Australia to join the nuke club ?????

[David Bromage]

A load of crock to anybody who knows anything about basic science. The
HIFAR reactor Lucas Heights is a VERY small research reactor, capable of
nothing more than nuclear research (msinly neutron beam stuff) and
producing medical isotopes. It holds a maximum of 7kg of fuel. Even the
proposed Jervis Bay reactor was not designed to produce fissile material
(or even electricity).

But there is no doubt that the Australian governments up until about
1970 wanted Australia to have nuclear weapons. RAAF made informal
investigations as early as 1956 about acquiring nuclear weapons from the
UK for use in the Canberra. In a letter to Air Commodore N. Ford,
Overseas HQ, London, of 5th July 1956, Air Marshal Sir John McCauley
wrote: "For your personal information only, I am taking the initial
steps in an endeavour to have a supply of tactical atomic weapons made
available from the United States for use from our Canberras and Sabres.
Much will depend on the outcome of these negotiations."

In his reply, dated 5 October 1956, Ford advised: "The only nuclear bomb
at present available to the R.A.F. of U.K. origin is the 10,000 lb H.C.
M.C. otherwise known as the BLUE DANUBE. This bomb has only just been
cleared for Valiants. Vulcan trials are still proceeding. A smaller
nuclear bomb - 2000 lb is being developed for the Canberra force."

RAAF seriously looked at getting Vulcans. AIR36 took into account the
lessons of Korea, in which the RAAF found it was unprepared for extended
overseas operations. The AIR36 requirement was for an offensive tactical
strike capability for the defence of Malaya, and strategic defence of
Australia with targets as far north as the Kra Peninsula in China. The
bomber was required to have a range of not less than 4,000 nautical
miles and be capable of carrying at least 20,000lb of bombs or "1 x
10,000lb special bomb" (presumably the Blue Danube).

In the 1957 Australian Defence Review, Air Minister F.M. Osborne
recommended "the re-arming of one fighter squadron with U.S. Lockheed
F.104 aircraft". While a strategic bomber was no longer an option, the
F-104 was considered because it was "capable of carrying conventional
guided weapons and nuclear weapons".

Following delivery of the Mirage III, one of the options for replacing
the Canberra was the Mirage IV. The A-5 Vigilante was also considered as
a replacement for the Canberra.

The F-4Es leased in 1970-73 were standard block 43/44 straight out of
the factory to USAF specs, and were capable of carrying "special
stores". When it looked like delivery of the F-111 would be delayed even
further, the Department of Defence considered cancelling the F-111 and
keeping the Phantoms on an extended lease or outright purchase.

Australia was part of the Blue Streak and Black Knight projects, and had
a firm order for the Bloodhound III SAMs with 6kt warheads.

Cheers
David

[David Bromage]

william cogswell wrote:
> On my way back from spending 3 wks in Sydney (courtesy of the company
:) )
> the Quantas flight had a hr. long story on the aussie nuke program
from the
> 50's with the brits to the early 70's on their own. From what i could
tell
> they have already done a lot of the ground work for a nuke if they so
> desire.

This was a doco called Fortess Australia. It's being repeated this
Sunday (20/7) at 5pm on ABC (Australian Broadcasing Corporation, that
is). On the whole it's a good piece, but does contain some major errors
about the purpose of the Jervis Bay reactor. This was actually a pet
project of Sir Mark Oliphant to build a nuclear desalination plant. He
wanted to build a string of them along the South Australian coast and
pipe fresh water inland for irrigation.

Cheers
David

[Dave Kearton]

http://www.thesundaymail.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5936,6744863%255E421,00.html


Cheers

Dave Kearton

[Gooneybird]

"Dave Kearton" > wrote in message
...
>
>
>
http://www.thesundaymail.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5936,6744863%255E421,00.html
>
If Iran and North Korea can have them, can Australia be far behind? (^-^)))

George Z.

[Tom Schoene]

"The Raven" > wrote in message

> "Dave Kearton" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> >
> >
>
http://www.thesundaymail.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5936,6744863%255E42
1,00.html
>
> I wouldn't put too much faith in this report. If Australia wanted
> nuclear
> weapons it would be far easier and cost effective to get them from
> the US
> rather than develop their own weapons.

Except that the US has never -- and proably will never -- export nuclear
weapons. Such exports are a clear and direct violation of the Nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty, whatever that's worth these days, and woudl be a
clear departure from US Policy back to the beginning of the nuclear age..
Even the Brits had to develop their own warheads to put on the missiles they
bought from us.

I'd agree with the overall assessment that this report is a load of ordure.
--
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"If brave men and women never died, there would be nothing
special about bravery." -- Andy Rooney (attributed)

[Spehro Pefhany]

On Sun, 13 Jul 2003 14:31:07 GMT, the renowned "william cogswell"
> wrote:

>On my way back from spending 3 wks in Sydney (courtesy of the company :) )
>the Quantas flight had a hr. long story on the aussie nuke program from the
>50's with the brits to the early 70's on their own. From what i could tell
>they have already done a lot of the ground work for a nuke if they so
>desire.

Countries such as Oz, Canada and Japan could go nuclear within months
if they felt the need to. The technology and materials are all there.

Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com

[tim gueguen]

"Tom Schoene" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> "The Raven" > wrote in message
>
> > "Dave Kearton" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
http://www.thesundaymail.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5936,6744863%255E42
> 1,00.html
> >
> > I wouldn't put too much faith in this report. If Australia wanted
> > nuclear
> > weapons it would be far easier and cost effective to get them from
> > the US
> > rather than develop their own weapons.
>
> Except that the US has never -- and proably will never -- export nuclear
> weapons.

On the other hand they are willing to lease them, for lack of a better term.
Canada's nuclear warheads were all loaners from the US.

tim gueguen 101867

[Thomas Schoene]

"tim gueguen" > wrote in message
. ca
> "Tom Schoene" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
> > Except that the US has never -- and proably will never -- export
> > nuclear weapons.
>
> On the other hand they are willing to lease them, for lack of a
> better term. Canada's nuclear warheads were all loaners from the US.
>
> tim gueguen 101867

The various NATO nukes were never available to use without US consent. We
owned them and maintained phyical control over them.

--
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"If brave men and women never died, there would be nothing
special about bravery." -- Andy Rooney (attributed)

[The Raven]

"L'acrobat" > wrote in message
...
>
> "The Raven" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "Dave Kearton" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
http://www.thesundaymail.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5936,6744863%255E421,00.html
> >
> > I wouldn't put too much faith in this report. If Australia wanted
nuclear
> > weapons it would be far easier and cost effective to get them from the
US
> > rather than develop their own weapons.
> >
>
> They may not want to sell them.

That is true but then they'd probably not want Australia to develop them
either.

>
> > A. Why would Australia want nuclear weapons?
>
> I see you've not heard of Nth Korea and its threats of nuclear war against
> all and sundry.

In that case, why not let everyone have them.............

> > B. Why would they want to develop them instead of obtaining some
existing
> > weapons from an ally?
>
> In the past there have been occaisions where far less politically
sensitive
> weapons have been unavailable from our allies.

Yes, but the justification for them is valid (with the allies) then there
really shouldn't be a reason why Australia couldn't purchase them.

> > C. How would Australia afford either?
>
> If its considered neccessary, it can be afforded.

I'm asking for some general specifics on how it could be afforded. Perhaps
scrap everything in the pink book etc and spend it all on nuke capability.

>
> > D. Who would be the likely targets?
>
> Deterrence.
>
> > E. What's the delivery platform? Missile or aircraft? If aircraft, which
> > one..........there is only one and it's not going to be around for much
> > longer?
>
> If it's aircraft, it can be hung under almost any we may buy in the
future.

Assuming Australia can afford aircraft after funding the development of the
weapon........

> > F. What about upsetting the neighbours? It's going to pi** off some
> already
> > fragile relationships.
>
> What about it?
>
> The Aust Govts job involves security for Aust, not kissing Indon arse
(thats
> the Labor partys job).
>
>
> Do I think the article is accurate? not really, but I can certainly see
> where it is in Austs best interest to have an ability to aquire nukes
within
> a few years if needed.

It can be envisaged that one day Australia may need or want a nuclear
capability but in the present environment it seems inappropriate.

>
> I suspect a few people in high places were rather surprised lately to see
> that the NNPT has been about as effective as the League of Nations at
> assuring peace in our time.
>

The Raven

[Quant]

Spehro Pefhany > wrote in message >...
> On Sun, 13 Jul 2003 14:31:07 GMT, the renowned "william cogswell"
> > wrote:
>
> >On my way back from spending 3 wks in Sydney (courtesy of the company :) )
> >the Quantas flight had a hr. long story on the aussie nuke program from the
> >50's with the brits to the early 70's on their own. From what i could tell
> >they have already done a lot of the ground work for a nuke if they so
> >desire.
>
> Countries such as Oz, Canada and Japan could go nuclear within months
> if they felt the need to. The technology and materials are all there.
>
> Best regards,
> Spehro Pefhany



The technology is there because they signed the NPT.

[The Raven]

"Richard Lamb" > wrote in message
...
> Like many of you, I grew up under the threat of a nuclear cloud.

Same here, having lived with 1/2 a mile of a nuclear storage facility.

> For me, almost literally, since my family lived in New Mexico.
> Call it 1955 or so.

More recent than that for a lot of us.

> We really were taught to "duck and cover" in school.

We were taught to kiss your a** goodbye if you saw the key signs of an
attack being launched.

> Civil Defense tested the city sirens once a month.

The electric ones in our area were rarely tested and, in any case, were
ineffective as there was no way to get out of ground zero quick enough.

> The car radio had those two little circled triangle markers.
>
> I attended church regularly (Mom's are like that, you know).
> And in silent prayers, I always inclueded,
> "Please, Dear God, Please don't let them drop The Bomb".
>
> I probably haven't prayed as much as Mom would have prefered
> since then, but this one is sincere.
>
> Thank you, Dear God, for not letting them drop the bomb.

"Please, Dear God, Please don't let anyone drop The Bomb EVER".

The Raven

[L'acrobat]

"The Raven" > wrote in message
...

> >
> > They may not want to sell them.
>
> That is true but then they'd probably not want Australia to develop them
> either.

Having an ability to develop them means a refusal to supply is not a
complete dead end.

>
> >
> > > A. Why would Australia want nuclear weapons?
> >
> > I see you've not heard of Nth Korea and its threats of nuclear war
against
> > all and sundry.
>
> In that case, why not let everyone have them.............

Everybody who wants them ARE working on them, some people are/have been
pretending that they are not....


> >
> > In the past there have been occaisions where far less politically
> sensitive
> > weapons have been unavailable from our allies.
>
> Yes, but the justification for them is valid (with the allies) then there
> really shouldn't be a reason why Australia couldn't purchase them.

Suppose NK (for example) stated that an attack on NK by a US supplied (but
Aust delivered) nuke would be considered a US nuclear attack and responded
to in kind.

It is not hard to see where, in such a circumstance, the USA might not
refuse to supply.

>
> > > C. How would Australia afford either?
> >
> > If its considered neccessary, it can be afforded.
>
> I'm asking for some general specifics on how it could be afforded. Perhaps
> scrap everything in the pink book etc and spend it all on nuke capability.

We have much of the expertise, we know how its done and we know it can be
done.

It's not that expensive.

> > > E. What's the delivery platform? Missile or aircraft? If aircraft,
which
> > > one..........there is only one and it's not going to be around for
much
> > > longer?
> >
> > If it's aircraft, it can be hung under almost any we may buy in the
> future.
>
> Assuming Australia can afford aircraft after funding the development of
the
> weapon........
>

Pakistan can afford to develop a nuke.

> > Do I think the article is accurate? not really, but I can certainly see
> > where it is in Austs best interest to have an ability to aquire nukes
> within
> > a few years if needed.
>
> It can be envisaged that one day Australia may need or want a nuclear
> capability but in the present environment it seems inappropriate.

An environment where a country led by an irrational regime that smuggles
drugs into Aust to raise money publically considers attempts to stop this an
act of war, possesses nukes, ballistic missiles and routinely threatens to
use them?

When would you consider it appropriate?

[David McArthur]

> Even the Brits had to develop their own warheads to put on the missiles they
> bought from us.

Not sure - there was a lot of noise ('noise' meaning
unsubstantiated/unofficial 2nd hand information!) about our (UK)
weapons from the WE177 freefall bomb, nuc depth charges to the new
Trident warhead being based on US designs.

fas.org, thebulletin.org, HEW archive etc...


David

[robert arndt]

http://www.theadvertiser.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5936,6744636%5E911,00.html

Buying off-shelf from the US is the best solution and I wouldn't be
surprised if President Bush agreed to sell some "tactical weapons" to
Australia. As for the NPT, it is subject to interpretation like
anything else... what does and does not violate the treaty. Bush wants
a new generation of smaller "micro-nukes" and "burrowing weapons" that
get around the NPT guidelines.
I say sell Oz some surplus strategic bombers and throw in some
tactical nukes for good measure. That ought to send a message to
Australia's asian neighbors in the region that are contemplating using
WMDs against Australian citizens or supplying them to terrorists.
Two thumbs up on the issue...

Rob

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
(robert arndt) wrote:

> I say sell Oz some surplus strategic bombers and throw in some
> tactical nukes for good measure. That ought to send a message to
> Australia's asian neighbors in the region that are contemplating using
> WMDs against Australian citizens or supplying them to terrorists.

Why in the world would the US want to sell someone else nukes, when we
can drop one anywhere on the planet with 12 hours notice, and keep
control over the ones we have?

--


Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[The Raven]

"Chad Irby" > wrote in message
om...
> In article >,
> (robert arndt) wrote:
>
> > I say sell Oz some surplus strategic bombers and throw in some
> > tactical nukes for good measure. That ought to send a message to
> > Australia's asian neighbors in the region that are contemplating using
> > WMDs against Australian citizens or supplying them to terrorists.
>
> Why in the world would the US want to sell someone else nukes, when we
> can drop one anywhere on the planet with 12 hours notice, and keep
> control over the ones we have?

By putting them into the hands of allies the US can play Pontious Pilate if
need be.

The Raven

[L'acrobat]

"The Raven" > wrote in message
...

> > Why in the world would the US want to sell someone else nukes, when we
> > can drop one anywhere on the planet with 12 hours notice, and keep
> > control over the ones we have?
>
> By putting them into the hands of allies the US can play Pontious Pilate
if
> need be.

You mean they will welease wodger?

[The Raven]

"L'acrobat" > wrote in message
...
>
> "The Raven" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > > Why in the world would the US want to sell someone else nukes, when we
> > > can drop one anywhere on the planet with 12 hours notice, and keep
> > > control over the ones we have?
> >
> > By putting them into the hands of allies the US can play Pontious Pilate
> if
> > need be.
>
> You mean they will welease wodger?

and woderwick..............

The Raven

[Guy Alcala]

The Raven wrote:

> "L'acrobat" > wrote in message
> Why in the world would the US want to sell someone else nukes, when we
> > > > can drop one anywhere on the planet with 12 hours notice, and keep
> > > > control over the ones we have?
> > ...
> >
> > "The Raven" > wrote in message

<snip>

>
> > > By putting them into the hands of allies the US can play Pontious Pilate
> > if
> > > need be.
> >
> > You mean they will welease wodger?
>
> and woderwick..............
>

And Wudolph the wed-nosed weindeah (ph).

Guy

[The Raven]

"David McArthur" > wrote in message
om...
> Spehro Pefhany > wrote in message
>...
> > On Sun, 13 Jul 2003 14:31:07 GMT, the renowned "william cogswell"
> > > wrote:
> >
> > >On my way back from spending 3 wks in Sydney (courtesy of the company
:) )
> > >the Quantas flight had a hr. long story on the aussie nuke program from
the
> > >50's with the brits to the early 70's on their own. From what i could
tell
> > >they have already done a lot of the ground work for a nuke if they so
> > >desire.
> >
> > Countries such as Oz, Canada and Japan could go nuclear within months
> > if they felt the need to. The technology and materials are all there.
>
> But they had better be careful not get on the United States' ****
> list for having weapons of mass destruction:-
>
> We've already have the "axis of evil"
>
> I suppose we'll have the "axis of not quite so evil and really quite
> nice"

But Australia was part of the "coalition of the willing"

> ...sorry, slow day at the office again

Same here.

--
The Raven
http://www.80scartoons.co.uk/batfinkquote.mp3
** President of the ozemail.* and uunet.* NG's
** since August 15th 2000.

[Gernot Hassenpflug]

"The Raven" > writes:

> "L'acrobat" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "The Raven" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>> > > Why in the world would the US want to sell someone else nukes, when we
>> > > can drop one anywhere on the planet with 12 hours notice, and keep
>> > > control over the ones we have?
>> >
>> > By putting them into the hands of allies the US can play Pontious Pilate
>> if
>> > need be.
>>
>> You mean they will welease wodger?
>
> and woderwick..............
>
> The Raven

We have to get out of the sewers, the Romans have a feast on later tonight....
--
G Hassenpflug * IJN & JMSDF equipment/history fan

[The Raven]

"robert arndt" > wrote in message
om...
> "The Raven" > wrote in message
>...
> > "Chad Irby" > wrote in message
> > om...
> > > In article >,
> > > (robert arndt) wrote:
> > >
> > > > I say sell Oz some surplus strategic bombers and throw in some
> > > > tactical nukes for good measure. That ought to send a message to
> > > > Australia's asian neighbors in the region that are contemplating
using
> > > > WMDs against Australian citizens or supplying them to terrorists.
> > >
> > > Why in the world would the US want to sell someone else nukes, when we
> > > can drop one anywhere on the planet with 12 hours notice, and keep
> > > control over the ones we have?
> >
> > By putting them into the hands of allies the US can play Pontious Pilate
if
> > need be.
> >
> > The Raven
>
> Tell me, what is there to prevent North Korea from selling some nukes
> to Al Qaida for immediate shipment to targets in the US, UK, and
> Australia once the N Koreans have produced a significant quantity?

One could say the same thing about any number of countries.

Firstly, would NK want to sell nukes?
Do they have "sufficient" numbers? If not, when would that be?
Would they want to sell them to Al Qaeda?
Would Al Qaeda be able to afford them?
Would they be able to deliver them to the customer without being detected?

> I'd
> say that would enable THEM to play Pilate wouldn't you say?

I see your point but I think that situation is highly unlikely considering
how closely they are being watched.

> Australia is at a crossroads right now militarily.

Why?

> They are a lot
> closer to Indonesia, North Korea, China, and the Phillipines than we
> are.
> The threat of war closer to their home is valid and the
> Australian forces must now switch from a defensive posture to an
> offensive one- ready to respond to any provocation against their
> nation.

Australia has no hope of sustaining any offensive actions against a
neighbour, not without a lot of support from it's allies........

Australia has no plans for any offensive actions and realises it would be
difficult to defend itself from a landed attack. The concept has always been
to hold any enemies off at a distance. Stop them before they get to
Australia otherwise it's going to be hard to stop them.

Having said that, Australias greatest defence is it's natural environment
and distances. Logistics for any sort of invading force would be near
impossible to maintain.

> If they want to purchase strategic bombers and tactical nukes
> then that's alright by me...

Australia already has strategic bombers capable of dropping nukes. Just no
nukes.

> the US has enough to spare.
> Just imagine what's going to happen if war breaks out against N Korea
> and China gets involved in the Taiwan Straight. No more "easy wars
> against pathetic nations". Both N Korea and China will have the
> capability of hitting us with nukes along with the uneasy Japanese and
> S Koreans caught in the middle.

Which "us" are you talking about, America presumably.

You seem to be implying that if Australia had nukes the chances of a nuclear
war would be diminished...........

> War could easily spread southward as
> terrorists attempt to aquire WMDs. Sydney would make an excellent
> target. All it would take is a small ship with a WMD detonated in the
> harbor.

You don't need a WMD to attack Australia. As far as Sydney is concerned, we
could do without it.

> Maybe as an American you could care less.

I'm not American and don't live in America.

> But Oz doesn't want a 9/11
> to happen to them. And they HAVE been threatened already by Al Qaida
> cells operating in Indonesia and the Phillipines.

You need to see these threats for what they are, scare tactics to make
Australia reconsider assisting the US. Sure, the threats still need to be
treated with respect .

> Australia was one of the few nations that actually provided combat
> troops for OIF. We needed them and they did an excellent job with a
> mere 2000 troops. I say give the Aussies what they need.

The real question is "Does Australia really want nuclear weapons with all
the political, economic, and diplomatic issues it will raise?"

I think it would set Australia up as a bigger terrorist target than ever.

The Raven

[robert arndt]

http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5478,6742543%5E662,00.html

I don't think the NPT matters to either Howard or Bush... seems some
kind of arrangement is already in the works. Again, it's alright by
me.

Rob