TODAY. Bewdy! It’s gonna happen sooner than we thought. Just like Ukraine does against Russia, Australia will fight America’s war against China
Isn’t it exciting?
We thought that it would take a while, for little ole Australia (population under 26 million), to become important on the world stage. I mean, most Americans are amazed that we speak English: that’s because they’ve heard of Austria, but not of Australia. Until now.
I mean, Ukraine (pop.44 million) was pretty much ignored, but now it’s big-time. They are “weakening” Russia, and isolating Russia culturally from Europe. Having their own country utterly trashed, environmentally, financially, health-wise, and morally – a small price to pay for being famous.
Australia can achieve the same. Right now, America is plying Australia with propaganda, weaponry and marines, and war games, and best of all, nuclear weapons. Despite international law, these can be based in Australia ‘temporarily”. Australians can’t know when or where the U.S. nukes will be. Fortunately, it is nearly Footee Season, so Australians won’t care anyway.
Australia’s war against China needs to happen soon, (though, preferably, some sort of delicate balance should happen in Ukraine first).
It needs to happen soon, before China becomes even more alarmed, and develops long-range nuclear missiles that could strike too many American bases and cities. Better to have China just focus on hitting Australia. Australia’s current Prime Minister is a bit of a wimp. We need our own charismatic Zelensky – but Peter Dutton might do?
With weasel words, Australia’s top military brass, and sycophant Richard Marles, justify allowing U.S. nuclear weapons in Australia
US nuclear-armed bomber visits allowed under Australian treaty obligations The Age, Matthew Knott, February 15, 2023
American B-52 bombers armed with nuclear warheads could rotate through Australia without breaching treaty obligations, the nation’s most senior defence public servant has indicated.
The Australian public would never be informed whether such aircraft are carrying nuclear weapons under the so-called US policy of “warhead ambiguity” in which it neither confirms nor denies if particular forms of military equipment are nuclear-armed.
While adamantly refusing to address hypothetical scenarios, Foreign Minister Penny Wong said: “The responsible way of handling this is to recognise that the US has a ‘neither confirm nor deny position’ which we understand and respect.”
It was revealed last year that the United States is preparing to build dedicated facilities for up to six B-52 bombers at Tindal air base, south of Darwin, for use in the Northern Territory dry season.
Nuclear weapons opponents and the Chinese government blasted the plan on the basis it could escalate tensions in the Asia-Pacific and accelerate an arms race in the region………………….
Australia is prohibited from permanently housing nuclear weapons in the country under its treaty obligations. But Moriarty, speaking in general terms, suggested US nuclear-armed bombers could temporarily pass through Australia without breaching international law.
“The stationing of nuclear weapons in Australia is prohibited by the South Pacific Nuclear-free Zone Treaty to which Australia is fully committed,” Moriarty said.
“There is no impediment under this treaty or the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty to the visit of foreign aircraft to Australian airfields or transit of Australia’s airspace, including in the context of our training and exercise programs and Australia’s force posture co-operation program with the United States.”
The B-52 is a long-range, heavy bomber that can carry out ocean surveillance and anti-ship operations and “can carry nuclear or precision guided conventional ordnance”, according to the US government……………
Greens defence spokesman David Shoebridge said: “It is highly alarming that Australian military facilities are being made available for the US to launch its nuclear-capable bombers.
“This decision not only makes us a nuclear target – it further erodes our sovereignty.
“The US has made it clear it won’t tell anyone when their B-52’s are nuclear armed or not. This leaves Australia in the dark about our role in the USA’s global nuclear strategy.”
Defence Minister Richard Marles said that while Australia had agreed to an increased tempo of American rotations in northern Australia, there had been no change in policy regarding the presence of nuclear-armed weapons.
“America maintains a policy of ambiguity in terms of the nature of assets that are on their platforms and they do that so as to amplify their extended nuclear deterrence,” he told the ABC.
Asked whether US nuclear-armed bombers should be allowed in Australia, opposition defence spokesman Andrew Hastie said: “Of course, we want to see a greater presence of the American military in the Indo-Pacific.”……………………………………………
When the ABC’s Four Corners revealed the plan to build dedicated facilities for the B-52s in October, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Zhao Lijian said: “Such a move by the US and Australia escalates regional tensions, gravely undermines regional peace and stability, and may trigger an arms race in the region.”
Greens foreign affairs spokesman Jordan Steele-John said: “Nuclear-capable B-52 bombers have no place on Australian bases, on Australian shores or in Australian airspace. They are an offensive weapon that will destabilise our region.” https://www.theage.com.au/politics/federal/us-nuclear-armed-bomber-visits-allowed-under-australian-treaty-obligations-20230215-p5ckrs.html—
The Defence Strategic Review and Australia’s ‘Alliance’ obsession
After that Australian forces, or rather their equipment, was aligned to a newer kind of threat from irregular or insurgent forces in Western Asia, conflicts in which Australia had little or no direct interest but was engaged there to keep the US on-side
The proposed long term acquisition of nuclear submarines has completely upended our diplomatic and strategic positioning, as revealed (perhaps unintentionally) by Defence Minister Richard Marles when he told a gathering in London this month that the AUKUS goal is to create “a more seamless defence industrial space” between the three countries, affirming that Australia is more tied at the hip to the US than previously admitted – because we would not have national control over the submarines in relation to their location and deployment, thereby severely compromising our national sovereignty.
The submarines would have little purpose for independent defence if ranged against China
Pearls and Irritations. By Andrew Farran, Feb 16, 2023
How might the renown mid-20th century linguist Ludwig Wittgenstein have addressed the current defence strategic review?
As the perceptive mid-20th century Cambridge based English/Austrian linguist Ludwig Wittgenstein explained, the answer you get to a question depends on how the question is formed. The same wisdom could have been conveyed to military planners in the past when they set out to plan force structures for twenty or more years ahead. Wrong question. Wrong answers.
Looking back, think of all the military expenditure over the past twenty years and more that has been wasted as being unusable or irrelevant to purpose. Think of the lost opportunities for sound force development and the money saved that might have been available for under-resourced schools, hospitals and welfare assistance falling short of need.
After World War Two planning remained where it had left off, with established formations around divisions, battalions and platoons, essentially ground forces and an expensive aircraft carrier unsuitable for serious combat. After much debate a viable carrier fleet was seen as unattainable and unaffordable with the loss of the existing fleet air arm. Upgrades on traditional lines were undertaken following the Korean War but thereafter with Vietnam becoming the main preoccupation (misconceived), and keeping faith with the US on military commitments, the conventional wisdom in military circles was that future conflict would involve containing insurgents in Asian jungles and the protection of naval approaches around continental Australia and its resources of a conventional nature.
Nonetheless a parallel objective was the search for a silver bullet that would provide cover for all contingencies whether existing or not. Hence the embrace by government of the F111 fighter/bomber not withstanding the tribulations of its procurement and eventual deployment (the latter being relatively little as it happened). After that Australian forces, or rather their equipment, was aligned to a newer kind of threat from irregular or insurgent forces in Western Asia, conflicts in which Australia had little or no direct interest but was engaged there to keep the US on-side – being our insurance in case of larger dangers closer to home.
…………………………. The real threat to America today is largely internal given rising levels of rioting and disaffection (racial and otherwise). But concern over America’s decline vis a vis China, whether real or not, is now front and centre on force structure issues.
…………….. As before we have looked for a magic pudding that would enhance our profile and please our once great and powerful friends. Hence as was the case with the F111s, and more recently the F-35s we have become fixated with nuclear powered submarines, having decided they are needed for long range deployment.
There is much that is unreal about this move. Firstly long range deployment implies that China is the potential or envisaged enemy requiring Australian engagement at that level. While China might be seen as flexing its muscles lately it has done nothing in this regard that is different from the United States. Both seek to protect and advance their relative status. But for neither side would this be advanced by military conflict.
……………..
wider world has a vested interest in the avoidance of counter-productive warfare and a deep felt need for viable multilateralism.
(See Jeffrey Sachs, “The new geopolitics”.)
………………………… The proposed long term acquisition of nuclear submarines has completely upended our diplomatic and strategic positioning, as revealed (perhaps unintentionally) by Defence Minister Richard Marles when he told a gathering in London this month that the AUKUS goal is to create “a more seamless defence industrial space” between the three countries, affirming that Australia is more tied at the hip to the US than previously admitted. – because we would not have national control over the submarines in relation to their location and deployment, thereby severely compromising our national sovereignty.
That would be a high price to pay even if we were engaged in a major war as was the case in 1942; but it is not and should not be the price we pay on speculation over assumed threats that are anything but imminent. The submarines would have little purpose for independent defence if ranged against China which can deploy a growing number of nuclear powered and armed submarines together with some 50 conventional powered ones (bearing in mind too that North Korea could deploy just as many given that the Korean War remains unresolved).
The Strategic Review currently underway will certainly strengthen our capacity to protect our immediate off-shore regions and coastline with new technologies including drones for enhanced surveillance, medium range missiles and sea mines, and survivable platforms to support them – while appreciating at the same time that in a high conflict situation the Chinese or any other militarily powerful nation could lob missiles on our vulnerable locations with disconcerting accuracy (including cities, Pine Gap and North West Cape). That point could well be the end of us sooner than we would like to think
So why buy into this unless doing so would make a difference when we know it would not. There is a lot more to this issue for the government to consider than when Prime Minister Menzies and his Cabinet decided on Australian forces being deployed in Vietnam or when Prime Minister Howard and his kitchen cabinet decided similarly in the case of Iraq – both gigantic mistakes. https://johnmenadue.com/the-defence-strategic-review-and-australias-alliance-obsession/
Australian government OK with not knowing whether or not visiting US aircraft carry nuclear weapons!
“………………… Appearing before a Senate estimates hearing, Defence secretary Greg Moriarty and senior military figures were also quizzed about a nuclear submarines deal with the United States and Britain.
Mr Moriarty said the AUKUS agreement would also accelerate the acquisition of guided weapons…………….
“There is no impediment under either treaty to the visit of foreign aircraft to Australian airfields or transit of Australia’s airspace, including in the context of our training and exercise programs,” he said.
“Successive Australian governments have understood and respected the long-standing US policy of neither confirming nor denying the presence of nuclear weapons on particular platforms.”……..
Canberra mulls defence overhaul as subs decision nears (msn.com)
Officials will not confirm whether US bombers in Australia carry nuclear weapons
By defence correspondent Andrew Greene, 16 Feb 23
Officials have stopped short of ruling out that US strategic bombers are carrying nuclear weapons to Australia, but the government insists any such move would not breach this country’s international obligations.
Key points:
- United States bombers with nuclear capability frequently fly in Australian air
- The US has a policy of refusing to confirm or deny if those bombers carry nuclear weaponry
- The federal government says it respects US secrecy on nuclear weapons
During a Senate estimates hearing on Wednesday Greens senators sought details on whether visiting American aircraft such as the B-52s operating out of the Top End are ever nuclear armed.
The committee was told the United States had a longstanding policy of “neither confirming or denying” the presence of nuclear weapons under its practice of maintaining global operational unpredictability. ……..
Defence Department secretary Greg Moriarty said the “stationing of nuclear weapons” in Australia was prohibited under the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty, but the treaty did not prevent visits by the US bombers.
Foreign Minister Penny Wong backed the secretary’s statement and accused Greens senators of trying to “make a political point”.
“This is the Australian position: We understand and respect the longstanding US policy of neither confirming or denying. That is the position,” Senator Wong said.
“But we remain fully committed to the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty, and we will fully comply with our international obligations, which are understood by the United States.”
Under further questioning from Greens senator David Shoebridge, the foreign minister said it would not be appropriate to elaborate. …………………….
Defence mulls methods to make warships more deadly
Defence has also revealed it is examining ways to make Australia’s next fleet of warships more lethal. ……………more https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-02-15/defence-wont-confirm-if-us-bombers-carry-nuclear-weapons/101978596
Kazzi Jai comments on ARPANSA ( The Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency) and the issue of the mislaid (now found) highly radioactive device
As a generalisation here’s the takeaway so far….
Thinking that consultation = consent!!!
No way buddy!!!
That the Cesium source was not a Commonwealth responsibility…..um….those sources need to be registered and licenced through ARPANSA!!!
Is ARPANSA NOT a Commonwealth body??
We do NOT have data or details on the transport of these huge quantities of CLASSIFIED NUCLEAR WASTE through the Blue Mountains or inverse estuaries like the Spencer Gulf !!! There have been reports in the past dealing with these considered inadequacies of these magnitude in Australia- it CANNOT AND MUST NOT BE GLOSSED OVER!
How do the Blue Mountains or Spencer Gulf which is a inverse estuary deal with contamination which WILL NOT “IF” happen!!
X-rays are NOT PART OF THE NUCLEAR DUMP!
They have NO NUCLEAR COMPONENT!!!
Nuclear Medicine Sector ? How about explaining the INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTION of Technetium 99m which is the MAJOR PRODUCTION at Lucas Heights where THE MAJORITY ISNT USED IN AUSTRALIA BUT IS EXPORTED!!!
And we in Australia SHOULDER THE COSTS!!
Also – there is a REGISTER held by ARPANSA called the AUSTRALIAN RADIATION INCIDENT REGISTER – which includes ALL INCIDENTS INCLUDING TRANSPORT MISHAPS AND ACCIDENTS! It was once available as an open public portal but now you must apply for it through ARPANSA…
Sky News presents rubbishy programme on “preparing Australia for war against China”
National Times 15 Feb 23 Now Hear This Now Hear This – Pauline Hanson has Spoken ( Eric Remarque for the National Times and Isaac Floyd on Twitter)
SKY TV News has a special Wednesday night program ( shock horror) about preparing for war with China.
REALLY !
Pauline Hanson a noted expert on Foreign Affairs and International Relations is obligingly feeding into this right wing war mongering propaganda.
But it appear that it is NewsCorp who’s on the warpath, not China, not Australia.
How soon before the likes of Pauline Hanson and others on the right side of politics start advocating for conscription.
The question is – do these people really understand that China is a Nuclear Power or that the key to Australia is trade.
Maybe SKY-TV News should understand that their favoured Political Party the Liberals lost the election because the people were sick and tied of the incompetence of the Morrison Government.
Its also worth noting that Lockheed Martin is a sponcor of SKY -TV News.
All things considered companies like this should not be permitted to sponsor news outlets.
So lets treat this SKY-TV News Special for what it is – RUBBISH
We’ve Forgotton The Potential Horrors of What a Nuclear Winter Would Be Like
The results revealed only 3.2 percent of UK respondents and 7.5 percent of US respondents had heard about the consequences of a nuclear war from contemporary media or culture.
In the event of a nuclear attack on Ukraine from Russia, nearly one in five people involved in the study supported retaliation with nuclear weapons. For those who had seen the infographics ahead of time, that figure dropped by 13 percent in the UK and 16 percent in the US – showing how education makes a difference in public opinion.
15 February 2023, By DAVID NIELD https://www.sciencealert.com/weve-forgotton-the-potential-horrors-of-what-a-nuclear-winter-would-be-like—
Under the shadow of the Cold War, many in the world feared the impending prospect of a nuclear winter. According to a new report, our focus has since drifted from its horrors, leaving us with a general lack of awareness that could be dangerous for the future of humankind.
It goes without saying that the threat of a nuclear blast is no trivial event. Decades of pop culture have left society with a relatively strong association between global calamity and atomic weapons.
But the exact details on exactly what we might expect from such an escalating conflict have become hazy in the past few decades.
The facts themselves are fairly clear. Besides the many millions who would be killed directly from the blasts, climate models predict the debris resulting from nuclear war would block out much of our sunlight for up to a decade. The consequences for survivors would be devastating: a decline in global temperature, followed by widespread crop failure, and then mass starvation.
In spite of this dark threat, just a small percentage of today’s population claim to be well informed about the precise consequences of a nuclear war – and many of those people are relying on outdated information spread amid the political tensions between superpowers in the 1980s.
“In 2023 we find ourselves facing a risk of nuclear conflict greater than we’ve seen since the early eighties,” says Paul Ingram, a global risk researcher and diplomacy expert at the Centre for the Study of Existential Risk (CSER) run by the University of Cambridge in the UK. Ingram is the sole author of the report, which has not been peer reviewed.
“Yet there is little in the way of public knowledge or debate of the unimaginably dire long-term consequences of nuclear war for the planet and global populations.”
An online poll of 1,500 people in the UK and 1,500 people in the US was used to prepare the new report. The participants were quizzed on how much they know about a potential nuclear winter, and where they had got their information from. The survey allowed multiple sources to be picked, so they’re not mutually exclusive.
The results revealed 3.2 percent of UK respondents and 7.5 percent of US respondents had heard about the consequences of a nuclear war from contemporary media or culture. A greater fraction of people said their recollection of information spread in the 1980s, during a period of increasing hostility in the US-Soviet Union Cold War, informed their views of the risk of a nuclear winter. Unsurprisingly, few people relied on recent academic papers.
Using hypothetical news reports as a prompt, Ingram also looked at how people would want their governments to respond in the event of a nuclear strike. Half of those surveyed were shown infographics on the effects of nuclear winter before they answered, while the other half were not.
In the event of a nuclear attack on Ukraine from Russia, nearly one in five people involved in the study supported retaliation with nuclear weapons. For those who had seen the infographics ahead of time, that figure dropped by 13 percent in the UK and 16 percent in the US – showing how education makes a difference in public opinion.
“There is an urgent need for public education within all nuclear-armed states that is informed by the latest research,” says Ingram. “We need to collectively reduce the temptation that leaders of nuclear-armed states might have to threaten or even use such weapons in support of military operations.”
The nuclear winter infographics used by the researchers were published in a 2022 peer-reviewed study. The smallest nuclear war theorized involved 100 nukes of 15 kilotons each (about the same size used on Hiroshima), which represents just 0.1 percent of the total combined nuclear arsenal of Russia and the US.
That ‘small’ war would lead to 27 million direct fatalities and 225 million additional deaths from starvation, scientists calculate. At the top end of the scale, all-out nuclear war, we’re looking at 400 million direct deaths and more than 5 billion people dying of starvation because of the consequences of nuclear war.
With so many factors to consider, estimates differ when it comes to the impact of a nuclear war – but even the best case scenarios will clearly be unimaginably terrible. What this report shows is that a big part of avoiding the self-destruction of our species is in raising awareness of what we might be about to do to ourselves.
“Ideas of nuclear winter are predominantly a lingering cultural memory, as if it is the stuff of history, rather than a horribly contemporary risk,” says Ingram.
The report is available to read in full online at the Centre for the Study of Existential Risk.
Double your money? Researchers tests co-benefits of farming crops with solar — RenewEconomy
Yet another research project investigates the benefits – and challenges – of optimising land use by pairing solar farms with agricultural crops. The post Double your money? Researchers tests co-benefits of farming crops with solar appeared first on RenewEconomy.
Double your money? Researchers tests co-benefits of farming crops with solar — RenewEconomy
Works begin on green hydrogen plus battery pilot in South Australia — RenewEconomy
Sod turned on Japan-backed pilot electrolyser plant that aims to be shipped low-cost green hydrogen from SA to Indonesia by the end of the year. The post Works begin on green hydrogen plus battery pilot in South Australia appeared first on RenewEconomy.
Works begin on green hydrogen plus battery pilot in South Australia — RenewEconomy
Webinar: Crisis, contingencies and the green energy transition — RenewEconomy
Momentum is building for Australia’s rapid switch to a renewables grid. But how to unlock the capital required given the regulatory, policy and market risks? The post Webinar: Crisis, contingencies and the green energy transition appeared first on RenewEconomy.
Webinar: Crisis, contingencies and the green energy transition — RenewEconomy
French nuclear giant EDF buys massive Australian floating offshore wind project — RenewEconomy
French nuclear energy giant EDF buys massive floating offshore wind project in Australia that it plans to build in stages. The post French nuclear giant EDF buys massive Australian floating offshore wind project appeared first on RenewEconomy.
French nuclear giant EDF buys massive Australian floating offshore wind project — RenewEconomy
Antinuclear 