The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > General Discussion > Nuclear weapons for Australia.

Nuclear weapons for Australia.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All
"With the existing US alliance,Why would Australia bother with nuclear armaments!"

One answer is that power-balances can change, but more importantly, do we want to remain slaves of America forever and ever?
Posted by Yuyutsu, Tuesday, 24 April 2012 5:23:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yuyutsu:

...Interesting, you see an alliance as slavery! The ANZUS treaty is now historic. However, I think from memory, NZ excluded itself in the '80s over the issue of banning visiting nuclear armed US warships.

...About the only worthwhile benefit to the US of this alliance, would be the use of Australia as a staging ground, or for training purposes: And probably some further secret issues of land use with communications no doubt. Our alliance outside of the ANZUS treaty in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan, are insignificant in terms of the "big-picture".
Posted by diver dan, Tuesday, 24 April 2012 7:52:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I think we should stick with the US, otherwise they might deliver us a dose of "freedom and democracy" too. Check out my US bomb list to see all the lucky countries that have been liberated by Uncle Sam since they nuked the Japs in 1945. Special mention must go to the Vietnamese, Afghans and Ireq's they qualified for an extra special dose, those lucky, lucky B's.
Can anyone tell me why the US bombed Peru in 1965? Did the Peruvians win Uncle Sam's Bomb Lottery or something for that year.
Gee, I think the North Koreans, Iranians and the people of Niue qualify for a Liberal dose of freedom and democracy to be delivered shortly.
I think Uncle Sam can leave Niue to us, just wait till we get our own battle ship and H bomb, those Nieu's wont know what hit em'. that will teach em' a lesson, how dare they keep all the coconuts for themselves!
Posted by Paul1405, Tuesday, 24 April 2012 8:03:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A day may well come, I truly hope so, when we look at the alternatives.
I fear totally the impacts of the very left, the tree huggers too,those who hide extremism behind what we all should want,conservationism.
What if we did break out ties with America.
As our near neighbors hold Nuclear weapons what if we do not follow.
Look at the claims of Paul 1405, what if we believed them.
Did I see a claim America killed 50 million?
America is not the proud country of its birth.
It seems to be both good and bad, just like every country in the world.
The left feeds on anti American junk.
Much to be upset with exists, it city's full of guns,one state at least haveing a policy you can stand your ground! murder an unarmed man.
But where is the concern about a nation of slaves North Korea? more in prison camps the Russia at its worst, China and it support for a country of death and starvation?
I would ask that we all take a closer look at the implications of yesterdays failed leftist half truths.
And just as closely todays lurch toward right wing lunacy.
Get if we have not Nuclear weapons,follow Rudd's path in to being heard on the International stage, this world needs fixing.
Not fragmenting.
Posted by Belly, Wednesday, 25 April 2012 5:49:53 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A day may well come, I truly hope so, when we look at the alternatives.
But not right now.

I fear totally the impacts of the very left, the tree huggers too,those who hide extremism behind what we all should want,conservationism.
Belly was that a typo 'conservationism' did you not mean CONSERVATISM.

Yes Belly 50,000,000 and still counting. Extremism, here we have the so called moderates talking about arming Australia with nuclear weapons with the capacity to kill millions of innocent people. Then there is the hypocrisy of those who oppose the 'bad guys' having these weapons but at the same time supporting their proliferation amongst the 'good guys' including Australia. These conservatives then go on with the nonsense that these weapons are only a deterrent against those that would use such weapons. These people conveniently forget that the only nation to have used nuclear weapons so far is the United States, fully justifiable of course, I am sure the next nation to use an atomic bomb will also fully justify their action. I do not support any nation having nuclear weapons. I have to question who really are the extremists in our society.
Posted by Paul1405, Wednesday, 25 April 2012 8:04:11 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There are problems with building and maintaining a nuclear deterrence:

1. Cost - to research, enrich, build and maintain
2. Time - as another pointed out, this is decreasing over time and many countries (such as Japan ) overcome this by developing to a 'breakout' stage
3. Delivery - there is no point having the weapons if they cannot be delivered.

This is probably my main point. We would need to spend MORE on our conventional systems (missiles, subs, stealth jets) in order to maintain a credible deterrent. As an individual country I do not believe that we could guarantee delivery of sufficient weapons into the cities of a substantially stronger country. Thus this method would be ineffective.

On the other hand, if by effective we mean that we can cause major civilian/economic/infrastructure damage to a militarily superior opponent I would suggest taking a non-conventional approach. Cyber warfare seems quite effective, but to have the same effect (terrible/evil/mass casualty) as nuclear weapons, I believe that biological warfare would be devastating without the three major drawbacks described above. Scientists have already developed super virulent strains of influenza, and new strains can be designed/made relatively cheaply and with high secrecy. Further, delivery would simply require individuals within enemy territory, which gives plausible deniability. The major disadvantage of this method is the inability to guarantee that we would not destroy ourselves or the entire human race.

Now I'm off to think happy thoughts...
Posted by Stezza, Wednesday, 25 April 2012 9:56:54 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy