Unfortunately tactical nuclear weapons are needed to deter superpower navies
In a no-rules world nations will be either:
- Nuclear-armed
- Colonies
- Rubble
| Russia | USA & Israel | PRC | India | DPRK |
 |
 |  |  |  |
 5,580 | 5,315 | 600 | 172 | 50 |
Nuclear powers rule
With the breakdown of the rules-based order, nuclear powers are now well placed to carve up much of the world between them:
| Superpower | Territory to seize |
|---|---|
| Russia | Territories of the former USSR – or more |
| USA & Israel | The Americas, Cuba, Greenland & Greater Israel |
| PRC | Taiwan, Southeast Asia, Australia & NZ (Done: Tibet, South China Sea, HK & Macau) |
| DPRK | South Korea |
Other countries with nuclear weapons can retain independence and a bubble of influence:
| Independent Powers | Warheads | Area of influence |
|---|---|---|
| France & UK | 500 | North-Western Europe |
| Pakistan | 170 | Afghanistan? |
| India | 170 | Sri Lanka? |
| Germany | ? | Central Europe |
| Japan? | ? | |
| Brazil? | ? |
Germany considering obtaining its own nuclear weapons (Nine News)
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.
- 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.
Tactical vs. strategic nuclear weapons
| Type | Kilotons | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Strategic nuclear weapons | 100 – 10,000 | Obliterates a whole region. Nuclear fallout over huge area. Need ICBM’s / SLBM‘s to deliver them. Millions of dead civilians. NOT RECOMENDED |
| Tactical nuclear weapons | 0.02 to 10 | Destroys a military target. Damage radius ~1km. Can be designed to minimize fallout. Can be delivered by anti-ship missiles. RECOMENDED |
| Fat Man (Nagasaki bomb) | 20 | Destroyed a small city. 80,000 fatalities |
Tactical nuclear weapons for Australia
In the Cold War, small nuclear weapons were designed to destroy armoured formations but not leave behind harmful levels of radiation on the battlefield.
This would allow 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.
Australian should obtain tactical nuclear weapons for anti-ship missiles.
Nukes = independence
If Australia possessed small tactical nuclear weapons we could retain significant independence as long as we didn’t 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 for the superpowers. 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 are going bankrupt, 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 – especially uranium. |
| 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 with fusion
To limit nuclear contamination, the warheads should be designed to maximize the fusion blast rather than the fission blast. The primary fission stage should be as small as possible and there should be no tertiary fission stage. I.e. there would be no fissile ‘plutonium sparkplug’ in the above diagram that usually provides half the yield.
The plan should be to detonate the device well above the targeted hostile ship to minimize fireball interaction with the sea surface as that creates fall-out.
Note that 12 nuclear weapons have been detonated in Australia with ranges between 1 and 60 kilotons.
See also: Just How Radioactive Are Low-Yield Nuclear Weapons? (The War Zone)
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, aircraft or submarines greatly increasing deterrence.
It is extremely unlikely that such a device would ever need be used.
Deterrence
A US W54 nuclear backpack weapon
In addition to deterring hostile shipping around Australia, tactical nuclear weapons also serve in an unspoken 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.
Public support
Australians are becoming increasingly uneasy since Trump was elected.
This will increase as Ukraine and Taiwan fall and pressure increases on Australia from both the USA and PRC.
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?
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.
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.
Fusion-powered submarines might be an option in the future.
Other defensive measures
None of the above contradicts what we already suggest for conventional forces here.