Nice name proposal. It reminds me of the CAC Wirraway, an Australian WWII era trainer and light bomber.
It won't always need to stay on-road. The TEL (transporter-erector-launcher) is off-road capable.
Posted on 12/13/2009 1:15:12 PM PST by myknowledge
A dramatic deterioration in Asian security could push Australia to acquire nuclear weapons, a strategy that it abandoned four decades ago, a new study says.
But Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI) analyst Dr Rod Lyons says such a decision certainly isn't close nor is it inevitable.
He said the 2006 Switkowski report on nuclear power suggested it would take Australia at least 10 years and probably 15 to bring the first civil reactor into service.
"It's true that Australia might be able to conduct an emergency nuclear weapon construction effort in rather less time, especially if it were to focus on uranium enrichment to provide a uranium 235 bomb," he said.
"In that case, we wouldn't need to build a reactor. But enrichment is still a highly challenging exercise."
Australia flirted with the nuclear weapon option up until the late 1960s, with a 1968 cabinet paper costing a bomb program at what now seems a modest $150 million. Signing the non-proliferation treaty in 1970 closed off that option.
Dr Lyons said for Australia to swing back to a course it abandoned in the late 1960s would mean a huge - and reluctant - change in strategic policy.
"That course would be taken only with extreme reluctance and it's certainly not one that Australian governments have done much to prepare for over recent decades," he said.
Dr Lyons said Australian policies now aimed to achieve regional nuclear order as much as possible by establishing a benign strategic environment and by stressing non-proliferation, arms control and peaceful exploitation of nuclear technologies.
But should the regional approach change, with a rising prevalence of the technologies that could lead to nuclear weapons, Australia might need a different approach.
Dr Lyons said a number of scenarios could lead to a more worrying Asian nuclear order.
One is a weakening of US nuclear capabilities and loss of confidence in US nuclear deterrence. In such an environment, nations such as Japan, Korea or even Burma could develop nuclear weapons.
A revisionist great power could also arise. Much of the momentum towards an Australian nuclear weapon arose in the 1950s in response to communist China.
And the existing non-proliferation regime could collapse.
Dr Lyons said none of these scenarios were likely, but any would heighten the sense of regional nuclear disorder.
In such a climate, Australia might opt for what's termed "nuclear hedging" - maintaining, or appearing to maintain, capabilities to acquire nuclear weapons in a relatively short time, ranging from a few weeks to a few years.
On that basis Australia now has no semblance of a hedging strategy, lacking any enrichment, weapon design or missile capability. However Australia does produce a large amount of the world's uranium.
"Nuclear hedging is a strategy with remarkably long legs: it can be pursued at a modest tempo over decades," he said.
"It typically involves no hasty, expensive strategic programs, but the gradual accretion of expertise and systems."
On that basis, both Sweden and Japan could develop nuclear weapons within a few years.
Dr Lyons said Australia would have good advance warning of changing strategic circumstances, although developing the necessary capabilities could still take 20 years or more.
“I see no reason for them to have to develop an untested design either, if they choose to go nuclear I think we should go ahead and give them what they need.”
It’s the least we could do after doing so for China...
True, but I still don't think they really know how to target a missile within 20% CAP.
Because a country that believes in "the 72 virgins that await its martyrs" can't be trusted?
"...This means to use neutron bomb nuclear weapons, that would kill all life in the country that used a nuclear weapon, though not destroying any of their buildings or contaminating their lands..."
There are a few Google references to Jimmy Carter's defunding our neutron weaponry, and I think there are no neutron weapons in our arsenal today.
Mongolia-Japan-Australia-Vietnam-india would all form an anti-Sino alliance
I don’t agree with that — Iran with it’s millenia old world history places like the Tomb of Cyrus the Great and Persepolis, Elam etc. — no, that can’t be destroyed. Saudia on the other hand....
I believe you are correct. However, neutron bombs are not difficult to fabricate. Just add some extra shielding to reflect neutrons back in to the weapon, and set the bomb to an airburst detonation.
A double Cold War irony is that the Soviets preferred airburst weapons, that produce little fallout, whereas the US preferred ground burst weapons that produce much fallout. The Soviets also targeted US military targets; whereas the US targeted Soviet cities. On the surface it sounds like we were the bad guys, but there were sound strategic reasons to do so.
That’s the point. Neutron bombs blow up high in the sky, giving off an enormous amount of invisible neutrons, but causing little or no physical damage on the ground. Thus buildings are left untouched, but living things, from bacteria through humans, all die.
The only downside is cleaning up all the cadavers.
Interesting point and one I would be inclined to like :)
Or maybe the Wirraway ICBM?
That transporter looks like it would make a heck of an RV. Do you think it will fit on a normal road?
:-) Thanks for the laugh ...and totally agree. Sweden would need to move to a planet all of its own.
Nice name proposal. It reminds me of the CAC Wirraway, an Australian WWII era trainer and light bomber.
It won't always need to stay on-road. The TEL (transporter-erector-launcher) is off-road capable.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.