Surface tension: could the promised Aukus nuclear submarines simply never be handed over to Australia?
Guardian, Ben Dohert, 7 Mar 25.
The multi-billion dollar deal was heralded as ensuring the security of the Indo-Pacific. But with America an increasingly unreliable ally, doubts are rising above the waves.
Maybe Australia’s boats just never turn up.
To fanfare and flags, the Aukus deal was presented as a sure bet, papering over an uncertainty that such an ambitious deal could ever be delivered.
It was assured, three publics across two oceans were told – signed, sealed and to-be-delivered: Australia would buy from its great ally, the US, its own conventionally armed nuclear-powered attack submarines before it began building its own.
But there is an emerging disquiet on the promise of Aukus pillar one: it may be the promised US-built nuclear-powered submarines simply never arrive under Australian sovereign control.
Instead, those nuclear submarines, stationed in Australia, could bear US flags, carry US weapons, commanded and crewed by American officers and sailors.
Australia, unswerving ally, reduced instead to a forward operating garrison – in the words of the chair of US Congress’s house foreign affairs committee, nothing more than “a central base of operations from which to project power”.
Reliable ally no longer
Officially at least, Aukus remains on course, centrepiece of a storied security alliance.
Pillar one of the Australia-UK-US agreement involves, first, Australia buying between three and five Virginia-Class nuclear-powered submarines from the US – the first of these in 2032.
Then, by the “late 2030s”, according to Australia’s submarine industry strategy, the UK will deliver the first specifically designed and built Aukus submarine. The first Australian-built version will be in the water “in the early 2040s”. Aukus is forecast to cost up to $368bn to the mid-2050s.
But in both Washington and Canberra, there is growing concern over the very first step: America’s capacity to build the boats it has promised Australia, and – even if it had the wherewithal to build the subs – whether it would relinquish them into Australian control.
The gnawing anxiety over Aukus sits within a broader context of a rewritten rulebook for relations between America and its allies. Amid the Sturm und Drang of the first weeks of Trump’s second administration, there is growing concern that the reliable ally is no longer that…………………….
‘The cheque did clear’
On 8 February, Australia paid $US500m ($AUD790m) to the US, the first instalment in a total of $US3bn pledged in order to support America’s shipbuilding industry. Aukus was, Australia’s defence minister Richard Marles said, “a powerful symbol of our two countries working together in the Indo-Pacific”.
“It represents a very significant increase of the American footprint on the Australian continent … it represents an increase in Australian capability, through the acquisition of a nuclear‑powered submarine capability … it also represents an increase in Australian defence spending”.
………….. just three days after Australia’s cheque cleared, the Congressional Research Service quietly issued a paper saying while the nuclear-powered attack submarines (known as SSNs) intended for Australia might be built, the US could decide to never hand them over.
It said the post-pandemic shipbuilding rate in the US was so anaemic that it could not service the needs of the US Navy alone, let alone build submarines for another country’s navy…………………………………………………………………………………………………..
‘Almost inevitable’
Clinton Fernandes, professor of international and political Studies at the University of New South Wales and a former Australian Army intelligence analyst, says the Aukus deal only makes sense when the “real” goal of the agreement is sorted from the “declared”.
“The real rather than declared goal is to demonstrate Australia’s relevance to US global supremacy,” he tells the Guardian.
“The ‘declared goal’ is that we’re going to become a nuclear navy. The ‘real goal’ is we are going to assist the United States and demonstrate our relevance to it as it tries to preserve an American-dominated east Asia.”
Fernandes, author of Sub-Imperial Power, says Australia will join South Korea and Japan as the US’s “sentinel states in order to hold Chinese naval assets at risk in its own semi-enclosed seas”.
“That’s the real goal. We are demonstrating our relevance to American global dominance. The government is understandably uneasy about telling the public this, but in fact, it has been Australia’s goal all along to preserve a great power that is friendly to us in our region.”
Fernandes says the Aukus pillar one agreement “was always an article of faith” based on a premise that the US could produce enough submarines for itself, as well as for Australia.
“And the Congressional Research Service study argues that … they will not have enough capacity to build boats for both themselves and us.”
He argues the rotation of US nuclear-powered submarines through Australian bases – particularly HMAS Stirling in Perth – needs to be understood as unrelated to Aukus and to Australia developing its own nuclear-powered submarine capability.
“Submarine Rotational Force-West (SRF-W) is presented by the spin doctors as an ‘optimal pathway’ for Aukus. In fact, it is the forward operational deployment of the United States Navy, completely independent of Aukus. It has no connection to Aukus.”
The retired rear admiral and past president of the Submarine Institute of Australia, Peter Briggs, argues the US refusing to sell Virginia-class submarines to Australia was “almost inevitable”, because the US’s boat-building program was slipping too far behind.
“It’s a flawed plan, and it’s heading in the wrong direction,” he tells the Guardian.
Before any boat can be sold to Australia, the US commander-in-chief – the president of the day – must certify that America relinquishing a submarine will not diminish the US Navy’s undersea capability.
“The chance of meeting that condition is vanishingly small,” Briggs says.
It now takes the US more than five years to build a single submarine (it was between three and 3.5 years before the pandemic devastated the workforce). By 2031, when the US is set to sell its first submarine to Australia, it could be facing a shortfall of up to 40% of the expected fleet size, Briggs says.
Australia, he argues, will be left with no submarines to cover the retirement from service of the current Collins-class fleet, weakened by an unwise reliance on the US.
The nuclear-powered submarines Australia wants to buy and then build “are both too big, too expensive to own and we can’t afford enough of them to make a difference”.
He argues Australia must be clear-eyed about the systemic challenges facing Aukus and should look elsewhere. He nominates going back to France to contemplate ordering Suffren-class boats – a design currently in production, smaller and requiring fewer crew, “a better fit for Australia’s requirements”……. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/mar/07/surface-tension-could-the-promised-aukus-nuclear-submarines-simply-never-be-handed-over-to-australia
$480 million facility to train Australia’s nuclear submarine builders
COMMENT. I wonder which services will be cut to fund this folly? Health? Education? Welfare? The regular military?
By Gus Macdonald • State Political Reporter Mar 5, 2025, https://www.9news.com.au/national/training-centre-australia-nuclear-powered-submarines-aukus/772e5e1d-4cae-4ee1-bab7-d048b46e7241
Australia’s nuclear-powered submarines are one step closer to fruition, with work starting on the academy to train builders in South Australia.
The $480 million facility is being described as the cornerstone of the nation’s naval future under the AUKUS partnership, and promised to provide students in South Australia with safe and sustainable employment for life.
“This is the single biggest industrial endeavour that our nation has ever attempted and today is a day that marks that endeavour is well underway,” Deputy Prime Minister and Defence Minister Richard Marles said.
The Skills and Training Academy in Osborne will provide education in various disciplines, ranging from new trades to nuclear engineering.
It aims to accommodate 800 to 1000 students, mirroring the successful model of the Barrow-in-Furness academy in the United Kingdom, where students contribute to building Britain’s nuclear-powered fleet.
While sourcing teachers to skill workers with the tools to create nuclear submarines will be a challenge, the government confirmed today it will recruit internationally with the intention to eventually have Australians teaching at Osborne.
How US Military Bases in Australia Threaten Our Future & How to Remove Them
March 5, 2025 AIMN Editorial, By Denis Hay, https://theaimn.net/how-us-military-bases-in-australia-threaten-our-future-how-to-remove-them/
US military bases in Australia endanger our environment and security. Discover the damage they cause and how Australians can push for their removal.
Introduction
Picture this: A farmer in Williamtown, NSW, watches helplessly as his once-fertile land becomes toxic. His water source is contaminated, his livestock is sick, and his family’s health is deteriorating. The culprit? The nearby U.S. military base is leaking toxic PFAS chemicals into the environment.
Australians have long been told that hosting U.S. military bases makes the country safer, but at what cost? The presence of these bases has led to severe environmental degradation and heightened national security risks. This article explores the damage caused by U.S. military installations in Australia and how citizens can push for their removal.
The Environmental Destruction Caused by U.S. Military Bases in Australia
PFAS Contamination – Poisoning Our Water and Soil
Families in towns like Williamtown and Oakey are forced to buy bottled water because their groundwater is contaminated with per and poly-fluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). These toxic chemicals, used in firefighting foams on U.S. military bases, have been linked to cancer, liver damage, and immune system disorders.
Environmental reports indicate that PFAS contamination from military bases has made land unusable and driven down property values. This is not an isolated issue—similar contamination has been reported in the U.S. and other host countries.
Real-World Example: Residents of Oakey filed a class-action lawsuit seeking compensation for the damage caused by PFAS contamination, highlighting the devastating impact on their health and livelihoods.
Land Degradation and Destruction of Ecosystems
Military exercises have wreaked havoc on Australian ecosystems. Take Puckapunyal, where years of heavy military training have led to severe soil erosion, deforestation, and destruction of native habitats. The Australian Defence Force (ADF) has had to implement large-scale rehabilitation projects to restore these lands, but the damage is still significant.
Additionally, invasive species such as fire ants have spread due to poor biosecurity measures on military bases, further threatening Australia’s fragile biodiversity.
Historical Context: During World War II, military use of Australian land led to long-term damage, including unexploded ordnance in training zones, which is still an issue today.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions – A Major Polluter
The ADF is one of Australia’s largest carbon emitters, generating over 1.7 million tonnes of CO₂ annually. The U.S. military is even worse – if it were a country, it would rank as the world’s 47th largest carbon emitter. Hosting U.S. military operations means Australia bears part of that environmental burden, contradicting national climate goals.
Expert Opinion: Environmental scientists have called for stricter regulations on military emissions, arguing that they undermine Australia’s commitment to reducing its carbon footprint.
The National Security Threat of Hosting U.S. Military Bases
U.S. Military Presence Makes Australia a Target
Imagine a future conflict between the U.S. and China. Australia automatically becomes a military target with Darwin, Pine Gap, and Tindal bases. A Chinese missile strike on these bases would devastate Australian communities, dragging us into wars we did not choose.
Experts warn that hosting U.S. bases places Australia in a dangerous position, increasing the likelihood of conflict instead of deterring it.
Military Analysis: Former Australian Defence officials have voiced concerns that U.S. bases undermine our national security by making Australia an extension of American military strategy.
Imagine a future conflict between the U.S. and China. Australia automatically becomes a military target with Darwin, Pine Gap, and Tindal bases. A Chinese missile strike on these bases would devastate Australian communities, dragging us into wars we did not choose.
Experts warn that hosting U.S. bases places Australia in a dangerous position, increasing the likelihood of conflict instead of deterring it.
Loss of Sovereignty – Who Controls Our Defence Policy?
Successive Australian governments have signed defence agreements with the U.S. without public consultation. AUKUS, the latest military deal, commits Australia to long-term U.S. military priorities, undermining our independence.
When Australia allows U.S. forces to operate freely on its soil, it loses control over its military decisions. This compromises Australian sovereigntyand prioritises American interests over national security.
Political Insight: Documents leaked in 2023 revealed that U.S. military officials exert considerable influence over Australian defence planning, reinforcing concerns about eroded sovereignty.
How Australian Citizens Can Demand the Removal of U.S. Military Bases
Raising Public Awareness
The first step is education. Many Australians are unaware of U.S. bases’ environmental and security risks. Sharing this information through independent media, social movements, and community discussions can build momentum for change.
Pressuring Politicians to Take a Stand
• Demand transparency in defence agreements.
• Call for national referendums on foreign military bases.
• Support politicians who prioritise Australian sovereignty over U.S. interests.
Protesting and Direct Action
• Organise mass demonstrations against U.S. military expansion.
• Boycott defence contractors profiting from war.
• Push for divestment from institutions supporting militarism.
Historical Success: The Philippines removed U.S. bases in the 1990s after public outcry and political pressure, proving that citizen activism can lead to change.
Conclusion – Time for an Independent Australia
For decades, Australia has allowed foreign military bases to dictate its defence policies. These bases have contaminated our environment, threatened our sovereignty, and increased our risk of war.
The time for action is now. Australians must demand accountability, advocate for policy changes, and work towards a truly independent national defence strategy.
1 This month
of the week – Disrupting War & Militarism in Oceania. Active solidarity. Radical practice.
Antinuclear 