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