Antinuclear

Nuclear submarines, later nuclear weapons? – phallic symbols for Australian politicians

All those who sit in power – whether it’s in Tokyo or on Adelaide Avenue – seemingly can’t quite resist the temptation to hold their own firm, erect missiles. And this is the reality that lurks behind the submarine debate here in Australia.

And that is the whole point of the bigger submarines our politicians are determined to buy. They aren’t being designed for carrying nuclear missiles, of course, but they will be able to do so.

As Britons posture on nuclear needs, reflect on what is happening at home  Canberra Times , Nicholas Stuart, 20 July 13 Imperial hubris dies hard. Britain still can’t quite get used to the idea that it is no longer ”Great”. This week five former Conservative and Labor defence ministers, together with their force’s chiefs, warned the country it must never, ever, abandon its own nuclear deterrent. Even though Australia remains the only country on which Britain has ever successfully detonated a bomb, a small and vociferous lobby group of apoplectic lords, sirs and doctors have joined bewhiskered admirals and fuming former military chiefs to demand and insist that Britain must never reduce its own independent fleet of nuclear submarines.

We are not talking about abandoning the bomb, mind you. The proposal on the table is simply to reduce the number of missile-carrying submarines to two, instead of four. A mere 96 nuclear-tipped warheads, instead of 192. The ability to utterly destroy a continent, rather than the world. And why?………

All those who sit in power – whether it’s in Tokyo or on Adelaide Avenue – seemingly can’t quite resist the temptation to hold their own firm, erect missiles. And this is the reality that lurks behind the submarine debate here in Australia.

The idea of spending $38 billion or $42 billion (pick a number, your guess is as good as mine) to make our own home-grown submarine is, quite frankly, laughable – except for one thing. It preserves the possibility, at some ill-defined point in the future, of acquiring our own nuclear missiles. Nobody is admitting it, but the reality is the new submarine project is actually all about an Australian bomb. Otherwise it just doesn’t make sense.

If we just needed to defend our own shores we could make do very handsomely with far cheaper German, Swedish or Spanish boats. In 20 years’ time there will be no need to send commerce raiders out into the mid-Pacific ocean to torpedo whatever is sailing across the seas rather than flying through the air. That is why we have brought out Britain’s own David Gould to manage our submarine project. He has supervised the redesign of Britain’s nuclear-powered boats and although these do not carry the ultimate deterrent of ballistic missiles, they do have other smaller ship-to-shore missiles that are quite capable of being tipped with (admittedly much smaller) nuclear devices.

And that is the whole point of the bigger submarines our politicians are determined to buy. They aren’t being designed for carrying nuclear missiles, of course, but they will be able to do so. Particularly as weapons become smaller and more capable. I’m informed women insist to their men that it is not the size that matters. But just feel the power.  http://www.canberratimes.com.au/comment/as-britons-posture-on-nuclear-needs-reflect-on-what-is-happening-at-home-20130719-2qa4t.html#ixzz2ZcC1FnUy

July 20, 2013 - Posted by Christina Macpherson | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, weapons and war