Australia’s nuclear submarines likely to be obsolete and useless.
When Australia decided to buy a fleet of new nuclear-powered attack submarines earlier this month, it sparked international outrage. China labelled it a “cold war, zero sum mentality”. France was enraged at
being left out.
The deal will cost Australia $100 billion, and hand UK and US technology to a fleet of attack submarines, the apex predators of naval warfare. But by the time they are delivered in 20 years’ time, these submarines could be obsolete.
No one really knows how these submarines would perform in a conflict situation. It’s true that submarines have occasionally launched cruise missiles at land targets, but there has been no real submarine combat since 1982, when HMS Conqueror torpedoed the General Belgrano off the Falklands. Exactly how well submarines fareagainst modern anti-submarine warfare (ASW) forces is a continuing debate.
Wired 29th Sept 2021
https://www.wired.co.uk/article/aukus-nuclear-submarines-australia-warfare
The giant question: is Australia able to deal with submarine nuclear wastes?
So, what are the parts of the submarine that require dismantling and does Australia have the capability?
Retired submarines generate three levels of radioactive material, which raises challenges for how parts can be handled, transported and stored. The NAO report summarises the submarine parts as:
- Irradiated fuel from within the submarine’s reactor core. As it continues to generate heat, fuel will be stored under water at the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority’s (NDA’s) Sellafield site.
- Intermediate-level waste, primarily the Reactor Pressure Vessel (RPV) and other parts from within the reactor compartment, which had been close to the nuclear fuel. This waste comprises about 1 per cent (50 tonnes) of the boat; and
- Low-level waste that needs to be handled and disposed of within the regulatory framework but does not meet the criteria for intermediate-level waste. This covers the remainder of a submarine’s reactor compartment such as pipework and comprises around 4 per cent (176 tonnes) of the boat, to be disposed of in a low-level waste repository…………………
The giant question mark over SA’s role in nuclear submarine push, InDaily, Kevin Naughton, 30 Sep 21, Australia’s nuclear submarine ambition has few knowns and many unknowns – and one of these casts a giant shadow over South Australia’s role. Kevin Naughton analyses the uncertainties and responsibilities that come with owning a set of submarine-encased nuclear reactors and more than 220 tonnes of nuclear waste per boat.
The UK is one of the three partners in the recently announced AUKUS alliance, whose first major initiative will be to “deliver a nuclear-powered submarine fleet to Australia”, as Prime Minister Scott Morrison trumpeted on Thursday, September 16.
Australian govt will take 18 months at least to find out if we’re leasing nuclear submarines
Will the RAN lease nuclear-powered submarines? ADM By Max Blenkin | Canberra | 30 September 2021
There’s much we don’t yet know about how we will acquire our new submarines. Even the Government and Defence don’t know, which is why they have launched a task force, led by Vice Admiral Jonathan Mead, to consider the way ahead, reporting back in around 18 months.
There appear to be just two contenders – the US Virginia-class SSN and the British Astute-class SSN, both in-service and in current production.
Of the Astutes, seven are planned, with four in service and two under construction. Boat number one, HMS Astute, was laid down in 2001 with the last, HMS Agincourt, to be commissioned in 2026.
Of the Virginias, 66 are planned, with 19 completed and 11 under construction. The first boat, USS Virginia, was laid down in 1999. No date has been set for the last, but, assuming it happens and the current production schedule is maintained, it’s likely to be in the late 2030s with service life through to the 2060s.
On the face of it, the Virginias seem the best boat for Australia, with live production in the period Australia stands up its line and significant commonality of combat system and weapons with the Collins boats.
On the other hand, the Astute’s Thales and Atlas sensors have significant commonality with Collins…………
Defence Minister Peter Dutton acknowledged on September 21 he’s amenable to leasing, which isn’t a new idea.
Here’s analyst Professor Ross Babbage in a paper published by the Kokoda Foundation in 2011:
“A variant of this military off-the-shelf (MOTS) approach with yet other potential advantages would be to enter into a long-term leasing arrangement with the USN whereby the RAN simply operated ten or twelve Virginia boats for a specified number of years (say 25) with the USN contracted to provide all, or most, of the logistic support within its own supply system.”
The big question is: will this approach get Australian submariners into nuclear submarines a decade or more sooner than waiting for Australian-manufactured boats?
With AUKUS comes reports from the UK that Britain will base some of its Astute-class nuclear attack submarines in Australia under the agreement to achieve a persistent presence in the Indo-Pacific.
The Times newspaper quoted unnamed UK government sources saying AUKUS opened opportunities for basing in Australia which could include deep maintenance, so boats did not need to return to their home port in Faslane, Scotland, for upkeep.
This is still a long way off, with The Times report saying this would happen once Australia began building a fleet of nuclear boats.
The report seems to indicate this would be more like extended deployments down under, rather than permanent basing of RN boats and their crews in Australia.
It would surely follow that this applies just as well to US submarines, which currently make only occasional port visits…… https://www.australiandefence.com.au/news/will-the-ran-lease-nuclear-powered-submarines
Malcolm Turnbull on nuclear submarines – nothing is agreed. There is no design, no costing, no contract.
But nothing is agreed. There is no design, no costing, no contract. The only certainty is that we won’t have new submarines for 20 years and their cost will be a lot more than the French subs. However, high hopes and good intentions are in abundance. But there were plenty of them when we did the deal with France too.
Is it credible to have a hands-off plug and play nuclear reactor filled with weapons grade uranium and not inspect it for 35 years? The US and UK will know for sure in about thirty years. And until then if something does go wrong, both nations have extensive nuclear facilities and expertise to deal with it.
The French nuclear propulsion system however uses low enriched uranium (LEU) – somewhat more enriched than that used in civil nuclear plants. By law they inspect their reactors and refuel them every ten years. All submarines go in for a lengthy, year or more, refit every decade. The refueling of the French naval reactor takes a few weeks. In this regard at least, French naval nuclear reactor safety standards are stricter than those applied in the United States and the UK.
Australia does not.
Address to the National Press Club Malcolm Turnbull, September 29 2021 With the swirl of media soundbites, the impression has been created that the Australian Government has replaced a diesel electric French designed submarine for a nuclear powered American, or British, one. This is not the case.Australia now has no new submarine programme at all. We have cancelled the one we had with France and have a statement of intent with the UK and the US to examine the prospect of acquiring nuclear powered submarines.
Over the next eighteen months there will be a review of the possibilities – the biggest probably being whether the new submarine should be based on the UK Astute[1] submarine or the larger US Virginia class[2].
The hyperbole around the new AUKUS partnership has been dialed up to 11. No three nations in the world already have closer security, intelligence, and technology collaboration than Australia, the US and the UK. And it has been getting closer in recent years. As Canada’s Justin Trudeau observed this is all about selling submarines to Australia[3].
The Australian Government has chosen to terminate a contract with France’s largely state-owned Naval Group to build 12 Attack class submarines. While based on the design of France’s latest nuclear sub they were to be conventionally powered – a modification stipulated by Australia in the competitive tender process begun in 2015 and concluded in April 2016 when it was approved by my Government’s NSC of which the current Prime Minister, Defense Minister and Foreign Minister were all members.
But nothing is agreed. There is no design, no costing, no contract. The only certainty is that we won’t have new submarines for 20 years and their cost will be a lot more than the French subs. However, high hopes and good intentions are in abundance. But there were plenty of them when we did the deal with France too.
The first of the Attack class[4] submarines was to be in the water by 2032, with the rest of the fleet coming out of the shipyards every two years until the full complement had been constructed. It was the largest defence procurement in our history – a partnership of generations between France and Australia……………….
One of the attractions of the French subs was that they were originally designed for nuclear propulsion. So, if we decided to switch to nuclear we had a partner that had the expertise to do it with us.
n its natural state uranium is 99% made up of a stable isotope U238, the unstable radioactive isotope U235 is only about 0.7%. The more U235, the more radiation, reactivity and energy. Highly enriched Uranium (HEU) has a concentration of 20% or more U235. Low enriched uranium (LEU) as used in nuclear power stations is typically between 2-5%.
The United States, United Kingdom and Russia are the only countries still to use HEU in their naval reactors. It is enriched to about 95% and is drawn from stockpiles built up for nuclear weapons.
For Australia, a non-nuclear weapons state, using HEU in a submarine is not a breach of the Treaty on Non Proliferation (NPT), but it does set a precedent which other currently non-nuclear weapons states, like Iran, will seek to exploit as a justification for producing HEU.
Following the AUKUS announcement, I was advised by the Government that the work I had commenced on nuclear options continued and it had been concluded that Australia could use the modular HEU reactors currently deployed in the UK Astute and US Virginia class submarines which, because of their HEU fuel, do not require replacement during the 35 year life of the sub. This, it is contended, means that Australia could have a nuclear-powered submarine without any need to maintain, service or refuel the nuclear reactor.
This is very different advice to that given to the Government as recently as three years ago. It sounds too good to be true; Australia would have submarines powered by nuclear reactors running on weapons grade uranium. And we would not need to have any of our own nuclear facilities or expertise?
Is it credible to have a hands-off plug and play nuclear reactor filled with weapons grade uranium and not inspect it for 35 years? The US and UK will know for sure in about thirty years. And until then if something does go wrong, both nations have extensive nuclear facilities and expertise to deal with it.
Australia does not.
The French nuclear propulsion system however uses low enriched uranium (LEU) – somewhat more enriched than that used in civil nuclear plants. By law they inspect their reactors and refuel them every ten years. All submarines go in for a lengthy, year or more, refit every decade. The refueling of the French naval reactor takes a few weeks. In this regard at least, French naval nuclear reactor safety standards are stricter than those applied in the United States and the UK.
The new AUKUS submarines, we are told, will still be built in Adelaide. But if there are no nuclear facilities there, that must mean the submarine hulls will be transported to the US or the UK to have the reactor installed together with all of the safety and other systems connected to it.
You don’t need to be especially cynical to see it won’t be long before someone argues it looks much simpler to have the first submarine built in the US or the UK, and then the second, third and so on…..
Australia will be the first country without any civil nuclear industry to operate a nuclear submarine and the first non-nuclear weapon state to use HEU in a naval reactor. So, if we are not going to develop nuclear facilities of our own (as Mr Morrison has promised) then we will no more be sharing nuclear technology with the US than the owner of an iPhone is sharing smartphone technology with Apple.
A new submarine, under the new AUKUS arrangement, would not be in the water until 2040, we are told. That is about eight years after the first Attack class sub would have been in service. So, we are now without any new submarines for the best part of 20 years.
…………. Of course, now that the flurry of the media announcement is over, the question remains whether we will be able to negotiate a satisfactory deal with the US and UK to deliver a nuclear-powered submarine for Australia. If the Astute is preferred because of its size, then for practical purposes we will be price takers.
…………..the way we are getting there has been clumsy, deceitful, and costly. Too many questions are not being asked, and fewer answered. The blustering attempts to wedge those who seek answers do not serve our national interest.
Our national security does not rely on fleets and armies alone. And that is just as well, for we will never have military might to match that of potential rivals.
…..Diplomacy matters, and at the heart of diplomacy is trust. Australia’s reputation as a trusted and reliable partner has been an enormous asset to us on the international stage, just as a trustworthy reputation is an enormous asset to someone in business.
………….. . It was only a few years ago that our partnership with France was to be one for generations. As the sun set over Sydney Harbour in March 2018, from the deck of HMAS Canberra, President Macron described the partnership with Australia as the cornerstone of France’s Indo Pacific strategy. This was not just a contract to build submarines, it was a partnership between two nations in which France chose to entrust Australia with its most sensitive military secrets – the design of their latest submarines.
France is an Indo Pacific power. With two million citizens and 7,000 troops across the two oceans, drawing closer to France as a security partner made enormous sense both for us and the United States……….
Mr Morrison has not acted in good faith. He deliberately deceived France. He makes no defense of his conduct other than to say it was in Australia’s national interest. So, is that Mr Morrison’s ethical standard with which Australia is now tagged.: Australia will act honestly unless it is judged in our national interest to deceive?
It was as recently as 30 August that our Defence and Foreign Ministers met with their French counterparts and publicly re-emphasised the importance of the submarine programme. Two weeks later, on the day Mr Morrison dumped the President of France with a text message, the Department of Defence formally advised Naval Group that the project was on track and ready to enter into the next set of contracts.
The media has been gleefully briefed that Mr Morrison struck the deal with Boris Johnson and Joe Biden at the G20 in July shortly before going to Paris where the PM confirmed to President Macron his continuing commitment to the submarine deal.
France’s Foreign Minister has described Australia’s conduct as a stab in the back, a betrayal. Macron recalled his Ambassadors to Canberra and Washington. Dan Tehan can’t get a meeting with the French Trade Minister any more than he can with the Chinese Trade Minister.
France’s Europe Minister has already poured cold water on the prospects of concluding an EU-Australian free trade agreement. Australia has proved it can’t be trusted, he has said.
France believes it has been deceived and humiliated, and she was. This betrayal of trust will dog our relations with Europe for years. The Australian Government has treated the French Republic with contempt. It won’t be forgotten. Every time we seek to persuade another nation to trust us, somebody will be saying “Remember what they did to Macron? If they can throw France under a bus, what would they do to us?”
…………….. As Paul Kelly records[10] (with approbation), Scott Morrison deliberately and elaborately set out to persuade the French their deal was on foot and proceeding until he knew he had an alternative deal whereupon he dumped the French and his deceitful conduct was exposed………… https://www.malcolmturnbull.com.au/media/address-to-the-national-press-club-september-2021
IAEA concerned that AUKUS coud weaken non-proliferation system
Nuclear inspection under AUKUS deal ‘very tricky’ – IAEA chief, Sky News, Jonathan Talbot, Deputy Editor, 430 Sep 21,
Nuclear inspections of Australia under the AUKUS deal will be “very tricky” and could lead to a weakened non-proliferation system, says the head of the UN International Atomic Energy Agency.
The AUKUS deal which sees Australia acquire nuclear-powered submarine technology will make nuclear inspections “very tricky”, according to the head of the United Nations International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
“It is a technically very tricky question and it will be the first time that a country that does not have nuclear weapons has a nuclear sub,” IAEA Director General Rafael Grossi told BBC’s HARDtalk.
The IAEA keeps track of all nuclear material in countries – like Australia – that have ratified the Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT).
One of its primary tasks is to ensure nuclear materials are not being siphoned off for use in a nuclear bomb.
Mr Grossi confirmed NPT signatories can exclude nuclear material from IAEA inspection while that material is fueling a submarine – a rare exception to the agency’s supervision of nuclear materials.
“A country… is taking highly enriched uranium away from inspection for a period of time, which could result in a weakening of the nuclear non-proliferation regime,” he said.
“What this means is that we, with Australia, with the United States and with the United Kingdom, we have to enter into a very complex, technical negotiation to see to it that as a result of this there is no weakening of the nuclear non-proliferation regime.”
One challenge posed by Australia’s purchase of nuclear-powered submarines concerns the fact these vessels are designed to be undetectable and therefore beyond the reach of IAEA inspectors…
“China has taken note of the statements of Director General Grossi” and is “vigilant about AUKUS and the plan for nuclear submarine cooperation,” spokesperson of the Chinese Foreign Ministry, Hua Chunying, said during the ministry’s daily press conference.
The provision of nuclear materials to a non-nuclear-weapon state will exclude weapons-grade highly-enriched uranium from necessary supervision and pose huge nuclear proliferation risks.”
Ms Hua also said AUKUS displayed a “typical contempt of rules” by the “Anglo-Saxon clique” and will undercut the non-proliferation system and other efforts to create nuclear free zones. “In brief, this is a malicious exploitation of loopholes in international rules for out-and-out proliferation activities.
“Supervisions on the Australian nuclear submarines will set a precedent, concerns the rights and obligations of all IAEA member states, especially signatories to the NPT, and will have far-reaching impact on the international non-proliferation system.”
China is not alone in its concerns about AUKUS.
Indonesia and Malaysia have come out strongly against Australia’s acquisition of nuclear-powered submarines.
Singapore – Australia’s most reliable ally among ASEAN member states – has also expressed worry.
Writing in The Conversation, James Chin, Professor of Asian Studies at the University of Tasmania, said this is because “many of them think there is no such thing as acquiring nuclear-powered submarines without the prospect of acquiring nuclear weapons in the future.”……. https://www.skynews.com.au/australia-news/defence-and-foreign-affairs/nuclear-inspection-under-aukus-deal-very-tricky-iaea-chief/news-story/1e5b391af8622cbc9450f181c1a28047
No solution to submarine nuclear waste. Australia would be crazy to take on this mess.
Donna Gilmore, SanOnofreSafety.org 30 Sep 21,
There is no solution for the submarine nuclear waste. It’s a forever storage cost. I wonder who will pay for that?
In the U.S. the spent fuel is stored in Idaho in spent fuel pools or dry storage in unsafe thin-wall steel canisters with steel lined thick concrete casks. The concrete casks have air vents for convection cooling so the thin-wall canisters are the only real barrier. The thick concrete is need to reduce gamma rays and neutrons since the 316L stainless steel canisters are too thin to stop those.
There is no way to maintain those thin-wall canisters or detect or repair cracks before the canisters crack. No repair or inspection technology exists once loaded with fuel. If you hear otherwise, it’s a lie.
Each canister contains about one ton of spent nuclear fuel.The rest of the contaminated submarine is stored in trenches at Hanford, Washington.
Each transport cask (holding one canister) costs $20 million.
Europe and the rest of the world use maintainable thick-wall metal casks 10″ to over 19″ thick — with no air vents and no cracking problems.
In essence, there is no good short or long term solution to store the nuclear waste since geological repositories are not technically feasible even for the short-term.
The best the world has is maintable thick-wall bolted-lid metal casks stored in hardened buildings. They will last much longer than the thin-wall canisters, but are not considered a permanent solution.
Australia would be crazy to take this mess.
AUKUS and confronting China throws fuel on the fire of Indo-Pacific tensions. An accelerating arms race will follow.
Australia commits fully to China containment
Canberra is now a fully paid-up member of a China containment front, whether it wants to admit it, or not. In the process, it has yielded sovereignty to the US by committing itself to an interlocking web of military procurement decisions that includes the acquisition of a nuclear-propelled submarine fleet.
New drives to counter China come with a major risk: throwing fuel on the Indo-Pacific arms race SMH, Tony Walker Tony Walker is a Friend of The Conversation.Vice-chancellor’s fellow, La Trobe University September 27, 2021 An accelerating arms race in the Indo-Pacific is all but guaranteed now that China finds itself a target of new security arrangements — AUKUS and the Quad — aimed at containing its power and influence.
This has the makings of a new great game in the region in which rival powers are no longer in the business of pretending things can continue as they are.
The AUKUS agreement, involving Australia, the US and UK to counter China’s rise means a military power balance in the Indo-Pacific will come more sharply into focus.
The region has been re-arming at rates faster than other parts of the world due largely to China’s push to modernise its defence capabilities.
In their latest surveys, the London-based International Institute of Strategic Studies (IISS) and the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) report no let-up in military spending in the Indo-Pacific. This is despite the pandemic.
SIPRI notes a 47% increase in defence spending in the Indo-Pacific in the past decade, led by China and India.
China can be expected to respond to threats posed by the new security arrangements by further expediting its military program.
It will see the formation of AUKUS as yet another attempt to contain its ambitions — and therefore a challenge to its military capabilities.
The Quad makes clear its ambitions
Unambiguously, AUKUS implies a containment policy.
Likewise, the further elevation of the Quad security grouping into a China containment front will play into an atmosphere of heightened security anxiety in the Indo-Pacific.
The four Quad participants – the US, Japan, India and Australia – have their own reasons and agendas for wanting to push back against China.
After their summit last week in Washington, the Quad leaders used words in their joint statement that might be regarded as unexceptional in isolation.
Together with other developments such as AUKUS, however, the language was pointed, to say the least:
Together, we re-commit to promoting the free, open, rules-based order, rooted in international law and undaunted by coercion, to bolster security in the Indo-Pacific and beyond.
The “beyond” part of the statement was not expanded on, but might be read as a commitment to extend the Quad collaboration globally.
All this has come together at the dawn of a new US administration whose members include several conspicuous China hawks, and at a moment when China has shown itself to be ever-willing to throw its weight around.
Beijing’s crude campaign against Australian exports in an effort to bend Australia’s policy to its will is a prime example. It is doubtful an AUKUS or an invigorated Quad would have emerged without this development.
The Obama administration talked about pivoting to the Asia-Pacific without putting much meat on the bones.
Under President Joe Biden, this shift will be driven by a hardening in American thinking that now recognises time is running out, and may already have expired, in the US ability to constrain China’s rise.
These are profound geopolitical moments whose trajectory is impossible to predict.
Australia commits fully to China containment
Canberra is now a fully paid-up member of a China containment front, whether it wants to admit it, or not. In the process, it has yielded sovereignty to the US by committing itself to an interlocking web of military procurement decisions that includes the acquisition of a nuclear-propelled submarine fleet.
Whether these submarines are supplied by the US or Britain is a bit immaterial since the technology involved originates in America.
The submarines will not be available for the better part of two decades under the most optimistic forecasts. However, in the meantime, Australia could base US or British submarines in its ports or lease American submarines.
Meanwhile, Australia is committing itself to a range of US-supplied hardware aimed at enhancing the inter-operability of its military with the US.
This is the reality of fateful decisions taken by the Morrison government in recent months. Such a commitment involves a certain level of confidence in America remaining a predictable and steadfast superpower, and not one riven by internal disputes.
Australian defence spending likely to rise. What is absolutely certain in all of this is that an Indo-Pacific security environment will now become more, not less, contentious. …………………………………
What other Indo-Pacific nations are doing
Many other Indo-Pacific states can now be expected to review their military acquisition programs with the likelihood of a more combative security environment.
Taiwan, for example, is proposing to spend $US8.69 billion (A$11.9 billion) over the next five years on long-range missiles, and increase its inventory of cruise missiles. It is also adding to its arsenal of heavy artillery.
South Korea is actively adding to its missile capabilities. This includes the testing of a submarine-launched ballistic missile.
Seoul has also hinted it might be considering building its own nuclear-propelled submarines (this was among President Moon Jae-in’s election pledges in 2017). Signs that North Korea may have developed a submarine capable of firing ballistic missiles will be concentrating minds in Seoul.
All this indicates how quickly the strategic environment in the Indo-Pacific is shifting.
Australia — perhaps more so than others — is the prime example of a regional player that has put aside a conventional view of a region in flux. It now sees an environment so threatening that a policy of strategic ambiguity between its custodial partner (the US) and most important trade relationship (China) has been abandoned.
The price tag for this in terms of equipment and likely continuing economic fallout for Australian exporters will not come cheap. https://theconversation.com/new-drives-to-counter-china-come-with-a-major-risk-throwing-fuel-on-the-indo-pacific-arms-race-168734
AUKUS deal leaves France out of South East Asian security arrangement.
Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison on Wednesday said the three nations had agreed to “a new enhanced trilateral security partnership”.
The subtext of France and Australia’s submarine deal, Aljazeera, 27 Sep 21,
What do a new security pact and a cancelled military contract say about France’s place in the world? It was supposed to be an announcement of a pact, not the start of a foreign relations crisis between allies. But as Australia announced a new security partnership with the United Kingdom and the United States, dubbed AUKUS, it also cancelled a multibillion-dollar contract to buy submarines from France. So how did an abandoned deal for a dozen submarines turn in to the diplomatic version of a lover’s quarrel?Australia’s decision to cancel a multibillion-dollar order for French submarines in favour of American and British technology has sparked a diplomatic row of unprecedented proportions between longtime Western allies.
The French foreign ministry recalled its ambassadors to the United States and Australia citing “duplicity, disdain and lies”.
China’s Xi warns of ‘interference’ as Australia brushes off angerHundreds arrested in Australian anti-lockdown protestsFrance accuses Australia, US of ‘lying’ over submarine deal
Alongside the economic damage for tens of billions of euros, France said it resents the way Australia and its partners have handled the matter. French Foreign Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian, said, “There has been contempt so it’s not going well between us, not at all.”
President Emmanuel Macron will have a call with his US counterpart, Joe Biden, in the next few days, the French government said on Sunday.
Australia’s strategic alignment
Australia announced on Wednesday it would ditch a contract worth more than 50 billion euros ($59bn) to acquire 12 French-made diesel-electric submarines.
Instead, it will commission at least eight US nuclear-powered submarines in the framework of a new alliance – known by its acronym AUKUS – which will see Australia, the US, and the United Kingdom share advanced technologies with one another.
Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison on Wednesday said the three nations had agreed to “a new enhanced trilateral security partnership”.
AUKUS Sub Deal Could Sink USA’s Relations With France,
AUKUS Sub Deal Could Sink Relations With France, Buoy Nuclear Tech Advances, Forbes, 27 Sep 21, ”…………… …….. Biden’s recent work to transform Australia into an Indo-Pacific bulwark against China, however, has worryingly offended a critical ally — France — and exposed some serious bungling in the U.S. Government. The newly announced agreement with the UK and Australia has been labeled Aukus, and it entails the making of a of nuclear-powered submarine fleet in Adelaide to replace Australia’s existing force……….
On the surface, the submarines seems logical. If equipped with nuclear armed submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs) they represent potentially maximum firepower with minimum expenditure……
The French government, informed of this [cancellation of their submarine sales contract] only hours before the public, reacted by recalling its ambassadors and accusing the U.S. and Australia of lying to them. After running on the normalization and renewal of ties of Europe, Biden cannot afford to grievously offend American allies or to take their support for granted, let alone France, America’s oldest European ally. ……
In his upcoming call with President Emmanuel Macron, President Biden might try to minimize the harm done to ensure fruitful cooperation in both Europe and Asia moving forward……..
CIA Reportedly Considered Kidnapping, Assassinating Julian Assange
CIA Reportedly Considered Kidnapping, Assassinating Julian Assange
Mike Pompeo was apparently motivated to get even with Wikileaks following its publication of sensitive CIA hacking tools https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/cia-julian-assange-kidnap-assasinate-1232546/
ByWILLIAM VAILLANCOUR The CIA reportedly plotted to kidnap Julian Assange, and some senior officials in the agency and the Trump administration allegedly went so far as to consider options for how to assassinate the WikiLeaks founder, Yahoo! Newsreported Sunday.
According to the report, then-director Mike Pompeo was apparently motivated to get even with Wikileaks following its publication of sensitive CIA hacking tools, which the agency found to be “the largest data loss in CIA history.”
Pompeo and others “were completely detached from reality because they were so embarrassed about Vault 7,” according to a former Trump national security official, referring to the document dump. “They were seeing blood.”
Additional CIA plans allegedly included “extensive spying on WikiLeaks associates, sowing discord among the group’s members, and stealing their electronic devices.”
The report, based on conversations with more than 30 former officials, notes that the CIA’s plans for Assange reportedly led to strenuous debates regarding their legality. Some administration officials were so concerned that they felt the need to tell members of Congress about Pompeo’s suggestions.
Assange is currently imprisoned in London as courts weigh a U.S. request to extradite him.
AUKUS and the nuclear submarines will have economic effects on Australia, and big defence spending.
Neglected in the flush of enthusiasm that accompanied the AUKUS announcement is the likely cost of Australia’s new defence spending under a “China containment policy”.
New drives to counter China come with a major risk: throwing fuel on the Indo-Pacific arms race SMH, Tony Walker Tony Walker is a Friend of The Conversation.Vice-chancellor’s fellow, La Trobe UniversitySeptember 27, 2021 “……………….. Australian defence spending likely to rise
What is absolutely certain in all of this is that an Indo-Pacific security environment will now become more, not less, contentious.
SIPRI notes that in 2020, military spending in Asia totalled $US528 billion (A$725 billion), 62% of which was attributable to China and India.
IISS singled out Japan and Australia, in particular, as countries that were increasing defence spending to take account of China. Tokyo, for example, is budgeting for record spending of $US50 billion (A$68 billion) for 2022-23.
Australia’s defence spending stands a tick over 2% of GDP in 2021-22 at A$44.6 billion, with plans for further increases in the forward estimates.
However, those projections will now have to be re-worked given the commitments that have been made under AUKUS.
Neglected in the flush of enthusiasm that accompanied the AUKUS announcement is the likely cost of Australia’s new defence spending under a “China containment policy”. It is hard to see these commitments being realised without significant increases in defence allocations to 3-4% of GDP.
This comes at a time when budgets will already be stretched due to relief spending as a consequence of the pandemic.
In addition to existing weapons acquisitions, Canberra has indicated it will ramp up its purchases of longer-range weapons. This includes Tomahawk cruise missiles for its warships and anti-ship missiles for its fighter aircraft.
At the same time, it will work with the US under the AUKUS arrangement to develop hypersonic missiles that would test even the most sophisticated defence systems……………
The price tag for this in terms of equipment and likely continuing economic fallout for Australian exporters will not come cheap. ………….. https://theconversation.com/new-drives-to-counter-china-come-with-a-major-risk-throwing-fuel-on-the-indo-pacific-arms-race-168734
Australia’s Nuclear-Sub Shakeup Hits Shipbuilding Supply Chain
Australia’s Nuclear-Sub Shakeup Hits Shipbuilding Supply Chain, The Maritim Executive By Charlie Turner] 27 Sept 21,
The abrupt announcement by the Australian government that it was scrapping its plans to build a fleet of diesel-electric submarines in favor of nuclear-powered boats will have a ripple effect throughout the defense industry. The sunk cost of five years’ work and $1.7 billion has inflicted greater damage on domestic relations than on bilateral relations with the French government—it has broken the trust between defense leaders and Australian industry………
Industry bodies and lobby groups in Team Defence Australia, the Industry Capability Network and the Australian Industry & Defence Network have spent the past five years encouraging companies to invest time and resources to expand or set up a capability to service the submarine program. There have been multiple government-supported trips to Europe inviting Australian companies, at their own expense, to interact within the supply chain to develop relationships and encourage the coveted ‘knowledge sharing’ between French and Australian companies necessary to find success in such a technology leap. Follow-on trips and other efforts have been undertaken in the development of relationships and strategies centered around the program.
Those investments are a sunk cost for the Australian businesses that provide the critical operational services to support Australia’s defense capability.
Crucially, a significant number of Australian companies investing in these initiatives were small and medium enterprises that wouldn’t hold contracts directly with the defense organization but rather with the large prime contractors. They have no claim for losses—and it’s unlikely that the multinational primes will miss out on any penalty clauses contained in their contracts’ cancellation terms.
The repercussions of these actions will have long-lasting implications for the new program, in whatever form it takes. Initial indications are for a reduction in Australian industry content by 30 percent, down to 40 percent of the total build of the new submarines from the 60 percent under Naval Group. The absence of a commitment to 12 submarines under the AUKUS pact (the statement that there will be ‘at least eight’ is suitably vague) further reduces the market by another 30 percent.
With the Attack-class submarine program failing to survive a change in government leadership, how much confidence can industry maintain for investment when the new program has now apparently bypassed the strategic and political discussions about the requirement for nuclear-powered vessels?
Notably, the current and previous two prime ministers have had different preferred submarine suppliers despite being from the same political party. In the context of a change in government, the opposing major political parties have previously maintained a resolute opposition to any nuclear energy in Australia, and while Labor says it supports the new plan (with conditions), it will potentially be put in jeopardy at each federal election.
The AUKUS announcement gave an 18-month period for the examination of requirements for nuclear stewardship………..
Public discussion on the practical and political ramifications of a nuclear-propulsion solution within the country, our region and globally is the next step. Finally, continued bipartisan support for the program, in its latest form, will be required to avoid another calamity following an election or leadership spill. https://www.maritime-executive.com/editorials/australia-s-nuclear-sub-shakeup-hits-shipbuilding-supply-chain
Much posturing, but little content, on how AUKUS, and the nuclear submarines, will work
what does not make sense is a decision which, in essence, announces you are going to have a glorified interdepartmental committee look at whether it will actually work (the only missing ingredient from the Prime Minister’s usual modus operandi is mention of his department head Phil Gaetjens).
There are no details on just how this new alliance will work, but vast quantities of posturing, which is presumably designed to show the Chinese that we mean business.
However, a government desperate to avoid a referendum on pandemic management — and now threatened by challenges from independent candidates in blue-ribbon seats such as Kooyong and Wentworth over its inaction on climate change —— desperately needs something else to talk about.
Scott Morrison’s AUKUS submarine deal and ‘BFF theatre’ leaves Australia in a tricky spot, https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-09-25/missing-details-on-australia-uk-us-submarine-deal/1004905647.30 / By Laura Tingle Sat 25 Sep 2021 The federal Coalition have always been keen advocates of contracting things out.
It started in the Howard years, when the delivery of services was contracted out and, over the intervening years, spread to contracting out policy advice — from the public service to richly rewarded consultants who sometimes produce little more than vacuous PowerPoint presentations.
The COVID-19 pandemic has shown the current government is willing to contract out responsibility for things such as quarantine, vaccines and vaccine-mandating rules to the states.
But who would ever have thought it would contract out our national security and defence strategy?
For, in a nutshell, that’s what has happened in the past week with the decision to embrace a new alliance with our old allies and “forever” friends, based on the decision to buy an (unspecified) nuclear submarine that will not go into service until 2040.
Capability gap
There is a vast amount to unpack in this decision, even amid a sense that, by the end of the week, the political caravan was moving on to climate change.
It is hard to think of a decision by Australia with such profound implications for our future that has been so redolent of symbolism, yet so completely lacking in substance.
A decision driven so much by valid concerns about defence capability, that leaves us so exposed as to not having any of that capability for the next 20 years — the time period when the power balance in our region is going to be decided.
In short, a massive strategic step-up announced to cover a massive capability gap.
The majority view in the political and strategic establishment in Australia says the strategic position has fundamentally shifted in the past five years and continues to rapidly evolve.
China’s capacity to scan the oceans, as well as both its military firepower and assertiveness, have all grown exponentially.
And most think that makes nuclear submarines, rather than conventionally powered ones, a rational decision.
It might also make sense to ramp-up your armaments — such as long-range Tomahawk Cruise Missiles — and talk of more US troops, planes and ships, and even British submarines, being based in Australia.
Looking to the US
However, what does not make sense is a decision which, in essence, announces you are going to have a glorified interdepartmental committee look at whether it will actually work (the only missing ingredient from the Prime Minister’s usual modus operandi is mention of his department head Phil Gaetjens).
There are no details on just how this new alliance will work, but vast quantities of posturing, which is presumably designed to show the Chinese that we mean business.
Things such as getting all our spooks to go to Washington this week.
Things such as emphasising the so-called Quad arrangement between the US, Australia, India and Japan, which makes it look like we have even more friends on our side.
Yet, when the Prime Minister holds a press conference in Washington DC ahead of the Quad meetings, what do you say it is about? Vaccines and energy policy.
No mention of China or strategic alliances here. And that sort of makes sense, given the constraints on Japanese military action, and that India has a very different take on Chinese issues to the Americans.
The implication in all this announcing is that the Americans are now committing to the region. That we can rely on Dad to sort out China for us.
All the talk of the new Cold War in the East raises obvious comparisons with the one in the West that occurred last century — and possibly even the crucial role the US played in Europe at that time.
Enduring questions
However, even among the more hawkish analysts, there is a gnawing question of how we (Australia) actually hold the feet of the Americans — and the British with their splendid history of reliable commitment to Asia and Australia in the 20th century — to the fire if things do indeed escalate with China.
And how do we now, on a day-to-day basis, differentiate ourselves from the US position on China when we have made so much not just of our operational dependence, but also of the whole “BFF theatre”?
This goes to questions of sovereign capability. That is, our capacity to run our own strategic policy, both in an operational sense and a diplomatic one.
Labor has backed the government’s decision on nuclear submarines with three caveats.
However, its foreign affairs spokesperson, Penny Wong, asked some valid questions on the point of sovereign capability in a speech on Thursday, such as: “How will we control the use of technology and capability that is not ours?”
“With the prospect of a higher level of technological dependence on the US, how does the Morrison-Joyce government assure Australians that we can act alone when need be; that we have the autonomy to defend ourselves, however and whenever we need to,” she said.
The alacrity and misrepresentation of Wong’s remarks by the Prime Minister in response only added to the suspicion that there is just a tad too much politics in the way this momentous dogleg in the country’s strategic position has been undertaken.
“Well, I think Australians would be puzzled as to why there can be bipartisan support for this initiative in the United States and within days, within days, the Labor Party seems to be having an each-way bet,” he said.
You can see why Labor has chosen to just stay as far away from this issue as it can, within the constraints of a responsibility to set out some reasonable questions about strategy, rather than nuclear submarines per se.
It is determined not to get wedged as it once was on Tampa.
The fallout
Labor’s determination not to get wedged may have taken away some of the political dividends of this huge shift, as has the debacle over informing the French of the decision, which has embarrassed not just Australia but the US.
And, of course, the Prime Minister’s ever-changing descriptions of how he had informed France’s Emmanuel Macron that he was tearing up a multi-billion dollar contract has been, well, just embarrassing.
“What I said was, is that I made direct contact with him,” he said in Washington on Thursday.
Having been unable to get Macron on the phone the night before the announcement, he said he “directly messaged him Australia’s decision in a personal correspondence”.
Australia dumped France, it appears, in a text message: A modus operandi more usually associated with 14-year-olds.
The nuclear subs decision may have all sorts of ramifications, from halting negotiations on a European Free Trade Agreement to entertaining prospects for cooperation between the US and China on climate change.
Its complexities are not best teased out in the lead-up to an election.
However, a government desperate to avoid a referendum on pandemic management — and now threatened by challenges from independent candidates in blue-ribbon seats such as Kooyong and Wentworth over its inaction on climate change — desperately needs something else to talk about.
Maralinga – ushered in Australia’s nuclear age
A picture in time: Maralinga, the blinding flash that ushered in Australia’s atomic age. https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/sep/27/a-picture-in-time-maralinga-when-the-atomic-age-reached-australia
Nuclear tests conducted in South Australia from 1956 resulted in swaths of countryside obliterated and decades of highly contaminated land.
The atomic age reached Maralinga with a blinding flash. At 5pm on 27 September 1956, a 15-kilotonne atomic device was detonated at the site in the western plains of South Australia.
The ensuing blast had as much explosive strength as the weapon which fell on Hiroshima 11 years earlier.
More than a decade after that horror struck Japan, Australia had become tangled up in the UK’s nuclear testing program, which saw swaths of countryside obliterated to further the nuclear arms race.
The atomic test at Maralinga was carried out by the British government as part of Operation Buffalo, run by the UK’s Atomic Weapons Research establishment.
In the moments after the detonation, RAAF personnel flew through the mushroom cloud to carry out tests with little instruction or protective equipment to shield them from the radiation.
For the next seven years, major and minor nuclear tests were carried out at Maralinga. The minor tests led to contamination of the area with plutonium-239, which has a radioactive half-life of 24,000 years.
Prior to the test, very little effort was put into finding and notifying the Anangu Pitjantjatjara people who lived on the land. In addition to the obvious immediate dangers of nuclear fallout in the area, the Indigenous community would endure the long term hazards of poisoned land and water for more than thirty years.
Maralinga was not the first nuclear weapons test conducted on Australian soil. Three years earlier, on 3 October 1952, Britain detonated a nuclear weapon on the Montebello Islands off the coast of Western Australia.
A further two detonations were carried out at Emu Field. Britain moved the testing site to Maralinga after previous locations were deemed to be too remote for nuclear weapons tests.
When Maralinga was eventually closed as a testing site in 1967, the British government began the process of cleaning the 3,200 sq km of contaminated land.
By 1968, the Australian and British governments agreed that Britain has successfully decontaminated the area by covering contaminated debris in concrete and ploughing the plutonium-laden soil into the ground.
In 1984, as the land was slated to be returned to the Tjarutja people, scientists found the land was still highly contaminated.
Nine years later, in 1993, following a royal commission, and after mounting pressure, the British government agreed to pay a portion of the estimated $101m cleanup cost.
It wasn’t until 1994, 38 years after the initial blast, that the Australian government paid $13.5m to the Indigenous people of Maralinga as compensation for what had been done to the land.
No nuclear submarines, say protesters
No nuclear submarines, say protesters https://www.greenleft.org.au/content/no-nuclear-submarines-say-protestersRenfrey ClarkeAdelaideSeptember 27, 2021 A protest on September 24 against the federal government’s decision to build nuclear-powered submarines and join in the new AUKUS pact drew 150 people to the front of Parliament House.
It was organised by a new network of anti-war, anti-nuclear and left activists. Speakers included Arabunna elder Uncle Kevin Buzzacott, Stephen Darley of the Independent and Peaceful Australia Network; economist and Greens Senate candidate Barbara Pocock; and Friends of the Earth anti-nuclear spokesperson Jim Green.
1 This month.
Australians deserve the truth
about
AUKUS – https://aukuspublicinquiry.com/
PETITION – To: Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and the Australian Labor Government
of the week – Australians for War Powers Reform (AWPR)
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity
Antinuclear 