Australia Rules Out Hosting US Missiles

[Recursion]

Source: Military.com

Australia on Monday ruled out hosting ground-based U.S. missiles after talks with Washington's top defense and diplomatic officials.

Following an announcement that the United States plans to deploy intermediate-range missiles in Asia -- widely seen as an effort to contain China -- Australia scotched the notion of locating them Down Under.

"It's not been asked of us, not being considered, not been put to us. I think I can rule a line under that," Prime Minister Scott Morrison said of the notion.

His comments came hours after U.S. Defense Secretary Mark Esper and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo departed Sydney following talks.



Read more: https://www.military.com/daily-news/2019/08/05/australia-rules-out-hosting-us-missiles.html

---

Well then

[FBaggins]

1. Why on earth would the US consider it in the first place?

There isn't much that an IRBM could reach from most of Australia that might be a target. There are US holdings (Guam?) closer to China.

[crazytown]

2. The Pentagon is interested in the Cocos Islands

north of the Australian mainland.

[FBaggins]

3. As a replacement for Diego Garcia maybe

Not sure that IRBMs in either location would make any sense. Not much land area involved.

[crazytown]

4. Redundancy maybe?

I think the whole thing is crazy.

[FBaggins]

5. I think confusion is more likely

The US was in town and had just made announcements about backing out of the INF treaty... so some reporter put two and two together and got fifteen.

The US could move almost instantly into the intermediate-range nuclear game. A modified Tomahawk could easily fill the lower end of the forbidden ranges and launch tubes for those already exist on most ships and lots of mobile units designed for the larger SAMs. Actual IRBMs reaching out to the upper ends of the range would take some time.

The problem is that a surface-launched Tomahawk (even with its range extended) isn't going to get anywhere from one of those atolls. Nor does it need to because they can be launched by so many alternatives.

[sir pball]

6. No need to modify the Tomahawk, it was originally nuclear

The -A variant carried the W80 warhead.

We don't really need any intermediate-range missiles anymore though; we can position a ballistic missile sub within range of literally anywhere in the world in just a few days. I'm not saying the treaty wasn't good and shouldn't have been scrapped, since only Russia would benefit from it (quelle surprise), just that we don't need to develop any new weapons without it.

[Igel]

7. But it fills column inches.

"We're not considering it, and haven't considered it, and haven't even been asked to consider it, but we decided against it" counts as anomalous.

Can't decide what you haven't considered.

[Recursion]

9. How about Sentinel Island? Trump can tour it personally first (nt)

[McKim]

8. Excellent

Excellent, other countries need to stand up against our war bullying.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

10. It's a cover

Some kind of surveillance stations masquerading as something else will be negotiated and established to keep a watch on the Chinese who control the ports of Darwin and Newcastle due to 90+ year leases.
Last I heard Australia is still part of Five Eyes and the first rule of spying is don't let anyone spy on you while you spying on them.