"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

plantagenet,

Thanks for the info.- so the technical problems are not insurmountable for a country our size, eg Israel and South Africa. However, I'd judge the political difficulties as rather huge given Australia's treaty obligations and if our intentions to develop nuclear weapons became public it would scare the beejeezus out of our neighbours in SE Asia, one in particular. I presume you're advocating a discrete marshalling of resources to prepare for a crash program.

I'm rather cynical in regard to the protection offered by our "great and powerful friends",after our experience with the UK.

Mac

As my first comment in the thread implied the timeframe to start evolving into a nuclear capability may be from 2020.

I think politically, strategically, technically and financially it would be too early in the next ten years to develop nuclear weapons.

By 2020 nuclear weapons will probably have proliferated to Iran and in de facto terms to Saudi Arabia (which largely financed Pakistan's nuclear effort).

Pakistan, India and North Korea will have developed missiles with the range to hit Australia. India will have nuclear powered, nuclear armed missile subs (3 under construction) as well as three good aircraft carriers (2 being built already).

Perhaps the olds plans of Japan, Taiwan and South Korea to develop nuclear weapons will have been dusted off and progressed as a threat to us.

So all this suggests 2020 is the time to start build (if not designing earlier).

The ideal delivery system is not only Harpoon, then Tomahawk, then supersonic cruise then sub launched ballistic missiles.

Australia should consider what Brazil is moving into now ie nuclear propelled submarines (SSNs). SSNs are two or three times more effective than the conventional subs Australia is proposing against every parametre including cost.

In terms of the construction of 12 subs to be built between 2020 and 2030 I suggest the first six will be conventional the next 3 nuclear powered attack (SSN) then the last 3 nuclear powered ballistic missile (SSBN). If Australia doesn't go that way we will fall behind many countries cruising in our region and coveting our underprotected resources.

As countries around the world steadly go nuclear they disregard the treaties drafted by countries that are ALREADY nuclear.

In terms of alarming our neighbours 100 aircraft and 12 large conventional subs are already alarming and signal an arms race. Countries say they're not bothered but still they are building and buying new vessels and aircraft very rapidly in our region

Why not give our necessary defence systems nuclear teeth after 2020? This will make the northern giants with vastly larger conventional forces AND nuclear forces think twice about incorporating us.

Pete

Online_east

I agree with your claim that we helped create the China miracle but wonder just how much capacity we have to neuter it.

I do admit that in the Australian-China trade relationship we in Australia have the upper hand but are too stupid to acknowledge it. And too feeble to exercise it.

Plantagenet

Thanks for the positive comments.

I looked at your web site. Most interesting!

I fully agree with your comments regarding the urgency for a transition towards a nuclear capability, and with your Brazilian solution to our situation.

Arjay

With respect to your comments where you use the banking system to illustrate the folly of the West, I would go further. In many many spheres we in the West can learn from the East, but as the West through the Romans, Vandals, Byzentines etc have shown: we think we know best. Until our civilization decomposes.

More fool us.

Whilst a semi-secret nuclear program (like Israel) *may* provide a deterrent, more likely it would start a regional arms race and make us a target. I also doubt that it would be politically viable without an operation Northwoods type scenario. There are other ways to make us an expensive military target. A good missile/space program would help.
Also nuclear is *very* expensive and our GDP is not really large enough to support it at the moment. Whilst the engineering and research would be good for the country, we have some very serious basic issues of water and food security that also need the scientists and engineers. (Which we are importing: this should be a more serious security concern!)
Our military is also suffering a management crisis. These guys cannot even manage shipping pallets! (tip of the iceberg when it comes to logistical incompetence).
At the moment China is our best chance of a speedy economic recovery, or possibly any economic recovery since we exported most of our manufacturing there. Diplomatically it would be better to play friendly whilst keeping to the "minimum nuclear" line.

As an increasingly prosperous country, China is quite reasonably increasing its armed forces, inlcuding its navy. Australia should not assume that there is any aggressive intent.

Jonathan Ariel's comment about a Chinese submarine popping up in a US Navy exercise is not that surprising. Warships in a large ocean can be surprisingly hard to find. Flying out in a helicopter to the USS Blue Ridge during exercise with the US Navy, I was surprised at how difficult this very large warship was to see until we were quite close: http://www.tomw.net.au/nt/tt97.html

Submarines are even harder to find. Australia's fleet of proposed enhanced conventional submarines will be a very effective deterrent, if they are ever built. They will be particularly effective if accompanied by miniature robot submarines: http://www.tomw.net.au/blog/2009/03/smaller-crews-for-collins-class.html

Jonathan Ariel comments that the RAN doesn't plan to have any aircraft carriers, while China is likely to have three. This is not quite correct, as Australia has ordered two Landing Helicopter Dock ships from Spain. These are designed for operating V/STOL fighter/attack aircraft. Australian is planning to order the F-35 stealth aircraft which has a V/STOL variant, although the RAN do not admit to any ambitions to have them: http://www.tomw.net.au/blog/2006/05/mini-aircraft-carriers-for-australian.html

Australia has also ordered the Aegis equipped Spanish Álvaro de Bazán class frigates. Along with the LHS and submarines, these could form an "Influence Squadron", to project naval power: http://www.tomw.net.au/blog/2009/05/influence-squadrons-for-australian-navy.html

Unfortunately, some Australian technology, such as Australian multi hull ship design, is not used by the RAN, but by the US Navy and by the Chinese. The USA uses Australian designed fast transport ships: http://www.tomw.net.au/blog/2009/02/australian-design-selected-for-us.html

The Chinese Type 022 Houbei Class Missile Fast Attack catamaran is said to be based on an Australian multi hull ferry design: http://www.tomw.net.au/blog/2008/02/australian-designed-missile-ships-for.html

Thanks tomw

For your trust in the Middle Empire to be.

Some Google counters advise how many million hits each word on the Web receives on any subject, as proof, of something.

You present a treasure trove of strings highlighting a Blog in place of useful arguments regarding the matters in hand.

Regards

Pete

plantagenet wrote 25 May 2009 10:34:21 PM:

>Thanks tomw ...

Delighted to be able to assist the discussion.

>For your trust in the Middle Empire to be.

There seems little point in criticising China for building a defence force comparable to that of other nations. This is unlikely to change China's actions. Other nations need to respond by making sure they have a credible defence force, as well as undertake diplomatic initiatives to reduce tensions.

>You present a treasure trove ...

Sorry if overloaded you with too many references. But I thought some facts might help the discussion.

Here is another one. Australian ship builder Austral have proposed a low cost version of their Independence-class littoral combat ship, which was designed for the US Navy. The new version, called the Multi-Role Vessel, omits the advanced sensors and weapons. This could be purchased by the RAN to supplement more expensive warships: <http://www.tomw.net.au/blog/2009/05/austal-multi-role-vessel.html>.

The point of this is that China might invest in a lot of specialised warships which look good on paper, but turn out not to be that useful.

Thanks tomw

I think your views add a lot (backed with references or no).

The RAN it seems is too conservative to consider large littoral vessels because blue water is their hope and glory in the best (worst?) RN/US naval blue water traditions.

East Timor, PNG and the Solomons is our most critical (littoral) operating area where we can make a real difference. But the flag showing occurs around the Middle East in backing up our betters over the blue water.

So traditional surface ships win out - though fortunately the Government is giving the appearance of emphasising that high stealth vessel - the submarine.

Australian consideraton of Austal smacks of national self-sufficiency, efficiency and too few foreign postings for the RAN acquisitions officers and DMO. Long stays in Spain and the US make for better happy times than Hobart or dreary Canberra.

In any case why use merely millions in taxpayers money when billions are on offer to waste? ;)

Regards

Pete