar system to guide it.  A missile launched from Russia would not be guided, except ballistically and would have to traverse a significantly decreasing and then a re-increasing magnetic field.  No Russian missile has done that.  Try again, Bobby.  I find it interesting that you don't mention the numerous Soviet and Russian space missions that failed to reach Venus, Mars and the Moon of approximately same or earlier periods.  I wonder why?  Tsk, tsk, tsk...   ::) ::) Brian, the magnetic field has nothing to do with it.     tsk tsk tsk   ::) ::) How do you know, Bobby?  Tsk, tsk, tsk...   ::) ::) Because magnetic fields are very weak and missiles use inertial guidance and computers to guide the missiles not a compass like a boy scout.   tsk  tsk  tsk      ::) ::)

The missile must establish it's initial heading by compass, Bobby.  It must at certain points in it's trajectory re-establish it's heading by compass.  Inertial guidance is only good for 200-400 km from it's starting point.  The US handles this via the GPS positioning system and satellite signal, which gives them world wide coverage.  The Russians rely on magnet compass being more primitive.  Their Global Positioning system is more limited and is designed to give assurances over the Northern Hemisphere alone.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...   ::) ::)

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 6^th, 2023 at 7:18pm:

Do we, Unsub?  Where are they?  How does this not contravene the two treaties that I mentioned.  How does this not contravene numerous Australian Government statements of the past?  Where have we tested these warheads?  On what do we carry these warheads?  Inquisitive minds want to know.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...   ::) ::)

That is up to you to do the research.

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 6^th, 2023 at 8:33pm:

The missile must establish it's initial heading by compass, Bobby.  It must at certain points in it's trajectory re-establish it's heading by compass.  Inertial guidance is only good for 200-400 km from it's starting point.  The US handles this via the GPS positioning system and satellite signal, which gives them world wide coverage.  The Russians rely on magnet compass being more primitive.  Their Global Positioning system is more limited and is designed to give assurances over the Northern Hemisphere alone.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...   ::) ::)

Brian,
you're out of date.
The Russians could fly a hypersonic missile through your bedroom window if they wanted to.

tsk  tsk  tsk    ::) ::)

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/KBUtFxSNgdA

UnSubRocky wrote on Mar 6^th, 2023 at 9:16pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 6th, 2023 at 7:18pm: Do we, Unsub?  Where are they?  How does this not contravene the two treaties that I mentioned.  How does this not contravene numerous Australian Government statements of the past?  Where have we tested these warheads?  On what do we carry these warheads?  Inquisitive minds want to know.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...   ::) ::) That is up to you to do the research.

I have, unsub.  Guess what?  It has shown you are bullshitting. Tsk, tsk, tsk...   ::) ::)

Bobby. wrote on Mar 6^th, 2023 at 9:31pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 6th, 2023 at 8:33pm: The missile must establish it's initial heading by compass, Bobby.  It must at certain points in it's trajectory re-establish it's heading by compass.  Inertial guidance is only good for 200-400 km from it's starting point.  The US handles this via the GPS positioning system and satellite signal, which gives them world wide coverage.  The Russians rely on magnet compass being more primitive.  Their Global Positioning system is more limited and is designed to give assurances over the Northern Hemisphere alone.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...   ::) ::) Brian, you're out of date. The Russians could fly a hypersonic missile through your bedroom window if they wanted to. tsk  tsk  tsk    ::) ::)

The Russian have a limited number of "hypersonic" missiles, Bobby and guess what?  They are of limited range.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...   ::) ::)

Boris wrote on Mar 7^th, 2023 at 10:44am:

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/KBUtFxSNgdA

Oh, dearie, dearie, me, Matty, you seem to rely on Youtube videos for proof of your existence.  Get back to us with some real proof.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...   ::) ::)

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 7^th, 2023 at 11:32am:

UnSubRocky wrote on Mar 6th, 2023 at 9:16pm: Brian Ross wrote on Mar 6th, 2023 at 7:18pm: Do we, Unsub?  Where are they?  How does this not contravene the two treaties that I mentioned.  How does this not contravene numerous Australian Government statements of the past?  Where have we tested these warheads?  On what do we carry these warheads?  Inquisitive minds want to know.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...   ::) ::) That is up to you to do the research. I have, unsub.  Guess what?  It has shown you are bullshitting. Tsk, tsk, tsk...   ::) ::)

Your research has shown that you know nothing, and therefore falsely claim others are bullshitting. Just because you do not know about it, it does not mean that there is no truth to it.

UnSubRocky wrote on Mar 7^th, 2023 at 9:17pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 7th, 2023 at 11:32am: UnSubRocky wrote on Mar 6th, 2023 at 9:16pm: Brian Ross wrote on Mar 6th, 2023 at 7:18pm: Do we, Unsub?  Where are they?  How does this not contravene the two treaties that I mentioned.  How does this not contravene numerous Australian Government statements of the past?  Where have we tested these warheads?  On what do we carry these warheads?  Inquisitive minds want to know.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...   ::) ::) That is up to you to do the research. I have, unsub.  Guess what?  It has shown you are bullshitting. Tsk, tsk, tsk...   ::) ::) Your research has shown that you know nothing, and therefore falsely claim others are bullshitting. Just because you do not know about it, it does not mean that there is no truth to it.

When you provide a verifiable reference I will ascertain whether you are bullshitting or not, Unsub.   Until then I am forced to assume you are indeed, bullshitting, OK?  Tsk, tsk, tsk...   ::) ::)

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 7^th, 2023 at 9:55pm:

When you provide a verifiable reference I will ascertain whether you are bullshitting or not, Unsub.   Until then I am forced to assume you are indeed, bullshitting, OK?  Tsk, tsk, tsk...   ::) ::)

When you provide a verifiable reference that Australia has no nuclear ambitions, or the possibility that we Australians have not developed nuclear weapons, then I will ascertain how naive you have been, Brian. Until then, I will assume that you are just going along with the "it's not on the internet. The guy down at the pub has not said anything" type reasoning.

Just because you do not know about Australia's nuclear ambitions does not mean that we do not have nuclear weapons. Can you atleast agree that Australia housed nuclear weapons that belong to the United States?

UnSubRocky wrote on Mar 7^th, 2023 at 10:22pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 7th, 2023 at 9:55pm: When you provide a verifiable reference I will ascertain whether you are bullshitting or not, Unsub.   Until then I am forced to assume you are indeed, bullshitting, OK?  Tsk, tsk, tsk...   ::) ::) When you provide a verifiable reference that Australia has no nuclear ambitions, or the possibility that we Australians have not developed nuclear weapons, then I will ascertain how naive you have been, Brian. Until then, I will assume that you are just going along with the "it's not on the internet. The guy down at the pub has not said anything" type reasoning. Just because you do not know about Australia's nuclear ambitions does not mean that we do not have nuclear weapons. Can you atleast agree that Australia housed nuclear weapons that belong to the United States?

Ignoring your bullshit.  Australia has been barred from "housing US nuclear weapons" on the basis of those two treaties, Unsub.  Australia is too far south to "house US nuclear weapons".  "Housing" means storing them.  We do not knowingly store other nation's nuclear weapons for them.  Until you present some evidence to contradict that line, I'll stick with it.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...   ::) ::)

UnSubRocky wrote on Mar 7^th, 2023 at 10:22pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 7th, 2023 at 9:55pm: When you provide a verifiable reference I will ascertain whether you are bullshitting or not, Unsub.   Until then I am forced to assume you are indeed, bullshitting, OK?  Tsk, tsk, tsk...   ::) ::) When you provide a verifiable reference that Australia has no nuclear ambitions, or the possibility that we Australians have not developed nuclear weapons, then I will ascertain how naive you have been, Brian. Until then, I will assume that you are just going along with the "it's not on the internet. The guy down at the pub has not said anything" type reasoning. Just because you do not know about Australia's nuclear ambitions does not mean that we do not have nuclear weapons. Can you atleast agree that Australia housed nuclear weapons that belong to the United States?

Let's assume that Australia  does have a secret stash of nukes somewhere..

Where was the enriched uranium obtained from? Was it from a friendly nation overseas like the US or UK, or was it produced here, and if so, in what facility? Where was all the research done? What scientists and technicians were involved? Where were the weapons constructed? Who by? What sort of weapons are they, bombs, missiles, a large IED? Where did the money come from?

These and many more questions need a credible answer before we can start believing in locally produced nuclear weapons. 

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 8^th, 2023 at 9:01am:

UnSubRocky wrote on Mar 7th, 2023 at 10:22pm: Brian Ross wrote on Mar 7th, 2023 at 9:55pm: When you provide a verifiable reference I will ascertain whether you are bullshitting or not, Unsub.   Until then I am forced to assume you are indeed, bullshitting, OK?  Tsk, tsk, tsk...   ::) ::) When you provide a verifiable reference that Australia has no nuclear ambitions, or the possibility that we Australians have not developed nuclear weapons, then I will ascertain how naive you have been, Brian. Until then, I will assume that you are just going along with the "it's not on the internet. The guy down at the pub has not said anything" type reasoning. Just because you do not know about Australia's nuclear ambitions does not mean that we do not have nuclear weapons. Can you atleast agree that Australia housed nuclear weapons that belong to the United States? Ignoring your bullshit.  Australia has been barred from "housing US nuclear weapons" on the basis of those two treaties, Unsub.  Australia too far south to "house US nuclear weapons".  "Housing" means storing them.  We do not knowingly store other nation's nuclear weapons for them.  Until you present some evidence to contradict that line, I'll stick with it.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...   ::) ::)

You want me to present evidence of a conversation I had with people in the military and politicians on the subject confirming the rumour that we have housed American nuclear weapons? I did not have my dictaphone available those days to record the conversations. So, I don't know how I am supposed to reveal the sources to you, nor have I the right to say who said what.

Indonesia raised objections to Australia storing American nuclear weapons. It is the reason why they were removed. Years later, Australia made our own nuclear weapons.

Belgarion wrote on Mar 8^th, 2023 at 9:19am:

Let's assume that Australia  does have a secret stash of nukes somewhere.. Where was the enriched uranium obtained from? Was it from a friendly nation overseas like the US or UK, or was it produced here, and if so, in what facility? Where was all the research done? What scientists and technicians were involved? Where were the weapons constructed? Who by? What sort of weapons are they, bombs, missiles, a large IED? Where did the money come from? These and many more questions need a credible answer before we can start believing in locally produced nuclear weapons.

Australia having a secret stash of nukes somewhere would mean that the details of making and storing them would be confidential. The information would not be made public for our scrutiny.

UnSubRocky wrote on Mar 8^th, 2023 at 2:04pm:

Belgarion wrote on Mar 8th, 2023 at 9:19am: Let's assume that Australia  does have a secret stash of nukes somewhere.. Where was the enriched uranium obtained from? Was it from a friendly nation overseas like the US or UK, or was it produced here, and if so, in what facility? Where was all the research done? What scientists and technicians were involved? Where were the weapons constructed? Who by? What sort of weapons are they, bombs, missiles, a large IED? Where did the money come from? These and many more questions need a credible answer before we can start believing in locally produced nuclear weapons.  Australia having a secret stash of nukes somewhere would mean that the details of making and storing them would be confidential. The information would not be made public for our scrutiny.

Indeed, such information would be classified at the highest level. Yet you have been told about it and are posting what you have heard on this board as well.......

Belgarion wrote on Mar 8^th, 2023 at 4:07pm:

UnSubRocky wrote on Mar 8th, 2023 at 2:04pm: Belgarion wrote on Mar 8th, 2023 at 9:19am: Let's assume that Australia  does have a secret stash of nukes somewhere.. Where was the enriched uranium obtained from? Was it from a friendly nation overseas like the US or UK, or was it produced here, and if so, in what facility? Where was all the research done? What scientists and technicians were involved? Where were the weapons constructed? Who by? What sort of weapons are they, bombs, missiles, a large IED? Where did the money come from? These and many more questions need a credible answer before we can start believing in locally produced nuclear weapons.  Australia having a secret stash of nukes somewhere would mean that the details of making and storing them would be confidential. The information would not be made public for our scrutiny. Indeed, such information would be classified at the highest level. Yet you have been told about it and are posting what you have heard on this board as well.......

There is always that doubt in my mind that I could have been lied to about the current situation of Australian nuclear weapons. Maybe they were planned but never made. Maybe they were disassembled due to changing circumstances. I have not personally seen the facility or the weapons being made. But the talk of Australia having nuclear weapons has been with me for the last 15 years.

I can talk about various things of national importance all I want on this board. But, if I give specific details about classified information, I get into all manner of trouble.

Brian is under the impression that you have to give evidence for someone to be able prove their point. That would be true for easily accessible evidence to be provided. But when it comes to providing evidence of classified information (the what, where, when and who involved), it gets a bit difficult to do that.

If I said that I saw a kangaroo outside my house (in the middle of town) hopping down my street, people would say that it is a possibility for that to happen. But saying that Australia has the know-how, the resources, etc., to develop nuclear weapons and have done so... people blink their eyes in disbelief, claiming that it is immoral and therefore not true.

UnSubRocky wrote on Mar 7^th, 2023 at 10:22pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 7th, 2023 at 9:55pm: When you provide a verifiable reference I will ascertain whether you are bullshitting or not, Unsub.   Until then I am forced to assume you are indeed, bullshitting, OK?  Tsk, tsk, tsk...   ::) ::) When you provide a verifiable reference that Australia has no nuclear ambitions, or the possibility that we Australians have not developed nuclear weapons, then I will ascertain how naive you have been, Brian. Until then, I will assume that you are just going along with the "it's not on the internet. The guy down at the pub has not said anything" type reasoning. Just because you do not know about Australia's nuclear ambitions does not mean that we do not have nuclear weapons. Can you atleast agree that Australia housed nuclear weapons that belong to the United States?

The Australian Government refuses to confirm or deny the existence of American Nukes on Australian soil???


Quote:

Officials will not confirm whether US bombers in Australia carry nuclear weapons "Successive Australian governments have understood and respected the longstanding US policy of neither confirming nor denying the presence of nuclear weapons on particular platforms,

:-? :-? :-?

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-02-15/defence-wont-confirm-if-us-bombers-carry-nuclear-weapons/101978596

Considering the Australian Government consists of the British via the Governor-Generals and the USA via the Prime Ministers - chances are 'Yes there are nukes here'.