Should Australia Develop Nuclear Weapons (2 Viewers)

[sam04u]

no, no nuclear weapons

Don't be a pussy. If Israel has nuclear weapons, anybody should be allowed too.

 

[Captain Gh3y]

I say no

It gives our neighbours one more reason to be paranoid and h8 us (as if being part of the imperialist west crusaders wasn't enough).

They'd also be a waste of money to make and we'd probably never use them... the purpose of our army is to police the pacific islands. You can't just nuke the pacific islands.

 

[ObjectsInSpace]

Simply as a deterent. We should trust ourselves to not elect somoeone with a first strike policy

Deterrants are useless because the inevitable result is Mutually Assured Destruction. Whoever has nuclear weapons won't use them because whoever they fired at will fire straight back at them. Sure, South-East Asian countries might not have nukes, but the political fallout from the international community if we used them would have the potential to be devastating.

 

[iamsickofyear12]

We don't really need them... we have plenty of allied support... but it couldn't hurt.

It will happen... but probably not any time soon.

 

[Iron]

Deterrants are useless because the inevitable result is Mutually Assured Destruction. Whoever has nuclear weapons won't use them because whoever they fired at will fire straight back at them. Sure, South-East Asian countries might not have nukes, but the political fallout from the international community if we used them would have the potential to be devastating.

The deterent works because our neighbours would think twice before deciding to commence hostilities against Australia. Likewise, in the event they also secure weapons, we would think twice before undermining their sovereignty via East Timor related incidents, or pre-emptive stike threats. I think that acutally promotes peace and stability.

I dont believe that there's any pressing need for any WMDs, but I think that it's the most practical defence Australia could provide for itself, given any future unpredictable contingency. By ridding ourselves of this paranoid insecurity, we would actually promote international cooperation. It would also free up our conventional military to focus on the major non-state threat of terrorism.

 

[banco55]

The deterent works because our neighbours would think twice before deciding to commence hostilities against Australia. Likewise, in the event they also secure weapons, we would think twice before undermining their sovereignty via East Timor related incidents, or pre-emptive stike threats. I think that acutally promotes peace and stability.

I dont believe that there's any pressing need for any WMDs, but I think that it's the most practical defence Australia could provide for itself, given any future unpredictable contingency. By ridding ourselves of this paranoid insecurity, we would actually promote international cooperation. It would also free up our conventional military to focus on the major non-state threat of terrorism.

A nuclear weapons program is damn expensive. Plus you'd need delivery systems etc. which would sap manpower and heaps of money from the conventional forces.

 

[ObjectsInSpace]

The deterent works because our neighbours would think twice before deciding to commence hostilities against Australia. Likewise, in the event they also secure weapons, we would think twice before undermining their sovereignty via East Timor related incidents, or pre-emptive stike threats. I think that acutally promotes peace and stability.

No it doesn't, because some countries would see it as an act of aggression on our part. If we're trying to forge closer ties with our South-East Asian neighbours and then go ahead and develop nuclear weapons, what does that say about us? It clearly sends a message that we're intimidated and/or threatened by them. Added to our commitment to Iraq and Afghanistan, the acquisition of nuclear weapons would simply be begging for trouble. Deterrance doesn't work unless whoever has the weapons is ready, willing and able to use them. If we start waving warheads around, but it's obvious we won't use them (and let's face it, no-one wants to be responsible for that), they've called our bluff. Neighbours might think twice about aggravating us, but in forging better relationships through the likes of ASEAN we don't just avoid having to have nukes, but we actually profit off the deal. Sure, terrorists and the like might not like us, but we can't just go hurling nuclear weapons at them, unless they're on our own turf (and let's be honest, only a complete fucking moron is going to use one where their own people can get hurt). Nuclear deterrance might work, but there's better and cheaper ways to go about getting a similar result.

 

[Serius]

We dont exactly need them because US should look out for us, and i dont see any situations in a conventional war where we would be using them. I am not really against the idea though, if the people in power think we might need them to safeguard ourselves, or incase our alliances fell through then i think thats a valid reason.

the fallout with our allies would be pretty bad at first, but Israel got away with it so in the long term i dont think it would hurt our alliances. The world doesnt really take us seriously anyway, if we showed we had some serious weopons then maybe we would have some more bargaining power

[ I voted yes because no implies i have a strong opinion against it, where really i think both points of view are valid]

 

[banco55]

We dont exactly need them because US should look out for us, and i dont see any situations in a conventional war where we would be using them. I am not really against the idea though, if the people in power think we might need them to safeguard ourselves, or incase our alliances fell through then i think thats a valid reason.

the fallout with our allies would be pretty bad at first, but Israel got away with it so in the long term i dont think it would hurt our alliances. The world doesnt really take us seriously anyway, if we showed we had some serious weopons then maybe we would have some more bargaining power

[ I voted yes because no implies i have a strong opinion against it, where really i think both points of view are valid]

a)Israel has never admitted they have nuclear weapons
b)Israel never signed the non-proliferation treaty
c)Israel has the Israeli lobby to protect it in the US

 

[undalay]

Building more nuclear weapons to defend ourselves is just as silly as Americans wanting more guns so they can defend themselves from other guns.

 

[Suvat]

No nuclear weapons, but we should lobby the US to sell us some F22's

 

[Atilla89]

a)Israel has never admitted they have nuclear weapons
b)Israel never signed the non-proliferation treaty
c)Israel has the Israeli lobby to protect it in the US

Correction Israel has admited to nukes.

Back on topic - I don't see anything wrong with Australia having nukes. It means that many countries will take us seriously and we will no longer have to rely on the U.S. for defense.

On the other hand someone mentioned earlier that countries will be obliged to develop nukes to counter our threat. I don't see a problem with that either unless they are a dictatorship or have a leader who has genocidal tendancies (Iran). So IMO nukes for Australia are not a bad thing and may result in some good.

 

[HotShot]

WE cant developed nuclear weapons - with developing a decent space programme first...

ITs not easy building nukes -- you dont just make one lol - you need a reactor.. then you need to do heaps of testing on the missiles and then you need the technology for guiding them.

At themoment Australia has none of the above - so if do we have nuclear bomb - everyone will know we cant do shit with it anyway. (apart blow up ourselves).

 

[Lucid Scintilla]

Oh yes, yes, please, more WMD's and similar massacring weapons. Oh please, I think we should also join the Nuclear Age in terms of weaponry too, so we can blow the world into smithereens.

Yes, I think Australia should develop nukes; no, I think Australia shouldn't use them.

As if we aren't already close enough, in terms of minutes, to 'midnight'.

 

[Serius]

No nuclear weapons, but we should lobby the US to sell us some F22's

Oh yeah iam totally for that plan, those jets are sweet. I think the f-15 ratio was something like 3:1 with enemies shot down and that jet is like 30 years old.

Although the JSFs we are supposed to have/be getting are pretty good aswell and they totally suit the way we fight wars f-22's are just like the cutting edge. Its like buying a minivan [even if its a 2007 model] because you have a big family and then comparing that to a porche.

Can f-22's even be shot down? those things cant even be seen with current enemy tech, they can whipe the floor with anything else on the market.

Anyways enough about that, more on n00ks!!!! we need them cause they are cool.

 

[Josie]

No.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

No nuclear weapons, but we should lobby the US to sell us some F22's

- The US isn't going to give them to us until they have their own new fighters.
- They're basically a penis fighter that will probably serve little purpose to australia for their price.
- It has little ground strike capability.... they're really just perfect dogfighters.

 

[Suvat]

- The US isn't going to give them to us until they have their own new fighters.
- They're basically a penis fighter that will probably serve little purpose to australia for their price.
- It has little ground strike capability.... they're really just perfect dogfighters.

- The US already have 183 operational and appear unlikely to order any more for themselves. Although foreign sales are currently still prohibited by law, that looks like it's about to change very soon (the same situation existed with previous US fighters such as the f-15). Lockheed have suggested that if the F22 is not exported, then its production line will have to be shut down by 2011.

- Due to the US now classfying the R&D expenses of the F22 as a "sunk cost", it is likely that a stripped down export variant of the F22 will have a variable cost as little as $US100 million, compared with the $US50 million of the JSF (which may still blowout further, and is also stripped down in the case of the Australian version), and currently nothing comes close to the F22 in air superiority capability. Also, the performance of the F22 is proven, while the JSF is not.

- They can be adopted for a ground strike role, in any case, I am not suggesting that instead of purchasing JSF's that we purchase F22's, but rather purchase some F22's to compliment JSF's. (in a ratio of about 1 F22: 4 JSF).

With neighbouring nations such as Malaysia and India soon to acquire the very latest in Russian air superiority fighters such as Su30MKI, Su37, MiG35 and possibly even the PAK-FA (the Russian answer to the F22) in the case of India, it is questionable whether the JSF will be clearly superior in air to air combat, and local air superiority is required before ground strike aircraft can function effectively. The F22's will be required to clear out the skies before the JSF are sent in.

In any case, Australia is planning to purchase 24 Super Hornets at a cost of $A6 billion to plug the gap in between the retirement of the F1-11 in 2010 and the delivery of the JSF (earliest 2013, latest 2018). It would be much wiser to spend this money on F22's rather than acquiring another fourth generation fighter with very little stealth capability.

 

[Suvat]

http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Flanker.html

A very detailed article about the shifting balance of regional air power.

 

[Aryanbeauty]

I'd say No. It will bankrupt poor countries like australia.

Have you ever though about how lucky australia, canada and most european countries are. They don't have to worry about being invaded or attacked by other countries because they have a Big brother in arms in USA that they can trust through thick and thin. US taxpayers are basically subsidising the safety and territorial integrity of almost all western countries. Life is meant to be give and take but for some people its just take, take and take!