Should Australia get The Bomb?

Z

zen

ACCESS: Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
15 July 2007
Messages
4,855
Reaction score
4,482
In the title and best kept as theory.

But at least worth exploring this.

Certainly we have a AH history option which above all shows Australia doesn't lack the theoretical capacity to achieve this.

But in terms of operations, it would seem best for them to either build silos or road train launch systems before the cost/complexity of SSBNs.

Geographically the bulk of their population is in the south-east corner of the landmass. With a lot of very low density population land everywhere else. Save for a cluster at Perth and at Darwin.

The main issue is opponent SSBNs could launch from the seas nearby and drastically cut reaction times.
So in fact the first element in Defence must be to keep those seas clear of such a threat and perhaps this would be the first sign of such a policy shift by the Australian Government.
 
You sum up the dilemma in the last paragraph. If Oz becomes a nuclear power it becomes a truly legitimate target. They have to seriously up their anti sub forces. Could it develop an ICBM able to reach worthwhile targets in China or the USSR anyway? It might be cheaper to accept the status quo for anti sub, and build your own SSBs with IRBMs.
 
Are there not enough nuclear weapons in the region? Are the Ockers likely to start a nuclear exchange on their own? Perhaps one major change at a time should suffice and go after other things when the initial issue is dealt with.
 
I was going to ask a question but that would be superfluous.
 
royabulgaf said:
You sum up the dilemma in the last paragraph. If Oz becomes a nuclear power it becomes a truly legitimate target. They have to seriously up their anti sub forces. Could it develop an ICBM able to reach worthwhile targets in China or the USSR anyway? It might be cheaper to accept the status quo for anti sub, and build your own SSBs with IRBMs.
Click to expand...
I think it does mean a lot more on ASW capability.....which does neatly tie in the whole SSN business.

Brutally I would say Perth and Darwin have to be considered sacrificial here and focus on defence of the eastern and south-eastern coastal populations.

Does it need to develop it's own ICBM? It's the RV and Warhead that transgress treaties.

Arguably the acquisition of additional cruise missile delivery complexifies the defenders task. Yet for Australia that is a potential first offensive element in such a plan.

But bear in mind Australia is already on the target list of various plans.
 
Could Australia/Japan be the Pacific France/UK? That would probably mean SSBNs but interesting to contemplate silos in Western Australia pretty remote out there. Plus talk of B-21s!!

Could build a triad in no time. ;)
 
They might go more for a GLCM type solution, both mobile and silo based, in the short term, given that it could spun as a sub-strategic tripwire, with tactical nuclear options thrown in.
 
I think what Australia would have to grapple with is strategic consequences of having power to choose how WWIII might start and might gain that even more extremely rare scenario ....the limited use.

Essentially being a player in the nuclear game means growing up and facing hard truths.
Every step has to be thought through the lense of the risks of nuclear war.
 
Australia might have gotten the bomb in an alternate British Commonwealth after World War 2. With England bankrupt, the larger colonies: Australia, Canada, New Zealand and South Africa would have to take over the global aspects of Commonwealth defense. That might mean "sharing" A-bombs around the various colonies.
Who can predict if that "sharing" might have included "shared" short-range nuclear weapons stationed in the Bahamas, right next door to "uppity" Communist Cuba????????
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom