On May 10, 2025, one "BOB" asked :
Whats
your thoughts on the Nuclear weapons Conundrum ?
Or
the potential of Australia creating a TRIAD of delivery systems?
ie
Ground: Silo ICBM, Air: Cruise Missile/Bomb, Naval: Cruise Missile.
The
entire idea of spending huge sums of money on Nuclear submarines with only
conventional weapons when the PRC has & Indonesia will eventually surpass
Australia Economically/Militarily seems to me atleast insane.
Whats
the point in torpedoing enemy shipping or launching a dozen cruise missiles
when the PRC could target fleet base East or West (or other population center)
with nuclear weapons that Australia wont know have been launched until they
impact?
Pete's Response
If you offered to pay my I could have written the response below, much sooner :)
Re a "Nuclear weapons Conundrum". Cunundrum being "a confusing and difficult
problem or question." This can be seen in many ways, eg. Nuclear weapons:
- are so destructive their use would be unthinkable. So they should not be used in war
- are a major means of deterrence. But if they need to be used they have failed to deter
- there is no such thing as a "limited nuclear war" because one or both sides will choose to escalate to more destructive nuclear weapons
- are never truly "low yield" because they are much more destructive than conventional weapons
- legal nuclear weapons powers, the "haves" under the NPT have never accepted the Treaty's central requirement that they fully disarm, and
- many other conundrums.
NUCLEAR TRIAD
On Australia building a Nuclear Triad. All the potential delivery platforms now utilise nuclear armed cruise or ballistiuc missiles. The three platforms of the Triad are:
1. Mobile trucks, trains or fixed ground silos. Australia has a landmass large enough for fixed silos. The necessary central location might be just south of Alice Springs, with the low population and relatively isolated and cheap land. Expect a $2 Billion minimum program cost for each ICBM over its 30 year life.
2. The second delivery platform is aircraft launching cruise or ballistic missiles or (less likely) free fall bombs. Dedicated bomber aircraft would likely be too expensive. Australia's F-35A fighter-bombers, with inflight refueling, might be appropriate platforms.
3. Given a submarine's ability to hide it is the preferred choice to launch nuclear missiles in a first strike and particularly a second strike. This second strike suitability make submarines the best nuclear deterrent platform. This is why all of the big five nuclear "haves" (+ India) are spending untold $Billions to build SSBN fleets and the SSNs to protect them.
Australia's Collins submarines, or more appropriately future nuclear propelled submarines, could fire nuclear armed Tomahawk cruise missiles horizontally or future cruise horizontally using their torpedo tubes. Particularly if Australia buys US Virginia Block V or future Block VI nuclear subs their vertical launch silos can take at least 6 Polaris 10 metre tall sized future SLBMs. If each SLBM has 3 MIRVs, that means 18 nuclear warheads per future Australian submarine. These future subs would then not be SSNs, but small SSBNs, nicknamed "Baby Boomers".
Australia, in the Collins subs, already has the US Nuclear Propelled Submarine Combat System known as the AN/BYG-1 which could be updated for nuclear tipped cruise or (less likely) ballistic missiles. This Combat System includes US integrated sensors, databases, and weapons and will be used for Australia's future nuclear propelled submarines.
If Australia claims a Collins sub may have on board (say) 6 x Tomahawk cruise missiles for land attack uses, this is a very expensive platform to launch only 6 x 500kg conventional warheads, in total. The process of launching these missiles into the atmosphere may also attract unwanted attention from anti-submarine sensors (eg. satellites with infrared sensors). This may lead to a Collins being rapidly destroyed. Making the warheads "special" (not meaning chemical or biological warheads, but nuclear warheads) alone makes sense.
If the Tomahawks are seen as anti-ship missiles, this is another issue, with conventional warheads making sense.
Not only the US, but Israel and South Korea, are looking at options for nuclear tipped cruise, hypersonic and small ballistic missiles that might one day be well adapted for Australian use.
It might take Australia years to build usable nuclear weapons, but in a rush we might borrow them, perhaps under AUKUS, from the US. A good model is the arrangement some NATO countries have with the US. As Wiki explains :
"Nuclear
sharing is a concept in NATO's policy of nuclear deterrence, which involves
member countries, without nuclear weapons of their own in the planning, for the
use of nuclear weapons by NATO. In particular, it provides for the armed forces
of those countries to be involved in delivering nuclear weapons in the event of
their use.
As
part of nuclear sharing, the participating countries carry out consultations
and make common decisions on nuclear weapons policy, maintain technical
equipment (notably nuclear-capable airplanes) required for the use of nuclear
weapons and store nuclear weapons on their territory. In case of war, the
United States told NATO allies the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) would no
longer be controlling."
All of this nuclear discussion is very much about an Australian deterrent against China. However, through such a 2+ decade Australian nuclear process our near northern neighbour, Indonesia, wouldn't lie idle. Indonesia would be looking at its own nuclear propelled, nuclear armed submarine options.
