The problem with nuclear bombs is that they can destroy large numbers of people in cities, but they may neither deter nor protect. Israel has had a nuclear capability since the early 60s. That prevented neither the Arab armies massing in 1967 on Israel's borders nor the 1971 attack by Arab armies. If there are nuclear weapons there must be procedures to use them under certain circumstances. That means there must be a person in the chain of command who is authorised to use them. There is no way one can be sure that person will not in an irrational moment order the weapons to be used. It is better for Australia's security to try to persuade those countries w nuclear weapons to rid of them rather than get them for ourself. Australians are not immune to irrationality.

SM....while I don't like anything nuclear, however you do have a valid point about our pathetic means to defend ourselves. China and North Korea are in each others back pockets and South Korea is more on the menu than us.

597's post has the best advice and he's probably right.

See the link.

http://tinyurl.com/87ok7rt

Even though no-one win's if the red button is pushed, I don't think its a bad idea to have haft a dozen or so. In stead of Australia looking like a smooth ball that anyone a catch, with a few war heads underground, we turn from catch-able to spiky and second thoughts of the easy takeover is gone.

cc

Planet3 thanks for seriously considering it.

Davidf, Israel only built its first Nuke in the late 60s and the Arab countries were probably unaware of Israel's progress as no weapons or delivery systems had been tested. In 67 the Arabs were almost certainly unaware, and in 71 too. The awareness came to the world after Mordechai Vanunu let the cat out of the bag.

As in North Korea, unless resources of the extent of the US are mobilised, it takes many years to build a deliverable weapon. If this is a project for Australia, it is unlikely to be ready before 2030, but by then the world may be very different.

P.S. I also asked for anyone that poo poo ed the proposal, to provide some alternative.

As will always be the case not haveing weapons our enemy's have is asking to be defeated.
All very well to put our thoughts and motivations in their heads, but unwise.
No sane man wants a Nuclear war.
But I think too we dare not use rubber bands and sling shots to repel Nuclear weapons.

Who said we don't have them already?

As for the claim that it will take till 2030:

Firstly it's incorrect - it took Israel a similar period to develop - before computers were around, without any uranium of its own, without a local testing-site and at a time when it was poor and its population was only 2-3 million. For comparison, the U.S.A took only 2-3 years, including basic research and without computer technology.

Secondly, this assumes that we haven't started already.

Thirdly, today it is quite possible to purchase readily assembled weapons from Russia.

As for the claim that it will not deter or protect anyone, that may be true in Israel's case because its area is so small that one bomb can destroy all, but not in Australia where the area is huge and launching sites can be spread and hidden anywhere in the outback.

Yes, it isn't cheap to develop, but how much does it cost to SAY that we have? in the least to stop saying that we don't!

Some historical trivia -

1. The Snowy Scheme (well situated near Jervis Bay and the ANU) included a network of tunnels that were intended to house our own nuclear research facilities with a view to developing our own weapons. The USA policy was not to assist any other nation until they reached a certain level on their own but our plans were soon shelved. England proceeded for a while after their Maralinga tests but in the end, they just bought theirs ready-made from the USA (or rather, allowed the USA to install missiles on their territory).

2. According to the principal historian of the Australian War Museum, Japan never intended to invade Australia and we knew that in 1942, so American didn't so much "save us" as we gave then access to our facilities to fight the war. This was kept secret during the war but the record was never officially corrected for political and patriotic reasons. To this day there is no evidence of a planned invasion and plenty against it.

3. We were already a prime nuclear target for the USSR because of the US military bases that provide a first alert for their defence system by pinpointing USSR missile launch sites for a counter-attack. We would have been the very first nuclear target in case of a nuclear war between the USSR and USA, and not just the bases but the major cities as well in order to stop the transmission of data back to the USA. Our main ally was prepared to use us as a "sacrificial goat" to protect itself.

Now what sort of nuclear umbrella would be feasible to protect us from that scenario?