Nuke the entire site from orbit

At some point you have to wonder just how we as a species have survived for as long as we have. We thus far have overcome what some suggest might be the solution of the Fermi Paradox that it is the nature of intelligent life to destroy itself, but to be honest when I read some media commentary I do wonder if that is only because we are actually not that intelligent.

At this point I feel it is my duty to warn citizens of Australia that you have only a couple weeks before we are likely to be at war with China.

On 7 March 2023, The Age and Sydney Morning Herald’s Peter Hartcher and Matthew Knott ran a series entitled “Red Alert” with the line “Australia faces the threat of war with China within three years – and we’re not ready”

Well given 3 years will be up in less than 20 days, I shall spend that period rueing my procrastination over the past 154 weeks for not digging my bomb shelter out back.

I guess I’ll just have to hope my neighbours have built a shelterini…

Now look, I am not one to suggest that there might be a mistake in the prediction of these fine representatives of the media and their panel of national security experts, but you might not be shocked to discover that there has been no admission of error at the lack of evidence of Chinese forces on our doorstep.

But not to worry, the war mongering continues apace. And if China is not going to do something to create a war environment, let us not suggest Australia should sit idly by.

This week in the Nine papers, Peter Hartcher is back, and has decided the best recourse for Australia’s national security is to get some nuclear weapons.

Hartcher has come to the realisation that Donald Trump means we can no longer rely on the US “nuclear umbrella”.

This is not a new idea, and smarter folk than Hartcher have long been across the fallacy of the nuclear umbrella

As my colleague at The Australia Institute, Allan Behm wrote back in 2020, when it was already clear that Trump was not to be trusted by any of the USA’s allies, the “extended nuclear deterrence is very much a security preoccupation of the US and its allies. It is not something to which defence planners in Brazil or Indonesia, or China for that matter, turn their minds.”

Of course, we never could. The ANZUS Treaty never required the USA to do anything other than, as Behm likes to tell me, have a high level chat.

Article IV of the ANZUS Treaty states that

Each Party recognizes that an armed attack in the Pacific Area on any of the Parties would be dangerous to its own peace and safety and declares that it would act to meet the common danger in accordance with its constitutional processes.

Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall be immediately reported to the Security Council of the United Nations. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security.

Just what a United States administration would consider is “acting” or is a “common danger” leaves much wriggle room, but hey at least we would have reported to the UN Security Council!

But apparently we now need our own nukes because things are precarious.

Hartcher suggests we don’t actually need them to use them, but just to bargain with them.

He writes: “There’s a common misunderstanding that a country needs nukes only if it intends a nuclear war. This is wrong. They’re also essential for waging conventional war against a nuclear-armed enemy.”

I mean. What the utter hell?

OK, Pete, give us this scenario where we are engaging in a conventional war with China

“By way of illustration: If one of China’s dangerous intercepts of an Australian navy or air force asset should turn deadly, and incident escalates to skirmish and skirmish to fight, Australia would be forced to the negotiating table first. Why? Because no matter how successful Australia’s forces, China can always escalate to the level of nuclear threat. We cannot. Unless the US backs us, which… it won’t.”

Sigh.

Ok, let’s first just put to one side that there is no reason for this to happen given (and I just want to underline this) CHINA IS OUR BIGGEST EXPORT MARKET AND THEY ALREADY GET EVERYTHING THEY WANT FROM US INCLUDING JOHN HOWARD GIVING THEM OUR GAS FOR A TRULY SWEETHEART DEAL.

But also isn’t it nice that he just skips from incident to skirmish to fight. I guess at no point in that skip are any sentient beings present, because apparently we’ve just gone to war.

But ok Peter, let us imagine China decide to start a military engagement with us. And let us assume we have a couple nukes. China has 600 of them. You think we’re sitting down as equals? You think they believe we are about to risk everything over… err what, our trade routes? Because we all know (seriously, we all know) China is never invading Australia, and we also know even if we had nuclear weapons, we would never use them unless that happened (and also unless, to be honest, the lower south east was threatened).

But Hartcher’s view is not unique. It is the same shite spouted by Trump and his goons.

In 2018 Trump’s “Nuclear Posture Review” came the line that:

Deterring nuclear attack is not the sole purpose of nuclear weapons. Given the diverse threats and profound uncertainties of the current and future threat environment, U.S. nuclear forces play the following critical roles in U.S. national security strategy. They contribute to the:

› Deterrence of nuclear and non-nuclear attack;
› Assurance of allies and partners;
› Achievement of U.S. objectives if deterrence fails; and
› Capacity to hedge against an uncertain future

They also ensure Santa Claus comes every December.

Look, I have already spent too much time on this idiocy. But firstly, think of the cost, thinks of what would need to be foregone - we wouldn’t be axing the AUKUS subs, because let me tell you right now, we are not about to build an ICBM program, think of the technology required, think of the industrial and labour force capability and capacity, think of the legal requirements, think of the destruction of Australia’s position in the world as not being completely insane, think of policy requirements that would follow - surely we would have a no-first strike position - think of the fact that even if we got a few nukes we would still have no real power to do any damage that China would be worried about?

There are some in the media and defence establishment who maybe don’t want war, but they sure as hell seem to enjoy saying we have one coming.

And of course we do need a defence force and we should very much be worrying about our sovereign defence capability (essentially non-existent and made worse by AUKUS).

But there is not one situation where Australia looking to acquire nuclear weapons would make Australians or the region safer.

Similarly there is not one realistic scenario where they would be a useful weapon to have - because no adversary would ever think we would use them. People really should know by the time they reach adulthood that Tomorrow, When the War Began was fiction.

It is bad enough we are in the situation of media organsations pushing AUKUS like it is some logical defence policy, bad enough that both the ALP and LNP think it is vital. But spare me the “we need nukes” line.

The world is stupid enough without Australia volunteering to be the only island-continent insane asylum.