AUSTRALIA SHOULD BE PREPARED TO DEFEND ITSELF WITH NUCLEAR WEAPONS

As Australia can't wait for incredibly expensive AUKUS nuclear propelled attack submarines (SSNs) likely to be delayed until the 2040s, and which still won't deter nuclear armed China...

Australia needs its own nuclear deterrent against China within the next 20 years.

The most common delivery platforms for nuclear weapons are long range missiles. For Australia we need:

- Tomahawk missiles (by 2028) based in northern Australia and on Collins subs we already have. Nuclear armed Tomahawks could destroy new Chinese bases near Australia, Chinese invasion fleets or at least Chinese fleets that are blockading Australia.

- by 2030 missiles from air launched Australian F-35A stealth aircraft we already have, which with refueling could fire missiles that could hit southern China (particularly China's Hainan island nuclear submarine base, just east of northern Vietnam).

- perhaps by 2038, central Australia, or northern Woomera restricted are, based small ICBMs in protected silos that fire hypersonic boost-glide warheads

For mobile launch modes Australia can leverage newly emerging hypersonic missile technology which are: larger, faster, longer range missiles than old fashioned Tomahawk cruise missles, but smaller, leghters and cheaper than full sized traditional ballistic missiles (like the Minuteman III ICBM or Trident II SLBM).

A new hypersonic missile being the "LRHW" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long-Range_Hypersonic_Weapon

Mavs

Thanks, Chris, for a well-argued response to Binoy’s anti-Americanism

Yup!
Alan B.

Binoy's ramblings remind me of mates from my University days in the 1960s. Their Anti-Vietnam marches along Coronation Drive, shouting and singing rubbish similar to Binoy's scribblings.

It's like Binoy is in a time warp with the language that he uses in his Articles and the opinions that he espouses.

I was reading another article, recently, in which he wrote the following,

"The scriptwriter had evidently gone to sleep in drafting such words."

That describes Binoy's writings in a nutshell.

You’re off your head CL.

So you think it’s smart to line up missiles against our greatest trading partner.

If you want my opinion, it’s much more sensible to take a more nuanced approach towards the US.

If any country is showing evidence of instability it’s them.

Diver Dan, thanks for your usual insult, you clown

What Maverick says. Moreover, having nuclear missiles doesn't mean you use them! But may if attacked by a nuclear armed hostile.

The idea we would choose to go to war with our biggest trading partner is lunacy writ large. We would but only if left with no other choice. Walk softly but carry a big stick.
Alan B.

Yes a very big stick. MAD policy, mutually assured destruction has saved millions over the last 70 years, & is still the best policy to avoid war.

However if we have to go to war again, it would be nice if the west went with the weapons to fight that war rather than the last as we usually do.

We sent up 6 old Wirraways at Rabal to fight the same force that had destroyed Pearl Harbor. The useless slaughtering of your best trained by arming them with obsolete equipment is a crazy to start your defense.

Maverick and Alan B,
Have you thought this through? Australia have been at the forefront of trying to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Backflipping and developing nukes would not only lower our international standing, but cause lots of other countries to do the same, including Indonesia. Is that what you really want?

We don't need to deter China from invading us; firstly it's never had territorial ambitions in the southern hemisphere, and secondly it doesn't have the capability - and with its rapidly ageing population, it never will. What we need are the weapons to respond to the threats we will actually face.

You’ve been sucked in CL.

The only clowns in this circus are the small taxpayers who will fund your mad ideas.

Between the UK and the US, there is approximately (by all accounts), $A1.5 Trillion of foreign investment.

If both those belligerents wish to protect their sensitive investments in this country, then both of them should foot the bill entirely.

I'm not exactly sure what Chris is advocating here
- If it's this "The idea that Australia should not support the US is ludicrous."
- Then I think I would probably have to disagree.

I think I'm going to stand with diver dan on this one.
For one, I agree with him that it's foolish to be siding against our largest trading partner.
- Especially if standing with the US means standing against China,
(We may as well just nuke ourselves for the damage that will do)
I'd prefer to preserve our trading and economic interests and prefer a more neutral military-aligned position.
For two, I don't actually think the US can win in a war with China.

I think that projecting power with naval assets might work well if your carrier battle groups are bombing wedding parties in Afghanistan or villagers in Iraq, but the idea that you can use naval strike groups to project power against a modern military power with a larger capacity for its military industrial complex and already possesses hypersonic weapons is just crazy.

If it all comes down to it, China's going to neutralise all of Taiwan's air defense in short order, and its going to use its long-range hypersonic missiles to sink any ship, or troop transport that even comes close to intervening.
- At which point the US may resort to nuclear weapons after its naval strike groups have been sunk, and we'll have nuclear weapons fired at us and the US personnel and military assets stationed here with no way to defend against it.

Projecting power with naval assets is antiquated in an age of long range hypersonic weapons.

China Learned How to Make Its Hypersonic Weapons Twice As Devastating
http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/a42867377/china-hypersonic-weapon-development/

Ultimately, I think cooler heads will prevail in Taiwan, they will understand that the US is too reckless and can't realistically defend them anyway, and the KMT opposition will try to work closer with China instead.

Taiwan’s KMT hopes for elections boost after China trip
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/2/20/taiwans-kmt-hopes-for-elections-boost-after-china-trip

Dont agree DD or Armchair Ride. The reason why I do not think there will be a conflict is indeed the response by most Asian Pacific nations aligning with the US.
China is learning that most oppose its behaviour.
As for the argument that I am fooled by the special interest urging arms spending, I simply do not agree.
China's own behaviour is driving the response, not the West.
Nor do I feel that economic importance from China is a reason to let its behaviour go

Hi Chris,
I'm not sure you call ignorantly label China 'aggressive' for it's assertiveness in building bases and defending the South China Sea.
Whether it's in line with international law or not, the reality is that it's done this not to project power or to use as a beach head for further offensives, but for it's own defense.

China doesn't need to invade and occupy and of those other countries nearby.

You seem to support this administration and the neoconservatives like US undersecretary of state, 3rd highest in the US State department:
Biden says China won't surpass U.S. as global leader on his watch
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-biden-china-idUSKBN2BH2ZE

But it's too late, China's already won.

http://www.aspi.org.au/report/critical-technology-tracker
"Our research reveals that China has built the foundations to position itself as the world’s leading science and technology superpower, by establishing a sometimes stunning lead in high-impact research across the majority of critical and emerging technology domains.
China’s global lead extends to 37 out of 44 technologies that ASPI is now tracking, covering a range of crucial technology fields spanning defence, space, robotics, energy, the environment, biotechnology, artificial intelligence (AI), advanced materials and key quantum technology areas."

Meanwhile the US averages 1760 train derailments per year.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/norfolk-southern-train-derailment-federal-investigation-b2296095.html
"According to the Bureau of Transportation Statistics, the US experiences 1,760 train derailments on average each year."

- And the petro-dollar is almost dead with the US 32 trillion in debt with Saudi Arabia selling oil for Chinese currency and liquidating US Treasuries.
Soon the US won't be able to fund its own debt.
The US is a dying nation, desperate to maintain an image of power.

Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People's Republic of China

US Hegemony and Its Perils - 20 February 2023
http://www.fmprc.gov.cn/mfa_eng/wjbxw/202302/t20230220_11027664.html

Interesting times Armchair Ride.

I do not believe that the majority of countries will ever accept Chinese hegemony. They will react in some form over time.
I also argue that humanity itself cannot afford to allow such a situation.
Might put something in writing about why no one can really trust the CCP.
No one wants war, but most know letting the CCP rise and rise cannot be ever accepted

AR, I am not a diehard fan of the US in terms of all of its actions. I know of its many flaws. All great powers will have moments of madness.
But, in terms of a viable world order, I think the US will always remain lights years ahead of the CCP.
Why do you think the other Asian countries support the US? They also agree that the US is the lesser of two evils.

"But, in terms of a viable world order, I think the US will always remain lights years ahead of the CCP."

Well the truth is we really don't know how China will treat the world when it becomes the worlds dominant superpower.
- But going by what was stated in that paper I previously linked to, at least it's saying the right things, for now.

"Countries need to respect each other and treat each other as equals. Big countries should behave in a manner befitting their status and take the lead in pursuing a new model of state-to-state relations featuring dialogue and partnership, not confrontation or alliance. China opposes all forms of hegemonism and power politics, and rejects interference in other countries' internal affairs..."

A wise person on this form once pointed out a dilemma.
'That in a world where there are multiple leading powers, there'll always be conflict, but in a world where there's only one leading power there'll be tyranny.

I support a multipolar world where leaders can sit down as equals and work things our respectfully of each others interests.
What is the alternative?

China primed for huge tech lead over US in 'wake-up call' for Western democracies, report finds
http://www.9news.com.au/world/china-usa-tech-updates-china-primed-for-huge-tech-lead-over-us-in-wakeup-call-for-west/aad52d23-146b-430a-8cba-5b888ee63d0b

China is Fast Outpacing U.S. STEM PhD Growth
http://cset.georgetown.edu/wp-content/uploads/China-is-Fast-Outpacing-U.S.-STEM-PhD-Growth.pdf

- Look at the reality (above) do we really have any choice?
Thinking the West can keep up with their progress is like a race between a man in a wheelchair and Husein Bolt.
The Chinese industrial manufacturing base is greater than the US and Europe combined.

We should ask ourselves the question 'Do we really want to go to war with China?'
- Well, the answer for me is "No, I don't".

I pointed out earlier that siding with the declining US and their war against China, at the expense of trade and our own economic interests is the equivalent of dropping a nuke on ourselves.
What's more this military path against them we're embarking upon, will likely end up with us wearing a few real ones, which we're in no position to defend against anyway.