Australia to join the nuke club ?????

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

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

http://www.thesundaymail.news.com.au...55E421,00.html


Cheers

Dave Kearton

"Dave Kearton" wrote in message
...



http://www.thesundaymail.news.com.au...55E421,00.html

If Iran and North Korea can have them, can Australia be far behind? (^-^)))

George Z.

"The Raven" wrote in message

"Dave Kearton" wrote in message
...




http://www.thesundaymail.news.com.au...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)

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

"Tom Schoene" wrote in message
ink.net...
"The Raven" wrote in message

"Dave Kearton" wrote in message
...





http://www.thesundaymail.news.com.au...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

"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)

"L'acrobat" wrote in message
...

"The Raven" wrote in message
...
"Dave Kearton" wrote in message
...





http://www.thesundaymail.news.com.au...55E421,00.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

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.