For a  very small period of time we had the will and we had the way, but it was not be.

From 1973 to about 1986 the RAAF F111 was capable of delivering a nuclear weapon, the systems were maintained up until the Pave Tack upgrade needed the room in the aircraft for our new weapons.

I have no feelings one way or another as I spent a good couple of years maintaining those systems and another couple of years removing them.


LAST week’s successful test of a North Korean missile raised fresh fears Australia is now potentially within range of one of the rogue nation’s nukes.
Yet despite being the world’s third largest producer of uranium — the key ingredient in a nuclear bomb — Australia has no similar weapon to chuck back should Kim Jong-un press the big red button.
But, were it not for the rolling of Australian Prime Minister John Gorton in 1971, in a Liberal Party coup, Australia could easily have developed its own true blue, and massively deadly, nuke.
A military expert has told news.com.au, that top secret plans were so advanced Australia was considered “top of the pile” of countries expected to acquire its own nuclear arsenal.

http://www.news.com.au/technology/science/australias-secret-plans-to-have-its-ow...


An interesting read.

Australia signed and ratified the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty in 1968 IIRC.   We abandoned all efforts to gain nuclear weapons at that point.   We have relied on the US "Nuclear Umbrella" ever since, to deter any potential aggressor armed with WMDs.

The F-111 was purchase in 1964 to deter the remote possibility of Indonesia under Sukarno using it's Tu-16 Badger bombers to attack any Australian (read Darwin/Brisbane) cities.   We have never had nuclear weapons.   The closest we came was in 1950 when the British induced the Australian Government to allow them to test nuclear weapons on our soil.  As part of the Imperial Defence plans of the day, the exchange was that we were to develop nuclear industries and Britain was to provide the knowledge to build bombs.   We created the ANU (to provide nuclear scientists and engineers), the Snowy Mountain River Scheme (to provide sufficient electricity for Uranium enrichement).   However, the USA, fearful of the possibility of nuclear knowledge leaking to the fUSSR prevented the UK from transferring the necessary know-how, how to build a bomb.

We do not need nuclear weapons to deter the DPRK.  The DPRK will not possess the ability to attack Australia - even if they ever wanted to - for about another four to six years.   There is no difference to living under the supposed threat of the DPRK possessing ICBMs than living under the threat of the fUSSR having ICBMs.    In reality, Australia is a long, long way down the possible targets that the DPRK will want to strike.  The USA/Europe/Russia/PRC/ROK/Japan are much more likely before their shopping list reaches the entry marked, "Australia".

What we need to do is stop panicking and start looking at this problem rationally.   Our RAN ships, in particular the Hobart class have the means to be easily upgraded to intercept ICBMs.  If the Government feels it is necessary, they should consider investing in them to defend Australian cities against the handful of ICBMs the DPRK will likely have.

Bobby. wrote on Jul 10^th, 2017 at 7:53pm:


Almost does not equate to completely, Bobby.

The first step is having a radar and a combat system which can discriminate between the re-entry vehicle and any decoys.  The next step is developing a missile which can intercept the re-entry vehicle the further from it's target as possible.  Then you just pre-position the launcher and it's radars and combat system and it will do it's job.

Best way yet is to deter your enemy from firing his missiles at you.

The DPRK is not led by an idiot.  He knows how far he can go.  These are weapons of last, not first resort.  Kim Jung Un is determined to prevent his regime being changed by Washington (and to a lesser extent, Beijing).   This is one way of ensuring that doesn't occur.  His priorities for targets will be for quite a long time to come, the US, ROK, Japan, PRC, Russia and then any other hanger ons like Australia.   His regime has tested one missile.   He still has to demonstrate that it has the range and accuracy requited to be a threat.

Bobby. wrote on Jul 10^th, 2017 at 9:24pm:


Whether he is or not, at the present moment he is no danger to Australia.   As Australia has banned all DPRK ships from it's coastal limits and the range of a midget submarine is limited, I don't think we have to fear his midget submarine fleet at the present moment, Bobby.   As always you are being alarmist unnecessarily.   Why do you work on your hangman's noose?  You need practice.   

Brian Ross wrote on Jul 10^th, 2017 at 6:51pm:



The Pig was purchased for its delivery capability, like a lot of equipment we buy to purchase 'for not with' and like the story said we toyed with the idea for some time before the actual delivery date.


I can tell we maintained the system to fully operational. as we do for all aircraft systems right up until Pave Tack was modded into the aircraft.

Were we aver serious about the capability, probably not, but should that have changed from 1973 to 1986, the upgrade would have been fairly quick and easy, from a technical perspective.


Politically, well we have been weak as p1ss since witlam, so it was never going to happen regardless of need,

Brian Ross wrote on Jul 11^th, 2017 at 3:34pm:



There is a video somewhere of Kim watching a sub launched missile.

I'll let you find it.

The real war is going on underneath the waves.

Bobby. wrote on Jul 11^th, 2017 at 3:37pm:



When we have a DPRK submarine in Sydney Harbour, I'll be worried, Bobby.   As their maximum range is approximately 1,500 km, I think our Collins class subs are bit bigger and a quite a bit better than the best the DPRK can muster.

Brian Ross wrote on Jul 11^th, 2017 at 3:47pm:



North Korea has a lot more subs than us:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_North_Korean_ships