Should Australia develop its own nuclear deterrent?
4 Oct 2018    Paul Dibb



Trident Missile.


Australia’s deteriorating strategic outlook raises the question under what conditions should we develop a nuclear weapon of our own? This option was seriously considered by Australian governments in the 1960s, and the Department of Defence kept the technological lead time for an Australian nuclear weapon under review until the early 1980s. That was at the height of the Cold War and, as one of America’s closest allies, we faced a real risk of Soviet nuclear attack.

We face no such risk these days. Nevertheless, we now have the prospect—for the first time since World War II—of a potential major-power adversary threatening us with high-intensity military conflict in our neighbourhood. This is not to identify China as an inevitable adversary, but prudent defence planning needs to accept that Beijing is developing the conventional military capabilities to threaten us seriously—were its intentions to change. Military developments in our region of primary strategic concern now require a change to our assessments about intelligence warning time.

So, we face a stark dilemma: increasing uncertainty about US extended nuclear deterrence versus the daunting alternative of acquiring our own nuclear deterrent. The other alternative is to simply accept (as we did in the Cold War) that we are a nuclear target and take our chances.

My view is that Australia should at least be looking at options and lead times. Doing so doesn’t commit us to proliferating.

The only other credible option is for us to develop a strong conventional force capable of denying the approaches to Australia to any well-armed adversary. That would demand a substantial increase in our defence budget, but it would leave us vulnerable to Trump’s ambiguous ‘America First’ version of extended nuclear deterrence.



much more here:
https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/should-australia-develop-its-own-nuclear-deter...

.
Depends on who does the deciding

Recent news indicates we're being pressured to spend more schools, hospitals, infrastructure etc on weapons of war

which is ridiculous as we know

we're sitting ducks and the only thing we should invest in, militarily, is a bunch of big white flags

but war is profit

Bobby. wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2019 at 3:27pm:


It wasn't going to bankrupt us in the 1960s, Bobby.  It would not bankrupt us now.  It would, however skew our defence budget severely in one direction and force us to abandon the development/purchase of conventional weapons unless we substantially increased our taxes.

Quote:


Really?  What about Pine Gap, NW Cape and Gladstone?   I was always under the impression those sites made us a nuclear target already, Bobby.   Des Ball once suggested that in a nuclear exchange between the US and the fUSSR, we would be unlikely to be hit, except at Pine Gap.  His view was that the fUSSR didn't have nukes to waste on a minor ally.  However, I am sure if China was interested in striking us (again which I severely doubt), I think they'd waste a few on us.

Quote:


Not quite.  All our capital and most of our major cities would be destroyed.  However, Australia is a lot larger than just those population centres, Bobby...   

Brian Ross wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2019 at 4:38pm:



Dear Brian,
did you read the article?
Bankruptcy?
Well the POMs are in this position:
Quote:

We'd have to start from scratch -
we don't have any delivery vehicles such as ICBMs.
We don't have nuclear reactors to make all the plutonium we'd need.
We are already up to our necks in debt.
We could only pay for it with more debt.


Targets?
Our main capital cities would become targets not just Pine Gap.
The USSR has plenty of missiles to waste on us -
they have enough to destroy the world many times over.

Do we really want to see Melbourne & Sydney
turned into smoking ruins?

Yes please

Mr White wheres the money coming from?.    

whiteknight wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2019 at 8:10am:


I would suggest it would come at the expense of higher taxes and fewer conventional weapons.

The main problem with nuclear weapons is that they induce a false sense of security.  They are weapons of last resort and so you cannot really, sensibly use them unless you are facing an existential confrontation or attack.  This means that you cannot use them to defend your nation or national interests against conventional attack.  You would be over-reacting and face worldwide condemnation for doing so, unless you were facing imminent defeat.

Then, there is the danger of the first use syndrome.   If you are faced by a nation with ICBMs, you fear you must use your own nuclear weapons before they are destroyed in a mythical first strike scenario.  If your forces are caught on the ground and destroyed, they are wasted.  This means that you are urged to mount your own first strike to prevent being caught unawares.   This results in increased tension and of course the danger that you will launch by mistake.

Nuclear weapons brings with them a whole raft of military and political problems which Australia does not need.  We lack at the moment nuclear technicians and engineers.  In the mid-1960s, it was determined we were about 18 months-2 years away from building our own bomb.  Today, we are no long producing, except a handful of nuclear technicians and engineers for our two nuclear reactors at Lucas Heights.  We would need hundreds of both to build a bomb successfully and in sufficient numbers to make a difference to our strategic situation.   We lack rocket engineers and technicians of any number, which we would need for the manufacture and maintenance of missiles of any kind.  We are now, I believe about 10-15 years away from building a bomb.   You simply cannot declare "we will build a bomb" and have one magically appear overnight.  It took Pakistan about 15 years plus to build theirs from scratch and about 15 years for the North Koreans to do the same.

Bobby. wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2019 at 5:57pm:


I know I know more than you, Bobby...