"China’s rapid development... should take the breath away of every single Australian". Close, but that statement should read "The free trade policies of Western nations that feed China's rapid development... should take the breath away".

Jonathan's depressingly fatalistic stocktake is disturbingly void of commentary on our economic policies that (a) created China, and (b) have the power to neuter it.

And that’s a pity.

Good article Jonathan

You make a grey issue colourful. The Chinese Navy is indeed growing quickly, in quantity and especially quality, by most standards.

I don't think Chinese naval power will pass the US's in a decade though, maybe two decades (2030). As well as 11 Carrier Battle Groups (based on intensive experience since 1941) the US has a huge lead in submarines of both the attack and ballistic missile varieties.

The problem is that (as you state) our conventional force structure by 2030 will not, alone, be able to effectively deter China (or India or a newly militarised Japan for that matter).

2030 may also be the time that the US, for economic priority reasons, permits Australia to slide into the Chinese regional sphere - "Co-prosperity" anyone?

So I think you pointing (as I do often) to an evolution toward nuclear powered, nuclear armed submarines, as well as a nuclear armed RAAF, is correct. See my 2007 blog article http://gentleseas.blogspot.com/2007/06/australia-to-go-nuclear.html

There are usually contingency plans for most things. I'm sure there are nuclear plans for Australian defence, if the American alliance looks shaky, buried somewhere around the Russell Hill (defence) complex. With a slightly high caveat I imagine ;)

But the best laid and hidden plans my be useless unless they are implemented within the 10 to 15 year build up period to produce an effective nuclear force. As illustrated by its "proactive" East Timor policy Labor avoids hard decision that worry the left or moneymen - then again the Coalition is not too timely either...

Transition timing towards a nuclear capability may well be Australia’s most pressing foreign/defence issue by 2020.

Regards

Peter Coates

This makes for an interesting scenario.China is totally independant from the Western Banking system that really is in control of what happens in the US England and Europe.The banking system has bankrupted the US Govt,England and Europe who now have a diminishing capacity to respond to both China and Russia.

In their lust for power this very banking system could be surrendering their power of over 300yrs to the Chinese.Even if this international cartell of banks were to offer their vast wealth as appeasement,the Chinese know that creating cyber money does not equal real productivity.The Chinese will not fall for it.They are the oldest civilisation on the planet exceeding 2000 yrs.

Patience and long term planning excels over greed and short term gain.

plantagenet,

Wouldn't Australia need a nuclear power industry to enable the development of a nuclear arsenal, are you suggesting that as a first stage? Even if we acquired nuclear weapons Australia would still be vulnerable to other forms of coercion.
Perhaps we already have nuclear weapons, who knows what happened in the 1950s.

The most efficient and cost effective way to deter adventures by any major power is to acquire a small arsenal of nuclear weapons and a reliable means of delivery.That would probably be nuclear submarines armed with cruise missiles.
The time to build a nuclear industry,both for electricity supply and for ultimate defence,is now.

Hi Mac

There are three components necessary for a nuclear deterrent:

1 - delivery system - which we have in form of Harpoon land attack missiles, deployable by the Collins, F/A-18s, F-111s even Orions.

2 - nuclear devices - Australia easily has the expertise to build a crude enriched uranium ones now. But miniturisation is the key to get it down to Harpoon missile warhead size - longer development.

3 - producing the nuclear explosive is always the hardest part. Plutonium would be the explosive we need, which is a product of a nuclear reactor. Such a reactor, to be efficient for plutonium production, is best not part of the electricity grid. So no complete nuclear power industry is needed. Israel's Dimona is a classic case of what Australia could do http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapons_and_Israel#Dimona_1956-1965 . A plutonium reprocessing plant is also necessary. You'd also need a large range of Australian nuclear experts to maintain the chemical balance of the weapons.

The option of simply buying nuclear warheads from Israel, US or France is possible but would they deliver when needed? How would we know the weapons would work?

Countries go the DIY route because nuclear weapons are a critical means of national survival.

Re "Perhaps we already have nuclear weapons, who knows what happened in the 1950s."

Some things are hard to hide both in a democracy and in military circles. I've heard no rumours.

Instead Mr Rudd is running down Australia nuclear expertise, gutting ANSTO, which pleases parts of the Left, especially those happy exporting uranium to China... :(

In the 1950s the British WERE going to share their developing nuclear arsenal with Australia in return for weapons testing here AND significant assistance from Australian scientists on British bomb building.

The Brits however received an enforced US offer (H-bomb plans, delivery systems, full testing facilities in Nevada) that they couldn't refuse. The American's stipulated that no British bombs could be shared with Australia.

So the US locked us out.

Now we depend on it for nuclear protection.

Pete