Australia to join the nuke club ?????

"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

"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?

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

http://www.theadvertiser.news.com.au...%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

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.

"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

"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?

"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

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

"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.