What Australia has spent so far
Five years into AUKUS, what do we have to show for it? We’ve measured progress on three key metrics
Thomas Corben and Esther Soulard, The Conversation, 15 Sept 26,
“. What Australia has spent so far.…………………………………………………………Australians are justified in wanting to know how much money their government has invested in AUKUS, and where it has gone.
When the Optimal Pathway was announced in 2023, the Albanese government costed it at 0.15% of GDP annually over the life of the program. This would amount to roughly A$268 billion to A$368 billion over three decades.
Since then, the A$368 billion figure has been widely cited by the media as the ultimate price tag.
Crucially, at the time, a third of this total – around A$122.9 billion – was set aside as contingency funding to absorb the delays and cost pressures that come with a 30-year program. In other words, it may not actually be spent.
Accurately tracking Australia’s overall spending to date is difficult. Since 2023, there has been a flurry of government statements announcing or promising funding to support various aspects of AUKUS over different time frames. These figures are scattered across portfolios, and are sometimes announced and then folded into the forward estimates of the federal budget. Some are projections, rather than down payments.
Both the Liberals and Greens have pressed the government to share updated costings for AUKUS. Budget papers do not offer an itemised account nor a consolidated overall figure for the program so far.
With no central database for AUKUS spending, we set out to build one.
We went through public announcements, portfolio budget statements, annual reports and strategy documents, and attempted to trace everything that’s been spent, announced, promised or projected.
What we’ve come up with hardly qualifies as a ledger. Still, it reveals three important things.
First, the bulk of the funding announced in Australia has gone to infrastructure, across three main sites:
- A$12 billion on the Henderson Defence Precinct, a shipbuilding and submarine maintenance hub on the west coast
- A$8 billion to expand HMAS Stirling so it can host US and UK submarines under SRF-West from 2027, and Australia’s own fleet of submarines from the early 2030s
- A$8.5 billion to the Osborne Nuclear-Powered Submarine Construction Yard, where Australia’s nuclear submarines will be built.
Second, Canberra is investing in the UK and US submarine industrial bases to support the delivery of the Virginia-class and future AUKUS-class submarines to Australia. This reflects the additional demand Australia’s submarines will put on production and maintenance capacity in both countries.
This has included US$2 billion (about A$2.8 billion) to the US in three instalments, with a further US$1 billion (A$1.4 billion) in instalments pledged over the next decade.
Canberra has also paid A$310 million to the UK for components needed to build nuclear submarines and has committed an additional £2.4 billion (about A$4.6 billion) over a decade to expand the UK’s submarine production capacity.
Third, AUKUS will consume a growing share of the Australian defence budget, even if the government follows through on its commitment to increase spending to 3% of GDP by 2033.
In 2023, the Parliamentary Budget Office projected annual AUKUS spending to be roughly A$2.2 billion per year over the program’s first four years, rising to more than A$8 billion annually for the next three decades. This means most of the spending is still to come.
There’s a long list of various capabilities required to meet Australia’s future defence requirements. If the Defence budget does not grow sufficiently and AUKUS eats into those programs, the overall investment in these capabilities could become lopsided.
2. A new submarine base in WA
Until the Virginia-class submarines arrive, we still need to make sure our near-term defence needs are being met. We also need to be ready for when our subs show up.
This is where Submarine Rotational Force-West comes in.
The first phase of the AUKUS program involves frequent visits by US and UK submarines to HMAS Stirling in Perth from next year. These subs won’t be formally based in Australia; they will rotate in and out.
But these aren’t mere pitstops. Australians are being trained in how to maintain the ships and handle their weapons. Some US submarines already have Australians serving onboard. These initiatives are helping to prepare Australia to maintain our own nuclear-powered submarines when they come online.
The US is also setting up local operations to provide services, logistics and operational support to these rotating submarines and their crews. This will be the only location outside US and UK territories in the Indo-Pacific where these subs can receive sophisticated maintenance support.
Crucially, these facilities will be beyond the range of most (though not all) of China’s growing missile capabilities…….
3. US submarine availability
Sceptics in both the US and Australia have expressed doubt about Washington’s willingness to sell at least three submarines to Australia beginning in the 2030s, given how much it relies on them and how long it takes to build them.
Indeed, the speed of US submarine production has been under particular scrutiny. The conventional wisdom is production needs to hit around 2.33 boats per year to meet both US and Australian requirements.
There are no consistent public records for the actual production rate, but the estimates are sobering.
New builds have averaged 1.1–1.3 submarines per year since the COVID pandemic, down from a high of 1.9 per year from 2016–19. US Navy leaders anticipate reaching two subs per year by 2032 – still short of the 2.33 goal.
Yet, production rates only tell part of the story. If Australia is supposed to receive in-service submarines from the US, understanding the state and size of the existing fleet is just as important.
In 2016, the US Navy declared it needed a force of 66 submarines to counter growing Chinese and Russian threats – up from a previous requirement of 48.
But since then, the US’ submarine fleet size has gradually declined, with older submarines retiring at a marginally higher rate than their modern replacements (the Virginia-class subs) have been introduced.
This reflects the difficulties Washington has had speeding up production, even with US$15 billion (about A$21 billion) in navy investments since 2018, contributions from the Australian government, and a growing number of Australian companies supporting US shipbuilding.
What’s more, since 2016, between 25–33% of the US submarine fleet has been undergoing maintenance, at significant financial and operational cost. For Australia, addressing that backlog will be as important as boosting US production rates.
Australia is already helping to ease these challenges with investments at Submarine Rotational Force-West and its own shipyards. If the AUKUS partners take full advantage of these developments, this could increase the number of boats available to the US Navy – and, by extension, to Australia.
So, while the US has a mountain to climb to boost sub production, that won’t be the only factor that determines the timeline for Australia’s AUKUS fleet………………………………………………………. https://theconversation.com/five-years-into-aukus-what-do-we-have-to-show-for-it-weve-measured-progress-on-three-key-metrics-289885?utm_campaign=the-daily-39531&utm_content=the-daily-39531_au%7C1%7C39531%7Cc3c55007&utm_medium=email&utm_source=braze&utm_term=whether+our+investments+to+date+are+worth+it
First nuclear-capable B-52s deploy to Australia
By Bill Gertz – The Washington Times – Thursday, September 10, 2026
A task force of nuclear-capable B-52 bombers has deployed for the first time to Australia in a show of regional force located to the south of China.
The bombers arrived last week at an upgraded Royal Australian Air Force Base Tindal. Local reports called it a new era in Australia’s military alliance with the U.S.
A Pacific Air Forces spokesman confirmed to Inside the Ring that the bomber task force is underway Down Under………….
The exact number of the strategic bombers from the 2nd Bomber Wing at Barksdale Air Force Base, Louisiana, was not disclosed. Most task forces include up to six B-52s.
An Air Force photo of the deployment stated in a caption that the bombers arrived Sept. 1. “Operating from RAAF Base Tindal marks our ability to project, sustain, and regenerate decisive airpower across an expanding extended network,” the caption stated.
The long-range bombers can deliver nuclear bombs or conventional precision-guided weapons.
The Tindal base has been upgraded with new hangars and ramps for the bombers. It is located in northern Australia about 200 miles south of the northernmost coastal city of Darwin and about 2,000 miles from the tense South China Sea.
The base also hosts Australian F-35 stealth jets and MQ-4C Triton surveillance drones.
Currently, U.S. Marines are based in Darwin and a submarine rotational force was set up near Perth, with about 1,000 Navy personnel set to deploy in support of Virginia-class submarine deployment. https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2026/sep/10/first-nuclear-capable-b-52s-deploy-australia/
US turning Australia into military base
“Over more than a decade, the United States has been preparing the capacity for high-tempo warfighting operations with China, springboarding from Australia. From a Chinese perspective, Australia is not so much hosting US bases on its territory, it’s a US base in its own right… Australia is a serious piece of real estate in the US warfighting machine.”
Wed, 09 Sep 2026 , https://www.sott.net/article/508329-US-turning-Australia-into-military-base-Guardian
USA • Australia military eventThe US is turning Australia into a forward base for potential military operations in the Pacific, with American forces and defense contractors controlling or having access to roughly two-thirds of the country’s military facilities,The Guardian reported on Sunday.
Citing data compiled by the Nautilus Institute for Security and Sustainability, the newspaper identified 110 facilities across Australia with some form of US military or corporate presence out of 168 surveyed.
The US military directly controls 17 facilities, including the Pine Gap intelligence complex in central Australia, which plays a major role in US surveillance and military operations. The facility tracks missile launches, intercepts communications and provides targeting information for American forces around the world.
Other installations include a naval communications station in Western Australia used to communicate with submerged US submarines and RAAF Base Tindal in the north, which is being expanded to accommodate nuclear-capableB-52 Stratofortress bombers.
The Guardian wrote:
“These aircraft are able to land on Australian soil carrying nuclear weapons. The US government won’t tell Australia if and when they are. The Australian government won’t ask.”
Beyond the facilities it directly controls, the US military has access to dozens of Australian installations, while American defense contractors, including Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman, operate at others. According to the Nautilus data, 41 of the 168 facilities surveyed have no significant US presence, while the status of another 17 remains unresolved.
The American footprint is also expanding. In June, AFP reported that the US was preparing to establish a permanent stockpile of battle-ready weapons, ammunition, and equipment for the Marine Corps in Australia, with the facility expected to reach full capacity by 2028.
An honorary professorial fellow at the University of Melbourne, Richard Tanter, the author of the Nautilus database, told The Guardian:
“Over more than a decade, the United States has been preparing the capacity for high-tempo warfighting operations with China, springboarding from Australia. From a Chinese perspective, Australia is not so much hosting US bases on its territory, it’s a US base in its own right… Australia is a serious piece of real estate in the US warfighting machine.”
Canberra maintains that the growing American presence strengthens Australia’s security.Defense Minister Richard Marles said in June that the expanding US footprint was important both for building the country’s military capabilities and for its national security.
Marles also argued that the US presence helped counter what he described as China’s “very significant military buildup” in the region.
Former Australian Defense Minister Christopher Pyne has similarly said the 2021 AUKUS pact between Australia, the US, and UK goes beyond Canberra’s acquisition of nuclear-powered submarines. He described the arrangement as establishing “a new United States submarine base in the Indian Ocean” that would provide Washington with a “massive strategic advantage.”
Tanter criticized Canberra’s approach, calling it:
“A massive institutional failure in Australia, a kind of learned incapacity at a political, parliamentary and bureaucratic level.”
Comment: Tanter is right: Trust and comfort never convey the total picture, nor be they the appropriate guardians of sovereign control.
Australia’s continued enmeshment with the US could make it a nuclear target, former Labor minister warns
“This makes Australia a priority nuclear target for any adversary of the United States,”
“An adversary would target Australia before targeting the US directly since to do so would invite immediate retaliation.”
Former Labor minister Melissa Parke has warned that Australia’s close military ties to the United States make it a priority nuclear target that adversaries would likely strike before attacking the US directly.
By Tegan George, Tue 8 Sep 2026 , https://thepoint.com.au/new/260908-australias-continued-enmeshment-with-the-us-could-make-it-a-nuclear-target-former-labor-minister-warns
Former Labor minister Melissa Parke has warned that Australia’s close military ties to the United States make it a priority nuclear target that adversaries would likely strike before attacking the US directly.
Speaking on the Australia Institute’s After America podcast, Ms Parke said Australia’s increasing enmeshment with the US was even more reason for it to join the “groundbreaking” Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW).
“It’s the first treaty to comprehensively and categorically prohibit nuclear weapons and anything to do with them: developing, possessing, testing, using, threatening to use, sharing, deploying, et cetera,” she said.
Ms Parke, now executive director of the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN), said more than half the world’s countries had joined as states parties or signatories, including almost all of Australia’s neighbours in Southeast Asia and the South Pacific.
While Labor has committed in its national platform to joining the treaty since 2018, the Albanese government is yet to sign on the dotted line.
The commitment was moved by Anthony Albanese and seconded by Richard Marles, now Prime Minister and Defence Minister.
Defence Minister Richard Marles recently travelled to the US to meet his counterpart, Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth, as the countries marked the 75th anniversary of the ANZUS alliance.
Following the meeting, they agreed to “accelerate force posture initiatives” at Australian bases but didn’t say whether that would mean more American troops heading down under.
The growing US military presence includes the rotation of nuclear-powered submarines through HMAS Stirling and nuclear-capable B-52 bombers at RAAF Base Tindal in the Northern Territory, alongside existing joint facilities such as Pine Gap.
“This makes Australia a priority nuclear target for any adversary of the United States,” said Ms Parke.
“An adversary would target Australia before targeting the US directly since to do so would invite immediate retaliation.”
She argued other countries in the region had joined the treaty without damaging their US relationship, pointing to Palau, New Zealand, the Philippines and Thailand.
Ms Parke said she understood the Albanese government was concerned about “upsetting” the US but cited former prime minister Paul Keating’s remark that “we couldn’t get rid of the Americans even if we wanted to”.
“Our own former foreign minister, Gareth Evans, says that reliance on US nuclear deterrence is both dangerous because it makes us a nuclear target and absurd because the US would never sacrifice one of its cities for ours.”
She said the treaty also provided victim assistance and remediation of affected environments.
“There’s a bit of a myth out there that nuclear weapons have only ever been used twice in Hiroshima and Nagasaki,” she told the podcast.
“But in fact, nuclear weapons have been exploded more than 2000 times around the world, mostly on colonised Indigenous and vulnerable communities.”
That includes Australia, where the British conducted 12 major nuclear detonations and hundreds of radiological trials in Western and South Australia between 1952 and 1963.
The tests caused severe radioactive contamination and prompted a royal commission into their lasting health and environmental impacts.
The treaty’s first review conference is due to be held in New York from 30 November to 4 December, but Ms Parke said some affected communities would not attend because they “don’t feel safe” under the Trump administration.
Ms Parke accused the US of doing “enormous damage” to international institutions and appearing willing to violate and discard any rule or norm of international law.
“When we only negotiate bilaterally with a hegemon, we negotiate from weakness,” she said.
“We accept what’s offered. We compete with each other to be the most accommodating. This is not sovereignty. It’s the performance of sovereignty while accepting subordination.”
AUKUS makes Australia a nuclear target, top experts warn
Rob Harris, September 3, 2026 —https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/aukus-makes-australia-a-nuclear-target-top-experts-warn-20260902-p60tnk.html
Australia is significantly more likely to be dragged into a destructive conflict with China — and potentially targeted with nuclear weapons — under the AUKUS security pact, two former senior national security figures have warned.
Michael Keating, a former Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet secretary, and former public servant Jon Stanford argue that the federal government’s current defence posture has “sacrificed considerable sovereignty” to the United States while leaving the country uniquely vulnerable without a guaranteed security safety net.
The pair will front a crowd-funded public inquiry into the AUKUS submarine pact on Thursday, urging the federal government to immediately redesign its national strategy, cancel plans to acquire American Virginia-class and British-designed SSN AUKUS nuclear-powered attack submarines, and pivot to low-enriched uranium vessels sourced from France or South Korea.
Keating, the most senior public servant during the Hawke-Keating era, spent 11 years on the Secretaries Committee on National Security – including five years as chairman – while Stanford has extensive background in submarine research and defence policy.
“Under AUKUS, Australia’s security is under greater threat while it has become increasingly clear that we cannot rely on the US for our defence,” they write in their submission. “We are now in a situation where, because of the AUKUS strategy of integrated deterrence in defence of US regional primacy, Australia is more likely to be attacked, potentially with nuclear weapons”.
They cite prescient warnings from former French foreign minister Jean-Yves Le Drian, who noted in 2021 that Australia had made a choice “to the detriment of sovereignty” and predicted it would discover later it had sacrificed both security and self-determination.
According to the submission, the policy of “integrated deterrence” and “pooled sovereignty” effectively converts Australian military facilities into forward operating locations for US forces without giving Canberra oversight or veto power.
They point out that unlike allies such as Japan, South Korea, and the Philippines, Australia lacks a formal US security guarantee, such as NATO’s Article V.
Yet, by developing command and basing infrastructure – such as the US submarine squadron facilities at HMAS Stirling in Western Australia – Australia becomes a prime military target.
“If there is a war between the US and China, Australia will inevitably be involved … even if we do not provide military support,” the submission states, adding that escalating hostilities could leave Australia open to nuclear strikes.
Fronting the first day of the hearings in Canberra on Wednesday, former home affairs secretary Mike Pezzullo called for a deeper military integration with the US, agreeing that Australia could surrender sovereignty under the current AUKUS without gaining a meaningful say in decisions that could draw it into a war with China.
Pezzullo, a national security hawk and former senior public servant under the Abbott, Turnbull and Morrison governments, was sacked by Labor in 2023 after confidential messages between him and Liberal Party powerbroker Scott Briggs were leaked to this masthead. The Australian Public Service Commission subsequently found he had breached the public service code of conduct on 14 occasions.
“If I was a Chinese war planner,” Pezzullo said, “I would flatten every single potential facility that might be used overnight by Americans flying in.”
He said facilities including Tindal, Stirling, North West Cape and Pine Gap could be targeted in such a conflict.
But Pezzullo said AUKUS’s nuclear-powered submarine program would transform Australia’s military options, giving the navy greater speed, endurance and reach while opening the way for a new generation of autonomous underwater systems.
Undersea warfare would be critical in any future conflict, from anti-submarine operations to intelligence gathering, he said.
At the same time, Pezzullo said Australia should not commit to fighting alongside the US in every future conflict.
“Alliances are political documents first and foremost,” he said, arguing that countries must retain the ability to make sovereign decisions when a conflict actually occurs.
But he said those political alliances needed military planning and preparation underneath them.
Australia, he said, could either try to remain outside a future US-China conflict and accept the consequences if Washington lost, or strengthen its alliance with the US in the hope that the combined deterrent would prevent war.
“The only choice would be whether we want to sit it out and hope for the best,” Pezzullo said. “I think that’s not plausible.”
The choice was whether to remain on the sidelines and accept the consequences if Washington lost, or deepen the alliance in the hope that Australian involvement would strengthen deterrence.
“I prefer that latter approach,” Pezzullo said. “The war machine is the thing that prevents the war.”
Fears WA’s HMAS Stirling naval base now a legitimate nuclear target amid US build-up
Experts have warned that a naval base in Western Australia has emerged as a potential nuclear target, leaving Aussie lives on the line.
Adrian Zorzut, August 22, 2026, https://www.news.com.au/technology/innovation/military/fears-was-hmas-stirling-naval-base-now-a-legitimate-nuclear-target-amid-us-buildup/news-story/d64650c74a47f29ccdce53c30715cdff?amp
A key Aussie navy base is in the crosshairs of hostile foreign nations – and could even potentially become a nuclear target, an expert has warned.
From 2027, HMAS Stirling – off the coast of Perth – will welcome a rotation of US and UK submarines.
The US could run nuclear-powered submarines out of Australia “tomorrow”, the top American admiral for the Indo-Pacific has said in remarks declaring the endeavour “absolutely essential” to keeping China at bay.
Fronting a congressional committee in Washington on Wednesday (Thursday AEST), Admiral Samuel Paparo praised Australia’s progress in preparing Western Australia’s HMAS Stirling to host US and UK naval rotations from next year
“To have a rotational base in the Indian Ocean is absolutely essential,” he said.
“HMAS Stirling is on track for the rotational force that will arrive here in Perth in a little over a year.
“Between the pier, the shore power, the facilities with the tender and a marine security company, we could be ready today to operate a rotational submarine squadron out of Australia tomorrow.”
He added that “Australian submariners are performing well on the ships” as well as “in the schools”.
“And in every regard, in pillar 1, we’re on track,” he said, referring to the US’ ability to supply three Virginia-class submarines to Australia.
Australia has pumped billions into getting HMAS Stirling ready for Submarine Rotational Force-West, with the biggest work in preparing to support nuclear-powered vessels.
Hosting the boats is part of AUKUS, which aims to arm Australia’s navy with nuclear-powered submarines early next decade.
The $368bn pact is the centrepiece of Australia’s 21st century defence strategy and aimed at deterring China’s growing military aggression in the region.
In a written statement to committee members, Admiral Paparo warned that China was aiming to “project power beyond its near geography to set the rules for every relationship across the globe”.
Why are we militarising Space?
Falling in behind the US, Australia signed the Trump Administration’s 2020 Artemis Accords which were designed to nullify the Moon Treaty and give the green light to US-led colonisation of the Moon for the purpose of commercial mining of its surface.
The US aims to dominate space militarily, and Australia is its willing accomplice.
20 August 2026 AIMN Editorial, https://theaimn.net/why-are-we-militarising-space/
By Michael Williss
The Australian Defence Force (ADF) released its 2026 Defence Strategy earlier this year, and an accompanying fact sheet said that “The ADF must be integrated across all five domains – maritime, land, air, space and cyber – as well as with international partners.”[1]
The reference to the “five domains” is important. Prior to 2020, there was only reference to the traditional warfare domains of the land, seas and air. As of January 2022, however, a new command force operating across the three traditional domains was created, now known as Space Command.[2]
The official embrace of Space as a war-fighting domain runs counter to the spirit, if not the letter, of two international Treaties signed by Australia: the UN Outer Space Treaty (OST) and the Moon Treaty.
The OST was a response by the world community to US and Soviet nuclear weapons tests in Space from 1958 to 1962. The largest US test occurred 400kms above and 1450kms south-west of Hawaii. It was 90 times the size of the blast at Hiroshima. It caused significant electrical damage in Hawaii, but also resulted, in the months that followed, in killing eight of the 24 satellites that were then in orbit around the Earth including the UK’s Telstar.[3]
This led to the ratification by UN member states of the OST in 1967. Amongst the provisions of the Treaty were:
outer space shall be free for exploration and use by all States;- outer space is not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means;
- States shall not place nuclear weapons or other weapons of mass destruction in orbit or on celestial bodies or station them in outer space in any other manner.
However, there is a very large loophole between a nuclear weapon and a WMD through which any manner of weapons based on new technologies could be fired.
The 1979 Moon Treaty reiterated the points above and strengthened several of them. Australia signed it in 1986, but to date on 17 countries have done so. Opposition to it has been led by the US which refused to accept its restriction on “any military use of celestial bodies.”[4]
Falling in behind the US, Australia signed the Trump Administration’s 2020 Artemis Accords which were designed to nullify the Moon Treaty and give the green light to US-led colonisation of the Moon for the purpose of commercial mining of its surface.
Anywhere that the US dollar treads, the men with guns are there to protect it. As on Earth, so in Space. In 1985, under Ronald Reagan, the US created its Space Command. It lapsed after a while but was recreated under Trump in 2019 with a reemphasized focus on space as a warfighting domain. It established its own fighting force for Space, known as Guardians.
Col. Kyle Pumroy (Ret.) writing in the Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies’ paper “Military Human Spaceflight: A Key Component to US Space Superiority,” said “now is the time to begin placing Guardians in space to develop the skills, tools, and concepts to build a future capacity to defend core US interests…”[5]
The US aims to dominate space militarily, and Australia is its willing accomplice.
The latest comments came on August 12 2026 at the US Army Space and Missile Defense Symposium in Alabama.[6]
US Space Command (SPACECOM) head Gen. Stephen Whiting, told attendees that SPACECOM’s top two priorities for fiscal 2029 through to 2033 are “integrated space fires” and capabilities to counter large constellations of satellites in low Earth orbit (LEO) in order to establish space superiority.
“We’re a combatant command and we fight to win wars. To win, we need credible, acknowledged, kinetic and non-kinetic fires. They are a key component of how we establish space superiority and restore credible deterrence,” he said.
Kinetic refers to the movement of a physical body such as a missile for the purpose of the destruction of an adversary’s material assets; non-kinetic refers to such movement as use of radio waves for jamming an adversary’s communications systems.
Whiting’s deputy, Lt. Gen. Rick Zellmann, on Tuesday told the symposium that the US military now has “policy” approval for three basic types of space fires: ground-to-space fires that “we’ve been doing for years” with “communications jamming systems;” space-to-space attacks known as “orbital warfare;” and, given that the Trump administration plans to build space-based interceptors for the US Golden Dome missile shield, space-to-ground.
Responsibility for ground to space fires is shared with the Army, the Air Force and Marines, but orbital warfare and space to ground fires are the preserve of SPACECOM.
Australian company EOS claimed that Australia is one of just two countries with the capabilities to neutralise large numbers of satellites passing over its territory.[7] EOS spokesperson Dr Ben Greene said Australian Space Domain Awareness (SDA) covered around one sixth of the sky, delivered by, among others, EOS with its laser tracking facility in Canberra, the RAAF’s space telescope in WA and the new US-owned LeoLabs Australia space radar, also in WA. “We could intercept and interdict the satellite operations of any country on earth, if we chose to. That’s a really powerful platform for us,” he said. “It’s quite feasible now to talk about taking out hundreds of satellites a day if that was necessary.”
An ASPI (aka Australian Serving Predatory Imperialism) spokesperson supported EOS’s vision for the military use of Space, saying: “We need a much more ambitious approach to how we think about defence and space. It can’t just be for communications provision. It’s got to be about space control. It’s got to be how we respond to a contested space domain when China is rapidly developing counter-space capabilities and fully intends to use them in the next war. Space will quickly become a warfighting environment, not because of our own actions but because of decisions in Beijing.”
No doubt Russia and China are developing military space technologies similar to those of the US. But we are not their appendages in the same way as we are in relation to the US.
We must do what we can to stop the militarisation of Space, including support for or participation in US space war plans.
Australia must call for the strengthening of the OST to include all weapons in Space, and for the banning of Earth to Space, Space to Space, and Space to Earth military activity.
Australia must join those nations that have pledged to a no first use (NFU) policy on placing weapons in Space and call on the US, Russia and China to do the same.
Australia must ensure any developments in Space are done for purposes other than “colonization” by any state or nation on earth. The exploration and use of Space for peaceful cooperation among nations should be our goal.
That is the only way we can contribute to humanity and not be a burden on it.
[1] 2026 National Defence Strategy Factsheet
[2] Space Command (Australia) – Wikipedia
[3] The Space Review: Remembering Starfish Prime
[5] Guardians_in_Space_Policy_Paper_65-Final.pdf
[6] Joint force needs kinetic and non-kinetic weapons for space war: Whiting – Breaking Defense
Britain can’t provide us with nuclear submarines, says Malcolm Turnbull.
Speaking at an inquiry into the viability of the Aukus deal, the former
Australian prime minister said the agreement was ‘a colossal mistake’.
The former Australian prime minister Malcolm Turnbull has called British
shipbuilding an “industry in disarray” and predicted it will produce
few, if any, of the nuclear-powered submarines promised under the Aukus
agreement in the foreseeable future.
Speaking at an independent inquiry
into the implications and viability of the tri-nation submarine deal, which
will cost Australia the equivalent of nearly £200 billion, the former
Liberal Party leader described the pact as “a colossal mistake”.
Times 10th Aug 2026, https://www.thetimes.com/world/australasia/article/australia-submarines-aukus-deal-malcolm-turnbull-jqc2x66hq
Lucas Heights nuclear reactor was always intended as a step towards nuclear weapons, AND IT STILL IS.
Canberra hoped that aiding Britain might be a step toward its own bomb.
Australia took tentative steps to go it alone. This included the Lucas Heights nuclear plant on Sydney’s southern fringe. Still Australia’s only reactor, it began its life researching, among other things, nuclear weapons
“We have the people, the knowledge, the history, the uranium and we still have Lucas Heights.”
Australia’s secret plans to have its own nuclear arsenal, AMERICA. Russia. China. Britain. The world’s most powerful countries all have nuclear arsenals — and few people know Australia was almost one of them, Benedict Brook@BenedictBrook, news.com.au, JULY 11, 2017 “…….A military expert has told news.com.au, that top secret plans were so advanced Australia was considered “top of the pile” of countries expected to acquire its own nuclear arsenal
It was 60 years ago that the last nuclear bomb was detonated in Australia, a British weapon at the Maralinga test site in South Australia.
If you look closely, evidence of Australia’s plans for its own nuke remain. A few hours south of Sydney, at picturesque Jervis Bay, a small road leads into the bush. By a boat ramp is a large car park.
However, this was never designed to be a place for tourists’ vehicles. Rather, it is the unfinished foundations of Australia’s first commercial nuclear power station.
The public were told it would revolutionise the country’s energy needs. The truth was it would enrich uranium for Australia’s atomic bombs.
Associate Professor Wayne Reynolds is a defence and foreign policy expert at the University of Newcastle and author of the book Australia’s Bid for the Atomic Bomb….. “We wanted to have a navy; in WWII we wanted access to heavy bombers; and so we wanted nuclear weapons. We wanted to maintain a strategic leading edge.”
Australia didn’t want to go it alone. During WWII, British and Australian experts had worked alongside their American counterparts on the Manhattan Project to build the world’s first atomic bomb.
The expectation was that the US would share the results with its allies.
“In 1946, the Americans changed that calculation by announcing they would not share any of the technology or weapons,” says Prof Reynolds. “Britain and Australia were cut out from the club”……. Many in the government harboured a desire for a joint “Empire” bomb produced between Australia, Britain, Canada and South Africa.
Despite the UK’s ownership of the bombs it detonated at Maralinga, Canberra hoped aiding Britain might be a step toward its own bomb. Certainly, no one underestimated Australia’s atom ambitions. “German, Italy, the Netherlands — all wanted nuclear weapons but Australia was top of the list because of our uranium resources, our scientists and our enrichment program,” Prof Reynolds says.
Australia took tentative steps to go it alone. This included the Lucas Heights nuclear plant on Sydney’s southern fringe. Still Australia’s only reactor, it began its life researching, among other things, nuclear weapons…..
In the early 1960s, the Menzies Government was discussing with the US the top secret “SEATO plan 4” which could have seen American bombs on Australian soil.
“This were absolutely not known by the public and plan 4 was only declassified thirty years later,” says Prof Reynolds.
…..In 1968, ex-RAAF pilot Gorton became Prime Minister. The nuclear non-proliferation treaty (NPT) was already in the works. However, a big supporter of a homegrown nuclear deterrent, Gorton wanted to Australia to be on the “brink of manufacture” of a weapon, says Prof Reynolds…….
Gough Whitlam formally ended Australia’s atom ambitions by signing onto the NPT and tying the country’s security to the US…….
Prof Reynolds says it is unlikely Australia would seek to host nuclear bombs — its own or others. But history warns you to never say never.
“Historically, we’ve gone with the major powers. But if this unravels we might need a capability down here,” he says.” “We have the people, the knowledge, the history, the uranium and we still have Lucas Heights.” benedict.brook@news.com.au http://www.news.com.au/technology/science/australias-secret-plans-to-have-its-own-nuclear-arsenal/news-story/2bcac85b0f2cbe3f7e377217d6ef999b?platform=hootsuite
Pat Conroy,Australia’s Minister for Defence Industry in denial about U.S. military bases (?targets) in Australia
Colin Mitchell, 31 July 26
On the 7.30 Report (Wed night) Pat Conroy would only talk about the current 5 year agreement for Rotational Force West due to end in 2032. Presumably the agreement could be renewed or another agreement made in 2032 for another 5 years or longer. He would not explicitly say that US subs would not come to HMAS Stirling after 2032 when asked directly by Sarah Ferguson on that. Instead he simply repeated that the current agreement ends in 2032.
“There are no foreign military bases in Australia” he said. What a whopper! (Pine Gap and NWCape are “joint” US – Australian bases).
He insisted that US Subs will not be “based” here, simply rotated through, because they will not be at Stirling for more than a year!
He wouldn’t give any shorter time limit than a year.
As for the Treaty of Rarotonga that Treaty does not prevent nuclear weapons entering Australia as he implied. It merely says that they can’t be “stationed” here. What length of time “stationing” would be is not defined in the Treaty. That leaves a gaping loophole in the Treaty. The shortest time Pat Conroy would specify for Stirling is one year! The Treaty of Rarotonga is no barrier to nuclear weapons transiting or “rotating” through Australia, with the length of time constituting a “transit” or “rotation” not specified. Pat Conroy’s idea would be anything less than a year.
A sub could go to sea and then come back again for another year! Likewise a plane could fly out on an exercise and come back again.
Yes the US will respect the Treaty of Rarotonga because the Treaty does not prevent nuclear weapons from being in Australia for extended periods of time.
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.
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.
A global threat for millennia: experts warn Australia’s nuclear submarine legacy will be weapons-usable uranium cache
Ben Doherty,25 June 26, https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/jul/25/aukus-nuclear-submarines-danger-weapons-grade-uranium
Uranium waste from Aukus submarines will be enriched to an estimated 80%: the same level as the bomb dropped on Hiroshima.
Australia’s proposed nuclear submarine fleet will leave behind tonnes of weapons-usable uranium-235: radioactive for hundreds of millions of years, and capable of being processed into scores of warheads, nuclear experts have told a public inquiry into Aukus.
And a former White House national security adviser has told the Guardian that Australia’s Aukus deal – involving the transfer of highly enriched uranium to a non-nuclear weapons nation – sets a dangerous proliferation precedent that other countries such as Iran could try to exploit, weakening global control of the spread of weapons-usable nuclear material.
Associate Prof Tilman Ruff, founding chair of the Nobel prize-winning International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, told the Aukus public inquiry that the legacy of Australia’s nuclear submarine fleet – of which each vessel will have a service life of about three decades – will be hundreds of kilograms of high-level radioactive waste. Even as waste, the submarines’ spent reactor fuel will be highly enriched uranium (HEU), usable to build nuclear weapons.
“No nation has resolved the huge problem of how to manage this material and there’s no guarantee – given the timeframes involved and the hazards of the material over geological time – that any arrangement that we come up with could reliably isolate that material for hundreds of thousands, or millions of years.
“The additional complication here is that it needs a really high level of security because, in 10,000 years, somebody could still go and dig that stuff up and build nuclear weapons with it.”
The uranium left behind by Australia’s nuclear submarines at the end of their working lives will likely still be enriched to about 80%: the same level as the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima.
The Australian government has repeatedly said the precise amount of high-level nuclear waste that will be left behind by its submarine fleet is classified.
But documents released under freedom of information laws show Australia will be responsible for each submarine’s nuclear reactor compartment, “roughly the size of a four-wheel drive”, and spent nuclear fuel “roughly the size of a small hatchback”.
Leading global experts on non-proliferation have now estimated each nuclear submarine decommissioned by Australia – beginning in the 2050s – will contain about 400kg of HEU, enriched to about 80%, containing about 320kg of uranium-235 (U-235).
The International Atomic Energy Agency states a “significant quantity” of highly enriched uranium – enough to make a weapon – is 25kg of contained U-235.
U-235 has a half-life of 700m years: it will be a weapons proliferation risk for millennia. And the radioactive materials generated by its fission process will be toxic to humanity and the environment for millions of years.
The HEU left behind by each one of Australia’s three second-hand Virginia-class submarines bought from the US would be sufficient for more than a dozen weapons.
Australia’s domestically built Aukus-class submarines – Australia is proposing to build five – will be powered by Rolls-Royce’s in-development PWR3+ reactor. The quantity of HEU required to power that reactor is classified but they are expected to be larger than the Virginia-class reactors, Ruff said.
The Aukus agreement mandates that Australia is responsible for the disposal and storage of all of the nuclear waste left behind by its nuclear-powered submarines in perpetuity
By the end of the century, when all eight of Australia’s planned nuclear powered submarines have been retired, Australia will be responsible for the management of “at least 3 tonnes” of U-235 in the highly enriched uranium spent fuel waste, Ruff told the Guardian.
“That’s enough for 120 nuclear weapons using the International Atomic Energy Agency standard.”
Australia has spent decades reducing its HEU stocks. There is presently less than 3kg of HEU in the entire country, held for research purposes.
Ruff told the public inquiry into Aukus, established by the Australian Peace and Security Forum, that his primary concern over Aukus was that it exacerbated regional tensions and made Australia “a higher priority target, including for nuclear attack”.
Ruff cited the work of Dr Frank von Hippel, senior research physicist and professor of public and international affairs emeritus at Princeton University, who estimated that the reactor of a Virginia-class submarine – such as those Australia is set to buy from the US – would be decommissioned at the end of its working life still containing about 400kg of HEU, enriched to about 80%.
Von Hippel, who served as an assistant director for national security in the Clinton White House, told the Guardian “by the IAEA’s metric, 0.4 tons of 80% enriched uranium would be sufficient for 13 implosion bombs”.skip past newsletter promotion
Billions of dollars are failing to lift production of AUKUS submarines.
Michael Koziol, SMH, July 24, 2026
Washington: Billions of dollars of additional funding for the US defence industrial base have not improved the production rate of Virginia-class submarines, a top Pentagon official says, casting further doubt on whether Australia will receive its AUKUS subs on schedule.
Austin Dahmer, a senior policy official at the US Department of Defence, told a hearing on Capitol Hill that while undersea forces were the decisive instrument in denying Chinese domination of the Pacific, they were also the forces the US was the least able to produce.
“Virginia-class boats have been delivering at roughly 1.1 to 1.2 a year since 2022, against a requirement of two to 2.33, counting AUKUS pillar one,” he said.
“Two per year is not now expected until roughly 2032 … The strategy is sound. Production capacity is the point of failure.”
The US Congress has approved billions in additional funding to build submarines, while Australia has tipped in at least $US2 billion ($2.84 billion) with another $US1 billion to come. But Dahmer said the extra money had not helped.
“I would underline that Congress has already appropriated [funds] substantially, and the rate has not moved,” he said. “Any recommendations that consist of more money without a mechanism to materially compress those timelines will not change the outlook.”
Dahmer is a deputy to Elbridge Colby, the undersecretary of defence for policy who has in the past expressed scepticism about AUKUS. He made the comments to the National Commission on the Future of the Navy on Wednesday (US time) during a hearing on ways to improve US sea power.
Afterwards, he told this masthead the navy was working hard to improve delivery of the Virginia-class submarines so that a future administration would be in the best possible position when it decides whether to transfer a vessel to Australia………………..
The comments underscore the practical hurdles facing AUKUS despite the political commitment from all three countries, and come as Australian Labor Party members prepare for a possibly fiery debate about the pact at their national conference in Adelaide.
Under the $368 billion-plus agreement, Australia is due to receive at least three nuclear-powered submarines from the US starting in 2032, before building a new class of the vessel, the SSN-AUKUS, with the UK.
The US has now clarified all three of the submarines it proposes to sell to Australia will already be in service, rather than new. But the president of the day must approve the transfer and be satisfied it does not degrade US war-fighting capability.
Arthur “Trip” Barber, a retired 40-year veteran of the US Navy and the Pentagon, who now sits on the National Commission on the Future of the Navy, said the fundamental problem was shipyard wages, and their inability to retain workers.
“We need to pay shipyard workers a compelling amount of money so they stay on the job,” he told this masthead……………….
A staunch AUKUS supporter who is now a defence lobbyist, Christopher Pyne told the inquiry he did not believe the project would be delivered on time nor on budget, but “they’ll give it a good go”.
Deputy Prime Minister and Defence Minister Richard Marles was contacted for comment. His office referred inquiries to the government’s Australian Submarine Agency………… https://www.smh.com.au/world/north-america/billions-of-dollars-are-failing-to-lift-production-of-aukus-submarines-20260723-p60hq7.html
Albanese government pledges extra $4.6billion for AUKUS shipyard – but critics warn it will make Australia a nuclear target
‘Drone technology – particularly undersea drones – is advancing at such a rapid rate that the submarines will be out of date next year.“
By ALASDAIR BELLING and AUSTRALIAN ASSOCIATED PRESS, 24 July 2026 https://www.dailymail.com/news/article-16001457/aukus-submarines-funding-osborne-adelaide-labor-china-beeson.html
The Albanese government has promised an extra $4.6 billion for its AUKUS deal, but experts have raised concerns the funding is a waste of resources and could make Australia a nuclear target.
The package, announced on Friday, will go towards nuclear submarine construction at Osborne, 21km northwest of Adelaide‘s CBD.
The construction yard will be used to build the nuclear-powered vessels as part of the $368billion AUKUS security agreement with the US and UK.
The additional funding will bring total spending on the Osborne site to $8.5billion, supporting construction and development activities.
But Mark Beeson, an AUKUS critic and adjunct professor at the University of Technology Sydney‘s Australia-China Relations Institute, criticised the additional funding.
‘Defence has got an appalling record of acquisitions,’ he told the Daily Mail.
‘They’re always late, they’re always over budget and they never perform as they’re supposed to, and this is going to be no different, but on a larger scale.
‘Drone technology – particularly undersea drones – is advancing at such a rapid rate that the submarines will be out of date next year.’
Deputy Prime Minister Richard Marles and Prime Minister Anthony Albanese attend the Labor National Conference after announcing an extra $4.6billion in AUKUS-related spending
The funds will help construct a shipyard outside Adelaide to build nuclear-powered vessels
‘They’ll be easier to find and destroy, and the drones that destroy them will cost a fraction of the price of these submarines.’
Professor Beeson added that, more broadly, the pact may be intended to keep Australia safe but has the opposite effect when it comes to relations with China.
‘Something that’s meant to keep us safe is actually making us a nuclear target and making us less safe than ever,’ he said.
‘The prospect of nuclear-armed submarines being based in Perth and now Adelaide is a concern [for China].
‘That’s what makes them nuclear targets, as well as other American facilities in Australia, such as Pine Gap and North West Cape. They’d get nuked as well.
‘I think AUKUS is the most ill-conceived, misguided, strategically illiterate initiative you could possibly think of.’
According to current estimates, the second-hand submarines due under the AUKUS deal will arrive in Australia during the 2030s. The promised new vessels are not expected to be ready until the early 2040s.
SA Premier Peter Malinauskas was positive about the funding on Friday, telling reporters in Adelaide the shipyard – where there are currently about 1,100 workers employed – was a huge opportunity.
‘It is difficult to comprehend the scale of the billions of dollars of investment at Osborne to enable us to build the most complex machines on the planet,’ he said.
‘We are pleased to work in close partnership with the Albanese Government to deliver the crucial infrastructure needed and look forward to seeing young South Australians learning high value nuclear skills at Osborne within the next two years.’
But rank and file members of Labor have said they want to drop AUKUS from the party platform, with the funding announcement coinciding with the ALP’s national conference this week.
Marcus Strom from Labor Against War said the submarine deal needed to be axed to free up funds for reform measures.
‘If the Labor Party is serious about defeating the hot-air challenge from One Nation over lack of investment in infrastructure, it should be putting that sort of money into meaningful jobs, not jobs in the war industry,’ he told AAP on Friday.
This is a chimera of opportunity for jobs. The much better jobs, longer-term jobs [are] in renewables, advanced manufacturing, and the health industry.’
Under the AUKUS pact, Australia will buy used nuclear submarines from the US, before locally built vessels are brought online.
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese discussed AUKUS with newly elected UK counterpart Andy Burnham during a call on Thursday to congratulate him on his appointment and invite him to visit Australia.
AUKUS is expected to be debated on the floor of Labor’s national conference on the final day, Saturday.
While delegates agreed on AUKUS at the party’s previous conference in 2023, members are optimistic about a change in stance.
Defence Minister Richard Marles said there was ‘definitely an opportunity’ for AUKUS to be publicly debated at the national conference, but pointed to the positive vote three years ago.
‘Seventy-five per cent of the floor supported AUKUS, so this was not close, and that’s the position of the party right now,’ he told ABC Radio.
‘I understand that this is a huge public expenditure, and so people are entitled to raise questions and have debates, and I stand ready to do those debates.
‘But at the same time, we are putting this in place.’
Dozens of anti-AUKUS protesters were out the front of the Adelaide Convention Centre in hazmat suits and blaring sirens, urging Labor to drop support for the pact.
Gambling reform measures will also be brought to the conference floor, with rank and file members urging the government to go further on the issue.
Amendments have called for a national regulator to better protect vulnerable people from gambling harms.
1 This month.
20 September –National Day of Action in Melbourne on the International Day of Peace
Help Aunty Sue Protect Her Land and Sacred Sites From Destructive Rocket Testing.
.
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 