Poll: Nuclear Weapons

Recommended Videos

Jinx_Dragon

New member
Jan 19, 2009
1,274
0
0
I know some people would think I am mad for even raising the possibility but have we really thought about the question that much?

Open up a map and look at the size of Australia and how much of that land is uninhabitable. Realise we have only 53 odd thousand military personal to defend all that land and 20-25 odd million people living here. Now let your eyes drift upwards, to those innocent looking island chains a fraction of our nations size. Realise there is more then a hundred million people on those islands, with more then enough weapons stock piled and laws allowing them to conscript an armed force larger then the number of people we have in our entire nation.

Geologically and number wise, we are screwed. Geologically because we have put road and infrastructures in place to overcome the harshness of our environment. We can't rely on mountain ranges to stop an enemy advance any more, our rainforests all have paths cut through them and there is more then enough airfields, sea ports, power stations and the likes that would just be handed over to an invading force as we don't have enough personal to prevent that from happening.

Now politically we have made the problem worse! Over the Howard administrations reign the people of these island nations where used as a whipping boy to focus racism into a political policy. Those fleeing oppression are treated as criminals and locked up, sometimes for longer then we actually hold real criminals. The hatred to those the north of us, the distrust for their religious beliefs and different culture, has been turned into a frenzy by the media and government. To the point people now bash Muslims and Asians openly and don't feel ashamed if they yell racist comments to people who could very well have ancestors living here longer then their own.

That can't be generating a very good image in the minds and hearts of the people still over there.

On top of that we interfere in their local affairs as if we where America or something! Using our political might and more organised military force to shoulder our way to getting what we want. East Timor surely pissed off the Indonesian to no end and considering how we have treated the Timorese, or whatever they are called, afterwards we probably pissed a great deal of them off too. Howard put a puppet government in play that signed away their oil and natural gas reserves, for example. Which has made a lot of people, myself included, believe that we went over there with nothing but a plan to steal their natural reserves.

Now we are entering into a era of turmoil, where the world economy is shaky and nations might start having to focus on problems in their own borders if things get worse. All it would take is one serious event, financial or political, and many of our stronger allies may be too busy to come to our aid. The fact we are a commonwealth nation ensures as a measure of defence, but what if those other nations no longer have the means to come to our rescue?

Nuclear weapons: The ultimate deterrent to invasion.
So should we build a few?
 

Dealin Burgers

New member
Feb 21, 2008
185
0
0
A few bombs wouldn't hurt. We do have all that uranium lying around, someone's sure to be eyeing it intently.
 

Gamer137

New member
Jun 7, 2008
1,204
0
0
Jinx_Dragon said:
Nuclear weapons: The ultimate deterrent to invasion. So should we build a few?
Our nukes did not prevent 9/11, so its not really "ultimate".
 

Chickenlittle

New member
Sep 4, 2008
687
0
0
Because of the current state of the world, I'd say build them. You don't even need to make them functional, or even commission any, but just let the world know that you have them, so as to improve your credibility on the world stage.
 

Fenring

New member
Sep 5, 2008
2,041
0
0
Personally I don't think nukes are the best option, more trouble than they're worth. I think a highly funded and well trained military and police force would get the job done with much less hassle.
 

SkinnySlim

New member
Oct 23, 2008
199
0
0
Bah, being American, I'm not about to say you shouldn't have them. But, I've served with some of your navy, and they are very capable of handling themselves. Damned impressive on their anti air, made us look like a bunch of pansies with all of our technology, so I wouldn't fret much. Besides, have you not noticed that us yanks will go to war at the drop of a hat, no matter if we are over stretched or not?
 

shadow_pirate22

New member
Aug 25, 2008
301
0
0
If the islands DID invade, what's to stop other countries from coming to Australia's aid? or from America saying, "Back off. WE have nukes, and will use them (if America would say that.)"
 

Jinx_Dragon

New member
Jan 19, 2009
1,274
0
0
needausername said:
They aren't really though, and the claimed political reason for the Iraq war is proof.
I would disagree. Claiming someone has nukes when you know very well they do not posses the means to purify water, let alone build a nuclear device, is not evidence of 'lack of deterrent.' It is evident of lying politicians who want to start wars and have no qualms about just how they go about doing so though.

How about North Korea?

How quickly was it drooped from the list of 'the nexus of evil' even after it claimed success in tested a nuclear weapon. The cold war remained cold because of nuclear weapons on both sides. Egypt and Israel are no longer lobbing bombs and tanks at each other, and Israel isn't even official about it's weapon stock piles. History seems to suggest every nation with nuclear weapons is less likely to see full military invasion.

So why should we just hope our charming personality, tarnished after Howard, is enough to ward off attack should it become viable for another nation to attack us?

neoman10 said:
Watch 'End of Ze World'
I liked that.
 

Knight Templar

Moved on
Dec 29, 2007
3,848
0
0
shadow_pirate22 said:
If the islands DID invade, what's to stop other countries from coming to Australia's aid? or from America saying, "Back off. WE have nukes, and will use them (if America would say that.)"
We have a treaty with america, if eather of us is attacked the other joins in.
 

Jamash

Top Todger
Jun 25, 2008
3,638
0
0
Jinx_Dragon said:
Nuclear weapons: The ultimate deterrent to invasion.
So if Australia was going to be invaded you would nuke yourself, because surely nobody would want to invade a nuclear wasteland, right?

Or do you mean you'd nuke the homeland of whoever was invading you?

But wouldn't that make the invading force fight harder to take over Australia, since they would have no homeland to go back to. The only way would be forwards.

If the threat is that close to Australia, would you even be able to justifiably get some nukes off before the invasion force was too close to you?

There's probably no better way to ruin "the best beaches in the world" than by nuking the seas around them.
 

ellimist337

New member
Sep 30, 2008
500
0
0
I don't know how much of a place I'm in to say, not living there myself, but I don't know that it's really necessary. They seem to make you more of a target than anything (see: North Korea, Iran, Iraq, Cold War, Cuban Missile Crisis, etc.) And:

Jinx_Dragon said:
Open up a map and look at the size of Australia and how much of that land is uninhabitable.
If so much is uninhabitable and there's so little room, why would they want to invade at all? And, if I'm not mistaken, you're referring to Indonesia, or a combination of Indonesia and Papua New Guinea, neither of whom have more than about 20% [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditure] of Australia's military spending, despite the fact that Indonesia does have a larger military by number. Also, Australia is a member of the UN, and is allied with entities such as the United States, Germany, and the UK; all of whom would be willing to come to Australia's aid.

I'm not saying that places like the UK and the US deserve to have nukes and Australia doesn't, but if you can get by without them, shouldn't you try? Wouldn't a few less nuclear weapons in the world be a good thing? Just look at the Cold War and what almost happened due largely to "preemptive stockpiling"
 

thenumberthirteen

Unlucky for some
Dec 19, 2007
4,789
0
0
Australia's pretty screwed militarily (didn't they give their entire navy 2 weeks off last year?)rather than Nukes they should just spend their money making Australia even more awesome. That or a Robot Army
 

Jinx_Dragon

New member
Jan 19, 2009
1,274
0
0
Gamer137 said:
Jinx_Dragon said:
Nuclear weapons: The ultimate deterrent to invasion. So should we build a few?
Our nukes did not prevent 9/11, so its not really "ultimate".
9/11 wasn't a military invasion now was it. I don't remember seeing waves of Saudi' storming all over New York.
 

Jinx_Dragon

New member
Jan 19, 2009
1,274
0
0
CountFenring said:
Personally I don't think nukes are the best option, more trouble than they're worth. I think a highly funded and well trained military and police force would get the job done with much less hassle.
The Skill vs numbers argument is a interesting one, the sort I was hoping this thread would generate cause I don't have an answer for it. Would a more elite armed forces, of which Australia has some of the best trained soldiers in the world, defeat a much greater hoard of untrained conscripts. I for one don't want to see it tested, but the question is one I have pondered many a time.

No reason we can't have both elite forces and nukes though.
 

TheBluesader

New member
Mar 9, 2008
1,003
0
0
Knight Templar said:
We have a treaty with america, if eather of us is attacked the other joins in.
Speaking as an American who has known Australians, I'm proud to say that we're in this crap together, and that if you're ever attacked - and I have anything to say about it - we'll rush in and overreact to prove to the planet how awesome both of us are.

Of course, most of the threats today come from religious lunatics of multiple ethnicities who live in Central Asian caves and can't afford to do more than run OUR planes into OUR buildings. So nukes and treaties don't count for much. But I guess the idea of massive fraternal nuclear retaliation is still in vogue, so...YAY!

BTW, your avatar is fantastic. Long live the Swordbrothers!
 

NeedAUserName

New member
Aug 7, 2008
3,803
0
0
Jinx_Dragon said:
Gamer137 said:
Jinx_Dragon said:
Nuclear weapons: The ultimate deterrent to invasion. So should we build a few?
Our nukes did not prevent 9/11, so its not really "ultimate".
9/11 wasn't a military invasion now was it. I don't remember seeing waves of Saudi' storming all over New York.
No put what he's getting at, I think, is that there is no ultimate deterrent, as there are people that would happily give their lives to destroy others. And it would be quite possible to launch another attack like that, put use more planes, for more effect, so in a way, you could invade them by doing that on a much larger scale.
 

Jinx_Dragon

New member
Jan 19, 2009
1,274
0
0
shadow_pirate22 said:
If the islands DID invade, what's to stop other countries from coming to Australia's aid? or from America saying, "Back off. WE have nukes, and will use them (if America would say that.)"
That was part of the hypothetical, cause while we are selling uranium and ore to China we are going to have a massive deterrent for invasion right there and won't need nuclear weapons. China can field armies numbering into the millions and would probably come to our aid.

So what if there is a time where we can't rely on them to come to our aid?