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...   

Bobby. wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2019 at 6:32pm:


I have answered each of your points, Bobby.  Reread what I have written in this thread (and numerous others).   

Bobby. wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2019 at 7:55pm:


An interesting point, Bobby.

Back in the early 1960s, Australia was very critical of South African Apartheid.  The South Africans hit back, pointing out the hypocrisy of the Australian Government with regards to its treatment of Indigenous Australians.   The Australian Government was forced to accept that criticism.  It was one of the reasons why the 1967 Referendum recognising Indigenous Australians went ahead.

Would our acquiring our own nukes mean we would no longer be able to criticise other, rogue nations outside the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Pact?   I suspect so.   We would be required to renounce our signature on the document at the very least.  It was why we abandoned the quest for nuclear weapons in 1968 IIRC.  Gorton was keen on our acquiring the bomb.  McMahon less so.  With the ousting of Gorton, McMahon instructed the Department of Foreign Affairs to sign the Non-Proliferation Treaty and for the CSIRO to cease it's research into acquiring a bomb.

Brian Ross wrote on Jul 4^th, 2019 at 3:02pm:


Not only that -
we don't have the technology:

Bobby. wrote on Jul 4^th, 2019 at 5:40pm:


We might not have the finer points of the art of bomb design but we do have access to the grosser points, Bobby.  Australia has been a leading nation in Atomic research since it's inception.   Sir Marcus Oliphant contributed to the creation of the first Atomic bomb and Uranium from Rum Jungle helped the British build theirs'.  The ANU and the Snowy River scheme was originally created to further our quest for a bomb back in the late 1940s.  When the British reneged on their promise to supply us with Atomic knowledge because the US said they would not share with them in case it leaked across to Australia - a nation the US considered at the time very vulnerable to Soviet espoinage, the original purposes for either tended to be forgotten and they became useful for other things...   

Brian Ross wrote on Jul 4^th, 2019 at 5:48pm:



Dear Brian,
May I suggest you watch the 2 videos as there are
so many classified technical fine points that
obviously the learned presenter doesn't know -
and he admits it -
I can see we'd be 15 years to 40 years behind.

Bobby. wrote on Jul 4^th, 2019 at 6:02pm:



Bobby, Bobby, even I could design a working Atomic bomb.  It isn't rocket science. Of course, it would be a simplistic "gun type" bomb, not a you beaut implosion kind.  That would take a little longer, I am willing to admit.

Now, if you want a Hydrogen bomb, that might take a lot longer and a bit more research but I think I could build one without too many difficulties.

Of course I'd need to experiment a few times to make sure I've got the details right...   

Brian couldn't even build a fart bomb let alone a nuke.

Bobby. wrote on Jul 4^th, 2019 at 6:40pm:



Where did I suggest it would be cheap, Bobby?  We could build a gun type bomb.  It doesn't need a huge amount of U235, it just needs a large amount, preferably highly enriched Uranium.  The South Africans were going to manage a series of small bombs using only a hundred or so kilograms.

The reason why the DPRK's first few bombs were fizzers was because they were trying with a handful of Plutonium and an implosion device.  The first implosion device, the "Fat Man" bomb was comparatively huge that was partly because the Fat Man lacked miniaturised electronics.   Nowadays, if you know what you're doing you can make it the size of a large suitcase.

Were you aware that the Pakistanis' first bombs were also fizzers?  That was because they used a (deliberately) defective Chinese design.  It seems the Chinese are more inscrutable than we believed...

Brian Ross wrote on Jul 4^th, 2019 at 8:40pm:


With a P239 bomb you only need 7 Kgs of material.
With a U235 bomb you need 10 times that amount
about 70 Kgs.
That's why they use P239 that can be easily made in a Uranium reactor.

The fizzing problem is not simple at all with P239.
You have to reflect neutrons back in but if you reflect too many it will fizz out.
It also requires an initiator at the center of a hollow sphere or pit.
How can they stop that from causing criticality too soon?
There are precise amounts of material in many different shells
and the timing has to be perfect or it will be a fizzer
with almost no yield.

I am actually very surprised that the first P239 Trinity test worked at all.
It shows you how smart they were.
They did it in only 3 years.

greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2019 at 3:32pm:


On the one hand, you probably won't see any nations nearby Australia that have hostilities towards Australia. Especially if there are no sizable Christian populations living there. On the other hand, if the Americans say no to Morrison, he won't do schitt.

Yes nukes and biological weapons

miketrees wrote on Jul 8^th, 2019 at 10:23pm:


Nukes are expensive.  Biological weapons are uncertain and not terribly effective.   

Bobby. wrote on Jul 8^th, 2019 at 10:58pm:


Most pandemics usually are only about 30-40% effective, Bobby.   

But biological weapons are designed so we have no immunity to them -
it's the ultimate evil.

Australia could have enough vaccinations available to protect its citizens.
The rest of the world would be safe,,, just dont invade us

miketrees wrote on Jul 9^th, 2019 at 7:21pm:


Who is going to bother to invade us, Mike?