Australia to join the nuke club ?????

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.

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

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?