>> For instance, to just knock out the land-based leg of the US strategic triad

China has always had a countervalue, as opposed to a counterforce, deterrent. China's weapons are targeted at cities, not missile silos.

Much of this is reminiscent of an OLO article of 4 August 2008 "China could well be a problem for Australia". http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=7724

"To make up for China’s deficiencies in conventional arms it relies to a limited extent on long range nuclear missiles based on land and sea. These present a potential, though unlikely, threat to Australia. The submarine launched ballistic missiles are based around two known Type 094 [Jin Class] ballistic missile submarines."

"These submarines are still probably partial solutions to China’s needs not the final designs China will rely on for decades. Some analysts consider it highly likely that the 094’s are noisy, hence easy to detect, and carry less than half the warheads mounted on the missiles of modern Russian, US, French and British nuclear submarines."

"...The 094’s JL-2 missiles have a range of at least 8,000km. As Darwin is only 5,200km from Sanya and Brisbane 7,000km this puts these Australian cities in range without a 094 having to leave Chinese waters."

Your article is a useful explanation to the layman and a good curtain raiser on White Paper issues, but a little US centric. China has other regional competitors (which have nuclear weapons already or a short term nuclear breakout capability). China may equate its nuclear capability to these countries.

I agree that China's US policy is to make it too painful for the US to attack Chinese interests and not try to beat the US in a nuclear war - but that is just part of China's multi-country nuclear strategy.

Peter Coates
http://spyingbadthings.blogspot.com/2008/05/chinas-new-nuclear-naval-base-spotted.html

This article is rather alarming, what are we getting ourselves into? As usual, America's geo-political rivals are seen as Australia's enemies by our politicians.

While not dismissing China as a threat to Australian security, I remain perplexed at Australia's poor efforts at coastal defence given our long coastline and the present threat from terrorism. One thing the Labor party got right in the election before last is that we need a Coast Guard. At the moment we have poorly armed patrol boats (like the old Attack class boats seen on footage last night on ABC news, although I believe the boats were supposed to be "current"!) which would be useless in a "proper" war and perform Coast Guard-type duties anyway. The future may bring "climate change refugees", or trouble in Indonesia many small-scale raids, so to my mind a combination of many patrol boats, corvettes, frigates and the like, with the larger craft missile-armed and ASW capable, is preferable to a handful of expensive destroyers (which are now cruisers by WWII standards, tonnage-wise).

If we are to have a "bluewater Navy" I would think that protection of our sea-lanes would be of the highest priority rather than to attempt to protect ourselves against submarine launched missiles which, if successful would have this country on its knees in minutes anyway.

A trivial point aimed at a PhD student: westernmost is one word (or at least, hyphenated).

It is all but useless and worthless investing in billions of dollars of military acquisitions when they would be blown out of the sky in minutes, if not by superior forces (which will no doubt be highly likely) then by sheer numbers.

I think our politicians are being sold a fantasy by both our defence forces (who are in a position of conflicted interest), and foreign companies from the USA that talk up all these systems but know very well they are useless today or will be very soon (and are simply seeking to make some profit at our expense).

Not only that but our continued association with the provocative USA will almost certainly land us in the bottom of a mass grave. As an ally we would be an instant nuclear target (and no missile shields will protect us...that is a myth to allow the USA companies to make more $$$).

As someone said before a bigger and more realistic threat to Australia is protecting our oceans. An invading force will wipe the floor with us no matter how much we throw at 'the problem'. Chasing such a vain dream would make us bankrupt or at the least certainly divert significant investment away from severe domestic problems and infrastructure.

Steel. What would make you think china would want to attack AU for.