Australia to participate in US missile defence program

Scott Ferrin wrote in
:

On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 21:13:10 GMT, "Thomas Schoene"
wrote:

Hobo wrote:
In article ,
"Matt B" wrote:


It's not the nuke attached to an ICBM that I'm worried about. It's
the one delivered to the centre of Sydney in the back of a beat up
old white Toyota Hiace van that concerns me.

Even worse, imagine a bunch of people in a basement working on a gun
device nuke. When ready they set a timer and leave the city. If the
device doesn't work they return to make ready a second attempt and
keep doing so until they succeed.

If a gun device fails, I'd expect to see the bits blown over a fairly
wide area. Any random group of terrorists should be able to manage
the electronics for a gun fission weapon, so it's nearly impossible to
imagine the explosive not firing. After that, you simply have varying
degrees of fizzle.


Why fizzle? No convenient neutron source to kick start it?

If they get the critical mass figured wrong,it could 'fizzle' while they
are assembling it,or after firing the 'gun',the mass is not enough to
sustain fission long enough to explode,but still enough to 'fizzle'.Either
way,they would not be -reusing- the fissile material to begin another
bomb;they would not live long enough,it would be highly radioactive.This
happened in Japan,where reprocessing techs "messed up" and had a
fizzle.IIRC,the techs died.

--
Jim Yanik,NRA member
jyanik-at-kua.net

"David Bromage" wrote in message
.. .
Thursday, 4 December 2003
153/2003

AUSTRALIA TO PARTICIPATE IN US MISSILE DEFENCE PROGRAM

The Government has decided that Australia will participate in the United
States' missile defence program, Defence Minister Robert Hill announced
today.

Senator Hill said Australia was working with the US to determine the
most appropriate forms of Australian participation that will not only be
in our strategic defence interests but also provide maximum
opportunities for Australian industry.

These could include:
* Expanded cooperation to help detect missiles at the point of launch
and therefore get early warning of an impending attack.
* Acquisition of, or other cooperation in the fields of, ship-based and
ground-based sensors.
* Science and technology research development, testing and evaluation.
Senator Hill said the missile defence program was a non-nuclear
defensive system that did not threaten other countries. Its purpose was
to be able to negate a ballistic missile threat and therefore discourage
other countries from investing in ballistic missile systems.

Defence Update 2003, released in February, foreshadowed the increasing
importance of missile defence in the 21st century.

"The Government is concerned that Australia might one day be threatened
by long range missiles with mass destruction effect and believes that
investment in defensive measures is important," Senator Hill said.

"Developing this capability will contribute to global, regional and
Australia security by offering protection from missile attack and
dissuading nations from acquiring or developing such weapons.

"There will also be opportunities for Australian industry. Our decision
last year to invest in the systems development and demonstration phase
of the Joint Strike Fighter program is already paying dividends, with
nine contracts awarded to Australian companies to date. There is the
potential for similar benefits from our involvement in the missile
defence program."

Australia has had a long involvement in missile defence through hosting
a ballistic missile early warning ground station for 29 years as the
Joint Defence Facility Nurrungar and now as the relay ground station at
Pine Gap in the Northern Territory.

We need to reinvent ourselves without the US.
It's time we grew up.

troy

iCentral wrote in message
.. .

"David Bromage" wrote in message
. ..
Thursday, 4 December 2003
153/2003

AUSTRALIA TO PARTICIPATE IN US MISSILE DEFENCE PROGRAM

The Government has decided that Australia will participate in the United
States' missile defence program, Defence Minister Robert Hill announced
today.

Senator Hill said Australia was working with the US to determine the
most appropriate forms of Australian participation that will not only be
in our strategic defence interests but also provide maximum
opportunities for Australian industry.

These could include:
* Expanded cooperation to help detect missiles at the point of launch
and therefore get early warning of an impending attack.
* Acquisition of, or other cooperation in the fields of, ship-based and
ground-based sensors.
* Science and technology research development, testing and evaluation.
Senator Hill said the missile defence program was a non-nuclear
defensive system that did not threaten other countries. Its purpose was
to be able to negate a ballistic missile threat and therefore discourage
other countries from investing in ballistic missile systems.

Defence Update 2003, released in February, foreshadowed the increasing
importance of missile defence in the 21st century.

"The Government is concerned that Australia might one day be threatened
by long range missiles with mass destruction effect and believes that
investment in defensive measures is important," Senator Hill said.

"Developing this capability will contribute to global, regional and
Australia security by offering protection from missile attack and
dissuading nations from acquiring or developing such weapons.

"There will also be opportunities for Australian industry. Our decision
last year to invest in the systems development and demonstration phase
of the Joint Strike Fighter program is already paying dividends, with
nine contracts awarded to Australian companies to date. There is the
potential for similar benefits from our involvement in the missile
defence program."

Australia has had a long involvement in missile defence through hosting
a ballistic missile early warning ground station for 29 years as the
Joint Defence Facility Nurrungar and now as the relay ground station at
Pine Gap in the Northern Territory.

We need to reinvent ourselves without the US.
It's time we grew up.

Yes, it's time you did.

Do a few basic monetary/economic sums based on a primary production economy
situated in the 2nd driest continent about as far as possible from the rest
of the land masses with a population of 20 million now effectively so
urbanised they believe milk comes from cardboard boxes and are huddled on
the beach and tell me again how "We need to reinvent ourselves without the
US.
It's time we grew up."

You drooling f'ing idiot.

Lot of Kiwi in you, eh?

"RT" wrote in message
...

iCentral wrote in message
.. .

"David Bromage" wrote in message
. ..
Thursday, 4 December 2003
153/2003

AUSTRALIA TO PARTICIPATE IN US MISSILE DEFENCE PROGRAM

The Government has decided that Australia will participate in the
United
States' missile defence program, Defence Minister Robert Hill announced
today.

Senator Hill said Australia was working with the US to determine the
most appropriate forms of Australian participation that will not only
be
in our strategic defence interests but also provide maximum
opportunities for Australian industry.

These could include:
* Expanded cooperation to help detect missiles at the point of launch
and therefore get early warning of an impending attack.
* Acquisition of, or other cooperation in the fields of, ship-based and
ground-based sensors.
* Science and technology research development, testing and evaluation.
Senator Hill said the missile defence program was a non-nuclear
defensive system that did not threaten other countries. Its purpose
was
to be able to negate a ballistic missile threat and therefore
discourage
other countries from investing in ballistic missile systems.

Defence Update 2003, released in February, foreshadowed the increasing
importance of missile defence in the 21st century.

"The Government is concerned that Australia might one day be threatened
by long range missiles with mass destruction effect and believes that
investment in defensive measures is important," Senator Hill said.

"Developing this capability will contribute to global, regional and
Australia security by offering protection from missile attack and
dissuading nations from acquiring or developing such weapons.

"There will also be opportunities for Australian industry. Our
decision
last year to invest in the systems development and demonstration phase
of the Joint Strike Fighter program is already paying dividends, with
nine contracts awarded to Australian companies to date. There is the
potential for similar benefits from our involvement in the missile
defence program."

Australia has had a long involvement in missile defence through hosting
a ballistic missile early warning ground station for 29 years as the
Joint Defence Facility Nurrungar and now as the relay ground station at
Pine Gap in the Northern Territory.

We need to reinvent ourselves without the US.
It's time we grew up.

Yes, it's time you did.

Do a few basic monetary/economic sums based on a primary production
economy
situated in the 2nd driest continent about as far as possible from the
rest
of the land masses with a population of 20 million now effectively so
urbanised they believe milk comes from cardboard boxes and are huddled on
the beach and tell me again how "We need to reinvent ourselves without the
US.
It's time we grew up."

You drooling f'ing idiot.

Lot of Kiwi in you, eh?

Well, even if I totally disagreed with his assessment I see more value in
debating the issue than a moronic personal attack.

I am still waiting for Howard to say 'no' just once to a Bush proposal. And
I am not holding my breath.

Cheers,
John

"John Ewing" none@needed wrote in message
u...


Well, even if I totally disagreed with his assessment I see more value in
debating the issue than a moronic personal attack.

I am still waiting for Howard to say 'no' just once to a Bush proposal.
And
I am not holding my breath.

and what would that achieve?

Bush and Howard are both conservatives, in general terms they believe in the
same things.

Should Howard tell Bush to get stuffed just so people who haven't thought
the subject through, are placated?

Perhaps Cardinal Pell should tell the Pope to FOAD on the issue of gay
marriges on the same basis?

"L'acrobat" wrote in message
...

"John Ewing" none@needed wrote in message
u...


Well, even if I totally disagreed with his assessment I see more value
in
debating the issue than a moronic personal attack.

I am still waiting for Howard to say 'no' just once to a Bush proposal.
And
I am not holding my breath.

and what would that achieve?

Bush and Howard are both conservatives, in general terms they believe in
the
same things.

I'd have to say your statement is generally true!

Should Howard tell Bush to get stuffed just so people who haven't thought
the subject through, are placated?

No - you've lost me with that one. I just believe Howard should not feel
obligated to follow every proposal put forward by the US. Perhaps you are
more confident than me that Howard has always placed Australia's interests
ahead of keeping the US on side. Missile defence as an effective strategy
has been challenged by more brilliant minds than yours or mine. Be
interesting to know whose technical advice Mr Howard sought? Or did the US
conveniently provide that for us as well.

Perhaps Cardinal Pell should tell the Pope to FOAD on the issue of gay
marriges on the same basis?

By all means - if that suits your argument. I certainly wouldn't look to
the church for examples of moral leadership or freedom of speech. Never had
a good record for tolerance of other people's views.

Cheers,
John

i think the whole missile defence thing is a crock

theres not the slightest bit of evidence it'd work

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.


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

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.

and we've got the nuclear capable plane to do it.
the f111

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.

by the way ....
read in the news today
germanys selling nuclear reactors to china ....

"John Ewing" none@needed wrote in message
u...


Bush and Howard are both conservatives, in general terms they believe in
the
same things.

I'd have to say your statement is generally true!

Then why would you expect Howard to disagree with him?


Should Howard tell Bush to get stuffed just so people who haven't
thought
the subject through, are placated?

No - you've lost me with that one. I just believe Howard should not feel
obligated to follow every proposal put forward by the US. Perhaps you are
more confident than me that Howard has always placed Australia's interests
ahead of keeping the US on side.

This will come as a shock to you, but it is in Australias interest to keep
the US on side, the fact that doing so requires doing the very things that
Howard believes in should be no surprise - they are both conservatives,
which part of that don't you get?

Missile defence as an effective strategy
has been challenged by more brilliant minds than yours or mine. Be
interesting to know whose technical advice Mr Howard sought? Or did the
US
conveniently provide that for us as well.

The old 'bomber will always get through' crowds argument resurfaces, they
were right, for as long as nobody tried to stop the bomber.

N Korea has already made a number of suggestions that they have nukes and
missiles and are prepared to use them, how is it unwise to spend some of our
money trying to stop them?

The point is BMD doesn't have to be 100% effective, to be effective. it just
has to make sure that the enemy can't be assured of a one shot, one kill
capability.


Perhaps Cardinal Pell should tell the Pope to FOAD on the issue of gay
marriges on the same basis?

By all means - if that suits your argument. I certainly wouldn't look to
the church for examples of moral leadership or freedom of speech. Never
had
a good record for tolerance of other people's views.

You are the one arguing that a conservative should disagree with a
conservative just to show he disagrees.

"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

"...and I told Orville and I told Wilbur, that thing will never
fly......"

Better minds than ours appear to think otherwise. Probably won't be
100% effective but then
what is? If they lauch say, 10 missiles at us and some, say 3 fail in
some phase (unlikely they will all work perfectly either)
and it gets 5 of those that don't, well would you rather have 2 nukes to
clean up after or 7? Nothings certain or perfect
but it seems to me that it's worth a go. No real down side, and if it
*does* work we are at worst safer than we were.
Note that I don't consider whining from Indonesia and Malaysia to be a
'real down side'..

The CO

"The CO" wrote in message
...

"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

"...and I told Orville and I told Wilbur, that thing will never
fly......"

Better minds than ours appear to think otherwise. Probably won't be
100% effective but then
what is? If they lauch say, 10 missiles at us and some, say 3 fail in
some phase (unlikely they will all work perfectly either)
and it gets 5 of those that don't, well would you rather have 2 nukes to
clean up after or 7? Nothings certain or perfect
but it seems to me that it's worth a go. No real down side, and if it
*does* work we are at worst safer than we were.




Note that I don't consider whining from Indonesia and Malaysia to be a
'real down side'..

neither do i.
they complain we got F111s

theyd whine more if we got a squadron of Airbus multirole tanker transports,
and a damn sight louder than if we were just participating in missile
defence.

thats something i'd pay money for just for the fun of it. regardless of the
defence benefits to be able to extend the range of the f111 and bring all
those flanker bases in the region to heel.










The CO