No announcement yet.

Trump questions need for NATO, outlines non-interventionist foreign policy

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by wolfhnd View Post
    Australia decided not to make herself a target of nuclear weapons by not developing a domestic nuclear weapons program or acquiring them from the UK or USA. Although the proliferation of Nuclear weapons is not desirable for 70 years MAD has prevented large scale conflicts. Perhaps we have reached a point in human history where we can eliminate nuclear weapons forever who knows but that certainly doesn't appear to be the case in the recent past.

    The U.S. in 1900 was on it's way to becoming a military power but by the 1930s those policies had been reversed. In 1939 the USA had a army smaller than comparable forces in Portugal. There is simply no evidence that prior to WWII the U.S. was intent on using military power to extend it's influence other than by maintaining a navy for protection of it's shores and trade interests in the pacific.
    It certainly strange that Australia has not developed a nuclear industry of any description (apart from a small facility at Lucas Heights, Sydney) particular as we are sitting on one of the world's largest reserves of uranium.

    It was rumoured at one time - if push ever came to shove- that the RAAF's F-111 fleet could have been used to carry nuclear weapons, assuming that
    they could be acquired ,off the shelf, from either the UK or the USA. Certainly the expertise is available here should Australia should ever decide to develop them over the longer term. Let's hope that its never deemed necessary.

    Our closest local partners, New Zealand, of course, have banned anything concerning nuclear energy.

    I am certainly aware that the USA prior to other World Wars lacked a large army commensurate with its latent power. But on both occasions vast forces were developed extremely quickly .
    "I dogmatise and am contradicted, and in this conflict of opinions and sentiments I find delight".
    Samuel Johnson.


    • Originally posted by BELGRAVE View Post
      Well ,all this discussion makes you think.

      Australia's involvement in Afghanistan, and Syria, and Iraq , Korea, and even Vietnam is seen by some as paying premiums on an Insurance Policy. By this thinking it is hoped that ,in the (unlikely) event of a hostile invasion of Australia , the U.S. will render assistance under the ANZUS Treaty,

      Hence the blood and treasure expended in participating in these conflicts which have little to do with Australia ( with the very arguable exception of Vietnam).

      How valid this thinking is : -is very much a moot point. Some say we'd be better off with a more independent policy.

      Since moving across the pond, I've found that Americans are very much like Australians, more so than Canadians. I've been to Australia to surf many times and other than the accent, can't really tell the difference.

      There's a bond between the U.S. and Australia that is as solid as they come.


      Latest Topics