If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
"Ian Godfrey" wrote in message ... i think the whole missile defence thing is a crock theres not the slightest bit of evidence it'd work Except of course for the times that they have done it. besides seems like its something you need to rely on much better intelligence to see know when/where a missile might actually be launched to get your assets in place to shoot it down. I see you've not heard of Radar. and where your assets must be depends on the asset itself and what phase you intend to go for the kill in. the money wasted on this white elephant would be better spent on either something like a couple of airbus multirole tanker transports to support our strategic strike force of f111s or a couple of recon sattelites to get some independent sattelite capability Yes, a great idea we can pour money into a force that has never had to strike anything and is a money sponge, that, at best might bomb missile silos after the missiles have launched or a sattelite capability so we can watch the launch, but not stop it. I'm yet to be convinced that either approach is productive. besides we've got our own nuclear reactor, and soon to get a new one. ANSTO, the australian nuclear science and technology organisation employs about 150 scientists. they dont build bombs, but they DO do research into the nuclear bomb designs of foriegn countries. We have a network of seismic stations around australia that monitor the global test ban treaty. Any bombs that go off anywhere around the world register on those stations equipment. - Our scientists at ANSTO learn a great deal about the bombs design, yeild etc from those signatures. we could easily (from a technical/engineering) point of view go nuclear if we so desired. - politically however we might find it difficult internationally. Lesson is if anyone drops a bomb on us, and we know who it is, we could sure as hell drop a couple back - quite easily. and im sure that we could "out produce" some of these threshold states. Unless it occurred to them to nuke Lucas Heights (with the added bonus of getting Holsworthy free)... and we've got the nuclear capable plane to do it. the f111 Or Amberley. point is however .... you need the range and intelligence multirole tanker (dont expect the yanks to lend us one if we we gonna use it on a nuke mission because someone exploded a bomb in sydney harbour) sattelite imagery (dont expect them or anyone else to provide us with up to date intel either) missile defence is an absolute waste of taxpayer monies imho its a typically ammerhicun approach of trying to solve a problem, without bothering to remove the problem in the first intance. Your "solution" gives us an ability to strike back 6 months to a year after we are struck, if our sattelite detected the launch, if they didn't nuke ANSTO, if they didn't nuke Amberley and if they are prepared to wait until we develop and test a nuke and if they don't have a moderately effective air defence system that they can use to bring down a 40 year old design. Hmmmm. waiter on second thoughts, I'll have a double portion of that BMD thanks.... |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Australia | Badwater Bill | Home Built | 18 | January 3rd 05 03:57 AM |
Australia F111 to be scrapped!! | John Cook | Military Aviation | 35 | November 10th 03 11:46 PM |
[AU] Defence support for Bush visit | David Bromage | Military Aviation | 7 | October 23rd 03 05:04 AM |
Surface to Air Missile threat | PlanetJ | Instrument Flight Rules | 1 | August 14th 03 02:13 PM |
Australia tries to rewrite history of Vietnam War | Evan Brennan | Military Aviation | 34 | July 18th 03 11:45 PM |