Unfortunately tactical nuclear weapons are needed to deter superpower aggression.
In the future no-rules world nations will be either:
- Nuclear-armed
- Colonies
- Rubble
The NPT has failed
The central bargain of the NPT is as follows:
...the NPT non-nuclear-weapon states agree never to acquire nuclear weapons and the NPT nuclear-weapon states in exchange agree to share the benefits of peaceful nuclear technology and to pursue nuclear disarmament aimed at the ultimate elimination of their nuclear arsenals.Since 1968 the nuclear weapons states have continued to expand and modernise their arsenals.
No UN, no international law
In the new world, nukes rule. There is no effective UN and no rules.
- The last treaty between the USA and Russia expired in February 2026.
- The nuclear non-proliferation treaty has failed – signatories are increasing their arsenals, not phasing them out.
- Israel, India and Pakistan never signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and do not allow oversight of their nuclear programmes. North Korea withdrew from the NPT.
- ICAN is futile – no nuclear power will make the same mistake as Ukraine and give up its weapons.
- Large aircraft carriers are virtually impossible to sink with conventional weapons.
A scramble for nukes
In the next few years we are likely to see a major escalation in world conflicts including the fall of Taiwan and South Korea and the further expansion of Israel and the USA. The use of nuclear weapons in Ukraine is quite possible.
This will create great insecurity and prompt many nations to try and obtain nuclear weapons of some type.
Australia should work our with ASEAN neighbours and other friendly states to try and ensure this is done in the safest way possible.
Tactical vs. strategic nuclear weapons
| Type | Kilotons* | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Strategic nuclear weapons | 100 – 10,000 | Obliterates a civilian region. Nuclear fallout over huge area. Need ICBM’s / SLBM‘s to deliver them. Millions of dead civilians. Massive retaliation. NOT RECOMMENDED |
| WW2 Fat Man (Nagasaki bomb) | 20 | Destroyed a small city. 80,000 fatalities. NOT RECOMMENDED |
| Tactical nuclear weapons | 0.02 to 10 | Destroys a military target. Damage radius ~1km. Can be designed to minimise fallout. Can be delivered by anti-ship missiles. RECOMMENDED |
*Blast equivalent to this many thousand tonnes of TNT.
Even if Australia had a strategic nuclear weapon it is not credible that we would use one against a civilian region.
Tactical nuclear weapons
In the Cold War, small nuclear weapons were designed by the USSR to destroy armoured formations but not leave behind harmful levels of radiation on the battlefield.
This would allow soviet forces to push through the destroyed area in the days after the blast to seize territory.
| In Australia’s case the battlefield would be the seas around Australia and the targets would be warships. |
Tactical nuclear weapons can also be used to create Electro Magnetic Pulse effects to blind hostile fleets and hopefully warn them off without killing the crews.
Australian should obtain tactical nuclear weapons for anti-ship missiles.
It is highly credible that Australia would use a tactical nuclear warhead against an aircraft carrier group that was inflicting casualties in an Australian city, so they would be an effective deterrent.
Tactical nukes = independence
If Australia possessed small tactical nuclear weapons we could retain significant independence as long as we didn’t directly threaten the superpowers.
Because of the small size of tactical nuclear weapons, we should be able to build enough of them to make Australia an unattractive target. Our remoteness also helps – we are not ‘in the way’.
Like France and the UK, we may be able to retain a ‘bubble’ around the country that could encompass New Zealand and some nearby pacific island nations that the superpowers don’t really need.
Obtaining nuclear material
There are several possible sources of sufficient nuclear material to construct small tactical nuclear warheads.
| Source | Rationale |
|---|---|
| UK | We let them do testing here, historical ties, WWII, they play cricket, etc. |
| France | Australia helped France in WWI and II |
| Pakistan | A commonwealth country, they play cricket, they have financial issues, etc. (Close PRC ally) |
| India | A commonwealth country, they play cricket, many Indians live here. (Russian ally) |
| Japan, Canada, Brazil, South Korea, Germany & the Netherlands | These countries are said to be “nuclear threshold states” (along with Iran). Given recent developments they are probably scrambling to advance these projects. We may be able to do deals with them in exchange for food, money or minerals. |
| Domestic | Converting uranium ore into weapons grade material is difficult, dangerous, dirty, expensive & time-consuming. Purchasing ready-made fissile material and expertise would be preferable. |
Ideally multiple sources could be used.
Limiting fallout
The plan should be to detonate the device well ABOVE the targeted hostile ship to minimise fireball interaction with the sea surface as that creates fall-out.
See also: Just How Radioactive Are Low-Yield Nuclear Weapons? (The War Zone)
Nuclear weapons legacy in Australia
Note that 12 nuclear weapons have been detonated in Australia in the past with yields of between 1 and 60 kilotons.
Unfortunately some other tests involved deliberately spreading about 24 kilograms of plutonium-239 with explosives which obviously left a long-lasting legacy. It is likely that these “minor tests” that caused most of the residual contamination.
Delivery
Due to the fact that E=MC2, nuclear warheads are smaller than conventional warheads but with much greater explosive force.
This means regular anti-ship missiles could be adapted to carry small tactical warheads.
Nuclear armed anti-ship missiles could potentially be launched from trucks or aircraft greatly increasing deterrence. Naval vessels and long-range aircraft should never be armed with nuclear weapons as this would seriously threaten our neighbours. ASEAN neighbours would need to be able to verify this.
It is extremely unlikely that such a device would ever need be used.
Nuclear vs. conventional
Conventional weapons need to penetrate the hull of a warship to actually do any serious damage. In the case of an aircraft carrier, dozens of missiles would need to hit the ship to disable it. Given the extensive layers of protection around an aircraft carrier this is practically impossible.
A tactical nuclear warhead could be detonated several kilometres away from a carrier and still disable the vessel.
Deterrence
A US W54 nuclear backpack weapon
In addition to deterring hostile navies around Australia, tactical nuclear weapons also serve in a deterrence role as great power leaders know how portable these weapons are.
They want to be able to keep having big rallies and military parades without having to think about a W54 in a backpack somewhere, so would not want to obliterate Australian cities without good cause.
Safety and security
These issues have been solved by the UK, France and other nuclear weapons states.
We should be able to replicate whatever systems the UK has to avoid losing track of where the nukes are.
| Our plan would be to keep these weapons in a disassembled state so that no single weapons repository had more than one nuclear weapon component at any given time – except in times of heightened risk. |
Public support
Australians are becoming increasingly uneasy about the global security situation.
This will increase if Ukraine and Taiwan fall.
Given we would be suggesting some of the world’s smallest nuclear weapons to deter ships, public support would be there.
Note that Australia would need to obtain the weapons and the delivery systems before announcing publicly that we had them.
Nuclear subs, nuclear power … could nuclear weapons be next?
Legal issues
Australia has quite reasonably railed against nuclear weapons for many decades.
This has created many legal barriers to us obtaining tactical nuclear weapons.
Before weapons could be obtained the Australian Parliament would need to remove these barriers. That would obviously require the consent of both houses of the Parliament.
Nuclear power still uneconomic
Note that we do not support nuclear fission power for Australia.
Australia has plenty of wind, sun and wave power that makes expensive nuclear fission power uneconomic as the CSIRO and many others have said.
Nuclear fusion power may be economic in the future, we will have to wait and see.
(It could be that some fission reactors are needed for weapons production. If so they would be deeply buried and not be a source of any significant electricity for the grid.)
Nuclear submarines still not needed
We don’t support nuclear fission submarines either as they are not needed to defend Australia and they are not available to us anyway.
We do not support the idea of obtaining forces to attack nuclear superpowers in the northern hemisphere. Obviously they could retaliate massively against us if we did.
Advanced non-nuclear submarines can submerge for a month without snorting and are much cheaper to buy and operate and are quite adequate for defence.
Other defensive measures
None of the above contradicts what we suggest for conventional forces.
Anti-ship systems should be able to carry conventional or nuclear warheads.
World peace?
As multiple countries acquire tactical nuclear weapons the value of having nuclear weapons and large naval fleets will actually decrease.
It could be that this creates an opportunity for a global treaty that requires all countries to gradually retire their nuclear warheads to stores in a disasembed state.
Some limitation on invasive conventional forces may also be possible. This would limit aircraft carriers, landing craft amd armoured vehicles.
Key references
- The secret history of Australia’s nuclear ambitions PDF (The Nonproliferation Review, 1997). Includes details of how Australia investigated buying tactical nuclear weapons from the UK in 1950’s and building them on the 1960’s. 148 references.
- Australia’s secret plans to have its own nuclear arsenal (News, 2017)
- Does Australia need a nuclear arsenal? And what would be the cost? (ABC, 2018)
- Nuclear Weapons Are No Silver Bullet for Australia’s Strategic Predicament (The Diplomat, 2025). Keep going with the NPT and hope superpowers start to play nice.
- Going nuclear: the true costs Australia would face (Lowy Institute, 2026)
- Nuclear weapons tests in Australia (Wikipedia)