Australia cannot rely on US nuclear deterrent protection forever. Australia's own nuclear deterrent (mainly against China) must be considered.

If we calculate the US will not go to nuclear war against China in defence of Australia we need our own deterrent. A submarine based deterrent is less likely than a land or aircraft based deterrent to be destroyed in a nuclear First Strike.

An Australian nuclear deterrent was secretly discussed from the 1960s under Prime Minister John Gorton http://www.smh.com.au/national/when-australia-had-a-bombshell-for-us-20080705-32ai.html and shelved. But now Australia has an actual nuclear threat from China.

Now, fortunately, Australia is buying the diesel version of the French nuclear propelled Barracuda/Suffren class submarines http://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/france%E2%80%99s-new-suffren-class-submarine-everything-we-know-172620 . Barracudas are relatively small and cheap compared to larger, more expensive, US legally blocked, US/UK nuclear subs.

The Australian public is Not Yet ready to OK Australia purchasing nuclear subs but will be by 2030, by which time the Chinese threat will create sufficient fear.

Australia will have started building the first diesel Barracuda (known as Attack class http://www.navy.gov.au/fleet/ships-boats-craft/future/ssg ) from the early 2030s. However, there will be time to develop our first four subs as Barracuda nuclear subs and also arm them with nuclear tipped cruise missiles.

If Australia sticks with the French Nuclear path the next 4 subs could be specialised nuclear armed ballistic missile firing submarines, known as SSBNs. Fortunately France already has new SSBNs on the drawing board, known as "SNLE 3Gs", to be built from the 2030s.

France could help Australia with nuclear weapons. France has a track record of helping Israel build a nuclear weapons establishment http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shimon_Peres_Negev_Nuclear_Research_Center#Construction and building Israeli Jericho long range missiles http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jericho_%28missile%29 . France then conducted Joint Nuclear Tests with Israel in the Sahara and Pacific.

From the early 2020s until the mid 2030s the US will likely decide that Australia switching such vast $sums and a nuclear future to a French alliance is disturbing America's profitable military-industrial complex and the US Indo-Pacific alliance.

The USA will then be far more attentive and forthcoming with nuclear weapons for us - its Australian ally.

plantagenet,

I very much doubt that the US and China will engage in a nuclear war. India and Pakistan maybe. But definitely not the US and China.

The only way Australia can protect itself from an attack by China is to become a vassal state of China and with the way Soot Morrison keeps poking a stick at the Chinese that might be a lot sooner than later.

plantagenet,
Protection from what, exactly?

Nobody's trying, planning or even desiring to invade us, and the only territorial dispute we have is with East Timor

Having the capability to start a nuclear war would only increase our chances of getting into one. It's something we're MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH better off without!

Take off your cold war blinkers and look at what the real threats are nowadays! The biggest one is terrorism. Nukes would do nothing to protect us from that.

Indeed even the threat from China is not something nukes would protect us against, because it's not a threat of invasion. What we need to invest in is counterespionage. I suspect we are, but I could be wrong - it's rightly top secret.

Hi Pete,

I'm no expert but from the little that I've read
we don't have a nuclear industry and pool of
technical expertise to support nuclear
submarines and a cadre of nuclear-trained engineer
officers.

So how can we be able to operate and sustain
nuclear-powered subs safely?

Hi Mr Opinion and Aidan

Note that I'm talking about historical and future trends

including an Australian fear of China in 2030.

You appear to be talking about 2020.

There is so much more to explain about the mechanics of nuclear threats and submarine weapons.

A start would be to read my blog "Submarine Matters" at http://gentleseas.blogspot.com/

Noting qualifications and over 4 million pageviews, including from Russia and China.

Cheers

Pete

Foxy,

We put the shadyminister as the engineer on a sub.

He will be all at home in his greasy overalls and toolbox in one hand and oil can in the other.

Ship ahoy shady!

Hi Foxy

Re: "a nuclear industry and pool of technical expertise to support nuclear submarines and

a cadre of nuclear-trained engineer officers."

1. It first starts with Generalist Nuclear Expertise

Australia has already spent $100s millions over the years educating a corps of nuclear experts who

have staffed/still staff a succession of experimental+medical isotope nuclear reactors at

the Lucas Heights, Sydney, Nuclear Reactor Complex see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-pool_Australian_lightwater_reactor

This is under the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO) see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Nuclear_Science_and_Technology_Organisation

ANSTO have other, smaller, nuclear research facilities in Australia - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Nuclear_Science_and_Technology_Organisation#Structure

There have been no major nuclear accidents on Western (US, UK, French) nuclear submarines for decades.
____________________________________________

US nuclear submarines regularly visit Australia's major west coast naval base just south of Perth.

UK and French nuclear subs also visit there, but less frequently.

A French nuclear submarine visited that Australian base earlier this month - see http://gentleseas.blogspot.com/2020/11/australia-currently-hosting-french.html

I could write a book about this subject so I'll respond a little at a time.

Cheers

Pete

Pete,

My understanding is that people confuse nuclear subs with nuclear weapons.

So are we talking about nuclear powered subs with conventional weapons or subs with nuclear weapons?

Pete, your mind is stuck in the past, not the future. Although we don't know what China will be like in 2030, we do have enough information to rule out the scenario of it invading Australia. Unfortunately we can't yet rule out its spies conducting assassinations in Australia. That's the sort of danger we may be facing if China becomes a more serious threat to us, and having nukes would be totally useless at preventing it.

Forget spending billions we don't have on nuclear missiles and let's just send Soot and the team to Beijing to crawl on their hands and knees to Xi and ask forgiveness for getting China angry with Australia.

PS They can keep Soot and boys.

Australia post WWII should have pursued a non-aligned policy, which would have kept us out of American wars of aggression. Tear up that ANZAS nonsense. Militarily we should be concentring on self defence, not this stupid sabre-rattling towards the Chinese. As for these submarines, they are a joke! A very expensive joke.

I understand the Poms and the Germans are sending some old tubs of theirs our way to stir the pot with the Chinese as well. How about if the Chinese were to put a couple of their tubs in the English Channel.

Paul1405,

They don't have to, the Russians have already agreed to do that for them.

"The Australian public is Not Yet ready to OK Australia purchasing nuclear subs ..."

Have they been asked? Quite frankly, I think governments should make the best decision on defence irrespective of public option. Non-nuclear subs are pretty useless even now. Nuclear gives us the range we need in our part of the world. A British nuclear submarine went to the Falkland Islands, sank the Belgrano, and wasn't seen until it arrived back in Portsmouth.

However, no matter what armaments we have, the Ad Man can't be trusted with the defence of Australia.

ttbn,

Back in the 1980s an Australian conventional submarine penetrated the defensive shield of warships and Nuclear submarines and "sunk" the USS ENTERPRISE.

It managed to do this because it was so quiet, nuclear subs are noisy underwater because of their STEAM engines.

I've heard a tape made on one of our subs of a nearby US nuclear sub and the noise was astonishing.

Hi Mr Opinion [your Wednesday, 18 November 2020 4:23:33 comment]

Nuclear propelled submarines (called "SSBNs") that carry large ballistic missiles are directly connected to nuclear weapons because the ballistic missiles are always nuclear tipped.

The main job of the smaller nuclear "attack" submarines (called "SSNs" eg. the Barracudas I mentioned in the first comment) is to defend SSBNs when SSBNs are leaving and returning to their nuclear naval bases. In some circumstances an SSN or two may be tasked to defrnd an SSBN that is on patrol.
_______________________________

Another task for Australian SSNs would be to frustrate a Chinese trade blockade or to intercept Chinese SSNs that are in Australian waters,

For Australia Barracuda SSNs would have the major advantage of being very quiet when travelling fully submerged at high speed (eg. 30 knots).

This would allow them to travel 3 times faster (from their major future base just south of Perth) than the conventional subs we plan to buy at SSN prices. Our west coast based SSNs could

1. via the Great Australian Bight travel rapidly to defend our East Coast

OR

2. travel to trouble spots in our near north (lets say near Jakarta or the Malacca Straits (near Singapore).

Aidan

Only you are talking about China "invading Australia"

More likely is:

1. a Chinese naval blockade particularly to block oil tankers full of the oil that can only be processed outside Australia (since we closed our refineries).

AND/OR

2. Chinese nuclear blackmail. China saying "Do what we say. Sharply lower your iron and Uranium prices. Open your land to totally Chinese owned/run food production. Or face the consequences.")

Nothing like a true deterrent to stop Chinese threats AFTER 2030.

Hi Paul1405

If Australia is to have a "non-aligned" defence policy then we need to buy/build the weapons we rely on the US to wield.

Australia's main missing categories are the nuclear propelled and armed submarines manned by the US Navy.

Like the US, the UK (with its US desighned nuclear submarine reactors and US designed and provided Trident II nuclear missiles) won't supply reactors or nuclear weapons to Australia. This anti-proliferation policy is under the NPT http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_on_the_Non-Proliferation_of_Nuclear_Weapons

Fortunately France is more flexible.

Hi ttbn

At last we agree on something.

Its true the Australian public have not been asked about Aussie nuclear subs.

Our government is too concerned about US opposition. Also Australia likes to promote empty treaty promises eg. the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Rarotonga

Australia has always been hypocritical totally relying on the US nuclear weapons umbrella against Russia and China while our Greenies and DFAT push the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty.
_______________________________

Only nuclear propelled subs can cover Australia's vast distance to action areas quickly and quietly.

Also faster transit times north from Perth mean each Aussie sub could spend longer on station covering various narrows in/around Southeast Asia.

Australia would no longer need 12 conventional subs at nuclear prices. Instead Australia would need:

- 4 ballist missile SSBNs http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ballistic_missile_submarine

AND

- 4 SSNs http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SSN_(hull_classification_symbol)
__________________________

But what of the nuclear "tipping points" dynamic leading to consideration of Australian nuclear submarines?

Plantagenet,
Again you're failing to properly look to the future. You've failed to realise we'll be far less dependent on oil in 2030 than we are now.

Also you seem to be envisaging an ultra-rogue China - have you failed to notice that this would be strongly against China's own interest, as it would make other countries far more reluctant to trade with China?

Military threats will not solve trade disputes.

We might need those subs soon because it looks like Soot is trying to provoke a war with China.

What is going through that guy's mind? Is he actually aware of what he is doing?

Angering China by making a military pact with Japan to the disadvantage of China is not a pathway to regional stability.

And this year's Golden Dummy of the Year Award goes to Sooty Boy!

Here, I just found this:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8962087/China-launches-extraordinary-attack-Australia.html?ito=push-notification&ci=52410&si=20915243

Abandon all hope, ye who enter here. The more nations with nuclear weapons the more chance that an individual in one of those with authority to set off one of those weapons will have a deranged episode & do so setting off a deadly nuclear exchange. For our own safety we must not get nuclear weapons and must try to persuade other countries with such weapons to abandon theirs. Apparently South Africa has given up nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons can destroy. They cannot protect. They don't even deter. Nuclear weapons did not prevent the Israeli-Egyptian wars even though Israel had such weapons at the time. The Israelis could obliterated Cairo but had the good sense not to.

and China, or whoever, takes out the sub base and where are you then?

Australia is a big country in area, but a small one in all other terms.

And here's the other one who is dragging us into a war with China:

http://www.msn.com/en-au/news/world/china-shuts-down-australian-led-effort-to-ease-trade-tensions/ar-BB1b8U0w?ocid=msedgntp

He's just been told by Beijing “those who created problems shall be the one responsible to solve the problems”.

You can see him thinking to himself: "What the hell has Soot gone and done now? First the bushfire disaster and now this!"

Simon Birmingham told ABC this morning they would negotiate with China but when the ABC news reader pointed out that the Chinese are refusing to talk to Australia he went as pale as a stoned mullet and couldn't come up with a reply.

What has old Mr. Opinion been warning you about all these years? Start brushing up on your Mandarin folks because you are going to need it long before the fat lady sings.

I was unaware OLO had so many Selective pacifists.

What part of Australia Needs A Stronger Defence can't you guys understand?

All of you (except Foxy) are pro-Trumpists. The Trump who has weakened the US bilateral alliances with Japan and South Korea the countries most at risk from NUCLEAR ARMED North Korea and China.

Trump is actually weakening his country's Western alliances, part of "America First", thereby strengthening China's military rise.

Hi Pete,

As I stated earlier - I'm no expert on this subject
but I do understand that you are not talking about "nuclear
weapons" but about "Nuclear powered submarines". Which
I take it would be more efficient in naval combat and
as deterrents against foreign invasion - which would
come by sea.

As I stated previously, I don't know the costs involved.
I understand that nuclear subs would be more expensive.
And as far as training crews, and maintenance is
concerned - I again know little on that topic.

As far as I'm aware Lucas Heights is not a nuclear power
station but a research facility - so possibly the knowledge
exists in our country.

Anyway, this is a debate that needs to be taken up because
as you pointed out - we can't rely so totally on our
allliances for our defence. Keep in mind - Chinese warships
have been reported off our coastlines.

MORE VISITS of US NUCLEAR SUBS to AUSTRALIA GOOD - LIKE ONE BELOW IN JAN 2020.

http://www.dvidshub.net/news/360914/uss-texas-arrives-stirling-australia 30 January 2020

Nuclear Propelled Submarine USS Texas Arrives Visits Stirling Naval Base Western Australia

01.30.2020

Story by Petty Officer 1st Class Ryan Litzenberger
[By permission] Commander, [Yokosuka, Japan based] Submarine Group Seven

STIRLING, Australia – The Virginia-class [nuclear propelled] fast-attack submarine USS Texas (SSN 775) arrived at [Australia’s main Naval Base West aka HMAS Stirling, at Rockingham, Western Australia, January 30th, 2020] for a scheduled port visit.

Texas is visiting HMAS Stirling as part of their routine patrol in the Indo-Pacific to demonstrate U.S. Navy’s ongoing commitment to theater security cooperation and friendship with partner navies.

"Australia is one of America’s greatest friends and most loyal allies in the Pacific,” said Cmdr. Mike Dolbec, USS Texas commanding officer. “Our longstanding alliance is a force for stability and prosperity in the Indo-Pacific region and around the globe, and I and my crew welcome the opportunity to do our part to strengthen that relationship, while getting to know Australian submariners on a more personal level.”

During their port visit, Texas will have the opportunity to give tours to dignitaries and media, including the U.S. Ambassador to Australia. Additionally, the crew will engage in a series of community relations events and enjoy some well-deserved rest and relaxation.

“Throughout the planning of this port visit, our friends in the Australian Navy and the larger Perth community have been responsive and kind," said Dolbec. "I am honored to welcome our Australian friends on board, and I'm certain that our time here will be memorable for my entire crew, who have been looking forward to this visit."

MORE TO FOLLOW BELOW

Foxy,

He is talking about submarines capable of parking offshore and unleashing missiles with nuclear warheads at short range to a target city.

For example a sub that can travel from Australia to the East China Sea and fire a missile with a nuclear warhead at Beijing.

That won't stop a Chinese invasion of Australia.

The only hope we currently have of appeasing China is to send Soot and the Boys to Beijing to crawl on their hands and knees to Emperor Xi and kiss his feet.

And I'll be glad to chip in a few dollars to help them on their way.

PS And they can keep Soot and the Boys as part of the bargain for future Wuhan virus experiments.

It's a win-win situation.

>I was unaware OLO had so many Selective pacifists.
What's a Selective pacifist? Someone who selects which wars they oppose?

>What part of Australia Needs A Stronger Defence can't you guys understand?
The part where understanding a slogan magically makes it true!
Australia needs a smarter defence rather than one that is capable of killing far more innocent civilians!

>All of you (except Foxy) are pro-Trumpists.
Now you're being ridiculous!

From a former Naval Commander our submarines were being fitted out by the same Chinese guy that was fitting out the Chinese submarines.
ttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7556283/China-sends-record-numbers-military-officials-Australia-scout-fleet-submarines.html

Too true Aidan

I've gathered myself and come to the conclusion that Australia alone cannot contemplate taking on a huge military power like China. Only the US and Russia can.

What worries me is the creeping Nuclear Potential growing in the Korean Peninsuala and Japan.

North Korea has hot tested ever nastier nuclear weapons over the last few years http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_weapons_tests_of_North_Korea

North Korea is in the process of miniaturising nuclear warheads to fit on long range land based missiles and on diesel powered submarines https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinpo-class_submarine#Armaments

South Korea in reaction is developing diesel propelled ballistic missile submarines http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dosan_Ahn_Changho-class_submarine

All ballistic missiles on the submarines of Legal Nuclear Powers have been nuclear armed. So even South Korea is contemplating Nuclear-tipped ballistic missiles for submarines.

Japan has had the 3 main components of a nuclear weapons program:
- nuclear explosive Uranium and Plutonium stocks
- knowhow to put together a nuclear bombs since the 1970s
- Epsilon nuclear delivery missiles
Since at least 2018 http://gentleseas.blogspot.com/2018/03/hitachi-asset-in-japans-comprehensive.html

QUESTION: With North Korea and 2 more potential nuclear powers in Australia's region what should Australia be doing?

_________________________

Thanks Josephus.

We'll make an Aussie out of you yet. Wish I'd gotten one of the teddybears in the link you provided http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7556283/China-sends-record-numbers-military-officials-Australia-scout-fleet-submarines.html

Pete

plantagenet,

I'm surprised to see you seem to think that China and Russia could be opponents.

By my reckoning they have a secret pact with the view of splitting the world into a Russian dominated West and a Chinese dominated East in the same way the Germany-Japan Axis wanted to do during WW2.

I'm convinced China will move against Taiwan but only after it has been able to exclude the West from the South China Sea.

I also think that China will then move against Australia in a massive blitzkrieg type assault after it conquers Taiwan. It will be over in a week.

Hi Mr Opinion

China doesn't have the motivation or sealift/airlift capacity to invade Australia. Much better to blockade Australia, forcing us to work for China.
______________

Re your "I'm surprised to see you seem to think that China and Russia could be opponents."

Communist Chinese and Soviet-Russian forces killed each other in 1969 and came close to nuclear war.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Soviet_split#Sino-Soviet_border_war

[1969] Sino-Soviet border war

In the late 1960s, the continual quarrelling between [China and Soviet-Russia], about the correct interpretations and applications of Marxism–Leninism escalated to small-scale warfare at the Sino-Soviet border...

[This rapidly became a larger confrontation.]

...In 1968, the Soviet Army had massed along the 4,380-kilometre (2,720 mi) border with the PRC, especially at the Xinjiang frontier, in north-west China, where the Soviets might readily induce the Turkic peoples into a separatist insurrection.

In 1961, the USSR had stationed 12 divisions of soldiers and 200 aeroplanes at that border, by 1968, the Soviet Union had stationed six divisions of soldiers in Outer Mongolia and 16 divisions, 1,200 aeroplanes, and 120 medium-range missiles at the Sino-Soviet border

to confront 47 light divisions of the Chinese Army; by March 1969, the border confrontations escalated into the Sino-Soviet border conflict [ see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Soviet_border_conflict ]

(2 March – 11 September 1969), including fighting at the Ussuri River, the Zhenbao Island incident, and at Tielieketi.[50]

plantagenet,

I think China and Russia have moved on since the 1960s. Just the same way Australia and Japan have now moved on since the 1940s.

Does China really need that massive an assault force? Keep in mind the enemy is already inside the gate. In fact, don't let the cat out of the bag but there is a former(?) affiliate of the CCP sitting in the federal parliament. But you didn't hear that from me.

Hi Mr Opinion

Re your question:

"Does China really need that massive an assault force?"

And assertion

"I think China and Russia have moved on since the 1960s."

It wouldn't hurt if you did some research, providing links, to support your case.

BTW - Remeber Australia has access to early warning satellites (thank you Pine Gap :) to prevent a surprise Chinese attack.

Nighty Night

Pete

The cost of the latest Virginia class submarines built in the USA is cheaper than the submarines we are looking to buy from France.

As the fuel does not need to be changed for 40 years and we have some engineers from Lucas heights the time before delivery of the subs could easily be spent training the requisite maintenance team.

As China's fleet is presently small and would have to get past Aus's stealth fighters and a US fleet, an invasion is not imminent.

In a few decades in the future, a few nuclear-tipped hypersonic missiles in Northern Aus would eliminate this risk entirely.

Whatever you reckon Dr Strangelove-shadyminister.

Nutcase!

"Australia cannot rely on US nuclear deterrent protection forever. Australia's own nuclear deterrent (mainly against China) must be considered".

Absolutely.

Why all of a sudden have the Chinese become a threat?

A few weeks ago I was being lambasted as a racist if I even looked like mentioning China.

I guess it's alright now that China is seen as a threat to people's shares in companies exporting Australia's natural resources to China.

Talk about a bunch of FN hypocrites.

Anyway, too late now because it now looks more than certain that Australia has a Chinese future.

Maybe we can make former(?) affiliate of the CCP, Gladys Liu, our new prime minister. That'll make Xi and a lot of Australian-Chinese happy.

Mr O, it is ok, you are a legend in your own lunchtime, as we all are.

I found this news item:

http://www.smh.com.au/world/asia/if-you-make-china-the-enemy-china-will-be-the-enemy-beijing-s-fresh-threat-to-australia-20201118-p56fqs.html

Soot and the Boys have to fix this problem because it is getting out of hand:

Australia has to:
1. Permit Huawei to operate unrestricted in Australia.
2. Rescind proposed federal legislation aimed at preventing Victoria and WA from signing up to China's Belt & Road Initiative.
3. Allow the Chinese to have unrestricted purchase rights to Australian industries and natural resources.
4. Ban Australian media from saying anything derogatory about China's strategic policies.
5. Withdraw Australian military from exercises in the South China Sea.
6. Rescind any alliances Australia has with the US and Japan.
7. Cease commenting on Chinese ambitions for Hong Kong and Taiwan becoming unified with the PRC.
8. Permit free migration for tens of millions of Chinese to Australia and allow them access to Australian business and property markets at a 50% discount.
9. Elevate former(?) affiliate of the CCP Gladys Liu to the position of Leader of the Liberal Party and Prime Minister of Australia.
10. Make Soot and the Boys crawl naked on their hands and knees to Emperor Xi and kiss his feet and plead for his forgiveness.

Anybody like to add to the list? It's all for a good cause: Survival.

If our elites, & many parliamentarians have in mind for the future of the average Oz citizen, we just may welcome the Chinese with open arms.

At least the Chinese are trying to provide cheap electrical power to their entire population, not trying to make it unavailable, or too expensive to afford as are our lot.

Good on you Hasbeen. You hit the nail right on the head.

Any others out there who are having there share portfolio damaged by this spate between Australia and China?

To address the very broad issue What Should Australia Be Spending Extra Defence Dollars On?

Takes a very broad understanding of:

- history since Japan attacked Darwin, Australian troops fighting Chinese troops in the Korean War, etc

and

- world and regional land and sea geography

with

- particular attention to China's South China Sea naval base/air base island building

and

- attention to China placing an arc of island nations heavily into debt that are close to Australia (including East Timor, PNG, Solomons, Vanuatu and Fiji). China recognises that such "debt-trapping" can pressure island nations into

allowing China to build air/naval bases on their territory, eventually in order to form a land based blockade over Australia. Japan tried that in WWII.

- meanwhile China is has recently tripled its defence spending on all conventional and nuclear weapons categories - meaning China's military Capability is rising sharply

- compared to China the USA's military capability is declining gradually. This is called the zero sum "game".

- Trump's ignorant approach to regional alliances may continue under Biden

- in the sense China's position as the US's No.1 Trade Partner may take precedence over the US desire to secure its allies against China

- So it is not coincidental that Australia is seeking strong links with other Nuclear allies including:

France (aided by 10s $Billions to be paid for French Submarines)

and the

UK (aided by 10s $Billions to by paid for the UK's Hunter class Future Frigates)

If the US relative decline continues Australia's quiet multi-decade planes for Nuclear propelled subs carring Nuclear Missiles may be accelerated.

NOTE that Nuclear missiles are better housed in hard to find submarines because nuclear missiles in land silos are in an already know location,
hence easily "taken out"

and

aircraft carrying nuclear weapons are very slow in the vast Indo-Pacific theatre and can be easily shot down.

plantagenet,

Keep in mind that there a few million Chinese in Australia who will be very upset if Australia poses a threat to their ancestral homeland.

How will you control them and stop them from running amok attacking people and damaging property?

Mr O,

Keep in mind that not all of the Chinese in Australia
have links with mainland China. Many are from Taiwan,
and other parts of the Asian world, and many were born
here and have been living in Australia for several
generations.

Foxy,

What don't you understand by the term 'ancestral homeland'?

Well said Foxy

And you add knowledge, balance and seriousness.
___________________________

Mr Op

Your flippant, no-knowledge, limitations degrade this thread.

Just don't comment unless you have something serious to say.

plantagenet,

I just came up with something serious to say:

Gladys Liu is a former(?) affiliate of the Chinese Communist Party.

plantagenet,

I came up with another serious thing to say.

Your suggestion that Australia should nuke China is crazy and makes you look as nutty as a fruit cake.

A better approach is for Australia to:

1. Permit Huawei to operate unrestricted in Australia.
2. Rescind proposed federal legislation aimed at preventing Victoria and WA from signing up to China's Belt & Road Initiative.
3. Allow the Chinese to have unrestricted purchase rights to Australian industries and natural resources.
4. Ban Australian media from saying anything derogatory about China's strategic policies.
5. Withdraw Australian military from exercises in the South China Sea.
6. Rescind any alliances Australia has with the US and Japan.
7. Cease commenting on Chinese ambitions for Hong Kong and Taiwan becoming unified with the PRC.
8. Permit free migration for tens of millions of Chinese to Australia and allow them access to Australian business and property markets at a 50% discount.
9. Elevate former(?) affiliate of the CCP Gladys Liu to the position of Leader of the Liberal Party and Prime Minister of Australia.
10. Make Soot and the Boys crawl naked on their hands and knees to Emperor Xi and kiss his feet and plead for his forgiveness.

My suggestion will keep us a lot safer than your threat to nuke China.

Connect your repeated mantras with the subject of this thread:

"Australian Nuclear Deterrent Submarines"

Something more that can threat Sydney and Perth.

Here's a rundown on the doctrine and implications of a massive new Russian weapon to be deployed in 2 years.

See http://gentleseas.blogspot.com/2020/11/russias-giant-status-6-torpedo-doctrine.html

Pete

For protection, a country needs an army and that army needs to be bigger than any potential enemy's army.

The only way for Australia to do it is to have universal military training for all fit, and not so fit, citizens of both sexes (or whatever).
Train them well in the use of arms and give them all a standard rifle and plenty of ammunition.

Is Mise,

And if China does that it can have an army of 600 million.

No, forget that.

You need to activate my 10 point plan above if you want to be safe from a Chinese invasion.

But then keep in mind the enemy is already inside the gate anyway.

BTW Would you care to donate a few dollars for a campaign I am planning to put Gladys Liu, our liberal MP who is a former(?) affiliate to the CCP, into the role of Prime Minister?

Pete why would a tsunami wave be radio active? It is the pressure that moves in a tsunami, not the water. Unless the thing exploded with in a few dozen miles of a shore the radioactive material would be restricted to a smallish area in the vicinity of that explosion.

Plantagenet- Maybe some second hand submarine models can be retrofitted as advanced military nations upgrade their fleets to keep the costs down. I am also very concerned with the cost as war is also fought economically- but the lefties are happen enough to squirrel money away for socialist causes so that Communist China is relatively more effective.

I agree that fixed nuclear bombs and missiles have some advantages over mobile platforms such as submarines. Submarines have a some defense characteristics- mobility is useful for defense and attack- especially given the size of Australia- the sea blocks many detection methods.

Dirty Bombs could also be used cheaply and strategically in a scorched earth scenario.

Trump and the US have their own angles- this is always true- diplomacy has a role here- it is in the US interest to protect Australia- and there are many dimensions to this.

We need to find a way of protecting the world militarily while reducing it's population and the conflict this causes. The paradox of the current strategic environment

Is Mise said- For protection, a country needs an army and that army needs to be bigger than any potential enemy's army.

Answer- Wasn't it Napoleon that disproved that belief when he lined up canon at the gates to the castle against civilian unrest. Other examples include Englishman Admiral Pellew and the sinking of invasion troop carriers in support of Ireland in the 1790's. Also the sinking of the Spanish Ships in the 1500's.

"Mass" is just one of the principles of Clausewitz- but it is a favorite of the Communists

Canem Malum,

What do you think of my above mentioned 10 point peace plan with China?

Wouldn't you like to see your favourite Cabinet minister crawling naked on his hands and knees and kissing Xi's feet?

Mr Opinion-

You seem to see things as they are. You know I pretty well agree with my perception of your sentiments. I sense a strong irony thread in your character- doesn't take much sense really.

Sadly ScoMo may be our only hope- lets hope he acts in the same good faith that we do.

Your 10 point plan paints a picture.

As I've said before- some may not see your ironic humour the same way I see it- but it's better than crying at the sight of the horror we face.

Warriors have a keen sense of irony- in good measure with their courage.

Excuse the pun.

I didn't expect to see the end of my culture and my family in my lifetime- many still can't or won't believe it- after shameful blindness- at least I finally see my error. If you see- you have to act- don't refuse to see.

Many wars... brother against brother... the only choice is that... wisely.

All men die... What is life without meaning.

Kudos Mr Opinion.

Hi Hasbeen

Re: "why would a tsunami wave be radio active?"

Indeed you are correct that the Tsunami is created by the 50+ Megaton Explosion (eg. perhaps 150km off the US east coast) of the Giant Russain Torpedo (aka Status-6, NATO designation "Kanyon" see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Status-6_Oceanic_Multipurpose_System )

On top of the normal radiation of a Uranium/Plutonium/Tritium thermonuclear device Putin is considering adding Cobalt-60 to increase the radiation level - thus rendering the US east coast uninhabitable for decades.

"Kanyon" is the ultimate "MAD" Doomsday weapon.

Very difficult to counter as the Russians are talking about the device travelling at 50+ knots at 1,000 meters deep - too deep and too fast for any existing US submarine or torpedo.

The US would need to detonate a counter-explosion or several in front of Kanyon to blow it up before Kanyon itself detonates.

Once Kanyon explodes the Tsunami can travel at a virtually unstoppable 200+ knots...

Hi Canem Malum
[re your Saturday, 21 November 2020 11:52:20 AM post]

Sad to say all your comments addressed to me require a fair bit more background reading.

To take your points in turn:

"second hand submarine models" like high performance jetfighters, submarine, accrue metal fatigue from 30 years of use. Also old subs become too noisy compared to new subs and become too vulnerable compared to modern enemy sensors.

War is always expensive eg. efforts to make military vehicles "clean and green" fuel using, have inevitably failed.

Ideology counts for little. Stalin's "leftwing" Red Army was the most powerful army ever, because it had the most good tanks.

Untrue that "fixed nuclear bombs and missiles have some advantages over mobile platforms". It is land mobile ICBMs (on trucks or trains) and submarines (specifically SSBNs) that make the best nuclear missile platforms. This is because China, Russia or North Korea find them harder to hit.

China ulimattely wants Australian territory so "scorched earth" on lands it wants to advance in, is not in the China "playbook".

The "Dirty Bomb" concept is out of fashion compared to devastating nuclear explosions that can destroy already marked out underground missile silos and command centers. Underground missile silos and command centers have sealed air conditioning making Dirty Bombs ineffective.

The US may value trade with the US's already No.1 trade partner. CHINA over alliance with Australia. That is because the US could eventually see Australia as being in China's Sphere of Influence.

Malthusian ideas http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malthusian_catastrophe of reducing population to save the world forget that the 4 countries with the 4 largest populations (US, China, India to some extent Russia) also have the 4 most powerful, nuclear armed, defence forces.

Pete

Canem Malum,

We have our politicians, bureaucrats and business people to blame for the dilemma that they have put Australia in.

If China has been looking for a reason to justify an invasion of Australia it now has it.

And the Chinese won't need any coercion from their leaders to take up arms against Australia in defence of the wrongs that Australia has done to China.

And keep in mind that the enemy is already inside the gates so Australia will need to fight on two fronts.

But I think we might still have a chance of preventing this.

Yes you guessed it: Mr Opinion's 10 point plan to placate the Chinese.

The sooner we put it in motion the safer we will all be.

Plus I want to see Soot and the Boys crawling naked on their hands and knees around Emperor Xi kissing his feet. Maybe they can put it on YouTube.

In Answer To Plantagenet-

Thanks for your feedback Plantagenet.

Russian tanks were numerous rather than the best from memory- same with the US Sherman- the German Tiger and Leopard were the best in WWII. Tank armour is generally weakest at the back so if you can break their lines you can destroy them. Most offensive and defensive strategies are based on formations.

Ideology and culture is important in war- but an underlying issue is economic scarcity.

Your claim is old submarines are too weak from metal fatigue and noisy compared to new subs and become too vulnerable compared to modern enemy sensors- I'm not completely up on the latest sub counter measures- but metal fatigue appears to me to be most relevant to the depth of operation- military subs only operate at a few hundred metres anyway- it's possible to X-ray hull plates for micro-cracking- perhaps labour intensive and expensive. I feel that the reason for retiring old subs is for reasons other than superstructure integrity and more to do with hydrodynamics and systems requirements. Diesel/ electric subs seem to be quietest- nuclear powered subs need to keep the cooling systems running and so give away their position at short range. Though this is usually well offset by the advantages of submarine nuclear power. My understanding is sub detection is mainly possible at short distances- but weapons range is much greater.

I like the idea of land based mobile nuclear platforms but I'm unsure
if they can be kept hidden any more than silos. Chinese use of pre-emptive strikes against Australia would be very different to Australia using nuclear weapons against a Chinese invading force on Australian soil or waters.

I was referring to Australian use of scorched earth rather than Chinese use of scorched earth- it would be suicidal from our perspective but at least it would weaken the Communist Chinese so they couldn't become a thousand year blight on the earth

If the Chinese wanted to take the Australian land they wouldn't use either dirty bombs or nuclear weapons on Australian land- but the Australian's might use it to prevent China getting hold of Australian land- even if we die in the process

The US and the West cannot afford to let Communist China expand as they are an existential threat to the whole planet. The more they are allowed to expand the greater their threat. Sadly many regimes in Africa hate the West so much that they will kick the can down the road with China for temporary gain- the west shares some blame for this perhaps.

The best would be to use a multi-pronged strategy- but the dirty bomb is probably the easiest to achieve in the short term. Over the longer term atomic explosives and multi stage ballistic weaponry may be possible. This seems to be the major technical barrier in a SSBN- especially due to the NNPT and BMTT. Though I'm unsure of what Australia could purchase from our allies.

Trade yes- this is another issue- I don't think the US or Australia actually need China for Trade- it's more of a convenience. We should stop trading with China- because we lose "ground" with every negotiation.

I find Thomas Malthus interesting- I like Malthus believe that the only hope for humanity is a massive reduction in population especially in nations with a high base.

Hi Canem Malum

1. The very numerous (easy to build) nature of the Russian T-34/85 tank defeated the slightly better

but far less numerous German Panther and Tiger tanks.

Russia's T-34/85 meant good armour, mobility and its 85mm gun was better than the unreliable engined Panther's 75mm gun and only marginally less effective than the 88mm gun of the too heavy, slow, difficult to build, Tiger.

Shows you are not yet on top of German tanks that you are unaware Germany's Leopard tank only entered service in 1965 (ie. 20 years after the WWII) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leopard_1

Metal fatigue is the main reason submarines need to be replaced, then due to noise, then larger size is needed for longer range and greater crew comfort. So says the submariners who have talked to me offline.

Diesel-electric subs seem to be quietest UNTIL they need to run their NOISY diesel engines to recharge the batteries about 30 times over a 50 day mission.

The latest Nuclear powered subs use quiet natural motion inside their reactors without the noisy pump flows of Nuclear subs 10 years ago.

True, that sub detection is mainly possible at short distances. A diesel sub can only escape for about 2 hours at 25knots from an anti-submarine craft while a nuclear sub can escape at 30 knots for weeks.

Re "I like the idea of land based mobile nuclear platforms" Yes they are best used on trucks in Heavily Forested areas. ie in Tall Tree areas that don't exist in the scrub and desert of northern and central Australia.

Australia would tend NOT to use "nuclear weapons against a Chinese invading force on Australian soil or waters." because it would irradiate/lay waste our land and waters and invite a Chinese nuclear counterstrike on our towns/cities.
_____________________________

2. The US has been happy to coexist with China as the No.1 TRADE PARTNER in all the years since China has been the US's No.1 ENEMY.

This is a dynamic that might not stop if Australia were to fall into China's Sphere of Influence.

plantagenet,

I know something that would you happy.

It's a giant submarine the size of Cuba fitted out with a trillion hydrogen bombs that can be exploded simultaneously and completing destroying the planet and all life on it.

There, now you sleep at night.

CORRECTION:

"a trillion" + 1

:)

plantagenet,

What's the 1 for?

"And the Chinese won't need any coercion from their leaders to take up arms against Australia in defence of the wrongs that Australia has done to China"

Why would the Chinese want to defend the wrongs done against them?

Mr Opinion

NTK amigo :)

http://www.abbreviations.com/NTK

An article I just wrote (with GhalibKabir) on my blog:

"Quadrilateral: Networked Defence Against Chinese Military Advances" of 23 Nov 2020 at http://gentleseas.blogspot.com/2020/11/quadrilateral-networked-defence-against.html :

The Quadrilateral Security Dialogue, between the US, India, Japan and Australia, is steadily forming a vital networked defence structure in response to China's growing military power in the Indo-Pacific.
(Map courtesy Wikipedia).

The US is still the vital cog in the Quad. This is because the geographically, culturally and linguistically diverse nature of the Quad, tends to weaken it against centrally commanded, Chinese forces.

To redress this weakness increased all services, exercise, interactions of Quad members is vital, as well as common weapons, procedures and broader use of English whenever possible. English is very widely spoken in India, the US and Australia. Knowledge of English in Japan is improving.

In initial response to Pete’s perhaps extravagant claim that far in the future Australia and France may have a nuclear propelled/nuclear weapon submarine deal GhalibKabir made excellent comments on November 20, 2020. The Quad is a regionally useful arrangement at hand ie. very soon, rather than Australia-France Nuclear, which would be way down the track.

GhalibKabir comments:

“Not unless the Quadrilateral or whatever can walk the talk. Else, Australia will not get a nuclear SSN fleet as a [French K15 reactor] LEU based fleet needing refueling every 7-10 years is a costly thing to sink US$ 100-200 billion into.

Unless SIGINT collaboration, Undersea collaboration including bigger IUSS backed by UUV and UAV coordination materializes tangibly, the PLA will keep having an open field.

Most importantly, in case there are serious risks of flare-ups, unless there is serious signalling to China in terms of assured retaliation in terms of [Electronic Warfare?] EW response, [anti-satellite] ASAT retaliations on Chinese satellite constellations etc. China will brush this away like an elephant swatting away a fly.

To use underwater as an illustration, this is what it will take to make China take things seriously in the Indian Ocean and SCS

1. SIGINT/ELINT sats linked up across to P-8s, E-2Ds, RQ-4s/UAVs etc across from India to Australia

SEE WHOLE ARTICLE AT http://gentleseas.blogspot.com/2020/11/quadrilateral-networked-defence-against.html

Pete,

I note Sco Mo is in dreamland today, asking US not to draw smaller countries into strategic conflict with China.

Poor Sco Mo, he appears to have no understanding about IR.

Australia, and many other countries, are going to be expected to play their part.

As should be the case given what the CCP stands for.

Hi Chris

China's overwhelming-rising military power, matched with beneficial economic growth catches most countries in the Indo-Pacific (eg. Australia) in a quandry.

That is, would a strategy of teeming together in a military containment alliance against China merely heighten tension for no solid military advantage and perhaps forgo economic benefits.

In the past the NATO alliance against the Russians was easier to achieve because the Russians/Warsaw Pact could not offer high economic growth for the region/world.

Even India has benefitted significantly from being a trading partner with China while still bordering and skirmishing with China. Worst fighting in 1962 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Indian_War

While the US military pushes naval http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_navigation FONOPs operations near Chinese South China Sea islands, Australia has rejected such operations.

Australia distrusts whether the US will continue to lead alliances against China in the Long Term. The US instead prioritising trade with China and coexistence with China "Findlandising" our region http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finlandization

There is always the concept of where does Australia Appeasing China begin?

Australia should never begin appeasing the CCP.

If they do, it is all over, red rover, for humanity.

Chris Lewis,

Don't say that, we still have Mr Opion's 10 point plan:

1. Permit Huawei to operate unrestricted in Australia.
2. Rescind proposed federal legislation aimed at preventing Victoria and WA from signing up to China's Belt & Road Initiative.
3. Allow the Chinese to have unrestricted purchase rights to Australian industries and natural resources.
4. Ban Australian media from saying anything derogatory about China's strategic policies.
5. Withdraw Australian military from exercises in the South China Sea.
6. Rescind any alliances Australia has with the US and Japan.
7. Cease commenting on Chinese ambitions for Hong Kong and Taiwan becoming unified with the PRC.
8. Permit free migration for tens of millions of Chinese to Australia and allow them access to Australian business and property markets at a 50% discount.
9. Elevate former(?) affiliate of the CCP Gladys Liu to the position of Leader of the Liberal Party and Prime Minister of Australia.
10. Make Soot and the Boys crawl naked on their hands and knees to Emperor Xi and kiss his feet and plead for his forgiveness.

We'll be back in Xi's good book before you know it and bringing in millions of cashed up Chinese before you can "Sooty's off to Hawaii."

Yes, MR O is one amusing contributor