Should Australia Consider Developing Nukes?

[ren0312]

Should Australia consider developing nuclear weapons, considering its small population base, which results in a relatively small armed forces, and the fact that its mostly arid climate makes the sustainability of further significant population increases doubtfull, nuclear weapons(specifically tactical nuclear weapons) can serve as a force multiplier to bolster Australia's relatively small armed forces of 50,000+ men.

[boofhead]

Should Australia consider developing nuclear weapons, considering its small population base, which results in a relatively small armed forces, and the fact that its mostly arid climate makes the sustainability of further significant population increases doubtfull, nuclear weapons(specifically tactical nuclear weapons) can serve as a force multiplier to bolster Australia's relatively small armed forces of 50,000+ men.

No. Please no.

I'm Aussie and I like my country the way it is, for the most part.

Firstly, don't underestimate a defence force of 50,000 men in terrain like we have. It's like Afghanistan tactically, but a gazillion times bigger. And Aussies are the masters of jungle warfare (just ask the Viet Cong/NVA). Our army learned most of that in PNG WW2, and showed a jungle people how to die on their own terrain.

Secondly, add to that 50,000 the millions who would pick up arms in the case of an invasion, and snipe and IED and stab in the dark from every angle and direction until death did them part.

Personally I'd like to see Australia become a little more neutral, like the Swiss. Hasn't caused them many problems in the last hundred years or so.

But by the same token, we owe the US a debt of gratitude, and we must remain a nation good to its word.

[thatguy]

No, I take pride knowing my nation is sane.

Plus, Australia is a country easily defendable, horrible to invade. We dont need a large army.
You cant cross the desert (there is absolutely no where to hide there, you'd get bombed if you tried to cross. Not to mention the salt seas, heat, etc and Planes would take too much resources). So the best way is attacking our coast. And if Rommell taught the allies anything, is that its really bloody easy to defend a coast with hardly any dudes. Then theres the bush, because of recent wars and involvment in wars, we have experiance in Bush and jungle fighting. It'd be a freakin nightmare.
Plus you've got Auzzie enginuity. Run out of grenades?
Make another one out of an empty tinnie, bits of metal, bolts, and gunpoweder (our diggers dd that at Gallipoli. Plus guns that could be hsot without looking over the trench)

Plus we're patriotic as all hell.

[Kleos]

It wouldn't serve any use.

You would't use the Nuclear weapons against a nuclear power first due to M.A.D, and you wouldn't need to use it against non-nuclear powers; due to your geographic isolation from any credible military threat. No Nuclear power in the world today has any strategic interest in launching a pre-emptive strike on Australia - and if they did, its more likely they would have an angry USA to deal with. And Britain would probably write a strongly worded letter.

It would be a waste of money - it would make more sense to invest the money in increasing the size of your conventional forces; at least they can serve a variety of purposes: border protection, aiding humanitarian relief, counter terrorism, peace keeping.

If anything, the Australians could enjoy the benefit of a reduced military. Boofhead has mentioned the Swiss - a plausible idea for Australia would be to have a reduced-size militia style army along the lines of the Swiss. The professional focus of your military could be on your navy, perhaps devolving the air defence role to the navy as well. Its the benefit of being an island nation.

[shadyrome]

Waste of money and Usa wouldn't like this.

[Furious Mental]

Since there are no significant military powers adjacent to Australia I don't see the point really.

[Bleda]

Waste of money and Usa wouldn't like this.

I don't see why the US would mind. I'm American and I can tell you Americans think highly of Aussies and our countries have always been strong allies. Let em have nukes if they want, but if they don't and this is all hypothetical, why are we discussing this? Maybe its time for the moon to become a nuclear power too

[persianfan247]

No one suspects New Zealand

[thatguy]

No one suspects New Zealand

Probably because your too busy playing foot ball and annoying us to do anything worth suspicion.


That Drought thing, come live in north queensland.
It rains WAY to fricken much.

[Каие]

No one suspects New Zealand

I'm watching you...

america wouldnt like it because its an ally of theirs undermining international law.

Pakistan only got them in 2000.

[Burnum]

No one suspects New Zealand

New Zealand, the Hippy country.

Their are more Kiwi's in Australia, then in NZ.

[Carach]

I don't see why the US would mind. I'm American and I can tell you Americans think highly of Aussies and our countries have always been strong allies. Let em have nukes if they want, but if they don't and this is all hypothetical, why are we discussing this? Maybe its time for the moon to become a nuclear power too

america wouldnt like it because its an ally of theirs undermining international law.

america are very protective over technologies (check out f-22) - they dont want anyone getting more nukes, even allies.

[patrick1191]

I haven't met a American that dislikes Aussies....So i don't think we would have a problem with it..

[Carach]

I haven't met a American that dislikes Aussies....So i don't think we would have a problem with it..

not what i was saying.

what we aussies really need is a massively increased airforce(150+) with top of the line models such as the f22-raptor (in my opinion the greatest all round jet in existance), f35-II(vtols are perfect for a guerilla force for you could hide them in many places without needing a runway) and a dozen apaches. maybe 2 dozen.

a larger navy would be also good, but in a case where the coastlines of australia (east coast obviously due to desert in west) would be simulantiously attacked, a visible navy will be bombed out of the water, so a much much larger submarine fleet would be required to mount an effective counter offensive against the invaders.
combined with a much larger airforce than that which we currently possess, repulsion of such an invasion (really the only effective type of invasion due to the guerilla tactics that will be employed in forested regions and urban areas too) would be more than likely.
in all honesty i would like to see more weapons platforms on our coast line, sam sites , arty emplacements etc etc . maybe a handful of bunkers too and we will have a party d-day style

atm our main infantry (not reserve) are basicly trained to the equivalent that american 'navy seals' experience, so i have absolute faith in them in the time of an invasion, assuming they dont run out of supplies/ammunition.

also i would like to note that australia should never be reliant on other countries for defence.
in the event oil supplies are limited for western nations, and not so for agressor nations, how can we expect a counter offensive from our allies when they are certainly incapable , logisticly , of affording it;
especially if their own lands are also under threat at the time.

australia is such a large island that air attack on ur naval forces (if they were say, based in southern australia) would be difficult to achieve, especially if u have a large number of land-based SAM's too. the size + numbers of SAMs = enemy aircraft having to fly a long way round to avoid such defences. Almost all of Australia's rivals dont have the ability/range to do such a thing.

thats just logical talk though heh. I personally see the navy as the most important thing australia has, needs, and must improve on.

Pakistan only got them in 2000.

they were not exactly.. allies at that time. neither was it particularly public that they were getting them - was also hard to tell them not to when their nemesis across the border had already got them.

Australia's would most likely be open, and they have no major nemesis/enemy with nuclear weapons to counter.

[Andrew87]

Hmm....no.

For the same reasons boofhead mentioned.

I consider a 50.000 strong army is enough at this point compared to the relative size of the population + they haven't done anything to piss off others in the last, I don't know... century?

Why would they start doing it know?

[jankren]

Hmm....no.

For the same reasons boofhead mentioned.

I consider a 50.000 strong army is enough at this point compared to the relative size of the population + they haven't done anything to piss off others in the last, I don't know... century?

Why would they start doing it know?

They have pissed us off quite frequently lately.

Just kidding my kangaroo neighbors.

New Zealand, the Hippy country.

Their are more Kiwi's in Australia, then in NZ.

Lol, thats classic.

Im wondering though why New Zealand and Australia didnt form a single country? I mean what a waste of space on the map you know.

Anyway, as a person who is too intelligent to have his judgment clouded by national pride, I admit Indonesian military is pretty garbage for the size of our country. We do have relatively large amount of troops (410,000 personnel), but we have totally trashy military transportation vehicles which is pretty alarming for such a huge archipelagic country. Even if Australia decided to invade with their small in size but more advanced armies they might be able to take all of the islands except Sumatra and Java which have always been the main major islands of Indonesia.

[Burnum]

They have pissed us off quite frequently lately.

Yeah, we keep granting Asylum to their political prisoners. Indonesia will never invade Australia, we give them way too much money.

It's shame we don't have better relations with Indonesia.

Im wondering though why New Zealand and Australia didnt form a single country? I mean what a waste of space on the map you know.

Not worth it economically.

Anyway, speaking of Indonesian military, I admit its pretty garbage for the size of our country.

It is, no offense but the Militias in preindependant East Timor were better trained and equipped then the Indonesian Army.

We do have relatively large amount of troops (410,000 personnel),

Yeah, how well armed and trained though?

but we have totally trashy military transportation vehicles which is pretty alarming for such an archipelagic country.

Your Military Infrastructure is pretty much non-existent, I don't even think they have any way of transporting their Army.

Your Navy is also pretty much a joke. Your Air force is falling apart, literally.

Even if Australia decided to invade with their small in size but more advanced armies they might be able to take all of the islands except Sumatra and Java which have always been the major islands of Indonesia.

We could take all the Indonesian Islands, the occupation would destroy us though.

[jankren]

We could take all the Indonesian Islands, the occupation would destroy us though.

Nah, highly doubt it. Australia is no USA. Unless they can exploit our diversity by playing us against one another. Many Papuans, Moluccans, and North Sulawesians are probably more than willing to help the invasion as long as the 'price' is right.

[Burnum]

Nah, highly doubt it. Australia is no USA. Unless they can exploit our diversity by playing us against one another. Many Papuans, Moluccans, and North Sulawesians are probably more than willing to help the invasion as long as the 'price' is right.

That's right we're no USA but in a war, but in a normal war we'd defeat the Indonesian Army. You underestimated how lousy the Indonesian army is.

[Oklop]

boofhead, what are the Australian gun laws? I am really interested. Sorry if of topic but in the case of hypothetical invasion it may be viable.