Should Australia supprort NATO nuclear weapons

I was just thinking, would it be to NATOs gain to station nuclear weapons on Austrlian soil. It would mean they would have improved strike capablility against China and North Korea, and the nukes would act as a deterrent to any impending invasion from Indonesia.

I dunno about that. Are you Australian? I don't think that NATO, the US in particular, needs aussie support in their ongoing campaigns against the Asian countries. The delivery systems of todays nuclear weapons are very impressive, with missiles with ranges up to 10, 000 kms. With something like that, a land-based silo in Australia is not necassary. And although it is possible that indo might invade aus, we have the military might to stop them, I believe. And Aus'd get support from her allies.

Do you seriously think Australia is in any danger of invasion by Indonesia? Surely you must be joking? As far as China goes, you're only looking at a 15 minute ride atop an ICBM anyway. Besides, the nukes would tend to make Australia a target.

No need to do that , submarines have solved the problem, the nukes are under the sea nowadays.

I actually don't beleive that Australia will ever be armed with nuclear weapons in the near future without starting up its own Nuclear Weapons Program. And with only one reactor near Sydney, which is only used for Nuclear Medicine and Uranium stockpiling, Australia isn't just about to do that. Placing nuclear weapons on Austrlian soil does increase the chance of it being seen as a threat and becoming a target of nulcear weapons. I was actually more interested in the geographical advantages of locating weapons there. But obviously the delivery systems are good enough to strike from almost anywhere. And although there are tensions with Indonesia at the momment, I am not serious about beleiving that they will invade. Currently, I am researching the delivery systems of several Asian/Russian ICBMs. It is amazing how complicated but advanced they are.

Most of the NATO members do not have any animosity towards china IMO..
Most of all, Australia is wary of nukes and isn't THAT allergic to China..
Why position nukes in Australia for China specifically??
Only th eUS has issues with China from the NATO members and the US has more than sufficient deterrent against China..

Another question I wanted to ask..
Are there US ICBMs in Turkey??
I was arguing with someone about this because I thought the Jupiter ICBMs were removed from Turkey as a part of the Bay of Pigs agreemnet of removing ICBMs from Cuba..

Studying delivery systmes aye??
Understood the INS gyro navigation??
Not an ounce of electronics onboard..
Also the SLBM pressure bubble launch is one of my favs..

[edit on 7-8-2005 by Daedalus3]

I really would say Australia already has it. We have a few "secret" US bases on our soil already and I would add that we are a major part of US's defensive plans against Asians nations like North Korea.

Well I don't know why you bring NATO into it, they have nothing to do with Australia. We have a defence pact with the US not NATO.

naah, not in my opinion, there is already too many nukes on this planet...

no, I think its dumb idea. Why be targetted by nuclear weapons???
Also, it might be Cuban missle crisus (however you spell it) 2.
If USA somehow got nukes and missles into australia secretly,the chinese would find out, my dad used to work for the australian navy as a technitian, He sais that China has some spys in aus so they would quickly find out.
If China invaded australia some how, it would be hard for them to get here as they dont really have very good airtransport, they must take ships, we have good collins class subs, the quitest deisel sub in the works AFAIK, so they would have a hard time shipping here. We also got good border controll up north and some F-18s up north (and soon to come F35s i think)
My dad also sais that Los Angeles class subs can get upto 60knots at max speed, I dont beleive in that though, 60kmh?
This is all as far as I know, so no flaming
cya

BTW, i am australian

[edit on 8/8/05 by JimmyCarterIsSmarter]

U.S Jumbo missiles weren't removed from Turkey in the Bay of Pigs agreement. Khrushchev was only able to ensure that Cuba would be safe from U.S attack, which they didn't care about anyway, he was fired several days later. The Jumbo missiles were removed about a year later, quitely, so that it would seem that the Americans won the Cuban Missile Crisis. I can probably give you details on the exact date tommorow when I contact a friend who is currently writing a book about the Cuban Missile Crisis.

Jumbo or jupiter??
Yes from the info I gathered it was also evident that only the soviet withdrawl was made public while the americans carried out their withdrawal a little later under wraps..
Nonetheless.. The agreement was made on the basis of this assurance of withdrawl of ICBMs from Turkey..IT wasn't made public but it was one of the MAJOR incentives for the soviets to pull out..
Hence it was a part n parcel of the Bay of Pigs agreement..not the publicised version but definitely a part of the agreement..

China will not invade Australia..

There is absolutely no way that the Australian Government would allow nuclear weapons to be stationed on our soil. As others have said, such an action would very likely make us a nuclear target in any future conflict. Besides that, there really is no reason to station nukes here.

Australia currently faces no credible threat from any of its neighbours. Indonesia simply does not have the capability to launch a successful invasion of Australia. When the United States and its allies invaded Iraq they needed months of preparation and the careful arrangement of thousands of troops. They had access to friendly countries and airbases surrounding their enemy in which to prepare and establish supply lines. An enemy attacking Australia would have none of these advantages. Currently the regional military heavy-weights are China and increasingly India. Yet neither of these two nations has anything to gain from attacking Australia and neither possesses the resources to carry out a successful invasion even if they wanted to. Indeed, most military analysts argue that China is currently incapable of successfully invading Taiwan, a country right on its doorstep. We in Australia do not at the present face the possibility of an invasion and therefore we do not require a nuclear deterrent.

I am well aware of the general fear Australians have of invasion post-WW2, but when you sit down and look at it, it really is very improbable. This position is outlined as Government policy in The White Paper which outlines terrorism and regional instability as the biggest threats to Australia's security, stressing that the likelihood of foreign invasion is very small.

Furthermore, Australia has voluntarily renounced its nuclear ambitions. Although a nuclear program was pursued during the 1960s (see Fortress Australia) and we doubtless have the technology and resources to manufacture nuclear weapons, we do not stand to gain anything from doing so.

Australia is currently pursuing a more active role within Asia and allowing nuclear weapons to be stationed on Australian soil would be a tremendous step backwards in terms of diplomacy and economics. It would not be worth it.

Originally posted by Jeremiah25
There is absolutely no way that the Australian Government would allow nuclear weapons to be stationed on our soil. As others have said, such an action would very likely make us a nuclear target in any future conflict. Besides that, there really is no reason to station nukes here.

Well, nuclear weapons were targetted on Australia during the Cold War by the Soviets. All US militay installations ere targetted ie. Pine Gap etc. Also our cities were as well, especially Sydney due to its superb naval facilities. I believe Sydney had a bout 20 warheads targetted on it. However this was at the height of the Cold War when teh Soviets had a massive amount of weapons and probably were running out of targets for them.

That being said, nuclear weapons could be moved to Australia in a day if the situation arose. So the point is really moot.

I dont see any sort of tactical advantage placing nukes here, cant a ICBM reach anywhere in the world anyway? No real use stationing them over here, especialy agaisnt im sure would be a huge protest of alot of citizens. The Australian people dont want to get involved in nuclear politics of the world, we would rather sit back and research on how to make better beer. Why suddenly would we want nukes anyway? Yes we have secreat U.S. bases set in australia, but the australian armed forces are peanuts. We dont have a military we rely apon the our allies for that one.
So in conclusion i cant see nuclear weapons stationed in australia in your or my life time.

Here you BullDog, but perhaps these days personal delivery seems to be the ticket for no reflection. Who knows what that sort of thing could mean on retaliation..suppose it depends on what the immediate target Countries are?

Dallas

Originally posted by rogue1

Originally posted by Jeremiah25
There is absolutely no way that the Australian Government would allow nuclear weapons to be stationed on our soil. As others have said, such an action would very likely make us a nuclear target in any future conflict. Besides that, there really is no reason to station nukes here.

Well, nuclear weapons were targetted on Australia during the Cold War by the Soviets.

Got me interested there. Do you have any links by any chance? Sounds interesting.