Yuyutsu, I am floored by your heartless comments. "I recommended over these pages that we in Australia must develop our own germs/viruses to defend ourselves from a Chinese invasion"

You would kill billions without as must a beg your pardon. I expect no less from several of the off the planet posters on here, but you! GET THIS THROUGH YOUR THICK SKULL. Regardless of what you or I think of the CCP, their autocratic system of government, the authority in China who ever they are. The people of China are no different to you and me, ordinary folk going about their daily lives. For you to suggest that billions of innocent people should be wiped off the face of the planet makes you one hell of a sick dude!

"We would of course guard our biological weapons very carefully and only ever use them as the very last resort" You sound like the murderous Americans and their atomic bomb, after killing hundreds of thousands in Hiroshima and Nagasaki they went on to claim it was only a deterrent.

Dear Paul,

«You would kill billions without as must a beg your pardon.»

On the contrary: deterrence is about not having to kill anyone, being so strong that nothing will happen.
The alternative would be to try [unsuccessfully] to fight the Chinese invaders with kitchen knives in our bedroom as they come to round us up into concentration camps.

The idea is to use such weapons only if/when Australia is nuked or invaded. Not even "use" them then, because they will be automatically triggered by such an event. Suppose satellite information reveals that Australia was nuked or invaded by China AND no responsible persons in Australia stop the process (because they are all dead), then the germs/viruses will be released over China from Australian submarines, so in effect, the Chinese would bring it on themselves, not us!

To the extent feasible, we would also store vaccines in Australian embassies or other hiding places, to try to save our allies.

«The people of China are no different to you and me»

I agree, I have Chinese friends myself, the people of China are not a problem - only the regime that oppresses them and threatens the rest of the world.

The situation today shows every parallel between the CCP under Xi and the 1930's Nazi party under Hitler. The so-far-theoretical question, "what would you do if you knew about Hitler's plan to slaughter the Jews?" can no longer be shrugged, we are now responsible to answer it and prove that we mean it!

I don't know about you personally, but in the most unlikely event that this weapon is actually deployed, most of those billions would thank us, because they rather be dead than to fall in the cruel hands of the CCP.

Another thought: with this weapon ready, the Americans (not that I like them), will be forced to save us earlier with their nukes and aircraft-carriers, only for fear for their own lives. No matter what they now claim, there's no chance they will keep their promises and offer us any significant help otherwise when push comes to shove.

Dear Thinkabit,

The problem with nukes, is that Australia will never have enough of them and enough launching platforms to stop China and the CCP.

Most homes in Hiroshima and Nagasaki were made of paper. With current building standards, a Hiroshima-style bomb would only kill 10,000's and a hydrogen bomb perhaps one million, provided it is not intercepted. To prevent interception by China's anti-ballistic missiles, we would need to launch perhaps 100 of them at once just to get one through. That would finish Australia without making a big dent in the CCP.

«Unless it was specific... you could wipe out the whole world.»

Except those who have the vaccine ready. Preparing a vaccine/treatment must be part and parcel of the program.

«you would kill a hell of a lot of people of Chinese descent that aren't of Chinese Nationality.»

Again, the vaccine should save them. I have nothing against Chinese people as such.

«It would also be an exceptionally useless weapon for a winning attack and not very useful as a nuclear defensive deterrence.»

Obviously useless as an attack-weapon, but why would it not be useful as a second-strike deterrence capability?

«Viruses take days to weeks to kill people, in which time a nuclear armed country could just nuke the initiator after the first biological attack.»

I was speaking of such a time when there is nobody left to nuke, when we all would already be dead, or as good as dead.

«seek peace not war.»

There are times when peace is possible, but not when faced with a Hitler. Waiting would only make them stronger.
Genocide against the Uighurs is already underway.
Do we need to wait for the proof until we see the people of Hong Kong treated similarly?
Or for a Taiwan invasion in order to believe that the same will happen to Australia if we do nothing?

We must take care of ourselves because, unfortunately, America is only good with talking.
Should we be nuked out of existence, the Americans will... condemn China in the United-Nations and ban the importation of Chinese good-luck dolls.

What's the point of lockdown when this is just going to keep coming in rolling waves? Look at Sweden, with no lockdowns or people getting fined for going fishing or playing golf:
http://ourworldindata.org/grapher/daily-covid-deaths-per-million-7-day-average?country=ITA~KOR~ESP~SWE~GBR~USA~MEX~BRA~BEL

The aim should not be elimination but management. There are ways to fight Covid entry into nursing homes where it's wreaking the most damage in Melbourne, as it did initially in Sweden. Otherwise the virus should be allowed to pass through the population with voluntary distancing and hygiene practices, obligatory mask-wearing, and assisted quarantining of the vulnerable on its way to becoming a just another pathogen, albeit a bit nasty, that will affect only a part of the population at a time, a la the 'flu.

National health system capacity is not currently being overly taxed, nor looks like it's going to be, but it makes sense to build further capacity to meet expectations, as was done in Sweden.

We must keep an economy going as what is currently happening will be more life-shortening than Covid in the long run. Lockdown and state isolation will ultimately have the same result, with Western Australians and Tasmanians living in a fool's paradise, for now.
We're living in fear of death but not of lives shortened.
Here's a couple of articles on this aspect while we become more hysterical about the here and now against a relentless enemy that will take the same pound of flesh however we play it (oh, but that's right, the vaccine is imminent!):

http://journal.sketchingscience.org/users/333926/articles/460021-living-with-covid-19-balancing-costs-against-benefits-in-the-face-of-the-virus

http://www.abc.net.au/radio/melbourne/programs/drive/the-cost-of-saving-lives-coronavirus-debate/12217614

We can run but we can't hide. Sheeting back outbreaks to this event or that will be played out over and over, and we'll kid ourselves that we could have stopped the thing if only this thing or that was done. No amount of self-delusion, national debt, isolation, lockdown or economic wreckage of young lives will change this.

Your plan is completely harebrained!! So much so that I don't know why I'm even bothering to comment on it, but here goes:

1) It is logistically practically impossible. How do you think a medium sized power/economy country like Australia could vaccinate everyone in the world but the Chinese? To give prospective here, the WHO has been trying eliminate polio from the world by a vaccination program that has been running for decades with the cooperation of most countries and yet they still haven't completely eliminated it.

2) How do you get the rest of the world to approve of your plan? Do you really think the other countries of the world are going to let you create this virus? There exist international treaties/conventions, such as this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_Weapons_Convention, that most of the world have signed and ratified (including us) that prohibit biological weapons and delivery systems.

3) Since it would be blatantly obvious to China that you are implementing a plan that directly threatens them: How do you stop China taking military action against us before you've fully developed your virus and created/deployed a vaccine?

4) As I've already said. Biological weapons aren't a very good deterrent against a nuclear armed country that has time to develop counter measures. For example, once it become obvious to China that you plan to threaten all of its citizens, they can implement mandatory public safety strategies against your virus. Eg: They could mandate that people prepare their homes so that they can be positively pressured with clear air form HEPA (or better) air filters and also require that their population always has a month or so of food/water in their homes. Viruses in general aren't active for very long outside of a host, so all they have to do is lockdown and isolate themselves for a few days/weeks so that the effectiveness of you counter attack greatly diminishes. Also, it is challenging to deliver a virus across a large area very quickly. You need something like a low flying relatively slow plane spraying it everywhere but such planes can be shot down.

So although virus can potentially kill billions they aren't much good as a one-off attack against a country that is prepared and anticipates an attack.
However, viruses are ideal for stealthy asymmetric attacks against unprepared and unsuspecting targets. Such as a small extremist group of religious fanatics who wish to attack densely populated areas out-of-the-blue: it only takes a few crazy followers to discretely infect mass crowd gatherings across the country in a simultaneous coordinated attack. Creating such a virus as you desire would be a honey-pot for such lunatics.
Now comparing viruses to a modern nuclear counter attack on the other hand. Modern nuclear weapons can be delivered at hyper-sonic speed (the just recently developed hyper sonic missiles which are extremely difficult to defend against) and it can kill everyone within 10's of kilometers instantly. They also destroy infrastructure. There is next to nothing you can do to protect yourself once it has been launched (unless you already have a very expensive to build underground bunker you can escape to).

So as I said before, the best defensive deterrent against a nuclear strike is a nuclear response. But that leads to an arms war that is balanced on a knife edge. It is best to use diplomacy and world-wide anti-weapons conventions instead: seek peace not war.