Just asking...

Why? who against?
NZ series makers comes to mind.

Unless it is an urban myth we already have it.
Victors write the history of war, we may not always be on the winning side.
But do we want to be an overnight defeated country, truly?
The deterrent factor alone is enough for me to say yes if we do not already have it get it.
And yes get nuclear power too.
While those opposed to both may feel warm and compfy about their idea of what is good for the planet surely the simple truth, others do not share that concern is enough to consider joining me in wanting to protect what we have, an in regard to power truly cut green house gas

Didn't Australia sell iron which was made into guns for use against us?.

Now we sell uranium for enemies to make bombs against us when we do not even have A bombs or H bombs of our own.

What?.
They have agreed not to make bombs from our uranium?.
That's OK then.

Any one who thinks some of our near northern neighbours won't get the bomb, & sometime soon, is a fool. Don't think being nice to them will help, in future. Many Ozies died, keeping the commies out of Malaya. Fat lot of thanks we got there.

Next time our blokes have to fight, it would be nice, if we gave them some chance of winning. It would be nice if we did not repeat the sending Wirraways against Zeros, in Rabaul, & Darwin.

We send them to fight with vehivles that would be unsafe at a Hong Kong cracker night, & sob when they are hurt.

Our blokes are very good, but we need a proper deterrent, because we could never hope to defend ourselves with the numbers we have in uniform.

The MAD strategy [mutually assured destruction] kept us all safe, through the cold war. A small version of that will be needed to keep us out of trouble, as the US slides into history.

Examinator,

For now Australia does not need a nuclear deterrent. Our land is, as the saying goes, girt by sea. The only country with the logistic capability to invade us is the US and, hysterical anti-Americanism notwithstanding, that is a very unlikely scenario.

The future, however, is an unknown country. Our biggest and most troubling neighbour is Indonesia. At the moment they have neither the capability not the inclination to pose a military threat. However,

--They are ten times our size.

--Their economic power is growing rapidly. In the foreseeable future they will be able to afford a potent military.

--In Sukarno's day they did have designs upon Australia. Fortunately Sukarno turned out to be a blowhard

--The Indonesian brand of Islam is relatively gentle but that could change.

If there is going to be a threat it is most likely to emanate from Indonesia – especially if, as I suspect, the era of Pax Americana is drawing to a close.

And that brings me to the Lucas Heights reactor. Economically it never made sense. The only rationale for its existence must be to keep in being a corps of scientists which would provide the nucleus (pardon the pun) of a weapons program should the need arise.

I suspect that is also why the Howard Government wanted to embark upon an uranium enrichment program and why the Rudd Government should reconsider its position on this.

I would day the correct nuclear posture is this:

Australia must have the capability to deploy a nuclear deterrent faster than any threat requiring such a deterrent can develop.

Since I would imagine any threat requiring a nuclear deterrent is AT LEAST 10 years away we could probably do it if things looked like going badly wrong.

Japan does not have nukes but it is an open secret that it is a virtual nuclear power. It could deploy nukes in less than a year. I think we're headed in that direction if American power wanes.

Why would you think that the Lucas Heights reactor never made sense steven? It wasn't built for just producing power you know. You might be surprised at how many applications the isotopes produced at that facility are used for. There are good logistical reasons for making them here.

We don't need nuclear weapons, they'd only end up forgotten under the old Holden ute in some bogans front yard.

Bugsy,

The production of isotopes was the rationale given for the new Lucas Heights reactor. It never made economic sense because such isotopes are freely available on world markets. Buying them would most likely have been cheaper than building a reactor. I do not see why purchasing isotopes should pose any particular logistical problem.

You wrote:

"We don't need nuclear weapons..."

As I thought I made clear in my previous post, I agree. We do NOT need nuclear weapons NOW.

Repeat: NOW

For the future, who knows?

Do you?

I suggest it would be prudent to retain the CAPACITY to initiate a nuclear weapons development program should we start to see a deterioration of the security situation in our neck of the woods. Since the relative power of our main ally, the USA, seems set to wane this could happen though probably not for a long time.

Realistically I do not see us needing to start on that track for many years if at all.

But I'd still like to have the ace in the hole – being the capacity to initiate such a program – just in case

In for a penny in for a pound, I agree with hasbeen here.
Yes I am allergic to the bloke but truth is still worth while.
Nice and cuddly thoughts will not save us.
God, good will, thoughts about the greatness of mankind will get us no place.
MAD worked and can continue, while we await evolution to change mans willing ness to hate and kill each other.
I think we have it now, I truly do, if not why not?
Power , now lets forget the green frog approach, IF we both sell uranium and build nuclear power stations, we will do more for climate change, not just here, but world wide, [sorry for stealing a great mans words but they fit]NO!the great man is not Abbott!he is the opposite to that.
Gert by sea? yep true, and is truth of value?
If we had no border protection policy, no defense force, rafts small boats, big ones would over run us in just a few years guns not needed.
Now for some, intent on not seeing truth have branded myself red neck.
Not true realist yes, caring left of center still, but realist too.

Steven,

I'm sorry, we fundamentally disagree here.

I don't believe that you are factoring in enough factors into your assessment.

- Going down the nuke bomb route would blow away the international nuclear arms limitation treaties.
- add to pressure for a nuke arms race in the Asian area.
- Irritate China no end (they have the bombs)
- The cost would be mind blowing, an expensive white elephant we don't need, especially given the more pressing need for GW (with or without Anthropomorphic in put)mitigation expenditure.
- I think Indonesia will have its hands full with GW anyway.
- I don't think it would achieve anything positive in the region.
- China's response wouldn't be benign, trade etc. They're not happy with us being part of the US nuke shield. Our puny nuke ambitions would prove to be counter productive.
- Likewise if Indonesia etc tried to go nuke China with its standing military forces including multiple bombs and rockets to boot response would be less than tolerant.
- China would see Indonesia's nuke ambitions as a threat to their resources.

In short, it would be pointless, 1/2 dozen well aimed nukes would inhibit the US and decimate Australia. To me it's a bit like throwing stones at Israeli tanks, not a lot of point and certainly counter productive.

Hasbeen and ilk's strategic thinking (?)is, IMHO, ego/arrogance motivated and thinking of a bygone era.

Ok steven, now you're the humorless one. Quoting half a joke isn't even half as funny. Why so serious?

You and I differ on the logistics, as I understand many of the issues relating to isotopes used in research and medicine. Many isotopes used have a half-life of two weeks or less. While this increases their hazard/risk level, this also restricts them from being usefully transported by sea. Thus, with heavy radiation shielding and tightly sealed almost indestructible packaging, the cost of regularly shipping them by air immediately after they are made starts to climb. Add to this the saftey concerns of such activity as well as being at the mercy of international markets and currency exchange. As you say, the cost of importing them NOW may be cheaper, but wouldn't you like to ensure regular supply?

You can fantatasize all you want about it being about retaining the capacity for a weapons program, but I know where that idea originates- inside your own head.

Nuclear weapons. Do we need them in Australia? I don't think so. MAD worked. It scared the s#!t out of everyone. That's why we would not like to see rogue stateds like Iran getting them because they are the type of people that would use them.

Lucas Heights is very old Tech. & it's about time Australia had an upgrade to the latest Tech. The research that can be done there must just about be exahausted. Research into Nuclear Fusion is a good thing, not for weapons, but, for Alternate Energy Sources.

With the mining of Uranium & selling it overseas. I'm in favour. Provided we get back all the spent fuel rods for storage in Australia. For one, if we have control of them research into storage can be conducted, the whereabouts of all the potential sources of weapons grade material is known & safe. & who knows maybe, one day, scientists may figure a peaceful way to reuse the spent fuel rods & produce more alternate energy from them. As we will own it, we will reap the profit.

The real truth is economics. With the state of the financial world today [ and in the future, grin ] it's simply uneconomical to invade Australia. Small ECONOMIES like our northern neighbors [ forget man power and machinery ]would go broke just holding on to the place. Our other advantage is our sheer land mass size and small population. Australian troops could conduct guerrilla warfare for decades hiding on our large land mass. This would make invading us economic suicide. Disrupt and cut off logistics to the place [ isolate us ] and invaders would just wither and die like a bloody virus with no food, no water, no supplies, no co-operation etc etc. Our resource pool is stupendous but it's worth nothing to an invader if you can't use it economically by the points just mentioned. Staying nuclear free is actually a great advantage. Why would a neighbor nuke us and destroy the small working machinery that processes our vast resources ??.

I understand war, feel proud and sorry on Anzac day, am proud of our service men and women.
But would rather we never had to fight one.
Putting flowers in our guns however is not anti war.
Putting them down is not anti war.
Being politically correct and say nuclear kills there for we will not have it, is making war more likely.
Truly .
Who cares what China would think?
Well just maybe we should not let such fears blind us.
China may in a war fight on our side, may be the enemy.
Rubbish about our troops being able to fight in the outback are a dream, remember my quote about unarmed migration if we did not defend our borders?
you can bet we would need no army to over run us.
The whole worlds is going to use Nuclear power, our uranium may its self be a reason to invade us, our economy runs on the understanding others must have our resources, they may want them for nothing.
We would be dreadful people if we sent our troops armed with pop guns to die.
Consider this, our enemy's , well those I think are bound to be , have no regard for us or human rights.

According research undertaken by University lecturer and author Wayne Reynolds in his book "Australia’s Bid for the Atomic Bomb", Australia made a futile attempt to develop nuclear weapons many years ago.

The network of tunnels associated with the Snowy Mountains scheme was intended as research facilities into nuclear energy and weapons and despite our appeals for assistance from the British and Americans, none was forthcoming so the plans were abandoned.

The site was chosen in relation the Lucas Heights, Jervis Bay and the ANU.

We've already got one. Why do you think the yanks have various personnel and base/s here?. If it gets to the point where someone's threatening us with nukes then the yank subs constantly patrolling will come in to play.

No one needs to invade. Anna Bligh will probably end up renting the top half of Qld to someone anyway.

There is almost no scenario where the use of nuclear weapons would result in a better result than not using them. It would also require the development of a ballistic missile system and counter missile system.

The cost is prohibitive (trillions of dollars) and will lower the standard of living in the country significantly.

I think the question is a good one, and can be addressed on a number of levels.

Off the bat, it would appear that we don't actually need to build, own and maintain our own nuclear defence capability. Should the threat level rise, we could quite easily buy what we need from an allied power with the necessary weaponry.

Right now, it is logical to assume this would be the USA.

This actually makes us a "nuclear power by proxy", and therefore part of the world-wide MAD standoff.

But that still leaves us without a fully independent nuclear deterrent of our own, which - I would imagine - is behind the original post.

In my view it would set a very poor precedent, and encourage other countries to escalate their own programmes. Which would do little, except increase the scale of the standoff.

Then we'd once more forever be looking over our shoulders for Dr Strangelove, just as we all were back in the fifties and much of the sixties.

Israel Pakistan,India, north Korea, Iran ,have or want the bomb.
Serving service men in the 1970s said we have it, I think we do.
America may or may not come, to our rescue.
but MAD would.

At this time China is intending to build 8 carrier fleets,these carriers are nuclear and as big or bigger than the Nimitz class carriers.And with India,China and russia teaming up to build the new generation stealth firhter looks promising.