2026 August 01 « Antinuclear

AUKUS Inquiry exposes nuclear weapon-sized crater

by Rex Patrick | Jul 25, 2026, https://michaelwest.com.au/aukus-inquiry-exposes-nuclear-weapon-sized-crater/

The AUKUS Public Inquiry has reminded Australians of a nuclear weapon proliferation problem that the Government is yet to solve and one that could change the program from full-steam-ahead to a dead stop.

AUKUS Public Inquiry

It’s the inquiry the Labor government and Coalition opposition didn’t want. It’s the “AUKUS Inquiry unauthorised!”

The inquiry will likely have little direct effect on Prime Minister Albanese and his Cabinet National Security Committee.

They’re completely blinded by the gold epaulets on the shoulders of the admirals that are briefing them (the same admirals who spent $3B not buying French submarines, buying the most expensive frigates known to man and procuring patrol boats that were found not fit for purpose).

But the Inquiry will inform the public.

Nuclear weapon material

One very useful submission to the Inquiry was from Tilman Ruff, a Nobel laureate. He laid out some facts about the nuclear fuel inside a Virginia Class submarine’s reactor.

At the start of their life every Virginia class submarine has about 650 kg of highly enriched uranium that will power the vessel’s reactor. That’s a 93% enrichment – 610 kg of fissionable uranium-235. At the end of each submarine’s life the fuel elements in the reactor still be 83% enriched – 375 kg of uranium 235. The Hiroshima bomb was 80% U-235.

Waste responsibility

Australia must deal with the waste from our AUKUS submarines. By binding treaty agreement with the United States and the United Kingdom, AUKUS provides that “Australia shall be responsible for the management, disposition, storage, and disposal of any spent nuclear fuel and radioactive waste resulting from the operation of Naval Nuclear Propulsion Plants …”

The Australian Government is doing everything it can to not talk about how it will deal with nuclear waste. It recently lodged an appeal in the Federal Court to try to overturn a Freedom of Information win on the topi

Whatever they ultimately do on the waste front, it’s going to be expensive.

Tilman told the AUKUS Public Inquiry that AUKUS nuclear waste needs a really high level of security because “in 10,000 years, someone could still go and dig that stuff up and build nuclear weapons with it”.

Non-proliferation risk

And therein lies one of the problems with AUKUS that the Government has been unable to solve.

Australia is a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, a treaty to limit the spread of nuclear weapons and associated materials and technology.

Under the Treaty, non-nuclear-weapon states (including Australia) are obligated to not manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons.

Correspondingly, nuclear-weapon states (including the US and the UK) are obligated not to transfer nuclear weapons to any recipient, and not in any way to assist, encourage or induce any non-nuclear-weapon state to manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons.

IAEA decision the key

Associated with the Treaty are legally binding Comprehensive Safeguard Agreements between a signatory country and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to allow the IAEA to verify that a country’s nuclear material is being used only for peaceful purposes and not diverted to nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices.

Article 14 of the treaty allows Australia to pursue naval nuclear propulsion, but it requires that we renegotiate our Comprehensive Safeguard Agreement, originally agreed in 1974 with no contemplation of operating weapon grade naval reactors.

If we do not reach agreement with the IAEA, the US and UK will not transfer submarines to Australia

Follow the money

Australia commenced negotiations on a new Comprehensive Safeguard Agreement in May 2023. The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade has taken the lead on the negotiations.

There has been considerable secrecy from the Government in relation to progress on the Agreement, which is opposed by several countries including Indonesia, Malaysia and China. Opposing countries argue that

“AUKUS could weaken the non-proliferation regime.“

Information on progress has been limited. So MWM has followed the money.

In the 2023-24 Budget, DFAT was allocated $35M for financial year 23/24 and $40M for 24/25 to provide legal, policy and diplomatic support for AUKUS non-proliferation related negotiations. No money was allocated for financial years 25/26 or 26/27.

In the 2024-25 budget optimism was still alive with $40M remaining allocated for that financial year and, again, nothing allocated in 25/26 or 26/27.

In the 2025-26 budget optimism had faded and another $39M was thrown in to the pot to cover ongoing negotiations. Nothing was allocated for the following years.

This year’s Budget papers are telling. It allocated $43M for this financial year and includes $44M for 27/28.

“The negotiations have gone from a two year $75M task to a four year $200M task (at least).“

Like happens so often with Defence projects, the whole thing has been a complete under-estimation.

Nuclear explosion-sized crater

When MWM made the first ever FOI request for an Australian Submarine Agency’s Budget Estimate’s Brief (October 2023) there were seven pages dedicated to nuclear non-proliferation. In the latest Budget Estimate’s Brief (June 2026) there was nothing.

If the IAEA does not reach agreement with Australia, whether for political or technical reasons, AUKUS is dead. The price of then proceeding without IAEA agreement would be to risk a catastrophic breakdown of the already shaky nuclear non-proliferation regime.

“That would be something the AUKUS powers could not afford. “

The US and UK can walk away, thankful for the billions in taxpayer’s dollars that we’ve gifted to their industry. And even more will have been wasted here in Australia.

We’ll be left with a nuclear explosion sized crater in our Defence budget with nothing to show for it. The money will be gone, and our national security will have been compromised.

August 1, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | weapons and war | Leave a comment

Are Australian military exports fuelling massacres in Sudan?

by Andrew Bartlett | Jul 28, 2026 |, https://michaelwest.com.au/are-australian-military-exports-fuelling-massacres-in-sudan/

While the heat is on Defence for arms sales to Israel, the government is mute on its role enabling the atrocities in Sudan. President of Australians for War Powers Reform Andrew Bartlett reports.

A great deal has been said about Australian military exports to Israel during the genocide in Gaza and despite a series of denials from the Albanese government, there is clear evidence that some exports are continuing.

But there is now credible evidence that Australia may be contributing to serious atrocities in another conflict zone – Sudan – where appalling civilian massacres have been documented over the past two years.

As an example of how grave the situation is in Sudan, in February the BBC reported that 6000 civilians were killed in one city in just three days.

In November last year, multiple media outlets published satellite images of the city of El Fasher in which piles of dead bodies could be seen from space.

A brutal militia group called the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) is actively engaged in a massive civil war against the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF).

According to the UN, both sides have committed severe atrocities, war crimes, and human rights violations since the war began.

Why is Australia involved?

But how on earth is Australia involved?

The United Arab Emirates (UAE) is accused of providing weapons and resources to the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) in Sudan.

Despite this, Australia continues to export military equipment to the UAE – in fact, almost $300 million worth in the last five years.

If there is even a slight chance that our exports are being used to slaughter large numbers of unarmed civilians, you’d think the government would at the very least properly investigate this possibility.

But there are no signs that the government has taken any action, and getting straight answers from them about our arms trade with the UAE is like pulling teeth.

Human rights groups and civil society groups have both warned the government about this possibility and asked questions about the trade, but the result has been PR doublespeak.

Defence plays a deadbat

In December, Greens Senator David Shoebridge grilled senior defence officials in Senate estimates about exports to either Sudan or the UAE, but he got no answers.

For half an hour the officials simply recited policy documents but did not provide any meaningful answers about the transfer of sensitive goods to this bloody conflict.

One official said he didn’t know if there were any existing exports permits for Sudan and that he would have to go back and check the records.

They were asked, given the civilian bloodshed, whether any permits were under review. No answer was forthcoming.

Under the Arms Trade Treaty, which Australia has signed, states are prohibited from transferring military equipment if they are likely to be used in attacks directed against civilians.

Our organisation, Australians for War Powers Reform, has also sought answers on these matters and has faced blatant stonewalling.

Wong and Marles duck

We wrote to Foreign Minister Penny Wong in November and received a response from the Defence Department which did not address any of the questions raised.

We have also contacted Defence Minister Richard Marles on two occasions and have not received a response.

In August last year, 64 civil society organisations, including the ACTU, Amnesty International, The National Council of Churches and The Human Rights Law Centre, called for a parliamentary review of Australia’s growing arms export sector, to ensure compliance with the Arms Trade Treaty.

“This call too has fallen on deaf ears”.

The level of secrecy and the complete lack of accountability is unacceptable.

The Australian community does not want weapons or other military equipment being used in a brutal civil war, where civilians are targeted en masse.

At present there is no reliable way to establish if our exports are making their way to Sudan and that’s for one reason only – the government won’t tell us.

ICC weighs in

This week the International Criminal Court reported a breakthrough in its investigation of atrocities in Sudan.

The court says it now has concrete evidence linking the RSF militia to war crimes and that charges were likely to follow.

The ICC system is notoriously slow, and charges will not stop war crimes in the near future.

The Albanese government should act immediately to thoroughly investigate our involvement and cancel or pause any suspect export permits.