Brian Ross wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2013 at 9:43pm:


Actually Brian, i'm afraid you're being a bit silly, or relying on ignorance to make a case. Australia is well along the path towards nuclear capability if it wanted it. We didn't allow the Brits bombing rights without any quid pro quo y'know.

And the 'International community' (the West) don't give a monkey's arse about allies having nukes. It's only the naughty people who they complain about. Britain and America colluded to aid the Israeli nuclear capability with a smile behind the hand.

http://nautilus.org/apsnet/the-re-emergence-of-an-australian-nuclear-weapons-opt...

Grey wrote on Sep 24^th, 2013 at 8:53pm:


Except the British reneged on the implied agreement (there was never an explicit one) to share nuclear secrets with us, if we allowed them to use our territory for tests, Grey.  This has been detailed in several books published over the last 10-15 years.

When the US ceased it's unwillingness to share nuclear weapon secrets with the British in the late 1950s, even that implied agreement was quietly forgotten by London.

Quote:


To a certain extent but they frown on people PUBLICLY trying to do this.  The Israelis kept their program secret, so it was tacitly ignored.  When the South Africans started their program, both the United States and the fUSSR came down very heavily indeed on them.  It was one of the major factors why the US started de-investing in South Africa and that in turn caused the economy them to start falling to pieces, which in turn caused the Apartheid regime to fall.  When the RSA announced they had destroyed their bombs, it still didn't save them.

http://nautilus.org/apsnet/the-re-emergence-of-an-australian-nuclear-weapons-opt... [/quote]

Just another opinion piece, Grey.  They are a dime a dozen on the web.   

Get back to us when you find the secret files from Tory HQ which show Tone Rabbit is interested in pursuing this course. 

Bobby. wrote on Sep 24^th, 2013 at 9:13pm:


You really are quite naive if you believe this can be compared to "mates" and "a car".  I've told you the reasons why they were destroyed.  If you can't accept it, then you're being very immature about it.  Get over it, Bobby.   

Quote:


As I said, it would have skewed our economy.  The purchase of the C-17s had the same effect.  The C-17s were however, more useful.

Quote:


It would be childish.

Quote:


Yes?  And are we any different?   

Quote:


Two points.  (a) I didn't realise you were geographically challenged; (b) I didn't realise you were that foolish.   



Quote:


The Indonesians have 470,000 men in their military.
It's much bigger than ours & too much of a threat.
That's why we should deny them aid. [/quote]

Bobby. wrote on Sep 24^th, 2013 at 9:23pm:


*SIGH* every academic and scientific study has shown that the British were both extremely reluctant to share any nuclear secrets with Australia because of American pressure not to (the US did not trust Canberra because of fears of Soviet penetration after the VERONA intercepts, which the Petrov Affair showed were well founded.

If it was true, I'd be extremely reluctant to use a British nuclear weapon which was over 40 years old.  The early British designs were bulky and unsafe, something the British even admitted.  It was one of the reasons why they were testing them here, to try and prove and then improve their designs.  In the end, they used designs the Yanks supplied to them.

Brian Ross wrote on Sep 24^th, 2013 at 10:36pm:



True but strange how it was said only once on  - I think Lateline -
& then hushed up.

Bobby. wrote on Sep 24^th, 2013 at 10:45pm:


Or it was recognised how ridiculous it was.   

Bobby. wrote on Sep 24^th, 2013 at 10:59pm:


It is more than likely nonsense.

Quote:


Considering how ignorant most people were about nuclear contamination at the time and that included the scientists, there was a touching naivety about how Menzies approached the matter.  I heartily recommend you read the McClelland Royal Commission into the Nuclear Tests in Australia.  It makes rather disheartening reading of not only how the British treated us and our sovereignty and how some Australians were quite prepared to surrender it out of some touching belief in Empire and the Mother Country.  McClelland basically concluded that the Australian Chief Scientist considered himself more British than Australian and didn't give a damn about what happened to us.

Quote:


That is not true and lies outside of the scope of this thread.  I'd recommend you learn some history, Bobby.

Menzies considered himself British "to his bootstraps" and Australian second.  That is why he "sucked up to them so much".

Quote:


No, we saved ourselves.  The Japanese were incapable of doing more than superficial harm to Australia.

Quote:


Most of their details are now known because of things like the McClelland Royal Commission, the freedom of information act, the 30 and 50 year release of government papers.  There isn't much which isn't known IMO.  There have some some good and some indifferent books written on the subject if you're interested.

Bobby. wrote on Sep 25^th, 2013 at 12:34am:


In some areas he was quite blind though.

Quote:


I beg to differ.   What is in the Archives is what the Government said to itself.  The Archives are where historians research these matters.  They look at the gaps as much as at the files.  No gaps have been mentioned by any serious researchers.

Quote:


There is no 100 year rule, as such, Bobby.  There is a 30 year rule.

Quote:


You're being foolish again, Bobby.  Do you, out of a matter of interest believe in the idea of conspiracies by governments?