Should Australia be adopting Nuclear Arms

[Black Orchid]

China nearly has its second aircraft carrier.
They are developing hypersonic missiles.
They have nuclear weapons.
China is building it's navy larger every day.
China has far more troops than us.
There is nothing stopping China from smuggling
whole armies inside ordinary freight ships -
a bit like a Trojan horse.

What we need is an arms reduction treaty in SEA.
It should include India as well.
We just can't sit back and watch while China turns
into a military superpower and do nothing.

It's up to our useless Govt. to do something to
ease the tensions in SEA.
We could get the Yanks to help us with negotiations -
we could threaten to have American nuclear missile bases on Australian soil
and some of the largest American military bases in the world
for conventional weapons right here.

We act like Neville Chamberlain.
We are appeasers to a country that is building up just like Hitler did.
China clearly is striving for an offensive military rather than defensive.
That's not acceptable in a world where we want peace and security.

Yeah I too have sort of hoped the US would build a permanent nuclear armed base up in the Northern Territory where they currently do conduct training etc

This would also protect their spy base at Pine Gap

You might want to be nicer to them then? BUT I agree!

We certainly have not done ourselves any favours by selling off our ports and airfields to the Chinese. The Americans must consider us to be total morons and rightly so.

(cue Brian ... "they can't take them home in their pocket" )

[Black Orchid]

China nearly has its second aircraft carrier.
They are developing hypersonic missiles.
They have nuclear weapons.
China is building it's navy larger every day.
China has far more troops than us.
There is nothing stopping China from smuggling
whole armies inside ordinary freight ships -
a bit like a Trojan horse.

What we need is an arms reduction treaty in SEA.
It should include India as well.
We just can't sit back and watch while China turns
into a military superpower and do nothing.

It's up to our useless Govt. to do something to
ease the tensions in SEA.
We could get the Yanks to help us with negotiations -
we could threaten to have American nuclear missile bases on Australian soil
and some of the largest American military bases in the world
for conventional weapons right here.

We act like Neville Chamberlain.
We are appeasers to a country that is building up just like Hitler did.
China clearly is striving for an offensive military rather than defensive.
That's not acceptable in a world where we want peace and security.

Yeah I too have sort of hoped the US would build a permanent nuclear armed base up in the Northern Territory where they currently do conduct training etc

This would also protect their spy base at Pine Gap

And with missile defence!

Shoot those bastard Chinese and North Korean missiles down.

Maybe we should offer to pay for the building of the base and contribute to it running cost!

We definitely should. There was talk awhile ago about the Americans building another Port not far from Darwin Port but I never heard anymore about it. Hopefully that is true too and WE should be paying. They truly must consider us retarded down under for the ridiculous Darwin Port deal where the only people who benefited were the Chinese. Darwin got paid and blew the money in a week.

[Redneck]

That Darwin port deal needs cancelling on National Security reasons.

Even if we have to do a refund ....

If we have the money that is !

[Outlaw Yogi]

Should Australia be adopting Nuclear Arms?

Personally I'd prefer if we didn't, but I accept we may have no choice sooner later.
I'm hoping we can develop a long range plasma pulse device working on the 'Over the Horrizon' method (bounce off ionosphere)
to detonate nukes in situ and make them a liability rather than an asset.
There's no doubt we have to invest heavily in drone swarm weaponry and consider that commies don't play fair or by the rules
so I expect we'll dabble in biological agents on the sly too - super cheap.

Probably the smartest thing strategically Westernised nations can do is block all internet traffic from China.
Say set up a firewall of malware (?).
Or physically cut their cables in the oceans.

[brian ross]

Oh, dearie, dearie, me. It appears the fantasist are hard at it, fantasying about the supposed threat that China is to Australia physically. What a shame reality suggests that you are talking as per usual, poppycock.

I have refute the paranoia of people like Bobby on numerous occasions. The PRC lacks the ability to represent a physical threat to Australia for at least the next 10-15 years. That doesn't mean we should simply ignore what they are doing in Cyberspace or politically. It means that if we must prepare for a threat, lets prepare for a realistic one, rather than the fantasy that the PLA is about storm ashore across the beaches of Bondi.

Bogan as usual blames me, personally for events which I have had not hand in. Unlike him, I attempt to understand why decisions were made. He simply writes them off as stupidity, whereas I write them off as foolish (there is a difference). I've never worked for Department of Defence as a civilian and when I was in the military I was far too low a rank to even think about what should or shouldn't be bought. Yes, mistakes have been made but be aware, Australia is not the only country which has made such mistakes so it appears to be a common problem in Defence circles.

Perhaps we should talk about the RAF's acquisition of their (in)famous "Blue Circle" radar for their Typhoon interceptors in the mid-1980s? It was a concrete block. Then we have the Royal Navy's famous welding on a section of one of their SSBN submarines upside down. Then we have the British Army's aquisition of the L85 assault rifle. A weapon so flimsy that it was knocked back by the Australian Army as being unsuitable for modern warfare.

Perhaps we should talk about the United States services failures? You know, the Seawolf SSN submarine that when they came to launch it they found all the welds were done incorrectly and they had to scrap the entire boat on the stocks? Or should we talk about the US Army's Sergeant York DIVADS (Divisional Air Defence System) which used to like to track the fans on the toilet block at the testing ground, rather than the targets which were presented to it. Then we have the US Navy's ships which were designed to fire advanced shells from their guns but which never had the shells developed for them.

Perhaps we should talk about the Russians? Their air force which has flown generation after generation of aircraft that were unstable and dangerous to their own crews? That fired missiles that couldn't hit the broadside of a barn? That flew MiG-25 fighters which had engines that could only last for three hours before needing an engine change, which were made of steel and had valves in their radar systems? Then we have their navy, with submarines which leak radioactivity all over the place and which have had numerous accidents? How about their army with MBTs which couldn't hit the broadside of a barn because of the poor workmanshp on the guns and fire control systems?

Yet Bogan likes to pick on the Australian Department of Defence for some reason. Yes, there have been errors made. No denying them. However, there have also been successes as well. The F88 Steyr is still one of the most advanced assault rifles and we have been using it for nearly 30 years. The Boxer IFV is a higher advanced vehicle and we are starting to get them now. The Bushmaster vehicle was highly advanced when we first purchased them. The Mirage, the F-111, the F/A-18 were all advanced aircraft - far more advanced and in greater numbers than anything in our neighbourhood. We have WEDGETAIL such an advanced AEW&C aircraft, the British RAF is now purchasing them. We have had P2, P3 and now P8 ASW aircraft. We have had aircraft carriers and now we have LPH Helicopter Carriers.

I note no one, except Bogan has even attempted to argue in favour nuclear weapons, except through the use of personal insult and ad hominem. We may disagree but least can we keep the disagreement civil or is that too hard for some?

[Bobby]

Brian,

I have refute the paranoia of people like Bobby on numerous occasions.
The PRC lacks the ability to represent a physical threat to Australia for at least the next 10-15 years.

No you haven't - you're as naive as Neville Chamberlain.

[Bogan]

You have the most fascinating way of thinking, Brian. No really. It is just anazing how your mind can twist and squirm around the facts. I spent seven pages on the "Australia's Defence Discussion" topic arguing with you as to how stupid and incompetent Australia's defence acquisition service people were, and still are, while you did your best to pretend that everything was humpty dory. Now, after beating you over the head with undeniable facts about how stupid and incompetent your public servant friends are, and you fighting a rearguard action, you are finally admitting that what I said was correct all along. Here is your own words from your last post.

Brian Ross wrote

Bogan as usual blames me, personally for events which I have had not hand in. Unlike him, I attempt to understand why decisions were made. He simply writes them off as stupidity, whereas I write them off as foolish (there is a difference). I've never worked for Department of Defence as a civilian and when I was in the military I was far too low a rank to even think about what should or shouldn't be bought. Yes, mistakes have been made but be aware, Australia is not the only country which has made such mistakes so it appears to be a common problem in Defence circles.

So now you finally admit that "mistakes were made" after spending seven pages denying that any mistakes were made. And you have something to do with defence aquisitions if you were an inspector charged with checking out the welds on Australia's ancient, 60 year old M113 APC's to put them back into service. Every other advanced army is motoring around in tracked IFV's, but of course, the Australian "army" is never going to get them.

Brian Ross wrote

Yes, mistakes have been made but be aware, Australia is not the only country which has made such mistakes so it appears to be a common problem in Defence circles.

So after claiming that no mistakes were made, and then admitting that they were, your new claim is that other overseas defence acquisitions departments have made absolutely stupid (or as you say "foolish") mistakes, so that makes it OK for their Australian contemporaries to do the same? Are you serious? We have very highly paid public servants who's job is to not make mistakes when it comes to very expensive and crucial defence purchases, but they do it, over and over and over again. They make the sort of mistakes their tea ladies would have the sense not to make.

Brian Ross wrote

Yet Bogan likes to pick on the Australian Department of Defence for some reason. Yes, there have been errors made. No denying them.

But Brian, you spent seven pages denying them. And of course I expect highly paid Australian public servants charged with purchasing weapons for the woefully under equipped and under manned Australian Defence Forces to do their jobs better than our enemies, or even our friends who have much more money to spend on their defence forces to make them credible.

Your attitude is that of a defence department Sir Humphrey, concerned only with the power and prestige of the public service. The defence of Australia comes a long way behind when it comes to priorities. And I will say something more about the Eurocraptor Tiger fiasco. Knowing how the French have no qualms whatsoever when it comes to bribing officials to purchase their weapons, if I were you, and if you had any PS clout at all, for the good of your nation, I would start investigating whether any of the defence acquisition officials who were responsible for the Tiger fiasco have suddenly came into some unexplained wealth.

But I already know that you would never do anything for the good of your people or your nation. Quite the opposite, if you can.

[Valkie]

Australia has nuclear capable ships, nuclear capable aircraft and we have the capabilities to manufacture nuclear weapons.

Only an idiot woukd believe what the world's biggest bunch of liars tells us, the grubberment.

We have nuclear weapons, It's a given.
We don't need to blow things up to demonstrate our capability.
We did enough of that years ago.

We are simply being kept in the dark by a grubby, lying and deceitful grubberment.

And I think it's a good thing.
A couple of nukes into that tiny, festering, muzzo ridden shitehole just off the tip of australia, woukd certiany stop any invasion those morons think they could mount.

[Redneck]

Dear Bwian

A present for you.

[brian ross]

You have the most fascinating way of thinking, Brian. No really. It is just anazing how your mind can twist and squirm around the facts. I spent seven pages on the "Australia's Defence Discussion" topic arguing with you as to how stupid and incompetent Australia's defence acquisition service people were, and still are, while you did your best to pretend that everything was humpty dory. Now, after beating you over the head with undeniable facts about how stupid and incompetent your public servant friends are, and you fighting a rearguard action, you are finally admitting that what I said was correct all along. Here is your own words from your last post.

Such as the non-existent helicopter crash into Sydney Harbour?

Bogan you are selective in your memory it seems. I am unsure why I must keep rubbing your face into reality but if I must, I suppose I must.

I have never suggested that the Department of Defence is not without failure. It is not perfect but as I have demonstrated, it is only as bad and often better than what has occurred overseas in our enemies' and our allies' own defence procurement decision making. Do I need to recount them again?

How about instead, I add a few more. The M16 rifle adopted by the US Air Force initially and then by the US Army and USMC, later. When initially designed, it was intended to be a "survival rifle" for downed pilots to utilise. It was developed further into the main weapon for infantry soldiers to use. The US Army decided that the specified powder was too expensive and substituted one with greater amounts of carbon in it's makeup in it's ammunition. This lead to increased fouling, which in turn led to stoppages (ie "jams" amongst lay people), which required the weapon to be redesigned after complaints with a "bolt assist" to allow the user to force the bolt closed when it reloads. At the same time the US Army decided it didn't need to clean the weapon and guess what, the weapon badly needed cleaning. Badly.

Then we have the M60 GPMG. This abortion was so badly designed that it would often suffer from "runaway guns" caused by the trigger sear becoming worn and the weapon continuing to fire when the trigger was released. The trigger mechanism would often also shake loose from the weapon and that could only be stopped by reversing the trigger mechanism locking plate. The gas piston was designed to "never need to be cleaned". Guess what needed cleaning? Guess what frequently was placed back into the gas cylinder backwards which prevented it from working? The gas cylinder. Then you have the badly designed barrel, which required an asbestos mitten to hold because it was too hot to touch with a naked hand. The list goes on and on.

Indeed the Australian Army adopted the M60 GPMG way back in 1961. They held a competition beforehand. The FN MAG58 GPMG won. The decision to adopt the M60 was forced on the Army by the politicians of the day. A great many of the defence procurement decisions that you harp on about rest not with the Australian Department of Defence but with the Australian government. Funny that, yet you keep blaming the Department of Defence for some reason...

Oh, and guess what the Australian Army decided that the M60 should be replaced with in 1988? The FN MAG58 GPMG. Funny that, hey?

Lets look at the British Army shall we? They wanted to replace their Chieftain MBT with a new tank. The British Government decided, "no way, boys!" So the British Army decided to adopt the Iranian Shir Iran MBT which was a developed version of the Chieftain with Chobham Armour. At the same time, the US Army and the West German Army were replacing their MBTs with MBTs with Chobham Armour. They also decided to adopt a 120mm smoothbore main gun. The British Army couldn't afford that, according the bean counters so they stuck with the 120mm rifled gun, upgraded, which they had originally had in the Chieftain MBT. Guess what the British Army is doing now, some 40 years later? Adopting the 120mm Rheinmetall 120mm smoothbore gun.

Let's have a look at the Russian Army. They have faffed about deciding what would be their next MBT for over 30 years because of the collapse of the fUSSR and their lack of funds. Nowadays, they adopting the T14 Armata. A vehicle which was basically designed 20+ years ago and which is proving to be quite a handful for them to perfect. It has an unmanned turret with a new gun, it has a new engine, new armour and new running gear and tracks. Guess what keeps breaking? All of it.

Brian Ross wrote

Bogan as usual blames me, personally for events which I have had not hand in. Unlike him, I attempt to understand why decisions were made. He simply writes them off as stupidity, whereas I write them off as foolish (there is a difference). I've never worked for Department of Defence as a civilian and when I was in the military I was far too low a rank to even think about what should or shouldn't be bought. Yes, mistakes have been made but be aware, Australia is not the only country which has made such mistakes so it appears to be a common problem in Defence circles.

So now you finally admit that "mistakes were made" after spending seven pages denying that any mistakes were made.

I have never denied that mistakes were not made, Bogan. My main point has been that what you describe as "mistakes" were honest decisions made on the basis of the evidence in front of the deciders - at the time. Some of the decisions have since, on the basis of new evidence, been shown to have been incorrect but there were numerous ones which have been proven correct.

You like to point to the F/A-18. Well, that aircraft has performed well for the RAAF in the last 30+ years, despite what you proclaim. It has performed well for the other airforces which adopted it - the Swiss, Finnish, Canadian, Malaysian, Kuwaiti and Spanish air forces. Indeed, the Canadians recently purchased from the RAAF excess F/A-18s which we no longer required. Yes, there were better aircraft and yes, there were worse ones but it was a political decision, not a decision made by the Australian Department of Defence as to which one the RAAF would fly.

You love to point at the Tiger helicopter. You know, the one which you claimed crashed spectacularly in front of the entire nation into Sydney Harbour? A crash which there is absolutely no record online about. Funny that. The decision to adopt it was covered by a competition between the Rooivalk, the Cobra, the Tiger and the Apache. The Tiger was judged the winner - twice. Bell, the makers of the Cobra protested the first time and it had to be run again. The Cobra still lost. Has the Tiger been a success? In a limited way, yes it has. It has provided valuable experience to the Army in the operation of an armed helicopter. It has to be admitted that it hasn't been a total success and so they are now seeking to replace it. Perhaps the Apache might win this time. Who knows?

And you have something to do with defence aquisitions if you were an inspector charged with checking out the welds on Australia's ancient, 60 year old M113 APC's to put them back into service. Every other advanced army is motoring around in tracked IFV's, but of course, the Australian "army" is never going to get them.

Nope. I was never an "inspector". I was a systems engineer charged with helping TENIX, the contractors doing the work, to make the drill system work as the company I was working with, had designed and built it. I had no input into any decision making process, Bogan. Indeed, after inspecting the machine the one time I was asked to, I looked at how they were doing the trial manufacturing and reported to my boss that they were wasting money big time. His reply? "None of our business, mate." I believe they were wasting money, cutting existing vehicles in half, welding extension plates to increase their length and putting in new suspension stations. I forecast that this could be done more cheaply by ordering new hulls from FMC in the US. It would also be safer.

As part of the original plan was to make a machine that drilled the suspension holes on both sides simultaneously but in order to "save costs" the Army had been told to do it only on one side at a time. This actually increased costs and so they decided to cut the size of the programme to 2/3 the numbers originally intended. Then, because of the other cost blowouts, they had to cut it to 1/2 the number. All this occurred at levels much higher than mine, Bogan, much higher. I am flattered that you have elevated me to a decision making position.

As for what other armies are doing, it is interesting isn't it that armies around the world are moving away from tracked IFVs for the most part to wheeled ones. The Australian Army has adopted the German Boxer IFV an 8x8 wheeled vehicle. The British have also adopted the Boxer. Just like the Germans. The US Army has adopted the Stryker IFV. The Russians have adopted the "Boomerang" IFV - another 8x8 vehicle. The Israelis are doing something similar. Funny that, hey? You're behind the times...

Brian Ross wrote

Yes, mistakes have been made but be aware, Australia is not the only country which has made such mistakes so it appears to be a common problem in Defence circles.

So after claiming that no mistakes were made, and then admitting that they were, your new claim is that other overseas defence acquisitions departments have made absolutely stupid (or as you say "foolish") mistakes, so that makes it OK for their Australian contemporaries to do the same? Are you serious?

Yes. Show me a single military defence department which has not made mistakes in it's defence procurement decisions, Bogan. A single one. Wait! We could of course look at Andorra. It has a defence budge of under $100 = which it spends on blanks for ceremonial purposes and it's uniform consists of a button which it's Police pin on their lapels which says, "Touch me if you dare!". That is the level of your comments, Bogan. They are a joke.

We have very highly paid public servants who's job is to not make mistakes when it comes to very expensive and crucial defence purchases, but they do it, over and over and over again. They make the sort of mistakes their tea ladies would have the sense not to make.

Bogan, to err is human. Forgiveness belongs to the divine. Yes, public servants make mistakes, just as do politicians. All too often procurement decisions are made by politicians without reference to bureaucrats at all. The Piranha LAV 8x8 cavalry vehicle was made by Kim Beazley 'cause he liked the look of them and told the DoD to buy 100 of them for trials purposes. The COLLINS class submarines were made by Beazley and the ALP cabinet 'cause the Germans couldn't get their act together and the British subs were duds. The Leopard MBT decision was made by Gough Whitlam 'cause the yanks couldn't supply their M60 MBT in sufficient numbers. The list goes on and on. Yet you always blame the bureaucrats...

Brian Ross wrote

Yet Bogan likes to pick on the Australian Department of Defence for some reason. Yes, there have been errors made. No denying them.

But Brian, you spent seven pages denying them.

No, what I attempted to do was make you understand them within the context of when they were made. There is a difference, Bogan.

Your attitude is that of a defence department Sir Humphrey, concerned only with the power and prestige of the public service. The defence of Australia comes a long way behind when it comes to priorities. And I will say something more about the Eurocraptor Tiger fiasco. Knowing how the French have no qualms whatsoever when it comes to bribing officials to purchase their weapons, if I were you, and if you had any PS clout at all, for the good of your nation, I would start investigating whether any of the defence acquisition officials who were responsible for the Tiger fiasco have suddenly came into some unexplained wealth.

Australian bureaucrats have a reputation for honesty, Bogan. Despite your usual insinuations you simply refuse to understand reality. You live in a cloud-cuckoo land inside your mind which doesn't exist outside it. The French, the Yanks, have tried numerous times to bribe Australian officials and been turned down cold.

My concern is trying to understand why decisions have been made the way they have been made. I do not believe they are dishonest. I believe they have been made on the basis of what is known - AT THE TIME. You love applying 100% perfect hindsight. I wonder, have you ever made a bad decision in your life, ever?

But I already know that you would never do anything for the good of your people or your nation. Quite the opposite, if you can.

Yeah, sure, Bogan, yeah, sure. Whatever your fantasies tell you.