Paul Keating: North Korea could collapse if it gives up nuclear weapons, SMH, James MassolaFergus Hunter, 12 Aug 17 “……..When asked if a missile shield was an option that Australia should pursue to protect the mainland, Mr Keating’s response was blunt.
“I think this is more than debatable. The offending missiles would approach their targets at something like Mach 20, a phenomenal speed. We could never know, until the fatal event, whether a missile defence system would effectively work, or work in respect of each and every missile,” he said.
“A more worldly and competent foreign and defence policy is by far the preferred first line of defence – rather than the default position of relying on expensive but problematic hardware.”
Mr Turnbull also disagreed with Mr Abbott and Mr Rudd – who have both told Fairfax Media in the last four weeks that Australia should pursue missile defence – on the need for such a shield.
He said on Friday the current advice from Defence was that the terminal high altitude area defence [THAAD] system “is designed to provide protection for relatively small areas against short to intermediate range missiles”……..
Greens leader Richard Di Natale said “the last thing we need here is a Prime Minister backing an unhinged and paranoid leader into a conflict that could potentially end life on Earth as we know it”.
He called on Mr Turnbull to tell the President to “back off”.
Pine Gap hardwires Australia into a Korean war https://www.echo.net.au/2017/08/pine-gap-hardwires-australia-korean-war/ Whether we like it or not, Australia would be dragged into a conflict on the Korean Peninsula because of the critical role of Pine Gap in US military operations against North Korea.
Given the geography of Korea and the decades of military preparations of both sides, we could become a participant in a war likely to result in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Koreans, with a high likelihood of uncontrollable escalation to involve regional conflict.
Informed commentators recognize that there is no military solution to this conflict, and talking is the only option to avoid unimaginable horror.
Difficult though it is to negotiate with North Korea, there is good reason to believe that its leaders are not bent on suicide. There are indications that negotiations could be possible, but they need to be genuine to have any chance of avoiding war.
The Australian government’s strategic response has for a long time been compliance with whatever constitutes United States policy of the day.
In the hands of President Trump, this places the future of both the Korean Peninsula and Australia in the hands of a deeply delusional narcissist who is incapable of comprehending the consequences of his actions.
The Joint Defence Facility Pine Gap will play a critical role in both conventional and nuclear-armed U.S. attacks on North Korea.
Pine Gap hardwires Australia into US combat operations in Northeast Asia. Pine Gap’s tasking will now be very actively focussed on North Korea.
The logic of nuclear weapons, epitomized by the United States’ nuclear posture, and fully supported by compliant Australian governments, has led to North Korea’s successful path to nuclear weapons state status.
Its goal has clearly been to deter US from attempting regime change, rather than suicidal nuclear aggression.
It is time for Australia to take an independent stance urging the utmost caution on its nuclear-armed ally as well as on North Korea, and actively oppose any action leading to what would be a catastrophic outbreak of war.
But equally, the present crisis makes clear that doctrines of nuclear deterrence – by any country – hold the whole world to ransom, with deterrence failure inevitable in the long run.
It is clear that only the abolition of nuclear weapons will offer any chance of planetary safety.
The Australian government’s craven acceptance of US demands that its allies boycott the treaty to prohibit nuclear weapons adopted at the United Nations indicates that we have no independent foreign policy.
Professor Richard Tanter, senior research associate at the Nautilus Institute and honorary professor in the School of Political and Social Sciences at Melbourne University.
Professor Tanter will address the issue ‘What would an independent Australian foreign policy look like?’ during the upcoming Independent and Peaceful Australia Network National Conference in Melbourne over the weekend of 8-10 September.
Tony Abbott calls for Australia to urgently consider missile defence shield, The Age, Peter Hartcher, 11 Aug 17, Tony Abbott has called for Australia urgently to consider a missile defence shield to protect against attack by nuclear-armed North Korea.
This means that Australia’s two most recent former leaders – one Labor and one Liberal – have now made such a call in the last four weeks. Australia has no defence against intercontinental ballistic missiles. The government has yet to indicate any interest in acquiring one.
After US President Donald Trump this week said he would deal with Pyongyang’s threats with “fire and fury”, North Korea said that “only absolute force can work on him”….
Foreign Affairs Minister Julie Bishop said on Wednesday that a North Korean ICBM capability posed “an unacceptable existential threat to our country” although she said Australia was “not a primary target”.
She said that Australia’s strategy was to deter North Korea through international solidarity and called on “all sides” to step back.
But Kevin Rudd and Tony Abbott separately are urging defensive steps:…..
This week the US Defence Intelligence Agency estimated that North Korea already has a miniaturised nuclear warhead to put atop the missiles, according to US media reports.
Mr Abbott said: “We should upgrade the capability of the air warfare destroyers so they’re not just able to track incoming missiles but shoot them down.”
“And we should look at the sort of system the US is installing in South Korea,” the Terminal High Altitude Area Defence system. Mr Abbott said that the main argument against a missile defence was cost.
“Some would say that it would contribute to an arms race, but it’s a race that others are already running,” he added.
Experts point out that neither system nominated by Mr Abbott is designed for intercepting intercontinental ballistic missiles but for shorter-range missiles.
Will Australia join in the war if Trump’s USA attacks North Korea?
Australia will join the conflict if North Korea attacks the US: Malcolm Turnbull, SMH Fergus Hunter, 11 Aug 17, Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull has declared Australia would invoke the ANZUS security treaty for only the second time in its history in response to any attack by North Korea against the United States.
Mr Turnbull also pushed back against calls – including from former prime ministers Tony Abbott and Kevin Rudd – for Australia to develop a missile defence shield to protect the mainland from the threat of North Korea’s nuclear weapons and long-range missile program.
The Prime Minister’s commitment to assist the US caps off days of escalating tensions, with US President Donald Trump threatening to unleash “fire and fury” on the rogue state and the North Korean regime warning it would attack the US Pacific territory of Guam.”The United States has no stronger ally than Australia. We have an ANZUS agreement and if there is an attack on Australia or the United States … each of us will come to the other’s aid,” Mr Turnbull told Melbourne radio station 3AW on Friday……
After invoking ANZUS in 2001, Mr Howard said Australia would consult with the US and consider any requests “within the limits of its capability”.
A month later, the government committed Australian troops to the US-led invasion of Afghanistan.
Opponents have criticised the treaty, arguing it unnecessarily places Australia’s security at risk.
Greens leader Richard Di Natale said: “The last thing we need here is a Prime Minister backing an unhinged and paranoid leader into a conflict that could potentially end life on Earth as we know it.”
He accused Mr Turnbull of putting a target on Australia’s back and called on him to tell the US President to “back off”.
“If there was ever a clearer example of why Australia needs to ditch the US alliance and forge an independent, non-aligned foreign policy, this is it. Malcolm Turnbull now needs to pick up the phone, he needs to talk to Donald Trump and urge him to de-eascalate.”
The Japanese city of Hiroshima of around 350,000 people, was the first city to be attacked with a nuclear weapon when a single bomb was dropped by the USA on August 6, 1945 towards the end of World War 2.
The bomb and its firestorm destroyed two-thirds of the city, with an estimated 70,000 ordinary people killed immediately and a similar number over the next five years. These deaths resulted from the immediate explosion, burns, radiation and cancers.
The city was devastated with destruction of most buildings. Photos appear to show a scene from hell with the city burned out, and civilians with horrendous burns and injuries.
Nuclear proliferation has ensued internationally since then, with an estimated 19,000 nuclear weapons now in existence, all much more powerful than the bomb dropped on Hiroshima. The threat of nuclear war was strongly present throughout the Cold War, and is again rising today.
The cost of nuclear weapons is enormous with an estimated $40 billion spent annually by the US alone.
Countries known to possess nuclear weapons are Russia, USA, UK, France, China, India, Pakistan, Israel and North Korea — not necessarily all reliable international citizens whom we would trust to have a finger on the nuclear trigger, particularly in view of recent inquiries confirming that unreliable information led to the recent war in Iraq with ongoing consequences.
Some countries such as Australia without nuclear weapons choose to be under the US “nuclear umbrella”.
Today, the use of nuclear weapons would result in extraordinary numbers of immediate deaths, devastation of medical facilities to care for those injured, and destruction of infrastructure of a city on a much larger scale than seen in Japan.
It is also predicted that the atmospheric debris from a limited regional nuclear war could cause global cooling and prolonged worldwide famine.
The good news is that a new Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons has been adopted by the United Nations in July this year.
This treaty prohibits states from developing, testing, possessing, transferring or deploying nuclear weapons under any circumstances.
This treaty was passed by 122 nation, unfortunately not Australia, as our government decided not to attend these discussions. Unsurprisingly, those countries with nuclear weapons are also non-participants.
Nuclear weapons will now join the list of banned weapons such as chemical and biological weapons and cluster bombs, which seems highly appropriate given that they are designed primarily to indiscriminately cause death to massive numbers of civilians. In a recent poll about 75 per cent of Australians support nuclear disarmament.
Our government believes that the US nuclear umbrella provides protection for Australia.
Australia’s official view is that a “building block approach” is required towards improving global nuclear weapon safety, with the initial step being increased transparency regarding nuclear stockpiles among those possessing them, which seems highly unlikely to happen given the secrecy surrounding military matters.
Somewhat ironically, international nuclear weapon treaties until now have made it legal for those signatories with nuclear weapons to continue to have them, but illegal for non-nuclear countries to manufacture or buy them.
The current international situation with escalating conflict between North Korea and the US and their respective leaders, illustrates what a precarious situation the world is in with the threat of nuclear weapons being used again very real. There is also the possibility of terrorist groups gaining nuclear weapons.
Nuclear weapons are abhorrent to a civilised society. Whilst in existence they are a threat to all.
Their cost is enormous. The existence of nuclear weapons cannot enhance international safety
The only winners in the nuclear arms race are the arms manufacturers. Australia still has an opportunity to participate in this current UN nuclear abolition treaty, and truly make our country — and our planet — safer.Sally Atrill is Tasmanian GP and the Tasmanian convener for the Medical Association for Prevention of War.
Canberra hoped that aiding Britain might be a step toward its own bomb.
Australia took tentative steps to go it alone. This included the Lucas Heights nuclear plant on Sydney’s southern fringe. Still Australia’s only reactor, it began its life researching, among other things, nuclear weapons
“We have the people, the knowledge, the history, the uranium and we still have Lucas Heights.”
Australia’s secret plans to have its own nuclear arsenal, AMERICA. Russia. China. Britain. The world’s most powerful countries all have nuclear arsenals — and few people know Australia was almost one of them,Benedict Brook@BenedictBrook, news.com.au, JULY 11, 2017 “…….A military expert has told news.com.au, that top secret plans were so advanced Australia was considered “top of the pile” of countries expected to acquire its own nuclear arsenal
It was 60 years ago that the last nuclear bomb was detonated in Australia, a British weapon at the Maralinga test site in South Australia.
If you look closely, evidence of Australia’s plans for its own nuke remain. A few hours south of Sydney, at picturesque Jervis Bay, a small road leads into the bush. By a boat ramp is a large car park.
However, this was never designed to be a place for tourists’ vehicles. Rather, it is the unfinished foundations of Australia’s first commercial nuclear power station.
The public were told it would revolutionise the country’s energy needs. The truth was it would enrich uranium for Australia’s atomic bombs.
Associate Professor Wayne Reynolds is a defence and foreign policy expert at the University of Newcastle and author of the book Australia’s Bid for the Atomic Bomb….. “We wanted to have a navy; in WWII we wanted access to heavy bombers; and so we wanted nuclear weapons. We wanted to maintain a strategic leading edge.”
Australia didn’t want to go it alone. During WWII, British and Australian experts had worked alongside their American counterparts on the Manhattan Project to build the world’s first atomic bomb.
The expectation was that the US would share the results with its allies.
“In 1946, the Americans changed that calculation by announcing they would not share any of the technology or weapons,” says Prof Reynolds. “Britain and Australia were cut out from the club”……. Many in the government harboured a desire for a joint “Empire” bomb produced between Australia, Britain, Canada and South Africa.
Despite the UK’s ownership of the bombs it detonated at Maralinga, Canberra hoped aiding Britain might be a step toward its own bomb. Certainly, no one underestimated Australia’s atom ambitions. “German, Italy, the Netherlands — all wanted nuclear weapons but Australia was top of the list because of our uranium resources, our scientists and our enrichment program,” Prof Reynolds says.
Australia took tentative steps to go it alone. This included the Lucas Heights nuclear plant on Sydney’s southern fringe. Still Australia’s only reactor, it began its life researching, among other things, nuclear weapons…..
In the early 1960s, the Menzies Government was discussing with the US the top secret “SEATO plan 4” which could have seen American bombs on Australian soil.
“This were absolutely not known by the public and plan 4 was only declassified thirty years later,” says Prof Reynolds.
…..In 1968, ex-RAAF pilot Gorton became Prime Minister. The nuclear non-proliferation treaty (NPT) was already in the works. However, a big supporter of a homegrown nuclear deterrent, Gorton wanted to Australia to be on the “brink of manufacture” of a weapon, says Prof Reynolds…….
Gough Whitlam formally ended Australia’s atom ambitions by signing onto the NPT and tying the country’s security to the US…….
Prof Reynolds says it is unlikely Australia would seek to host nuclear bombs — its own or others. But history warns you to never say never.
What is more pressing for the Canberra apparatchiks is what a base like Pine Gap does in the context of spats with other powers which Australia shares ties with. The China rise is particularly problematic, given the teeth-gnashing belligerence being shown over maritime disputes.
Even as Chinese nationals purchase Australian real estate, tremors between Washington and Beijing can be felt as the base celebrates its half-century. A happy birthday it would have been, but only for some.
The Pine Gap Anniversary Partyhttps://intpolicydigest.org/2017/07/30/pine-gap-anniversary-party, Blony Kampmark /30 JUL 2017It all happened without much fuss, since fuss was bound to be the enemy. Dignitaries, guests and various partners lined up for a gathering at Alice Springs in Australia’s Northern Territory on Saturday, commemorating the secret base’s half-century.
The Alice Spring News Online described it, not inaccurately, as a “stealth party.” The Convention Centre hosting the dinner was tight lipped throughout the week about the guest list. “Unfortunately the details of this weekend’s event are not available for public release.” Not for residents in Alice Springs; not for the electors, or even the politicians. This would be an imperial, vetted affair.
A sense about how the base functions in a defiant limbo, one resistant to Australian sovereignty, can be gathered in various ways. The local federal member, Chansey Paech, whose constituency hosts the base, was not invited. Senator Nigel Scullion’s query about the exclusion of media from the event was rebuffed by the Defence department, with the Defence Minister keen to hold the line against her own colleague.
The Institute for Aboriginal Development (IAD), charged with supplying the indigenous “welcome to country” gathering at such bashes, seemed less than pleased to supply details. When the intrepid Alice Springs News Online dared ask, the CEO Kerry Le Rossignol responded with a dismissive “No comment.”
On July 25, a Defence spokesperson insisted that, “The Joint Defence Facility Pine Gap is proud to commemorate its 50th anniversary. However, celebrations are restricted to site personnel and invited guests only.” Power without perusal; might, without scrutiny. Continue reading →
At a time when recent US administrations have become more proactive about the need for solidarity within US Global Alliance Systems, there is a pressing need for elected leaders of both government and opposition parties to be more concerned about protection of our national sovereignty.
The Conference of The Independent and Peaceful Australia Network (IPAN) in Melbourne between 8-10 September 2017 will provide peace activists with a chance to interact with an array of local and overseas speakers
There is a problem for our national sovereignty if Australia’s official voice on the terrifying issue of nuclear proliferation is not being expressed to support the representatives of Ireland, Austria, South Africa, Brazil and Mexico as co-sponsors of the Draft Treaty on new Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons.
Support for the UN Draft Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, or more comprehensive US nuclear weapons umbrellas?July 28, 2017, by: The AIM Network By Denis Bright
Where are the cheers across Australia for the new Draft Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons as finalized by the recent UN Conference on 7th July 2017?
In the past, Australia developed a bipartisan balance between continued membership of the Australia-US Alliance, support for the Charter of the United Nations and commitment to its own national sovereignty.Article 1 of the ANZUS Treaty of 1951 indeed rejected the need for sabre-rattling in the settlement of international disputes.
Barry McGuire – Eve Of Destruction
New Zealand officially left the Alliance in 1986 after continued participation compromised its national sovereignty (Office of the Historian, Bureau of Public Affairs, US Department of State Online).
In 1984, the ANZUS Treaty began to unravel when New Zealand declared its country a nuclear-free zone and refused to allow U.S. nuclear-powered submarines to visit its ports. Two years later, U.S. Secretary of State George P. Shultz and Australian Foreign Minister Bill Hayden concluded a series of bilateral talks by confirming that their countries would continue to honor their obligations to one another under the ANZUS Treaty, in spite of the fact that the trilateral aspects of the Treaty had been halted. On September 17, 1986, the United States suspended its treaty obligations toward New Zealand.
In Australia, the pendulum has swung in the opposite direction towards greater solidarity with the US Alliance and away from a diversity of foreign policies which required the US to adjust to policy diversity over issues like the Suez Crisis of 1956, the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962, the War in Vietnam and even the presence of nuclear powered ships carrying nuclear weapons into New Zealand during the 1980s. Continue reading →
Why it’s time to fear North Korea, The Australian July 26, 2017, CAMERON STEWART North Korea will be able to reliably launch a nuclear-armed long range missile at Australia and the United States as early as next year, according to a stunning new assessment by the Pentagon.
The prediction brings forward by around two years previous US intelligence assessments of the progress of North Korea’s nuclear and missile programs.
It follows an analysis of recent missile tests by the hermit kingdom which found that scientists in Pyongyang have advanced their technology on the country’s missile testing program faster and more efficiently that was predicted by the west.
Senior US officials have told the Washington Post that the Pentagon’s Defense Intelligence Agency has concluded that North Korea’s leader Kim Jong-un will be able to make a ‘reliable, nuclear-capable Intercontinental Ballistic Missile’ sometime in 2018.
In July 4, Mr Kim launched his country’s first missile with the range to strike the US state of Alaska and northern Australia.
Nuclear-powered USS Ronald Reagan heads into Brisbane, Warwick Daily News Jodie Munro O’Brien, The Courier-Mail | 22nd Jul 2017 “….The USS Ronald Reagan, named after America’s 40th president, was commissioned in July 2003 and has been based in Yokosuka, Japan since late 2015.
The Nimitz class airline carrier – which towers 20 storeys above the waterline, is 334m long and 77m wide – is scheduled to pull into Brisbane for a port visit late Sunday, but no public tours are available.
The flight deck of the nuclear-powered ship is 1.82 hectares (4.5 acres) in size, which is where the approximately 65 aircraft are either parked, or taking off or landing at any time of the night or day at high speeds.
Aircraft attached to the ship, which was about 644km off the coast of Brisbane this week as part of Exercise Talisman Sabre, are US Navy F/A 18 Super Hornets, an E-2 Hawkeye, EA-18 G Growlers, MH-60 R/S Seahawk helicopters and a C-2 Greyhound.
Even with ear plugs, a helmet and additional ear protection on, the noise on the flight deck from the mostly hornets taking off every minute or two can still sound like a powerful, giant vacuum cleaner.
A steam-powered catapult system helps launch most aircraft off the ship in what feels like a human slingshot, sending a plane from zero to hundreds of km/hr in mere seconds…..
On top of being a mobile military airport, the USS Ronald Regan is its own floating city, with at least 5000 sailors on board at any time……
Talisman Sabre is a biennial joint Australia-United States military exercise that started in June.
More than 120 countries have approved the first-ever treaty to ban nuclear weapons at a UN meeting in New York boycotted by all nuclear-armed nations overnight.
Only one country, the Netherlands, voted against it while Singapore abstained.
Greens senator Scott Ludlam says he travelled to New York at his own expense to witness the historic vote. He’s urging the Turnbull government to sign the treaty when it opens in September, insisting Australia is on the wrong side of history.
“We don’t have nuclear weapons but, for some reason, we’re against having them banned, which is directly at odds with what the government says that it wants,” he told the ABC on Saturday.
It was an “enormous shame” Australia failed to play a part in shaping the treaty despite Labor and coalition governments insisting they supported nuclear disarmament, he said.
He accused Australia of being “massively hypocritical” for supporting nuclear disarmament and opposing North Korea’s provocations while happily selling uranium “bomb fuel” to other countries.
The treaty will come into force when 50 countries have ratified it.
Elayne Whyte Gomez, president of the UN conference that has been negotiating the legally binding treaty, said 129 countries signed up to take part in drafting it but all nuclear states and NATO members have boycotted the negotiations except for the Netherlands, which has US nuclear weapons on its territory and was urged by its parliament to send a delegation to the negotiations.
The treaty requires of all ratifying countries “never under any circumstances to develop, test, produce, manufacture, otherwise acquire, possess or stockpile nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices.”
It also bans any transfer or use of nuclear weapons or nuclear explosive devices – and the threat to use such weapons.
None of the nine countries known or believed to possess nuclear weapons – the United States, Russia, Britain, China, France, India, Pakistan, North Korea and Israel – is supporting the treaty.
Senator Ludlam said the treaty was a circuit-breaker amid a growing nuclear threat from North Korea and as countries like the US modernise their nuclear weapons, amounting to a “geopolitical suicide pact”.
Australia will join US in fight against North Korea if war breaks out, Yahoo News, JULY 6, 2017 Australia would join military action against North Korea if the rogue nation fires a nuclear warhead at the United States, acting Prime Minister Barnaby Joyce has confirmed.
As Malcolm Turnbull heads to Germany for talks with other G20 leaders, Mr Joyce is ramping up pressure on China to step in and “stop this madness”.
His call comes after US ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley warned that America would use force “if we must” against North Korea, after Pyongyang tested an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) with the potential to reach Darwin or Alaska.
“No one should ever go too far in testing the resolve of the United States of America,” Mr Joyce told Sky News on Thursday.
“If North Korea was to deliver a warhead into the United States of America then the ANZUS alliance would be called in.”……One of Australian’s most senior military commanders insists the risk of a strike on the country’s north by North Korean remains low.
Chief of Joint Operations Vice Admiral David Johnston says that despite Pyongyang’s aggressive demonstrations, the range and capability of the missile launched this week is still to be determined.
“There is very little risk at the moment to the northern part of our country,” he told reporters in Canberra……Given the low threat to Australia’s mainland, Vice Admiral Johnston says there hasn’t been an immediate focus on amassing a system to defend against missiles.
The focus now was on applying diplomatic pressure on North Korea to stop their nuclear program and the development of missile technology.
When asked about a possible Australian missile defence system against such threats as a North Korean intercontinental ballistic missile, Mr Turnbull said the Australian focus was on protecting deployed forces in the field.
Speaking to reporters in Hamburg, where he’s attending the G20 summit, the prime minister said the answer to the Korean threat was the denuclearisation of North Korea.
“We are developing missile defences … but the focus is on protecting our deployed forces in the field.”
The question to Mr Turnbull was prompted by comments from former prime minister Kevin Rudd that Australia should consider deploying a missile defence system to defend against attack from a nuclear-armed North Korea. The latest North Korean missile tests have raised fears the regime’s weapons could reach parts of the US and northern Australia. Mr Rudd said that given north Korean developments, “Australia would be well advised to begin analysing ballistic missile defence needs, available technologies and possible deployment feasibility to northern Australia”.
Mr Turnbull said that in terms of a missile defence shield for Australia there had been talk of the THAAD system. “That’s not really suitable for our situation but I can assure you we are constantly examining how we can ensure that Australians are safe.”
The THAAD (Terminal High Altitude Area Defence) system is a US Army anti- ballistic missile defence system. “I do want to stress this, the answer in respect of North Korea is the denuclearisation of North Korea and for it to stop its reckless and provocative conduct,” Mr Turnbull said. He said the nation overwhelmingly with the greater leverage over North Korea was China.
Australia should consider missile defence to counter North Korea: Kevin Rudd, The Age, Peter Hartcher, James Massola, 8 Jul 17
Australia needs to consider deploying a missile defence system to defend against attack from nuclear-armed North Korea, according to former prime minister Kevin Rudd. Mr Rudd has reversed the position he held in office, saying that North Korea’s newly demonstrated ability to reach northern Australia meant it was time to consider homeland defence.
And top regional security and defence experts have backed that call, arguing Australia and its regional allies must invest heavily in missile defence as the “only alternative”.
A roll out of the US-made Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) missile defence system began in South Korea but was suspended last month, amid objections from China and Russia.
North Korea’s recent provocative launch of an intercontinental ballistic missile potentially brings Darwin and the US states of Alaska and Hawaii in range – though their missile’s accuracy remains in question – and has prompted dire warnings from the United States ahead of the G20 meeting in Hamburg, where it is set to dominate discussions.
The Rudd government’s Defence White Paper of 2009 explicitly opposed missile defence for Australia, as “such a system would be at odds with the maintenance of global nuclear deterrence,” the paper said, though it signalled an annual review.
On Friday, the former prime minister said: “Given North Korean developments, Australia would be well advised to begin analysing ballistic missile defence needs, available technologies and possible deployment feasibility for northern Australia.”
Ludlam, not Australia, in New York for nuclear weapons ban treaty talks, Greens Senator Scott Ludlam has slammed Australia for not taking part in talks on a global ban on nuclear weapons. By Andrea Nierhoff, SBS News, 6 July 17, Senator Ludlam is in New York with delegates from 120 countries to discuss a treaty to ban nuclear weapons around the world.
He said Australia could have played a vital role in negotiations, but instead chose not to be involved.
“The Australian role has been disgraceful,” he told the ABC’s Lateline program.
“Australian diplomats were instructed, first under Prime Minister Abbott and then Prime Minister Turnbull, to try and obstruct or break up the talks, try to prevent this process from happening at all. Now this process is under way.”
“New Zealand is here. The Netherlands, a NATO country, is here. Why isn’t Australia here?”
Indigenous Australians have also criticised the government for not joining the historic discussions, accusing Australia of overlooking its own history of nuclear testing.
In an address to the United Nations, anti-nuclear campaigner Karina Lester described the impact the tests had on herself and her family, with her father going blind from the atomic fallout.
Antinuclear 