The " Defence " of Australia !

When the independent colonies that are now the Australian states joined together to form this country at the start of the twentieth century we looked to Great Britain to defend us.  That was logical because not only was it our " mother " country but it was also the richest and most military powerful in the world.

That changed during the second world war.  Britain was fighting for its own survival and was unable to commit to Australia's defence - and the Japanese were threatening us with invasion.  We turned to the United States and when that war ended with the start of the nuclear age it seemed natural to continue to shelter under the American nuclear umbrella.

One of this country's foremost defence strategists and defence analysts suggest in his book that we should now develop our own nuclear weapons in case the growing power of China eventually poses a threat.  He contends that there is similar thinking in other countries with a similar stance to Australia and those include Japan, Germany and South Korea.   It raises the question of whether the United States would go to nuclear war in defence of allies with which it has defence treaties.

Perhaps the greatest danger to world peace would be the proliferation of nuclear weapons in the hands of the countries the nuclear proliferation treaty is designed to prevent.  Despite great power tensions, the world has avoided a nuclear war in the decades since nuclear weapons have been restricted to a small bevy of nations.   It raises the question of whether having a nuclear defence serves a definitive purpose, or whether it simply makes that country an inevitable nuclear target in a nuclear war ?

If Australia did go nuclear the logical application of that defence would take the form of submarines equipped with ballistic missiles.  As a deterrent that offers the hope of persuading an aggressor that a first strike would bring a nuclear response that would be unavoidable, but with our population concentrated in a handful of great cities that nuclear option would leave us vulnerable.

Going nuclear would also come at a cost.  We would need to raise defence spending from the present 2% of GDP to 3.5% and find another thirty billion dollars a year.  That would certainly impose an austerity regime and curtail the spending plans under way to improve public health and education.  It is not possible to have an advanced nuclear defence system and at the same time continue to create an improved standard of living that serves the civil population.

We might be wise to leave the nuclear genie in the bottle.  Our defence needs are capable of fending off any of our neighbours with invasion plans and in the event of a world nuclear war it is probable that there might be no survivors.   There is also the possibility that those in the northern hemisphere may destroy one another and the peaceful non nuclear countries to the south may survive.

The only thing absolutely certain is that life as we know it would end if we became a target in a nuclear war.  Neither the ability to mount and deliver either offence or defence changes that outcome. We would be wise to not pin our hopes on winning a nuclear war  !