Sigh - all these nuclear weapons enthusiasts! There are all sorts of reasons why Australia will not get nuclear weapons. Probably the prime one is that our overbearing big brother USA will not allow it. Whether we like it or not, Australia continues to rely on USA as our nuclear umbrella.
Sure, we need to take China and Indonesia seriously. China is not going to attack Australia. The Chinese method is to overtake other countriess by trade, not by military attack, a much more successful method that the USA's fumbling military attacks .
Another ''line of defence'' towards China, and other Asia-Pacific nations would be for Australians to recognise that we are part of Asia - co-operate to adress climate changes, teach Asian languages, and cut out all the aggro.

Biden has presided over the most comprehensive and humiliating defeat in US history; given away $80 billion worth of armaments to the victorious Taliban, and American commentators continue to support him. 'Bye, Bye, American Pie'.

Some ally! They are calling Biden’s awful action "a gutsy decision, however chaotic its execution has been".

Over the history of foreign failure in Afghanistan, the British got their revenge, the Russians left with dignity, but the Americans fled in chaos, defeated and humiliated, abandoning vast quantities of military equipment.

And, the Biden Yanks cannot even secure their southern border against the invasion of illegals.

We are badly in need of a new ally, and the right sort of weapons to help ourselves as much as possible: an ally with a modicum of moral fibre and basic competence, one which would have mustered the will to fight rather than see decades of effort down the drain. And one whose political system would allow them to replace a blathering old incompetent like Joe Biden.

Yes, Murray! We who invented the superior pulsed light method of enrichment needs to use it and our natural uranium resources to arm locally manufactured missiles with nuclear warheads. And given we will soon not be able to give our coal away, nuclear power!

The only thing preventing this ultra wise pragmatism is the fools on the hill! Who seem to believe, hot having nuclear weapons will prevent us from being targeted by them. When in fact we could be targeted by ultra-high neutron bombs that eliminate all life yet not damage the infrastructure at all!

And safe enough after six or so months to enter and assume ownership of all they survey including all mineral wealth!

I mean, seriously, does the CCP, or for that matter, Indonesia, share our, respect for life or human rights, scruples!?

One needs to understand, there are surely times when one has no other choice than fight fire with fire!

Allowing the small and vociferous anti-nuclear brigade to decide our nuclear policy just to win a few votes is the most asinine reasons for adopting a stupendously stupid and diabolically dumb anti-nuclear stance!
Alan B.

ttbn. There are cage-rattling, vociferous foreign nationals and sympathisers, posting here who have no interest in us being self-reliant in our defence capability!

But, just the very opposite, and prefer we continue to sleep walk toward an increasingly dangerous future. where we could be overwhelmed in mere minutes!

I won't name names, but let the posts they post, speak volumes and for themselves!
Alan B.

Dear Macedonian,

«The world needs to get rid of all nuclear weapons which can destroy life on our one and only planet.»

Which is a better option than having to live under Communist rule.

Australia needs to reconsider the acquisition of nuclear weapons - IF IT HAS NOT DONE SO ALREADY!

Yuyutsu,
There are times when it looks very much like you're trolling, and this is one of them.

Firstly, life goes on but Communist rule always ends. Do you really think life not going on is an acceptable price for ending Communist rule sooner?
Secondly, the territory China wants is limited to what it holds a (usually tenuous) historical claim to. That does not include Australia, so the threat is purely imaginary. And hypothetically if it wasn't, non military deterrents would be just as effective anyway.

Nuclear weapons may have been valuable in the 20th century, but they're not much use against the threats of the 21st century.