NationStates Jolt Archive

B-52s to target Aust bombing ranges

The United States will start regular bomber aircraft training in northern Australia in the new year.

At the annual ministerial talks between the US and Australia it was announced that the strategic bomber training program would involve B-52 and B-1 bombers and the B-2 stealth aircraft.

Defence Minister Robert Hill says the planes will fly from the major US base on the Pacific island of Guam.

"It may be aircraft that come down to Australia from a considerable distance and use our bombing ranges and then return without landing," he said.

"There will also be occasions when the aircraft will land and utilise facilities at Darwin.

"We think it's just another example in which we can be helpful to our ally".

The joint communique says that using Australia for bomber training is part of the rebalancing of US military forces in the Asia-Pacific region.

Greens Senator Bob Brown is angry about the deal.

"The Australian Government, more and more, is allowing the Americans to view this country as the 51st state," he said.

The Northern Territory Environment Centre says it is disgusted by the announcement.

Co-ordinator Peter Robertson says he is particularly alarmed about the location of the training.

"Only a matter of 100 kilometres or so from one of the proposed nuclear waste dump sites near Katherine, and it would be extraordinarily alarming and ironic if an American B-52 bomber dropped a live bomb on top of the Commonwealth's nuclear waste dump," he said.

Concerns have also been raised about the environmental impact of the training program.

Australia and the United States have agreed to work towards world's best practice in environmental management for the combined military activities.

Mr Robertson says world's best practice is to stop doing it.

"Not to do it in a way that puts at risk communities, the environment... I mean the notion that there are clean green bombs that can be rained down on the Northern Territory, or any other part of the world, is an absolute nonsense," he said.

The ministers also announced further upgrades to the Shoalwater Bay training area in Queensland for joint training.

Source
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200511/s1510211.htm

...

Great, the Poms nuked us, now our allies use our land to practice their war games. :confused:

Our government's shit.

Just a few years ago, they were proposing to make North Padre Island, a wildlife and nature refuge, a bomb test area. It didn't go through, luckily.

This is even suckier. Imperialism... Gotta love it, eh?

lol at australia.

lol at australia.

Yes, we are idiots for voting an American ...

Our government's shit.

Just a few years ago, they were proposing to make North Padre Island, a wildlife and nature refuge, a bomb test area. It didn't go through, luckily.

This is even suckier. Imperialism... Gotta love it, eh?

Didn't the British test their nuclear bombs in Australia?

http://www.lucianne.com/routine/images/11-18-05.jpg

Didn't the British test their nuclear bombs in Australia?


Yes, 1950's in South Australia at many sites as well as an island in Western Australia.

Yes, 1950's in South Australia at many sites as well as an island in Western Australia.

And I suppose they expected you to thank them for that?

http://www.lucianne.com/routine/images/11-18-05.jpg

Hahaha. Good stuff.

*And fucking hell, I missed an R on my deleted post. Oh well.

And I suppose they expected you to thank them for that?

I guess we got Lucas Heights nuke reactor out of it! :D

Our government's shit.

Just a few years ago, they were proposing to make North Padre Island, a wildlife and nature refuge, a bomb test area. It didn't go through, luckily.

This is even suckier. Imperialism... Gotta love it, eh?

Imperialism? It's called an ally helping out another ally. Contrary to what you might assume from watching France and Germany, that is actually what allies are for. Sounds like your just pissed off because at least one world government doesn't hate our guts.

Imperialism? It's called an ally helping out another ally. Contrary to what you might assume from watching France and Germany, that is actually what allies are for. Sounds like your just pissed off because at least one world government doesn't hate our guts.

I shall simply roll my eyes at this.

Contrary to what you might assume from watching France and Germany, that is actually what allies are for.
:rolleyes:

:rolleyes:

*hands you the biggest fucking cookie ever*

I shall simply roll my eyes at this.
Consider it done...:D

*hands you the biggest fucking cookie ever*
Woot!

This is pretty funny. I always thought the Japanese were the biggest 'what-if' players in the world. We had a cargo C-141 divert to our base in Iwakuni one winter. The runway was icy, but the guy was out of gas and needed to land. He overran the runway and damaged the chain-link fence at the departure end. No damage was done to anything else. The Japanese papers were all over us with possibilities. The most far--fetched of which was 'What if the plane had nuclear weapons and what if they had exploded?".

This Robertson guy sounds like he was brought up in that school. I think he would have found reason to be alarmed if it was a proposed garbage dump and it was 1000 kilometers away. I wish these people would use miles and feet, so I don't have to get my calculator out. I find that 100 km is a pretty sizable distance. Most B-52 crews are probably capable of sub meter accuracy, so I don't think it's a big deal

This boils down to "What if they miss their targets by distances never before seen and hit the nuke dump if it is ever built?". What a weenie!

Co-ordinator Peter Robertson says he is particularly alarmed about the location of the training.

"Only a matter of 100 kilometres or so from one of the proposed nuclear waste dump sites near Katherine, and it would be extraordinarily alarming and ironic if an American B-52 bomber dropped a live bomb on top of the Commonwealth's nuclear waste dump," he said.

Well, I'll be deaf if there's going to be US planes flying around all day. I live and work near airports or plan flightpaths.

Well, I'll be deaf if there's going to be US planes flying around all day. I live and work near airports or plan flightpaths.
Na, you'll only be in any danger if you live in one of these nuke waste dumps. Apparently, B-52 crews hit those instead of their targets.

And they bomb from 30,000 feet and higher. That's more than 10 meters. Probably more than a thousand. Stupid metric system.

Imperialism? It's called an ally helping out another ally. Contrary to what you might assume from watching France and Germany, that is actually what allies are for. Sounds like your just pissed off because at least one world government doesn't hate our guts.

Um if there is any anger against Australia its becuase of the US alliance. Furthermore what do we get for being Americas buddy? Sweet fuck all. Its not like we need the alliance to buy American planes and military equipment, hell Norways in on the JSF.

Australia doesnt need a major alliance to survive, it just needs to boost its defence force. I just did a research essay on this. Australia is protected by distance and isolation. For every man Australia can field an enemy would need at least 3 on the ground.

Considering that the logistics of the pacific in WWII required 17 American soldiers to support a single marine or GI in combat that would mean any enemy would have a seriously hard time supporting thier troops, most estimates suggest at least half of the number from the second world war. To succesfully invade Australia would also require complete air and naval dominance. Which is impossible for any nation in Asia, or basically any nation but the US, Britian, France, Germany and possibly Russia (the USSR could have).

Most Asian nations lack a deep water navy, let alone a modern one (thailand does have an aircraft carrier but its more symbolic than an actual weapon of war. Australia gave its two up in the 60s and 70s so you can guess what the Thai one is like).

Furthermore most nations dont have long range air attack capability, even China lacks the ability to really do much more than defend its borders.

Once we have the JSF, which we dont need an alliance for, just similar goals as the US, it will be impossible for any Asian nation to achieve air superirority.
Even if they could get modern planes even the lower indonesian islands don't offer targets more than Darwin or a few remote bases.

While the US offers nuclear protection, that term in itself is an oxy moron. No one can save anyone from a full scale nuclear attack. That and by having the US bases on our soil we make ourselves a nuclear target.

Basically Australia should go for armed nuetrality.

The Americans have huge military power but it isn't geared towards helping Australia... and they would be stupid to a system that was.

We were self reliant in the Second World War (not many people realise this but we churned out 200+ battle tanks, 5000+bren gun carriers, 200+combat aircraft and by the end of the war, with germany, italy and japan gone, we had the fourth largest airforce, fith largest army and fourth largest navy in the world). Of course the world has changed and we cant base our defence on the second world war but as Singapore demonstrated its stupid to presume an ally is the answer to security.

Na, you'll only be in any danger if you live in one of these nuke waste dumps. Apparently, B-52 crews hit those instead of their targets.

And they bomb from 30,000 feet and higher. That's more than 10 meters. Probably more than a thousand. Stupid metric system.

Lucky I don't live near Katherine. :D
Don't like the place much either.

This is pretty funny. I always thought the Japanese were the biggest 'what-if' players in the world. We had a cargo C-141 divert to our base in Iwakuni one winter. The runway was icy, but the guy was out of gas and needed to land. He overran the runway and damaged the chain-link fence at the departure end. No damage was done to anything else. The Japanese papers were all over us with possibilities. The most far--fetched of which was 'What if the plane had nuclear weapons and what if they had exploded?".

This Robertson guy sounds like he was brought up in that school. I think he would have found reason to be alarmed if it was a proposed garbage dump and it was 1000 kilometers away. I wish these people would use miles and feet, so I don't have to get my calculator out. I find that 100 km is a pretty sizable distance. Most B-52 crews are probably capable of sub meter accuracy, so I don't think it's a big deal

This boils down to "What if they miss their targets by distances never before seen and hit the nuke dump if it is ever built?". What a weenie!


And another benefit of armed nuetrality, we can thumb our noses at people like these, just the swiss do.

Um B-52s are from the 60s dearie (although variants are still in use). We are talking about B2s the new ones. The stealth doom ones. That still drop dumb bombs, that arent really that accurate. Most bombs dropped arent smart or that accurate.

Kosovo has been the only conflict were smart munitions were the majority of air support.

BUT QUICK... THE MY GLOURIS B52... got me some good vietnam tech there.

Na, you'll only be in any danger if you live in one of these nuke waste dumps. Apparently, B-52 crews hit those instead of their targets.

And they bomb from 30,000 feet and higher. That's more than 10 meters. Probably more than a thousand. Stupid metric system.


Funny how the US is the only nation in the developed world, or for that matter, the world, that uses the imperial system.

Good ol B-52s... mmmm imperial system goodness

Funny how the US is the only nation in the developed world, or for that matter, the world, that uses the imperial system.

Good ol B-52s... mmmm imperial system goodness

Funny how the US Army has been using the metric system since the early 1960s...

I was in service in the mid 1980s to early 1990s - and everything was metric - the tools, the weapons, the maps - everything.

Funny how people who aren't in the US Army think that we're still using imperial...

And another benefit of armed nuetrality, we can thumb our noses at people like these, just the swiss do.

Um B-52s are from the 60s dearie (although variants are still in use). We are talking about B2s the new ones. The stealth doom ones. That still drop dumb bombs, that arent really that accurate. Most bombs dropped arent smart or that accurate.

Kosovo has been the only conflict were smart munitions were the majority of air support.

BUT QUICK... THE MY GLOURIS B52... got me some good vietnam tech there.


B-52s currently used were built in the early 1960s and are not stealthy. In fact, they carry less payload than some of the ones used in the Vietnam War.

And to correct your misinformation, they do not carry dumb munitions anymore.

A handful of these planes destroyed an entire Iraqi division on the road in a single pass, using smart cluster munitions - where each and every bomblet homes in on an individual target before detonating. If you want to look up the bomblet, it's called the BLU-108, and just a few of these planes took out 80 percent of a division's vehicles from on high.

Na, you'll only be in any danger if you live in one of these nuke waste dumps. Apparently, B-52 crews hit those instead of their targets.

And they bomb from 30,000 feet and higher. That's more than 10 meters. Probably more than a thousand. Stupid metric system.

I always thought that you were only in danger on the ground if the pilot flew his attack run under 1,000 feet. I heard that's where the overabundance of oxygen causes the pilot to get blurred vision.

I shall simply roll my eyes at this.

I still want to hear how an agreement between two countries to let country A test-bomb a barren section of country B amounts to Imperialism.

I still want to hear how an agreement between two countries to let country A test-bomb a barren section of country B amounts to Imperialism.

...You've gotta be kidding me. Surely you can see through the bullshit?

...You've gotta be kidding me. Surely you can see through the bullshit?

Yeah, I know the NeoCon Jews are behind it all...I was just thinking there might be some other explanation. Maybe.

...You've gotta be kidding me. Surely you can see through the bullshit?

Let me see if I got this straight.

One nation with democratically elected leaders with authority to negotiate this sort of thing makes a written agreement with the democratically elected leaders of another nation (who also have authority to negotiate this sort of thing).

No threat of the use of force involved in arriving at this agreement.

Are you saying that Australia was forced to agree to this? At gunpoint? Threat of invasion?

B-52s currently used were built in the early 1960s and are not stealthy. In fact, they carry less payload than some of the ones used in the Vietnam War.

And to correct your misinformation, they do not carry dumb munitions anymore.

A handful of these planes destroyed an entire Iraqi division on the road in a single pass, using smart cluster munitions - where each and every bomblet homes in on an individual target before detonating. If you want to look up the bomblet, it's called the BLU-108, and just a few of these planes took out 80 percent of a division's vehicles from on high.

B-52's - stealthy? Like a flying brick. :)

B-52's - stealthy? Like a flying brick. :)
Some wag in a previous post said the new B-52s were stealthy (ROFLMAO).

Some wag in a previous post said the new B-52s were stealthy (ROFLMAO).

LOL!

Singapore has been using Australian ranges for years, as has Malaysia, Britain, and France. The issue here is nothing to do with what the US might do, it is about people who are so inadequate that they have to build their 'identities' around hating America.

As for Robinson's objection, I suggest that those who are dumb and blind aren't qualified to comment. 100km CEP? What is this idiot smoking, and where do I get it?

Potaria, you should respond to Deep Kimchi's point.

Look on the bright side Aussies, IF China ever went Imperial with their military then the US presence in the northern territories might put them off invading Australia. :D

Australia is a pretty big target. This does not bode well that our B-52 pilots have failed hitting smaller targets and been sent to Remedial Strategic Bombing 100.

Australia is a pretty big target. This does not bode well that our B-52 pilots have failed hitting smaller targets and been sent to Remedial Strategic Bombing 100.

BS.

Some wag in a previous post said the new B-52s were stealthy (ROFLMAO).
I think he was talking about the B-2s that were mentioned in the article. We know the Bones are good for nothing. Maybe it's not the B-52 crews that can't keep the bombs out of some proposed nuke waste dump.

There are a couple of things I'd personally like to know about this.

1. If America wants to train its bombardiers to actually hit what they're 'aiming' for, why can't they do it in their own damn country?

2. What exactly are we getting out of this? Am I going to get 10 bucks courtesy of the US air force? Are they going to give us some planes or tanks for free? Or are we just letting them do it because they're nominally our "ally"? (read: Holy and Mighty American Lords and Masters)

I always thought that you were only in danger on the ground if the pilot flew his attack run under 1,000 feet. I heard that's where the overabundance of oxygen causes the pilot to get blurred vision.
I think the higher partial pressures of oxygen must cause some of the alcoholic haze to burn off. Generally, we count on a good buzz to keep our senses sharp. Hypoxia is a good substitute and that's why so few of us actually wear the oxygen masks. This doesn't apply to Air Force pilots, by the way, only aviators.

There are a couple of things I'd personally like to know about this.

1. If America wants to train its bombardiers to actually hit what they're 'aiming' for, why can't they do it in their own damn country?

My guess is that it simulates a live, long range exercise, from the middle of the US, with aerial refueling, to the other side of the world and back. Since Australia has exotic over the horizon radar at Woomera, we might also be testing new stealth technology, other tech tricks, etc.
2. What exactly are we getting out of this? Am I going to get 10 bucks courtesy of the US air force? Are they going to give us some planes or tanks for free? Or are we just letting them do it because they're nominally our "ally"? (read: Holy and Mighty American Lords and Masters)
No, your PM is probably getting something, or the government is, but you'll be lucky if you get a pat on the head for being a good citizen.

Contrary to popular belief, about 80% of Australia is not feasible for habitation, so we might as well blow the shit out of it, although I think setting up a range away from the nuclear dump is a good idea.
There is plenty of Queensland

Just make sure you supply them with excellent maps of where exactly those practise sites are - I'd hate to hear about mishaps and friendly fire!

Singapore has been using Australian ranges for years, as has Malaysia, Britain, and France. The issue here is nothing to do with what the US might do, it is about people who are so inadequate that they have to build their 'identities' around hating America.

As for Robinson's objection, I suggest that those who are dumb and blind aren't qualified to comment. 100km CEP? What is this idiot smoking, and where do I get it?

Potaria, you should respond to Deep Kimchi's point.

The US has a lot of deserts it can use for it's own people to use to practice blowing the living daylights out of. Go use those - Death Valley for example.

I think we should remember that the site they are going to bomb is a designated bombing range, so all this really means is that it is going to get a bit more use.

My question (which was also posted by Revasser and others) is, why can't they do it in their own dam country?

The US has a lot of deserts it can use for it's own people to use to practice blowing the living daylights out of. Go use those - Death Valley for example.

As for the counter argument:

My guess is that it simulates a live, long range exercise, from the middle of the US, with aerial refueling, to the other side of the world and back. Since Australia has exotic over the horizon radar at Woomera, we might also be testing new stealth technology, other tech tricks, etc.

Not true. As per the ABC article:

the planes will fly from the major US base on the Pacific island of Guam.

Flying to the US from Guam would be just as good.

I think we should remember that the site they are going to bomb is a designated bombing range, so all this really means is that it is going to get a bit more use.

My question (which was also posted by Revasser and others) is, why can't they do it in their own dam country?



As for the counter argument:



Not true. As per the ABC article:



Flying to the US from Guam would be just as good.

Not really as Guam-Australia is different to Guam-US in terms of difference.
It's probably for the personnel based in Guam so they (USA) don't have to bring them home everytime they want a training run

The US has a lot of deserts it can use for it's own people to use to practice blowing the living daylights out of. Go use those - Death Valley for example.

We already do use our deserts for that. But not Death Valley.

But Nellis is really close.

I think there's something not being mentioned.

Contrary to popular belief, about 80% of Australia is not feasible for habitation, so we might as well blow the shit out of it, although I think setting up a range away from the nuclear dump is a good idea.
There is plenty of Queensland
Don't forget, the dump is proposed only, not established. And if I do my conversions properly, 100 kilometers hardly qualifies as right next door.

"Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay; and claims a halo for his dishonesty."

-Robert A. Heinlein
Don'tcha just love Heinlein! :)

We already do use our deserts for that. But not Death Valley.

But Nellis is really close.

I think there's something not being mentioned.

Well, let's hope the US stick to using conventional bombs.
I don't trust the US government not to use weird new tech in other people's nations.

The UK had it's fun using nukes on Australia.

The US has a lot of deserts it can use for it's own people to use to practice blowing the living daylights out of. Go use those - Death Valley for example.
Sorry, we have protected species living in Death Valley. There are a lot of ranges that could be used, but there is quite a bit of value in training on unfamiliar ranges, as well.

We used a target off the coast of North Carolina for years. I could get a bulls-eye on almost any day. When I was on my first combat mission, I had almost 15 seconds to identify and attack my target. Not a big deal in my backyard, but it was pretty damned hard in Libya.

Just make sure you supply them with excellent maps of where exactly those practise sites are - I'd hate to hear about mishaps and friendly fire!

Interestingly, as examined in the book The Transformation of American Air Power, friendly fire incidents from aircraft have changed in nature.

During the Vietnam War, the circular error probable of an F-100 fighter operating in close air support was 750 meters. That is, half of the bombs dropped from a tactical fighter which was dodging anti-aircraft fire would fall in a circle 750 meters wide.

This fell to 60 feet with the advent of the F-15 (and I bet that aircraft built for ground attack were probably in this range as well).

And that was without smart bombs.

The major cause of friendly fire in the past was the fact that bombs were inaccurate.

Now, bombs are EXTREMELY accurate. The cause of friendly fire today is target misidentification - not inaccurate bombing. And the fatalities are higher per incident, because the bombs don't miss. But the total number of incidents is an order of magnitude lower than in the past - as compared to any major nation.

Well, let's hope the US stick to using conventional bombs.
I don't trust the US government not to use weird new tech in other people's nations.

The UK had it's fun using nukes on Australia.

No, I think that it's obvious that Australia has a major radar research facility at Woomera.

They are probably testing more stealth and more electronic countermeasures equipment.

No, I think that it's obvious that Australia has a major radar research facility at Woomera.

They are probably testing more stealth and more electronic countermeasures equipment.

Probably. There's also the Pine gap intelligence post, doing whatever it is doing. Wonder if that radar of ours works at all ...

Now, bombs are EXTREMELY accurate. The cause of friendly fire today is target misidentification - not inaccurate bombing. And the fatalities are higher per incident, because the bombs don't miss. But the total number of incidents is an order of magnitude lower than in the past - as compared to any major nation.
Somewhere in my past training, we were comparing friendly fire losses. Of course we were comparing our tactics to the Soviets because they were our biggest enemy. I remember being told during one brief that Soviets had actually quantified the losses they were willing to accept in training. That kind of begs the question about what they were willing to accept in combat.

In any squadron I've been in, Navy or Marine, we have been unwilling to accept any friendly fire losses. Can't speak for the Air Force.

Probably. There's also the Pine gap intelligence post, doing whatever it is doing. Wonder if that radar of ours works at all ...
Now you know.
If the US is practicing bombing (and bomber infiltration techniques are a part of that) there, the Australian radar must be pretty good.

Somewhere in my past training, we were comparing friendly fire losses. Of course we were comparing our tactics to the Soviets because they were our biggest enemy. I remember being told during one brief that Soviets had actually quantified the losses they were willing to accept in training. That kind of begs the question about what they were willing to accept in combat.

In any squadron I've been in, Navy or Marine, we have been unwilling to accept any friendly fire losses. Can't speak for the Air Force.

I remember the same thing. The one thing that seems to be a constant is that if you friendly fire today, at a minimum your career is over.

There's an A-10 that engaged a set of UK Warrior APCs during the first Gulf War - big trouble. And I've seen the video of an Apache pilot who used Hellfire missiles on a couple of US Bradleys during the first Gulf War.

Interestingly, in the last video, you can see he's being careful. He asks his commander over the radio to verify that no US forces are in that location, and at least two people are heard saying it's OK - and after he fires, he realizes that they are Bradleys. His reaction was profound - he sounded like he was going to kill himself.

People should realize that combat is not like a video game, where you have perfect knowledge of everything that's going on.

I was rather surprised yesterday when a poster had trouble believing that when people are hit by bullets, they are rarely hit by aimed bullets.

Now you know.
If the US is practicing bombing (and bomber infiltration techniques are a part of that) there, the Australian radar must be pretty good.

Mind you, the "Over the horizon" radar is over-budget and was plagued with technical problems.

Mind you, the "Over the horizon" radar is over-budget and was plagued with technical problems.
I think that they have more than the OTH stuff.

I think that they have more than the OTH stuff.

Probably something to do the missile defense shield ...

Let me see if I got this straight.

One nation with democratically elected leaders with authority to negotiate this sort of thing makes a written agreement with the democratically elected leaders of another nation (who also have authority to negotiate this sort of thing).

No threat of the use of force involved in arriving at this agreement.

Are you saying that Australia was forced to agree to this? At gunpoint? Threat of invasion?

And if the tables were turned and it was your nation being used to test nuclear weapons by another world power, agreed beforehand of course, would you object?

Just curious

And if the tables were turned and it was your nation being used to test nuclear weapons by another world power, agreed beforehand of course, would you object?

We're not testing nuclear weapons in Australia. Your question in this case is not valid.

I'll give you a good example of something similar, though.

The German air force can't practice low level bombing in their own country, because the land area just isn't available for that sort of practice. They also have rather restricted air combat practice areas, and can't fly supersonic very often.

So they come to the US, to Nellis AFB. Regularly. By agreement.

And they fly supersonic, and they drop bombs.

I remember the same thing. The one thing that seems to be a constant is that if you friendly fire today, at a minimum your career is over.

I don't know how much friendly identification has improved in the years between Desert Storm and the second Gulf war, but I would hope that there have been some advances. We were told to avoid bombing vehicles with orange trash bags taped to the top. WTF? Everything gets so dirty in the desert that orange trash bags look just like dirty canvas.

We had good air control and I could always tell the difference between a T72 and a M-1, but there sure were a lot of USAF pilots that didn't know what our equipment looked like. I would hate to be in the Army and have to depend on the USAF for close air support.

We're not testing nuclear weapons in Australia. Your question in this case is not valid.

Actually, it would be valid. Had you been a UK citizen. I do believe I had picked your statement based on anothers that had to do with the British testing of fission weapons on Australian soil. Of course the conduct of the British during the post detonation phase wasn't very nice either if the stories are to be believed.

With all these supersonic military plans about, something is bound to fall off them. We had an dummy stinger missile fall off on of our FA-18s and it trashed someones car in Darwin. God help someone if it was live one.

Actually, it would be valid. Had you been a UK citizen. I do believe I had picked your statement based on anothers that had to do with the British testing of fission weapons on Australian soil. Of course the conduct of the British during the post detonation phase wasn't very nice either if the stories are to be believed.

Then the Germans obviously are being Imperialists over America.

They bomb here ALL THE TIME.

If I was an Austrian I'd be digging a bomb shelter right now.

Contrary to popular belief, about 80% of Australia is not feasible for habitation, so we might as well blow the shit out of it, although I think setting up a range away from the nuclear dump is a good idea.
There is plenty of Queensland

But it's our uninhabitable wasteland! So yes, we might as well blow the shit out of it, but everyone else should keep their dirty hands (and bombs) off unless we're getting something substantial out of the bargain. Something better than "helping an ally", because frankly, that isn't worth a thing and basically, at the moment, amounts to giving Little Johnny more skin time with Dubya. America doesn't do shit for us except push our local growers and farmers out of the market with cheap, low quality produce (while protecting their own agriculture, I might add) and drag us into wars that are none of our business.

But it doesn't just go for America. Everyone should stop using our uninhabitable wasteland for this stuff unless they're willing to give us lots of stuff and/or money.

Then the Germans obviously are being Imperialists over America.

They bomb here ALL THE TIME.

I loosely translate that to "I don't care" with a hefty chunk of sarcasm. But their not testing nuclear arms are they? That was the point of the British example. Besides, iirc, they deliberately exposed troops to the radiation without telling them about the effects so that they could monitor it. I don't remember if it was Aussie troops or British that they had exposed to it though.

Would you like it if American Marines were used as guinea pigs in highly hazardous weapons testings by another country? I doubt you would approve even if it was your own country doing it. Neither would I. That just smacks of shooting your employee to find out how your new bullets perform.

I loosely translate that to "I don't care"
Well there really is no point in caring.
Australia has huge areas that no one uses, and Allies sometimes need to train together.
The German army trains together with the Americans sometimes in one place and sometimes in another. There's not that much room in Germany to bomb places, so you go somewhere else.

I mean, to be honest I don't really get the outrage - the only thing one could be worried about is DU Ammunition and the like, and then it's up to a Senate Enquiry to sort out any risks and whether to take them.

Besides, iirc, they deliberately exposed troops to the radiation without telling them about the effects so that they could monitor it. I don't remember if it was Aussie troops or British that they had exposed to it though.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_nuclear_tests_at_Maralinga
http://www.naa.gov.au/publications/fact_sheets/FS129.html
http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Uk/UKTesting.html

To my knowledge they're not going to use nukes in Australia, so I guess it's more of a routine operation. No need to really worry.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_nuclear_tests_at_Maralinga
http://www.naa.gov.au/publications/fact_sheets/FS129.html
http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Uk/UKTesting.html

To my knowledge they're not going to use nukes in Australia, so I guess it's more of a routine operation. No need to really worry.

Not yet anyway. Can't trust the Australian governments to stand up for itself these days.

Our government's shit.

Just a few years ago, they were proposing to make North Padre Island, a wildlife and nature refuge, a bomb test area. It didn't go through, luckily.

This is even suckier. Imperialism... Gotta love it, eh?

Actually have been on North Padre. That would have been a big mistake bombing that. Glad they didnt choose it.

And I suppose they expected you to thank them for that?
We were supposed to get our nukes out of it. But then the US said to the UK, "there be commies thar" (forgetting, perhaps, that the commies already had nukes). So the UK reneged. Of course, all the commies were in fact in the UK.

Imperialism? It's called an ally helping out another ally. Contrary to what you might assume from watching France and Germany, that is actually what allies are for. Sounds like your just pissed off because at least one world government doesn't hate our guts.
Correctly or incorrectly, lots of Australians feel that the US is getting more from our "alliance" than Australia is. I put alliance in inverted commas, because as far as I know there is no actual alliance.

And another benefit of armed nuetrality, we can thumb our noses at people like these, just the swiss do.

Um B-52s are from the 60s dearie (although variants are still in use). We are talking about B2s the new ones. The stealth doom ones. That still drop dumb bombs, that arent really that accurate. Most bombs dropped arent smart or that accurate.

Kosovo has been the only conflict were smart munitions were the majority of air support.

BUT QUICK... THE MY GLOURIS B52... got me some good vietnam tech there.

Although the B-52 airframe is from the 1960s, the avionics systems have been consistently updated and upgraded. Those are the systems that are used for navigation and bombing. They are damn accurate allowing for precision bombing even with dumb bombs.

Correctly or incorrectly, lots of Australians feel that the US is getting more from our "alliance" than Australia is. I put alliance in inverted commas, because as far as I know there is no actual alliance.

The "alliance" as it currently stands is a joke. An alliance implies equal partners, but I guess some partners are more equal than others, no? I have little doubt that, if our holdings were attacked or we decided to go start a war somewhere, the US would just tell us we're on our own.

There are a couple of things I'd personally like to know about this.

1. If America wants to train its bombardiers to actually hit what they're 'aiming' for, why can't they do it in their own damn country?

We do, but we can't train for long range missions within the CONUS.

With all these supersonic military plans about, something is bound to fall off them. We had an dummy stinger missile fall off on of our FA-18s and it trashed someones car in Darwin. God help someone if it was live one.

None of the bombers mentioned in the article are supersonic, and none of them carry external stores. The only time something falls off an aircraft in flight is when it wasn't put on correctly in the first place.

"Australia to get used for US bombing practice"

'Cause W3 pwn Ju0z! :p

We do, but we can't train for long range missions within the CONUS.

US planes could always take off here and then bomb US soil. The US military has air bases here (though why that still is, I don't know. The Cold War is over, boys!), so they could do that. Or better yet, our government could grow some balls and tell our "ally" to pike off when they ask us if they can drop ordnance on our desert. That'll never happen with the coalition in charge, though, and probably not with Labor either, if they were in office. Our government, it seems, regardless of which party is in office, is doomed to be a spineless American lapdog.

Americans mess up and bomb innocent civilians and embassies and people complain.

Americans refine and practice their bombing techniques and people still complain.

There's no winning with you guys.

US planes could always take off here and then bomb US soil. The US military has air bases here (though why that still is, I don't know. The Cold War is over, boys!), so they could do that. Or better yet, our government could grow some balls and tell our "ally" to pike off when they ask us if they can drop ordnance on our desert. That'll never happen with the coalition in charge, though, and probably not with Labor either, if they were in office. Our government, it seems, regardless of which party is in office, is doomed to be a spineless American lapdog.
I always had the impression that Australians and Americans got along, in general. I've been to Perth and Sydney on military business and I've been into the outback on company business. I've never met anyone that wasn't willing to have a good conversation and share a few drinks. In fact, just being an American Marine has put me into the 'net received' end of buying drinks. I just don't believe your sentiments about the U.S. military are shared by more than a few iconoclasts.

Imperialism? It's called an ally helping out another ally. Contrary to what you might assume from watching France and Germany, that is actually what allies are for. Sounds like your just pissed off because at least one world government doesn't hate our guts.

It's not about hating America's guts. I don't. But if this is true, that's the shittest thing ever. Why the hell can't America TEST THEIR BOMBS ON THEIR OWN DAMNED SOIL? We have wildlife, you know. Incredibly fragile ecosystems. Yep. But you know, who cares? It's only the world.

I always had the impression that Australians and Americans got along, in general. I've been to Perth and Sydney on military business and I've been into the outback on company business. I've never met anyone that wasn't willing to have a good conversation and share a few drinks. In fact, just being an American Marine has put me into the 'net received' end of buying drinks. I just don't believe your sentiments about the U.S. military are shared by more than a few iconoclasts.

Hm, I disagree, but that doesn't have any impact on my view of American Soldiers. Er, this might take some explaining.
Okay, well, I live in Perth, right. I am... kind of against the way that the Howard Government is swaying to America's wishes, but, I think that now we've committed to the war, we can't just pack up and go home without finishing the job, just like America can't. I also will not vote Labor, but that's another story...
But yes. I'm completely against America testing bombs on our desert. You have your own deserts, your own testing grounds. Our deserts are not barren wastelands, they happen to be incredibly fragile. So, this news makes me very angry. BUT! If I were to meet a US Soldier of any branch of military, I would not take it out on them. It's not their fault. And besides, Soldiers are interesting, no matter where they're from. And I've liked all the Americans I've met.
So I think you might find that the reason you've been met with such amiable-ness (it's to late for eloquence :)) is perhaps because more people have the same sentiment of me in that... there's no harm in being nice to people, and you can't blame soldiers for things you don't agree with.
Well, that's my two bobs worth :)
Sorry. I ramble. Points : 1. Don't agree with testing bombs on Aussie Desert 2. Don't mind US Soldiers

Correctly or incorrectly, lots of Australians feel that the US is getting more from our "alliance" than Australia is. I put alliance in inverted commas, because as far as I know there is no actual alliance.

Its called the ANZUS treaty

It's not about hating America's guts. I don't. But if this is true, that's the shittest thing ever. Why the hell can't America TEST THEIR BOMBS ON THEIR OWN DAMNED SOIL? We have wildlife, you know. Incredibly fragile ecosystems. Yep. But you know, who cares? It's only the world.

They are bombing in establish Bombing ranges, any wildlife in the area have already been blown to sunder so that argument is flawed.

Actually, we have one portion of our ecosystem that seems to be pretty robust. No matter what we do to it, it keeps bouncing back. I say we should redirect the American bombers to here... It's got a nice bulls-eye and everything! :cool:

http://www.latenightgames.com/files/Canberra.jpg

Its called the ANZUS treaty



They are bombing in establish Bombing ranges, any wildlife in the area have already been blown to sunder so that argument is flawed.

Hm. True. Well, I don't agree with lumping desert as "useless land" in any case, Australian Bombs or American Bombs. edit: although I know it has to be done somewhere, and that we have a lot of desert. /edit
But America still has it's own bombing grounds, why are Australian testing ground s any better? I certainly can't see that they'd be more convenient.

And could you define this ANZUS treaty? I'm more curious than skeptical, and know nothing about it. I'm not against it, either. Well. Not yet. But being against it isn't going to change anything, heh.

Hm. True. Well, I don't agree with lumping desert as "useless land" in any case, Australian Bombs or American Bombs.
But America still has it's own bombing grounds, why are Australian testing ground s any better? I certainly can't see that they'd be more convenient.

And could you define this ANZUS treaty? I'm more curious than skeptical, and know nothing about it. I'm not against it, either. Well. Not yet. But being against it isn't going to change anything, heh.

I didn't say it was useless, it has a use, to test munitions,there is no real difference on whos dropping them

I could give you a run dowm but it easyer just to read the wiki artical

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anzus

It's not about hating America's guts. I don't. But if this is true, that's the shittest thing ever. Why the hell can't America TEST THEIR BOMBS ON THEIR OWN DAMNED SOIL? We have wildlife, you know. Incredibly fragile ecosystems. Yep. But you know, who cares? It's only the world.
This is a sarcastic reply. It's the truth, but as an answer, it is tongue-in-cheek. Oh dear, I've just put a disclaimer on a post before I've even posted it.

Anyhow, we have our own protected species. The best bombing ranges in the country are in the desert Southwest because there is a very sparse population. But, we can't use most of the S/W because there are land tortoises found from time to time. The result is that most of the areas that are not populated by humans are off-limits because of the tortoises. The areas that humans populate are being made to be uninhabitable because of some bottom feeding fish in a reservoir. We can't let water out of the reservoir because the rare fish might suffer.

In short, our eco-extremists seem to have more pull with our government than your eco-extremists have with yours.

I loosely translate that to "I don't care" with a hefty chunk of sarcasm. But their not testing nuclear arms are they? That was the point of the British example. Besides, iirc, they deliberately exposed troops to the radiation without telling them about the effects so that they could monitor it. I don't remember if it was Aussie troops or British that they had exposed to it though.

Would you like it if American Marines were used as guinea pigs in highly hazardous weapons testings by another country? I doubt you would approve even if it was your own country doing it. Neither would I. That just smacks of shooting your employee to find out how your new bullets perform.

...explain again why it is that the USAF is wrong for the RAF dropping nukes in Australia?

I didn't say it was useless, it has a use, to test munitions,there is no real difference on whos dropping them

I could give you a run dowm but it easyer just to read the wiki artical

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anzus

it has more use than just testing munitions. But, yes, I realise that
- this land has already been destroyed
- it doesn't matter who'se bombs they are
but the question still remains as to how it could possibly be more convenient to use Australian bomb testing sites. Surely it's not cheaper or easier. You know. Transport. Etc. I would totally just use bomb testing ground in America if I was their government.

Hm, Wikipedia, aye. History has made me incredibly suspicious of that place, but thanks.

It's not about hating America's guts. I don't. But if this is true, that's the shittest thing ever. Why the hell can't America TEST THEIR BOMBS ON THEIR OWN DAMNED SOIL? We have wildlife, you know. Incredibly fragile ecosystems. Yep. But you know, who cares? It's only the world.
I don't think it's bomb testing as much as is mission training. Chances are that the bombs are inert for two reasons. Inert bombs work just as well and inert bombs are cheaper.

it has more use than just testing munitions. But, yes, I realise that
- this land has already been destroyed
- it doesn't matter who'se bombs they are
but the question still remains as to how it could possibly be more convenient to use Australian bomb testing sites. Surely it's not cheaper or easier. You know. Transport. Etc. I would totally just use bomb testing ground in America if I was their government.

Hm, Wikipedia, aye. History has made me incredibly suspicious of that place, but thanks.

I just skimed through the artical it had all the relevent information

This is a sarcastic reply. It's the truth, but as an answer, it is tongue-in-cheek. Oh dear, I've just put a disclaimer on a post before I've even posted it.

Anyhow, we have our own protected species. The best bombing ranges in the country are in the desert Southwest because there is a very sparse population. But, we can't use most of the S/W because there are land tortoises found from time to time. The result is that most of the areas that are not populated by humans are off-limits because of the tortoises. The areas that humans populate are being made to be uninhabitable because of some bottom feeding fish in a reservoir. We can't let water out of the reservoir because the rare fish might suffer.

In short, our eco-extremists seem to have more pull with our government than your eco-extremists have with yours.

Ah, I see. Well, fair enough.It's fairly impressive that they're willing to cart bombs halfway around the world for the sake of some tortoises and fish. If only our eco-extremists were more adament. Heh.

I say we should redirect the American bombers to here... It's got a nice bulls-eye and everything! :cool:

http://www.latenightgames.com/files/Canberra.jpg

Heh... it is a pretty big target... sorry if I sound stupid(me being an ignorant American of non-famous foreign places)... but what building is that?

Didn't the British test their nuclear bombs in Australia?

We're allowed to, empire and all that, what

I don't think it's bomb testing as much as is mission training. Chances are that the bombs are inert for two reasons. Inert bombs work just as well and inert bombs are cheaper.

Heh. Cheaper wins the stuff.
Ah. Well. I guess I reacted too strongly to a sensationalised forum topic without considering things and reading stuff first. Heh. Ah well. I could say I'll learn, but... I won't. :)

We're allowed to, empire and all that, what

Hhee. Empires are totally the greatest invention ever. I'm totally not kidding.

Heh. Cheaper wins the stuff.
Ah. Well. I guess I reacted too strongly to a sensationalised forum topic without considering things and reading stuff first. Heh. Ah well. I could say I'll learn, but... I won't. :)
Nah, it's a whole lot more fun to just jump in and make bold statements. It's a practice that has managed to keep me off of any of the 'best loved', 'most respected', or even the 'semi-literate' lists that have been popular lately.

Nah, it's a whole lot more fun to just jump in and make bold statements. It's a practice that has managed to keep me off of any of the 'best loved', 'most respected', or even the 'semi-literate' lists that have been popular lately.

lol :D sounds good!! hehe. I tend to be more ranty than in this thread though. Much more ranty. My lack of rantyness is odd. Kind of. Hm.

Well just shows you the US controls the world.

Heh... it is a pretty big target... sorry if I sound stupid(me being an ignorant American of non-famous foreign places)... but what building is that?

Oh, that's just Canberra... Parliament House, to be precise. :)

You know, it's funny how everyone can recognise the White House and Westminster - hell, even the Kremlin - but nobody knows what the Australian Capitol Buildings look like... Poor Australia, forever lost in obscurity.

I always had the impression that Australians and Americans got along, in general. I've been to Perth and Sydney on military business and I've been into the outback on company business. I've never met anyone that wasn't willing to have a good conversation and share a few drinks. In fact, just being an American Marine has put me into the 'net received' end of buying drinks. I just don't believe your sentiments about the U.S. military are shared by more than a few iconoclasts.

It's not that I don't like Americans or America (except for the current administration, but that goes without saying), or even that I'm particularly patriotic about my country, it's that I, personally, have a completely mercenary attitude when it comes to foreign militaries (ANY foreign militaries) on home soil. I'd have no problem with the USAF bombing the crap out of a bit of our inhospitable wasteland if we were actually getting something more than the nebulous gratitude of the current administration out of the bargain. But that's all we're getting. Why should I be pleased about US bombers using the desert here for target practice if all that this country is getting out of it is some more craters in a bombing range and some more praise from a simian of a President to our weasel of a Prime Minister?

As for my 'sentiments'... well, there is a surprisingly pervasive anti-American attitude in this country. It might not be the majority attitude, but it does seem to be increasing steadily. Maybe once Bush is out of office and the US gets a figurehead with a bit more intelligence and a bit less zealotry, that sentiment will taper off. But like I said, I'm not "anti-American" I'm just not interested in my country allowing ANY foreign military to do this sort of thing without tangible benefits on our side.

Edit: With regards to the US military specifically, I'm not too hot any military, but I don't see the US military as any better or worse than anyone else's, except in how, when and why the US government decides to use it. But that isn't the soldiers' fault, that's the fault of the morons in D.C.

It's not about hating America's guts. I don't. But if this is true, that's the shittest thing ever. Why the hell can't America TEST THEIR BOMBS ON THEIR OWN DAMNED SOIL? We have wildlife, you know. Incredibly fragile ecosystems. Yep. But you know, who cares? It's only the world.

First of all it has nothing to do with testing bombs. It is all about training crews for long range missions on new targets. We will be bombing on the same ranges used by your own Air Force so it will not have any additional impact on your ecosystem.

First of all it has nothing to do with testing bombs. It is all about training crews for long range missions on new targets. We will be bombing on the same ranges used by your own Air Force so it will not have any additional impact on your ecosystem.

Yeah, I know that now.
It was just a emotionally-fuelled comment. I'm cool now.

Points : 1. Don't agree with testing bombs on Aussie Desert 2. Don't mind US Soldiers

Good, because we will not be testing them. The bombs we do use will have already been tested. Also, folks, not all practice bombing missions use real bombs. Many of them involve radar scored bombing (RBS) that uses an electronic scoring system and doesn't require the release of any weapons. Some of the bombs used in training missions are smoke bombs and others are concrete bombs with no or very little explosives in them. Very few missions, if any, would require the release of 150 lb, 500 lb, or 750 lb bombs.

Good, because we will not be testing them. The bombs we do use will have already been tested. Also, folks, not all practice bombing missions use real bombs. Many of them involve radar scored bombing (RBS) that uses an electronic scoring system and doesn't require the release of any weapons. Some of the bombs used in training missions are smoke bombs and others are concrete bombs with no or very little explosives in them. Very few missions, if any, would require the release of 150 lb, 500 lb, or 750 lb bombs.

Okay. Cool. But... troops... Australia... why? To train with our awesome SAS guys? Who are awesome. Madhat, even.

And dude, I was only acting on what incredibly limited info I had on hand at the time. I have listened to comments and now I am wiser. But I would challenge you to be calmer if you thought some random foreign army was coming into your country to destroy your desert with their bombs, which is the impression the original poster left. And stuff.

Its called the ANZUS treaty
The ANZUS treaty obligates no signatory to do anything if the other is attacked. (The relevant article stating 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.") Thats not really an alliance in the way I think of one (usually as a defensive pact). Although, I admit now double checking the definition of alliance I can see how it would constitute an alliance and so I retract my statement. Nontheless, it still stands that there is no treaty obligation for the US to come to Australia's aid (militarily) if Australia is attacked.

Oh, that's just Canberra... Parliament House, to be precise.

You know, it's funny how everyone can recognise the White House and Westminster - hell, even the Kremlin - but nobody knows what the Australian Capitol Buildings look like... Poor Australia, forever lost in obscurity.Because, of course, you know what the parliament of China looks like, or the Prime Minister of India's residence looks like? Come on, we're just not important enough for people to see enough pictures of it.

...explain again why it is that the USAF is wrong for the RAF dropping nukes in Australia?

?

You realize that I pointed out earlier that I was responding based on the earlier complaint regarding the British testing of fission bombs in Australian soil? I used the example of American Marines simply because it would be easier to connect. If Deep Kimchi, Whispering Legs or whatever he's calling himself these days was British, it would have been much easier to make the connection.

Because, of course, you know what the parliament of China looks like, or the Prime Minister of India's residence looks like? Come on, we're just not important enough for people to see enough pictures of it.

That's an interesting thought. What does the residence of the Indian Prime Minister look like?

That's an interesting thought. What does the residence of the Indian Prime Minister look like?
Well, this is the President's abode aparently. http://presidentofindia.nic.in/panaramicview.html

It looks flash. It's hard to find anything like for the PM's house though (it's not as fancy).

Well, this is the President's abode aparently. http://presidentofindia.nic.in/panaramicview.html

It looks flash. It's hard to find anything like for the PM's house though (it's not as fancy).

Nice place! Good thing the Australian PM does not have a equivalent place ... it'd cost a fortune (us taxpayers are paying for John Howards trips between Canberra and Sydney)

Well, this is the President's abode aparently. http://presidentofindia.nic.in/panaramicview.html

It looks flash. It's hard to find anything like for the PM's house though (it's not as fancy).

Whoah. President or Maharaja? :p That place really, really looks fancy.

America doesn't do shit for us except push our local growers and farmers out of the market with cheap, low quality produce (while protecting their own agriculture, I might add) and drag us into wars that are none of our business.

Um, you do realize that if the US agri subsidies were to stop, our farmers would be selling a lot of produce for about half the price they are now, right?

What is this BS. Australia is a solid ally of the US, however, we would never allow testing in our region without appropriate precautions. The bottom line is that testing does improve our knowledge and effectiveness in using that equipment, however it would never be conducted if it affected our environment or damaged our eco-system. I'm not sure on the validity of this preposition, but I trust every Australian government to do it's utmost to protect our nation by finding appropriate methods to train, test and simulate possible conflicts which are unfortunately very real in our current climate.

Um, you do realize that if the US agri subsidies were to stop, our farmers would be selling a lot of produce for about half the price they are now, right?

Sure, and I'm not opposed to subsidising farmers. But the US government shouldn't drone on and on about the virtues of total free trade and pressure other nations to drop trade barriers and reduce tarriffs, etc. if they aren't willing to embrace the idea themselves. It seems to be very much a case of "do as I say, not as I do."