Cyprus-Forum.com

[Simon]

And another thing! Not many countries have invested quite as much as Australia has. We have conducted many nuclear tests in our own country, and get this, we even deployed hundreds of ADF personell close by in order to test the effects of radiation. None are alive today.

What kind of a sick experiment was that?

And our delivery systems are not there just for the hell of it.

Do some research on Woomera!

Now, if Australia was to withdraw or breach the NPT, who is going to punish us? Will the US or UK threaten sanctions or attack Australia? Be realistic!

Australia has no intentions at the moment, but if we deem a security requirement, then that is exactly what we would do. At the moment our interests lie in trying to get Iran and North Korea to comply with the NPT. If that does not occur, and Australia was under threat, then there is no need for us to comply either. And we will not comply!

Anyway, if you want to talk to me about Armageddon, then I suggest you open a new thread, because this thread is about the Israeli Peace flotilla to Cyprus!

Paphitis, you're splitting hairs now. Many countries had official nuclear weapons programs. They would have invested a considerable amount; whether quite as much as Australia is debatable and irrelevant!

These radiation tests prove nothing other than Australia researching the effects of a nuclear attack. It is more defensive (i.e. how a nuclear attack could affect a population) than offensive. This is perfectly reasonable considering the circumstances at that time. And yes, I agree, it was quite sick! Take that up with your government!

With regard to delivery systems, Greece had a delivery system, but this was to deliver US warheads, not Greek. Same with Turkey. As a member of ANZUS, Australia is patently leaving itself the same option.

The bottom line is there is very little proof that Australia has, or ever has had, nuclear weapons. You're merely engaging in conspiracy theories with little proof of your assertion. Yes they flirted with the idea but there is no evidence of Australia even testing a nuclear bomb! Some tests and research was conducted during the Cold War, which quite understandably happened in many countries, but no more. The fact that Australia is a member of NNPT merely reinforces this. If they acquired weapons they would simply have refused to ratify the Treaty, like India and Israel for example. If Australia withdrew from NNPT and acquired nuclear weapons today, it would be political suicide. And yes, sanctions would be possible. Now if you want to carry on having wet dreams about Australia being a global power with nuclear weapons, then be my guest, just be careful of that little bugger called reality. It has a habit of sneaking up on you.

In fact, it looks like reality may already be beginning to bite, as from your final paragraph you seem to be accepting that Australia does not have nuclear weapons now, but may procure them if it feels threatened in the future, which is an entirely different argument.

[Paphitis]

@ Simon

You are wrong.

It is not NATOs responsibility to defend Australia. We have our own ANZUS Treaty, but are not as reliant on the US as Europe is.

Also, Australia has invested heavily in Nuclear Research. Many billions in fact, and many ADF have died. We are always designing delivery systems and looking for an F-111 replacement. Make your own mind up.

The NPT will not stop anything when push comes to shove.

Paphitis, if Australia was under serious attack (including nuclear) what do you think NATO or ANZUS (take your pick, it's all about the US at the end of the day) would do? Let's use a bit of common sense. Australia has invested in nuclear research, but so have many countries, it's ridiculous to assume that because of this Australia has nuclear weapons. I can think of several countries off the top of my head that have conducted extensive nuclear research, including Brazil, South Africa, Canada and Libya. Are you saying it is likely all these countries have nuclear weapons as well? Nuclear material has many other uses other than for weapons, and delivery systems do not have to have nuclear warheads on them. Further, the NNPT is very relevant here. The only country that has withdrawn from it is North Korea, and the only country apparently in breach is Iran. Is that the type of company Australia intends to keep in the future? Iran and North Korea?

Dude, Australia is not a member of NATO. We are a signator to the ANZUS Treaty. This is a regional pact between Australia and the US, and it includes NZ.

If Australia was under heavy attack, which may be nuclear, then the US is said to be, according to the ANZUS Treaty, obligated to take up Australia's defence, which may again include the deployment of nuclear weapons, for which the ADF is capable of delivering. Australia does not have any defence agreements with NATO or any other NATO member, including the UK!

There is only ANZUS! NATO has nothing to do with Australia, other than being an alliance block of nations which may offer Australia assistance but is not obligated to. If Australia was under nuclear attack, most European NATO countries would have already been anihilated.

Once again Simon, Australia is not a NATO nation!!!'

Paphitis, you're completely missing the point by focusing on one small part of my post and ignoring the rest. I am well aware of the position with NATO, and I understand Australia is a signatory to the ANZUS Treaty. This is why I said NATO or ANZUS, it doesn't matter much, it's all about the US in the end! The fact that Australia isn't a part of NATO doesn't detract anything from my argument as Australia still has US military support through ANZUS, and NATO countries such as the UK also see Australia as a very close ally and would obviously support Australia against an external threat. I don't really understand why you are focusing on this small, largely irrelevant detail, and skipping the main point of my post. Possibly because you accept its content?

Simon, Australia has naver had close Military Support from the UK. The UK has let Australia down many times, and we have learnt enough to never expect any assistance from them. Only the US came through in our hour of need, never the UK.

So our Military Ties are focused around the US. We have also learned to be self reliant. Our defence industries and ADF are very capable.

[Paphitis]

And another thing! Not many countries have invested quite as much as Australia has. We have conducted many nuclear tests in our own country, and get this, we even deployed hundreds of ADF personell close by in order to test the effects of radiation. None are alive today.

What kind of a sick experiment was that?

And our delivery systems are not there just for the hell of it.

Do some research on Woomera!

Now, if Australia was to withdraw or breach the NPT, who is going to punish us? Will the US or UK threaten sanctions or attack Australia? Be realistic!

Australia has no intentions at the moment, but if we deem a security requirement, then that is exactly what we would do. At the moment our interests lie in trying to get Iran and North Korea to comply with the NPT. If that does not occur, and Australia was under threat, then there is no need for us to comply either. And we will not comply!

Anyway, if you want to talk to me about Armageddon, then I suggest you open a new thread, because this thread is about the Israeli Peace flotilla to Cyprus!

Paphitis, you're splitting hairs now. Many countries had official nuclear weapons programs. They would have invested a considerable amount; whether quite as much as Australia is debatable and irrelevant!

These radiation tests prove nothing other than Australia researching the effects of a nuclear attack. It is more defensive (i.e. how a nuclear attack could affect a population) than offensive. This is perfectly reasonable considering the circumstances at that time. And yes, I agree, it was quite sick! Take that up with your government!

With regard to delivery systems, Greece had a delivery system, but this was to deliver US warheads, not Greek. Same with Turkey. As a member of ANZUS, Australia is patently leaving itself the same option.

The bottom line is there is very little proof that Australia has, or ever has had, nuclear weapons. You're merely engaging in conspiracy theories with little proof of your assertion. Yes they flirted with the idea but there is no evidence of Australia even testing a nuclear bomb! Some tests and research was conducted during the Cold War, which quite understandably happened in many countries, but no more. The fact that Australia is a member of NNPT merely reinforces this. If they acquired weapons they would simply have refused to ratify the Treaty, like India and Israel for example. If Australia withdrew from NNPT and acquired nuclear weapons today, it would be political suicide. And yes, sanctions would be possible. Now if you want to carry on having wet dreams about Australia being a global power with nuclear weapons, then be my guest, just be careful of that little bugger called reality. It has a habit of sneaking up on you.

In fact, it looks like reality may already be beginning to bite, as from your final paragraph you seem to be accepting that Australia does not have nuclear weapons now, but may procure them if it feels threatened in the future, which is an entirely different argument.

Simon,

Australia has had an extensive nucluear program in the 60s. In that time we developed the ability to build our own nuclear arsenal and were even offered 100 devises of our own.

Australia's participation in the NPT was a massive mistake on our part.

Also my boy, if Australia does produce a nuclear device, you can rest assured that it will do so in a similar fashion as Israel. There will never be any tests or official admission. Key allies might be informed, but that is all. These are options open to Australia at any time. And I know enough, seen enough, of what Australia is capable off.

Also, Australia and the UK were testing Nuclear Weapons on Australian soil. Australia and the UK jointly tested these weapons as both had massive Nuclear ambitions. The RAF also exposed its personell to radiation tests in Australia. The families that lost ADF personell, are currently wrestling with the Australian Government to admit culpability and get some form of compensation or take legal action. This issue has been going on for years.

Also, the ANZUS Treaty is not all about the US. It is about the defence of Australia and NZ. Its objectives are entirely different to NATO.

[Simon]

@ Simon

You are wrong.

It is not NATOs responsibility to defend Australia. We have our own ANZUS Treaty, but are not as reliant on the US as Europe is.

Also, Australia has invested heavily in Nuclear Research. Many billions in fact, and many ADF have died. We are always designing delivery systems and looking for an F-111 replacement. Make your own mind up.

The NPT will not stop anything when push comes to shove.

Paphitis, if Australia was under serious attack (including nuclear) what do you think NATO or ANZUS (take your pick, it's all about the US at the end of the day) would do? Let's use a bit of common sense. Australia has invested in nuclear research, but so have many countries, it's ridiculous to assume that because of this Australia has nuclear weapons. I can think of several countries off the top of my head that have conducted extensive nuclear research, including Brazil, South Africa, Canada and Libya. Are you saying it is likely all these countries have nuclear weapons as well? Nuclear material has many other uses other than for weapons, and delivery systems do not have to have nuclear warheads on them. Further, the NNPT is very relevant here. The only country that has withdrawn from it is North Korea, and the only country apparently in breach is Iran. Is that the type of company Australia intends to keep in the future? Iran and North Korea?

Dude, Australia is not a member of NATO. We are a signator to the ANZUS Treaty. This is a regional pact between Australia and the US, and it includes NZ.

If Australia was under heavy attack, which may be nuclear, then the US is said to be, according to the ANZUS Treaty, obligated to take up Australia's defence, which may again include the deployment of nuclear weapons, for which the ADF is capable of delivering. Australia does not have any defence agreements with NATO or any other NATO member, including the UK!

There is only ANZUS! NATO has nothing to do with Australia, other than being an alliance block of nations which may offer Australia assistance but is not obligated to. If Australia was under nuclear attack, most European NATO countries would have already been anihilated.

Once again Simon, Australia is not a NATO nation!!!'

Paphitis, you're completely missing the point by focusing on one small part of my post and ignoring the rest. I am well aware of the position with NATO, and I understand Australia is a signatory to the ANZUS Treaty. This is why I said NATO or ANZUS, it doesn't matter much, it's all about the US in the end! The fact that Australia isn't a part of NATO doesn't detract anything from my argument as Australia still has US military support through ANZUS, and NATO countries such as the UK also see Australia as a very close ally and would obviously support Australia against an external threat. I don't really understand why you are focusing on this small, largely irrelevant detail, and skipping the main point of my post. Possibly because you accept its content?

Simon, Australia has naver had close Military Support from the UK. The UK has let Australia down many times, and we have learnt enough to never expect any assistance from them. Only the US came through in our hour of need, never the UK.

So our Military Ties are focused around the US. We have also learned to be self reliant. Our defence industries and ADF are very capable.

Paphitis, I accept much of what you say and never denied that Australia's defence is focused around the US through ANZUS. In fact, that is what I was saying. The point I made about the UK and other western nations was merely that Australia would obviously have their assistance (especially of the Anglosphere) should its security come under serious threat. I think this goes without saying regardless of military treaties given the close ties between Australia and other western nations.

Just one other thing, the UK and Australia are politically very close as you well know and have fought together many times in many different battle fields. There has been no real need for the UK to come to Australia's aid in recent times. As you say, the ADF is very capable, albeit small. If that need did arise, I think it is fairly clear the UK would oblige.

[Simon]

And another thing! Not many countries have invested quite as much as Australia has. We have conducted many nuclear tests in our own country, and get this, we even deployed hundreds of ADF personell close by in order to test the effects of radiation. None are alive today.

What kind of a sick experiment was that?

And our delivery systems are not there just for the hell of it.

Do some research on Woomera!

Now, if Australia was to withdraw or breach the NPT, who is going to punish us? Will the US or UK threaten sanctions or attack Australia? Be realistic!

Australia has no intentions at the moment, but if we deem a security requirement, then that is exactly what we would do. At the moment our interests lie in trying to get Iran and North Korea to comply with the NPT. If that does not occur, and Australia was under threat, then there is no need for us to comply either. And we will not comply!

Anyway, if you want to talk to me about Armageddon, then I suggest you open a new thread, because this thread is about the Israeli Peace flotilla to Cyprus!

Paphitis, you're splitting hairs now. Many countries had official nuclear weapons programs. They would have invested a considerable amount; whether quite as much as Australia is debatable and irrelevant!

These radiation tests prove nothing other than Australia researching the effects of a nuclear attack. It is more defensive (i.e. how a nuclear attack could affect a population) than offensive. This is perfectly reasonable considering the circumstances at that time. And yes, I agree, it was quite sick! Take that up with your government!

With regard to delivery systems, Greece had a delivery system, but this was to deliver US warheads, not Greek. Same with Turkey. As a member of ANZUS, Australia is patently leaving itself the same option.

The bottom line is there is very little proof that Australia has, or ever has had, nuclear weapons. You're merely engaging in conspiracy theories with little proof of your assertion. Yes they flirted with the idea but there is no evidence of Australia even testing a nuclear bomb! Some tests and research was conducted during the Cold War, which quite understandably happened in many countries, but no more. The fact that Australia is a member of NNPT merely reinforces this. If they acquired weapons they would simply have refused to ratify the Treaty, like India and Israel for example. If Australia withdrew from NNPT and acquired nuclear weapons today, it would be political suicide. And yes, sanctions would be possible. Now if you want to carry on having wet dreams about Australia being a global power with nuclear weapons, then be my guest, just be careful of that little bugger called reality. It has a habit of sneaking up on you.

In fact, it looks like reality may already be beginning to bite, as from your final paragraph you seem to be accepting that Australia does not have nuclear weapons now, but may procure them if it feels threatened in the future, which is an entirely different argument.

Simon,

Australia has had an extensive nucluear program in the 60s. In that time we developed the ability to build our own nuclear arsenal and were even offered 100 devises of our own.

Australia's participation in the NPT was a massive mistake on our part.

Also my boy, if Australia does produce a nuclear device, you can rest assured that it will do so in a similar fashion as Israel. There will never be any tests or official admission. Key allies might be informed, but that is all. These are options open to Australia at any time. And I know enough, seen enough, of what Australia is capable off.

Also, Australia and the UK were testing Nuclear Weapons on Australian soil. Australia and the UK jointly tested these weapons as both had massive Nuclear ambitions. The RAF also exposed its personell to radiation tests in Australia. The families that lost ADF personell, are currently wrestling with the Australian Government to admit culpability and get some form of compensation or take legal action. This issue has been going on for years.

Also, the ANZUS Treaty is not all about the US. It is about the defence of Australia and NZ. Its objectives are entirely different to NATO.

Paphitis, I think we may have our wires crossed here. I am aware that Australia has the know-how to produce nuclear weapons and I am aware of the tests you speak of. In fact, I believe it was mooted in the 1960s that Britain place nuclear weapons in Australia. Look at my first post, my point was Australia does not have nuclear weapons currently, and therefore couldn't just nuke Turkey, as Y-Fred claimed you said.

Politically and legally, Australia would only be able to withdraw from the NNPT if something dramatic happened and Australia was under serious threat. They certainly would not be able to develop weapons willy nilly. Of course, if Australia did develop its own weapons, it would need to test them. You are wrong here, Israel did test a weapon, although they never admitted to it. The only circumstance in which Australia would not need to test a nuclear weapon is if it was given warheads by another nuclear state that has already tested its weapons.

Finally, when I said the ANZUS Treaty was all about the US, what I meant was, it is all about US military power protecting its allies. Just in the same way as NATO is dominated by the US.

[Paphitis]

And another thing! Not many countries have invested quite as much as Australia has. We have conducted many nuclear tests in our own country, and get this, we even deployed hundreds of ADF personell close by in order to test the effects of radiation. None are alive today.

What kind of a sick experiment was that?

And our delivery systems are not there just for the hell of it.

Do some research on Woomera!

Now, if Australia was to withdraw or breach the NPT, who is going to punish us? Will the US or UK threaten sanctions or attack Australia? Be realistic!

Australia has no intentions at the moment, but if we deem a security requirement, then that is exactly what we would do. At the moment our interests lie in trying to get Iran and North Korea to comply with the NPT. If that does not occur, and Australia was under threat, then there is no need for us to comply either. And we will not comply!

Anyway, if you want to talk to me about Armageddon, then I suggest you open a new thread, because this thread is about the Israeli Peace flotilla to Cyprus!

Paphitis, you're splitting hairs now. Many countries had official nuclear weapons programs. They would have invested a considerable amount; whether quite as much as Australia is debatable and irrelevant!

These radiation tests prove nothing other than Australia researching the effects of a nuclear attack. It is more defensive (i.e. how a nuclear attack could affect a population) than offensive. This is perfectly reasonable considering the circumstances at that time. And yes, I agree, it was quite sick! Take that up with your government!

With regard to delivery systems, Greece had a delivery system, but this was to deliver US warheads, not Greek. Same with Turkey. As a member of ANZUS, Australia is patently leaving itself the same option.

The bottom line is there is very little proof that Australia has, or ever has had, nuclear weapons. You're merely engaging in conspiracy theories with little proof of your assertion. Yes they flirted with the idea but there is no evidence of Australia even testing a nuclear bomb! Some tests and research was conducted during the Cold War, which quite understandably happened in many countries, but no more. The fact that Australia is a member of NNPT merely reinforces this. If they acquired weapons they would simply have refused to ratify the Treaty, like India and Israel for example. If Australia withdrew from NNPT and acquired nuclear weapons today, it would be political suicide. And yes, sanctions would be possible. Now if you want to carry on having wet dreams about Australia being a global power with nuclear weapons, then be my guest, just be careful of that little bugger called reality. It has a habit of sneaking up on you.

In fact, it looks like reality may already be beginning to bite, as from your final paragraph you seem to be accepting that Australia does not have nuclear weapons now, but may procure them if it feels threatened in the future, which is an entirely different argument.

Simon,

Australia has had an extensive nucluear program in the 60s. In that time we developed the ability to build our own nuclear arsenal and were even offered 100 devises of our own.

Australia's participation in the NPT was a massive mistake on our part.

Also my boy, if Australia does produce a nuclear device, you can rest assured that it will do so in a similar fashion as Israel. There will never be any tests or official admission. Key allies might be informed, but that is all. These are options open to Australia at any time. And I know enough, seen enough, of what Australia is capable off.

Also, Australia and the UK were testing Nuclear Weapons on Australian soil. Australia and the UK jointly tested these weapons as both had massive Nuclear ambitions. The RAF also exposed its personell to radiation tests in Australia. The families that lost ADF personell, are currently wrestling with the Australian Government to admit culpability and get some form of compensation or take legal action. This issue has been going on for years.

Also, the ANZUS Treaty is not all about the US. It is about the defence of Australia and NZ. Its objectives are entirely different to NATO.

Paphitis, I think we may have our wires crossed here. I am aware that Australia has the know-how to produce nuclear weapons and I am aware of the tests you speak of. In fact, I believe it was mooted in the 1960s that Britain place nuclear weapons in Australia. Look at my first post, my point was Australia does not have nuclear weapons currently, and therefore couldn't just nuke Turkey, as Y-Fred claimed you said.

Politically and legally, Australia would only be able to withdraw from the NNPT if something dramatic happened and Australia was under serious threat. They certainly would not be able to develop weapons willy nilly. Of course, if Australia did develop its own weapons, it would need to test them. You are wrong here, Israel did test a weapon, although they never admitted to it. The only circumstance in which Australia would not need to test a nuclear weapon is if it was given warheads by another nuclear state that has already tested its weapons.

Finally, when I said the ANZUS Treaty was all about the US, what I meant was, it is all about US military power protecting its allies. Just in the same way as NATO is dominated by the US.

Australia was actually offered about 100 Nuclear Devices in the late 60s by the US. They would not merely be parked in Australia, but Australia was to actually fully own the weapons. They would become part of ADF inventory!

Simon, when discussing this kind of stuff, I can honestly tell you that I don't feel as certain about various assertions as you do! You see, Australia has been involved in ICBM testing with the US, and it has only recently been confirmed that Australia has been involved in Echelon from the very beginning, and then there is the F-111.

It is probably safe to presume that there is no nuclear device at present, but I believe a device can be built very quickly. This is widely accepted as being the case!

Don't listen to Y-Fred. I never stated that Australia is going to annihilate Turkey with Nuclear Weapons. The idiot exagerates and is a lying bastard.

[Simon]

It is probably safe to presume that there is no nuclear device at present

This is all I was ever really saying.