Poll: Nuclear Weapons

[Jinx_Dragon]

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.

I find it hard to imagine a one off attack, even on a large scale, of suicidal bombers being anywhere comparable to a military invasion. After all, after they have all killed themselves off why would there be a reason to fight?

Besides these acts where criminal and not acts of war.

 

[NeedAUserName]

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.

I find it hard to imagine a one off attack, even on a large scale, of suicidal bombers being anywhere comparable to a military invasion. After all, after they have all killed themselves off why would there be a reason to fight?

Besides these acts where criminal and not acts of war.

Yes but in this hypothetical situation, there is nothing to stop a nations army from committing these war crimes.

 

[Danzaivar]

Speaking as an Englishman, you don't need nukes at all. Just keep friendly with America and you'll be fine.

If you did get nukes it would be like Britain's nuclear situation, we have them but America has the codes so we need their permission to fire (Apparently). Either way you end up dependent on America, but it's a damn sight cheaper to not develop nuclear weaponry and bother with maintenance costs.

The only time the damn things will be used is in an Alien invasion or World War 3. WW3 will last about a day and will wipe out civilisation as we know it, no point wasting money on firecrackers to blow up at Doomsday. Invest the money in some hospitals or some weapons you might actually use.

 

[Jinx_Dragon]

If so much is uninhabitable and there's so little room, why would they want to invade at all?

There is parts of Australia that are inhabitable and we have a lot of resources in those uninhabitable parts. In this argument though I was meaning those parts to be landing zones, pointing out how we couldn't be expected to defend all that open boarder with the amount of troops we have. A lot of that land is suitable for landing craft, both sea and air, which raises the question could we defend Australia from invasion through conventional means?

From what I have heard from reservists, even our military brass answers that question as no. Our plans in case of invasion is to evacuate everyone down south and carry out a fighting retreat till we get into positions that can be more defended. Of course that leaves massive amounts of infrastructure that the enemy could use to live quite comfortably on the lands we just surrendered while they bring more and more troops across the sea.

Then they can just zerg us....

 

[savandicus]

Noone should have nukes, end of. The more countries that have them then the higher the probability that someone uses them. Noone wants a nuclear war (except fallout 3 fans) lets not make it more likely.

 

[ellimist337]

If so much is uninhabitable and there's so little room, why would they want to invade at all?

There is parts of Australia that are inhabitable and we have a lot of resources in those uninhabitable parts. In this argument though I was meaning those parts to be landing zones, pointing out how we couldn't be expected to defend all that open boarder with the amount of troops we have. A lot of that land is suitable for landing craft, both sea and air, which raises the question could we defend Australia from invasion through conventional means?

From what I have heard from reservists, even our military brass answers that question as no. Our plans in case of invasion is to evacuate everyone down south and carry out a fighting retreat till we get into positions that can be more defended. Of course that leaves massive amounts of infrastructure that the enemy could use to live quite comfortably on the lands we just surrendered while they bring more and more troops across the sea.

Then they can just zerg us....

Well, I guess you should pull a "United States" and just build a giant fence to keep people out. Especially those less fortunate berks who have the gall to want to fulfill their dreams. But that was more satire than it was any kind of answer to your problem.

 

[Jinx_Dragon]

Yes but in this hypothetical situation, there is nothing to stop a nations army from committing these war crimes.

Kamikaze followed up by a military invasion, carried out during or even after an invasion, still leaves a military invasion. Without the larger military assault such a act gains no ground and without that gaining of territory can't be considered an invasion. Pearl harbour comes to mind, of course, and was a assault designed to weaken US forces for the invasion force to spread through the Pacific.

Without a follow up military force it is no where close to being considered an invasion.

 

[Phantom2595]

If the aussies build nukes than Canada should too.

I mean, using what the OP argued about, the situation in Canada is worse.
Canada is bigger than Australia( I think more or less twice as big, but I'm not sure.), have a population of 35 million-ish people(aging population too) and even LESS troops than Australia(We have a standing force of about 35k). And we have the Americans just south to us(Cause we all know they're all crazy rednecks... jk) and than the Russian's not too far from us.(If we had actually bought Alaska all those years ago, they would be right next to use.)
Also, I remember something a while ago about Iceland claiming one of our Arctic islands.

So yea...

 

[Jinx_Dragon]

but it's a damn sight cheaper to not develop nuclear weaponry and bother with maintenance costs.

The actual costs come with the ICBM and not so much the warheads. These ICBMs are kept in a ready to fire state, cause today ICBMs take less then 30 minutes to hit the other side of the world and it takes a lot longer then 30 minutes to fuel up a ICBM. The fuel they use is very corrosive, meaning that parts on these rockets need to be constantly replaced which in itself is expensive.

As a military invasion takes time, there is no reason why Australia would need a 'ready to fire' response as a deterrent. In this scenario the nuclear weapons can be aircraft dropped bombs or unfilled short range missiles and still function to our needs while still being cost efficient.

 

[Jinx_Dragon]

As Australia is democratic and such would require a referendum, of which none have every been passed down here, I shall yield to the fact that we don't want nuclear weapons. Let us all hope we can forever rely on the US and China for our defence then. Particularly as Howard, with Rudd not reversing, spending much of our next few years defence budget on purchasing weapon systems that can't even be used in Australia.

 

[InifniteWit]

Nukes deter nukes. Quite simply, If someone uses nukes then the US will probably fuck the rest of the world via submarine. Either a nuclear counterstrike or a full trade embargo followed up by cruise missile strikes. And it's one thing to have nukes, quite another to have second strike capability. And as I already stated using nukes only deter nukes, as anyone using nukes will send Russia and the US back into a hissy fit, B2s will go up subs will break through the arctic ice, shit will be armed, NORAD will piss all over themselves and everyone will be digging holes in their back yards.

First strike cap is being able to destroy a nation's entire nuclear stockpile in one fell swoop, making it impossible for them to shoot back.

Second strike cap is making sure that if there is a nuclear strike we can hit you back. The UK Russia and America have second strike capability. Anyone attacking any of these countries with nukes would be gone, plain and simple.

In short the more countries that have nukes the more likely it is for some dumb shit to end the fucking world.

EDIT: To phantom. You're safe from an American nuclear aggression for the foreseeable future. Out nukes are run through NORAD a joint Canadian and American strategic early warning station/ military fallback command center. Its in the middle of a mountain.

Also anyone invading Australia would have to deal with the seventh fleet right there in Japan plus an additional pair of CSGs within the next ninety days. Plus the Ark Royal and Illustrious would show up soon enough which would pretty much make PACNAVCOM come too. And then the UN would pop up and once that got churning there would probably be a joint attack on whoever was invading yous guys and that'd be that.

 

[Malkavian]

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.

You seem to miss the point with deterrence. The idea is not that you have them with the intent of punishing your opponent. The intent is to let your opponent know, that if they try anything funny, you will reduce their homeland to slag.

So neither of your option is the intent. The intent is to make sure the enemy never attacks in the first place.

and yes, you could easily get the nukes off, even though it's a neighboring country.


EDIT: I would like to add, that OP's point is moot. There is no reason for Australia to possess a nuclear weapon, as war AGAINST any "western" civilization country is more or less unthinkable. when I put western in quotations, it is of course becuase Australia isn't as such situated geographically in the western world. I do still believe it is part of the western world, in political and philosophical terms, and as such is "part of our world". The reason noone would dare attack Australia in the first place is as mentioned by other posters, it's allies. If someone wants to fuck with Australia, will have not only the United States to answer to, but a large series of countries to whom it will be important to help a member of their own civilization. Australia might not have defence treaties with the entire western world, but I'd estimate that everyone would still be inclined to chip in.
Is Australia part of the UN? Because that would be further insurance.

 

[Ruzzian Roulette]

Ones of the last things the world needs is another country with a nuclear stockpile, things in the world are stressful enough as it is. Giving another nation the power to annihilate (I love that word) entire countries really isn't necessary.

 

[Pandalisk]

To your questions about a highly trained small force against a larger horde of ill-trained conscripts it is also difficult to say. in the end i would assume the horde would win but that depends on terrian ect. think like the higly trained germans against the russian horde in WW2 once the vets were dead germany was shoved back to berlin by the Russian Horde

It comes down to the terrian and objectives of both sides, a highly trained force is more suited for hit and run attacks not full frontal attacks where your men are most likley to die, good valuable men. hit and running relies on the terrian to be effective. The only ace the aussies have are there training but a bullet cares not for experiance and training it will kill you just as it would a conscript, then theres combat fatigue effectivly runing your armies effectiveness.

look at it like a swarm of ants attacking a lion.

i dont see why your worrying anyway the places that are habitable can be defended and as for the rest of that open space, its bloody INHABITABLE!, there not gonna sit nice and comfy in a hostile desert are they? your countries perfect for small forces, you know the land and can go in, strike them and run. apply IRA or desert rats as an example of the effectivness of hit and running. they can hardly run after you and take you out since there so large, they dont have the supplies or organisation to field such a large army. to transport food, water, ammo and fuel to an army large enough to take australia's superior navy and army would be a nightmare, then they have to cross the bulk of australia crossing what i assume is inhabiltable as you say it is to get to the habitable south of Australia, it cant be done size is not a virtue in australia

 

[Asymptote Angel]

No. Worldwide nuclear disarmament is slow enough as it is, and world leaders don't need the stress of another nation building a stockpile; Iran and the rest of the AXIS OF EVIL are enough to worry about.

And sure, nukes deter invasion, but why would anyone want to invade Australia? It isn't close enough to anything to even make a good staging area, unless you want to island-hop all over the western Pacific. There isn't much reason to conquer it for the sake of conquering it, either. (No offense to Australians; I'm not dissing Australia, just balking at its strategic location).

 

[Jamash]

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.

You seem to miss the point with deterrence. The idea is not that you have them with the intent of punishing your opponent. The intent is to let your opponent know, that if they try anything funny, you will reduce their homeland to slag.

So neither of your option is the intent. The intent is to make sure the enemy never attacks in the first place.

and yes, you could easily get the nukes off, even though it's a neighboring country.

I suppose I was being a little asinine deliberately obtuse, by purposely ignoring the deterrence factor to raise the question of what would happen if the deterrence is ignored (if they are as fanatical as feared, they may very well call your bluff).

If an invading armada was healing for Australia you could nuke them out of the water, but that wouldn't be too good for the marine ecosystem.
If an invasion force made landfall, I suppose you could pull your forces back to the interior and still nuke them before they made too much progress.

I suppose my point is that nukes are too messy to be used on your own doorstep, and I think the resources would be better spent on the Navy, Air Force and a 'Home Guard', to annihilate any invading force that were foolish enough to try and invade, rather than spend it on nuclear 'bluffs' to deter people.

I think also nukes seems to me too be too political and 'cowardly', whereas a kick-ass Navy and military defence force, defending your homeland appeals more to my 'macho sensibilities' and 'manly ideals' of what homeland defence should be about, e.g. "We will fight them on the beaches..."

 

[Dommyboy]

Australia needs it to fall back on. If other countries realize Australia has the power of the atom under it's belt then that will be a great deterrent. Though it could also annoy many countries but Australia is one of the wealthiest countries in the world anyway.

 

[bad rider]

Just do what everyone else would do build one and say you don't have it that way when everyone else disarms and another country (probably america) jump out and say ha we kept one, you can jump out and be like nyah ha. Then it'll turn out no-one actually disarmed.

I've overthought this...

(Note this is a sumarized version)

 

[Paragon Fury]

I say let there be nukes. And as many need be.

Because, personally on the scale of WMDs.....getting nuked is probably one of the more preferable ways to go...compared to say...a biological/neurological weapon.

Getting nuked is probably also less painful overall then when Nature decides its had enough and takes off the kid gloves.

And nukes aren't even that strong compared to other types of weaponry anymore. Sure there is radiation....but in sheer destruction and loss of life, we've got better then that.

 

[Bulletinmybrain]

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.)"

Or bomb there island into the ocean.