Australian national defence question: a defensive weapon of last resort, effective or no?

Question

Naturally, as it is said, if someone like Indonesia, China or India tried to invade Australia, under normal conditions the USA would help. But what if the Americans weren't coming; i.e. they had too many troubles of their own or elsewhere in areas more precious and closer to them than Australia?

Then Australia would be in deep trouble and would be subject to humiliation and slavery, unless a defensive weapon of last resort - basically the old Samson pulling down the pillars trick - was used in such an event.

The basic idea is that a special initiative in the Australian Defence Force and ASIO would strategically place high-yield thermonuclear warheads engineered to be cobalt bombs, in specialist facilities underground and in isolated top-secret rural sites, for each state and territory (including Tasmania). A set number of people would be needed to activate the weapon, and beforehand, the Prime Minister, Governor-General or Minister of Defence would have to give the green-light for the control computers to accept the command. Once any one of these individuals gave the green light, the keys would be given to a number of Army officers, and then when at the minimum of three of these officers reached a command bunker each, and reliable contact was established between them, they would activate the weapon system - let's call it the Samson Project - the system's chain of cobalt bombs would detonate and any and all agriculturally useful land in Australia and destroy the major cities, thereby making the continent uninhabitable and denying a real victory to the invaders.

Would this be a good idea for Australia's defence or at least army morale?

Answer 1

This would be horrible on the Australia morale/army morale. A last resort weapon like this on your own country, would make any survivors very depressed. It's like blowing up your own house and committing suicide if a robber came sneaking in.



Think of a weapon that would isolate Australia, like using the bombs to make a uninhabitable area around Australia so that invaders could not make it in.

Answer 2

You're assuming that all Australians would prefer to die along with their families in a nuclear holocaust rather than submit to being conquered. That's not necessarily a reasonable assumption. It would be far better to prepare tactical nukes and use them against the attacking forces. These could be mounted on torpedoes, artillery shells, etc. An attacking army would then need to consider that the defenders would be prepared to use tac nukes on the battlefield, which are impossible to defend against if you're the attacker and not sitting in prepared, hardened bunkers.

Answer 3

Thats what submarines are for. They are constantly out at sea and if armed with nuclear warheads can attack at any time. Even if Australia gets invaded / nuked. The ideal scenario is to have nuclear powered submarines since these can be out to sea for a very very long time.

Answer 4

very effective