Antinuclear

Montebello nuclear test 70 years on: Australia still in the dark over UK mega-bomb

Aaron Bunch (AAP), June 22, 2026, https://nit.com.au/22-06-2026/24934/australia-still-in-dark-over-uk-mega-bomb-70-years-on

It’s been seven decades since Britain detonated the largest ever nuclear explosion on Australian soil, dwarfing the atomic bombs dropped on Japan in WW2.

Yet secrecy continues to shroud the exact force and fallout of the massive blast, triggered during the depths of the Cold War, on June 19, 1956.

It was in fact the final in a series of tests conducted on the remote Montebello Islands, 1400km north of Boorloo / Perth.

The UK government carried out a series of nuclear tests at various sites across Australia in the 1950s, often causing the permanent displacement and deaths of Indigenous people near the test sites due to exposure to radioactive material.

Recently declassified documents shed new light on the mystery of Operation Mosaic and G2 bomb but two reports remain under lock and key, controlled by the British Ministry of Defence.

“The British do keep their secrets,” according to James Cook University researcher Elizabeth Tynan.

“The Australian government did not know what the British were doing and still to this day does not really know what was done on our territory.”

Some estimates put the explosive strength of G2 as high as 98 kilotons or about six times that of the bomb that devastated Hiroshima in 1945.

It’s been seven decades since Britain detonated the largest ever nuclear explosion on Australian soil, dwarfing the atomic bombs dropped on Japan in WW2.

Yet secrecy continues to shroud the exact force and fallout of the massive blast, triggered during the depths of the Cold War, on June 19, 1956.

It was in fact the final in a series of tests conducted on the remote Montebello Islands, 1400km north of Boorloo / Perth.

The UK government carried out a series of nuclear tests at various sites across Australia in the 1950s, often causing the permanent displacement and deaths of Indigenous people near the test sites due to exposure to radioactive material.

Recently declassified documents shed new light on the mystery of Operation Mosaic and G2 bomb but two reports remain under lock and key, controlled by the British Ministry of Defence.

“The British do keep their secrets,” according to James Cook University researcher Elizabeth Tynan.

“The Australian government did not know what the British were doing and still to this day does not really know what was done on our territory.”

Some estimates put the explosive strength of G2 as high as 98 kilotons or about six times that of the bomb that devastated Hiroshima in 1945.

But the official yield figure is 60kT, just under the 62.5kT maximum Britain assured Australian authorities it would not exceed.

Three days after the blast, a top-secret message exchanged between British scientists working on the Mosaic project disclosed that G2’s explosive yield may have been as high as 120kT.

Notably, it’s estimated the cloud from the explosion rose to at least 14,000m rather than the predicted 11,000m. It eventually drifted inland and into the Arafura Sea, north of Darwin, almost 1500km away.

Documents also show the British never intended the G2 yield to be 62.5kT and were planning for about 80 or more but the actual figure can’t be confirmed until the data is released, Professor Tynan tells AAP.

Such was the expected size of the blast that the same document suggested flying be suspended within a distance of 600km for 10 hours.

“I don’t know why the British won’t come clean,” she says.

G2 erupted a decade after Britain departed the US-led Manhattan Project in the wake of WW2.

Forced to forge its own path in a bid to maintain its status as a major power, it was intent on showing the Americans and Soviets it had mastered nuclear technology and could defend itself.

The program started with crude atomic bombs using nuclear fission but the aim was to develop a much more powerful thermonuclear hydrogen bomb using fusion technology.

Mosaic was a stepping stone and also involved the earlier G1 detonation, similarly using boosted fission weapons.

It was triggered in May 1956 and had a yield of 15kT. G2 used the same technology a month later but was wrapped in uranium to enhance its force.

Both bombs were dead-end designs used to rule out the technology and clear the way for a British doomsday H-bomb measured in megatons, or one thousand times a kiloton, to be tested in the Pacific a year later.

Defence force personnel who witnessed the events described a blinding flash of light, intense heat and a powerful blast-wave before the mushroom cloud rose into the sky.

Milton Ward who was an electrical mechanic first class in the Royal Australian Navy was ordered on deck on HMAS Tobruk in his summer uniform of shorts and a short sleeved shirt.

“They told us we had to turn our back, shield our eyes and the next thing this heat went straight through your body,” he tells AAP.

“When it went off you were actually looking at an x-ray of your hands.”

He was also part of the clean up crew, picking up all the equipment to take it back to Leeuwin naval barracks in Fremantle.

“When I was on the Tobruk we didn’t know what was going on,” he says of the secrecy surrounding the testing.

Afterward, Mr Ward says, while on board HMAS Karangi, they had British scientists on board.

“We were catching trevally and eating them, they had a Geiger counter and they ran it over the fish we were eating.

“You should have heard it go off.”

Now 95, he carries scars over his face and neck, the result of numerous cancer removals.

“No-one ever told us how bad it would be or what the effects would be,” he says.

“We just weren’t told anything.”

Jettisoning radioactive fallout into the atmosphere, the explosion left the pristine archipelago and surrounding marine environment with a persistent toxic aftermath.

Metal signs near the blast zones on Trimouille and Alpha islands now warn adventure-seeking visitors to spend no more than one hour in the vicinity.

In recent years, scientists have found plutonium remains in local marine sediment at levels up to 4500 times higher than other areas of the WA coast.

According to Ash Nesbit who runs commercial charters around the 174 islands, his passengers generally come for the world-class fishing and diving but are also keen to see the nuclear test sites.

“They can’t believe the British actually did it,” he says.

Rotting concrete bunkers, roads, a derelict command post, cabling and rusty machinery litter the low-lying islands.

“There’s a huge crater in the water where they let one go off,” Mr Nesbit says.

“You sort of drive along in 10 metres of water and then it drops down to 25 metres. It’s really weird.

“I haven’t seen any two-headed coral trout, though.”

The 18km-long island chain, about 120km west of Dampier, is a maze of narrow channels between rocky outcrops covered in spinifex and scrub.

Its isolation, harsh climate and, of course, reputation mean just a few thousand hardy types annually dare explore its coves and coral reefs.

“It’s just raw beauty and the British decided to set off a bomb; it’s just ridiculous,” Mr Nesbit says.

Now a conservation and marine park, the Montebellos were also the site of the first of 12 British nuclear weapons tests, which then-prime minister Robert Menzies agreed to without consulting his cabinet.

Operation Hurricane in 1952 detonated a 25kT fission device in the hull of frigate HMS Plym, which disintegrated, leaving a saucer-shaped crater on the seabed in Main Bay a few kilometres from the G2 site.

The tests then moved to Emu Field in the South Australian desert in 1953 for Operation Totem, with two detonations less than 10kT.

After G2, the testing returned to SA at Maralinga, with operations Buffalo in 1956 and Antler in 1957 producing seven detonations, the most powerful 26.6kT.

A royal commission into the tests in 1984-85 was scathing of Britain, Australia’s compliance and the safety of the program.

It found fallout had spread across the nation, increasing cancer risks among the general population, and large tracts of land were contaminated.

Vulnerable Indigenous people near the test sites were displaced and many died due to exposure to radioactive material, if not the blasts.

Thousands of Australians, mostly defence personnel working on the tests, were also exposed.

Many wore no protective clothing and suffered higher cancer mortality rates and more cancers than the general population.

The inquiry also found the Montebello Islands were not an appropriate place for atomic tests due to the prevailing weather patterns.

The Mosaic tests were conducted in a hurry under marginal meteorological conditions, it said.

The commission accepted the G2 yield was 60kT.

Prof Tynan says Britain didn’t see Australia as an equal partner and lied to it.

“Australia was a useful idiot,” she says.

“They fed us lines … they gave soothing words to make the Australian government feel it was all okay and all safe, when it really wasn’t.”

Prof Tynan’s book Nuclear Archipelago: Secrets, power and the biggest atomic blast in Australia will be published in August.

Australian Associated Press

June 24, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | weapons and war | Leave a comment

Technology unravels strategy and the weakness of AUKUS

Derek Woolner, David Glynne Jones, June 11, 2026, https://pearlsandirritations.com/post/2026/06/technology-unravels-strategy-and-the-weakness-of-aukus/

Developments in technology, their consequences for strategic policy and challenges in sustaining Australia’s submarine warfare capability are the ultimate challenges to AUKUS.

We argue elsewhere that advances in submarine battery technologies will have changed the prospects for regional undersea warfare at about the time that Australia’s first AUKUS nuclear powered submarines (SSN) become operational. The consequences should influence Australia’s national security policy and the ultimate usefulness of AUKUS.

The demise of submarines has been predicted regularly. Yet in the face of modern military systems they remain less vulnerable than surface warships. Nonetheless, traditional anti-submarine warfare (ASW) sensors are being enhanced by increasingly powerful digital analysis. More nations are deploying fixed submerged sensor systems and surveillance is being extended by autonomous underwater gliders, autonomous surface craft like BlueBottle and uncrewed underwater vessels (UUV). Together with intelligent mines, high performance light metal battery (LMB) powered small submarines and, before long, killer UUVs, submarine missions will become more difficult.

Just how, and to what degree, broadly depends on who’s searching, why they’re searching and what they can do about it. And the latter need not be overtly hostile.

When Indonesia eventually deploys its submarine detection system, covert passage between the Indian and Pacific Oceans will become problematic. Submerged transit is possible at only two points in the Indonesian archipelago, with Lombok Strait preferred for the large 10,000 tonne future Australian SSNs. Disseminating the data on such transits could compromise covert deployment and complicate RAN missions. Were Indonesia ever prompted to close the Strait, submarines based at HMAS Stirling would become an exclusively Indian Ocean flotilla.

The response of China is a completely different matter. With national security objectives that can be supported by a maritime strategy of sea denial, China continues to methodically improve its Yuan class conventional submarine force, projected to be 46 vessels by 2040. It has the technology and shipbuilding capacity to quickly add small all-electric SSE coastal submarines and a range of UUVs. At some time before 2040, China will have the capacity to close much of the South China Sea to hostile submarines (and hence other naval activity).

This situation effectively unravels a central element of Australia’s National Defence Strategy of 2026 (p.26) which postulates a strategy of denial but envisages a need for Australia to influence strategic  developments in its region. However, with the strategy relying on a US-backed balance of power, with that country deeply divided on policy and declining in capacity, this is not a prospect of any certainty.

By the mid-2050s, with the full SSN fleet of eight enough to regularly deploy only two boats, the RAN will not be able to contest China’s naval dominance nor tangibly increase influence with regional partners. Consequently, the prime operational advantage of an SSN – speed of long distance passage – will be of lesser relevance. There will be fewer forward hostile deployments (such as in support of Taiwan) from which an RAN submarine could be expected to return. Australians don’t know if this is currently an objective of AUKUS, but there are no public operational objectives that would justify the specific choice of nuclear power for the nation’s submarine fleet.

Despite Chinese dominance of the seas north of Indonesia, the environment of Australia’s northern archipelagic approaches will continue as a basis for a strategy of denial. Australia has innovative companies producing the equipment needed to apply this strategy to undersea warfare. But geography and equipment do not make a strategy without a concept for their employment.

Previously the RAN’s concept of submarine operations (CONOPS) was to deploy forward to the approaches of an opponent’s ports to effectively engage targets. This CONOPS has been strong enough to disqualify off-the-shelf designs from RAN acquisition programs and thus justify expenditure on RAN ‘specified’ submarines.

Deemphasising forward deployment and developing a concept for defence of an archipelagic front stretching over 6,000 kilometres will be challenging. It will be possible by focusing on control of various choke points, which indicates a continuing role for subsea warfare. It is, however, unlikely to be based on one submarine in the Indian Ocean and another in the Coral Sea.

The most appropriate mix of crewed, automatic and autonomous systems needed to deny access to hostile naval forces will be identified over time. However, it would seem that the lower acquisition cost and higher availability of something like the SSE designs we anticipate being available by the 2040s would prove more appropriate than anything emerging from AUKUS, at the least allowing for a greater number of more deployable vessels.

Reaching an outcome on such deliberations will require research, trialing and experience. Much of this will have to be obtained on RAN submarines at sea. Despite government and public discourse focusing on AUKUS, in reality, the Navy’s existing Collins class submarines will remain the RAN’s most numerous crewed submarine into the 2040s. Sustaining the RAN’s future direction will depend largely on sea days onboard a Collins submarine.

To accommodate the ponderous acquisition programs for both the Virginia class ‘interim’ and the AUKUS class SSNs, each of the Collins will have a Life-of-Type-Extension (LOTE) to allow an extra 10 years of service, beginning from 2028. The LOTE will enable four of the Collins to serve into the 2040s, with the last retiring just before the end of that decade.

The LOTE has recently been reduced to little more than a maintenance and rectification program, abandoning plans for new diesel generators and propulsion motors. The boats will retain their existing lead acid battery (LAB) technology.

Consequently the first Collins LOTE will be barely survivable and later boats, faced by LMB-equipped opponents with up to four times the submerged performance, will be dangerously obsolete. If retention of the existing propulsion machinery allows inattention to critical machinery platforms, the critically important stealthiness of the Collins design could be compromised. Even in a training role, the limited capacity of the Collins LAB energy system will struggle to support the development of the increasingly complex digital systems associated with AUKUS Pillar II programs.

Conceiving AUKUS as the only option for RAN submarine acquisition appears to have made Australian policy makers uncurious about the future undersea warfare environment. Current policies, particularly those concerning the Collins LOTE, appear to offer no corrective. It is this weakness that could ultimately see AUKUS sidelined by the imperatives of technological change.

June 16, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | weapons and war | Leave a comment

The Virginia-class submarine deal exposes the real purpose of AUKUS

June 4, 2026, Mike Gilligan, https://pearlsandirritations.com/post/2026/06/australias-submarine-betrayal/

Dr Mike Gilligan worked for 20 years in defence policy and evaluating military proposals for development, including time in the Pentagon on military balances in Asia.

The shift to second-hand Virginia-class submarines exposes the deeper flaw in AUKUS: Australia is committing vast public funds to a capability designed around US strategic priorities rather than Australia’s own defence needs.

Yet another twist in Australia’s submarine fiasco has been disclosed by Defence Minister Marles. The United States has decreed it will sell us only used nuclear submarines of the Virginia class. Marles reportedly said that could mean financial savings short term, but not long run. As if he has ever revealed an instinct for efficiency in defence. No doubt Australians will experience another wave of waffle from the media, all of which misses th

Despite its crippling cost Marles has never explained what the Virginia class submarine is meant to do. Why has such an obvious ministerial obligation been evaded? Because it would reveal a sell-out of Australia’s security. And a massive direct underwriting of US defence budgets by Australian taxpayers – of say half a trillion of our dollars.

The Virginia class submarine is not a general-purpose vessel such as our Collins class. It is designed for supreme acoustic invisibility for a specific purpose – to find, track and attack submarines seen as a nuclear threat to the US mainland. That is the job which the US expects Australia’s submarines to do – effectively embedded into US military command – against China’s growing capacity to annihilate continental US from under the sea, anytime.e issue. What matters most about the AUKUS submarines has been concealed by this Minister throughout his tenure.

Why this role is of utmost priority for the US requires some explanation. Nuclear armed submarines, such as China possesses, present a uniquely difficult threat to the US homeland. Unlike the readily discernible launch locations of hostile land-based missiles, or from aircraft or sea-surface vessels, the submarine’s habitat and mobility make it largely invisible and impregnable across the vast ocean approaches to the US.

The US attempts to deal with this risk using specialised attack submarines (ie the Virginia), which can locate, track and destroy China’s nuclear submarines as they move into and around Pacific waters. This is one critical part of a mosaic of US self-protection measures, the effectiveness of which is eroding as China’s submarine production expands.

So, the hefty sacrifice which Australia’s taxpayers make to acquire new submarines is not for Australia’s benefit, but for defending continental US. Australia’s submarine needs are quite specialised and different, but simply ignored by Minister Marles. Australia is heavily gifting US defence spending while ignoring its own vulnerabilities, just as the President added another $500 billion to a trillion dollar defence budget. Now that the full horror of Marles’ tenure is established a Prime Minister would act.

June 8, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | weapons and war | Leave a comment

‘Capability that matters’: submarine switch played down

June 3, 2026, https://michaelwest.com.au/capability-that-matters-submarine-switch-played-down/

Australia receiving only used nuclear submarines from the US will not change the government’s commitment to the AUKUS pact, the foreign minister says.

The $368 billion plan originally had Australia receiving three nuclear submarines from the US – two used and one new Virginia-Class vessels – before building its own in Adelaide.

But after changes to the deal, Australia will now get three used submarines from the US.

Foreign Minister Penny Wong said it did not matter whether the submarines were used or new.

“Whether it’s two (used) and one (new) or three, it’s the capability that matters,” she told ABC Radio on Wednesday.

“We want three submarines to deal with, from the United States, to deal with a capability gap before the AUKUS submarines are to be delivered … that is the plan.”

Defence officials revealed at a federal budget inquiry Australia preferred to receive second-hand vessels from the US.

Defence secretary Meghan Quinn told the inquiry on Tuesday night a reworking of the AUKUS deal was a joint idea between Australia and the US.

“Australia’s position is that we would have always … had a preference for three in-service (submarines),” she said.

“There are many reasons why three in-service (submarines) would be simpler, lower-cost through the training of staff, the sustainment arrangements, the maintenance requirements, and all of those considerations.”

Defence Industry Minister Pat Conroy said the change in the AUKUS deal did not mean a fundamental altering of the security pact.

“It will be cheaper, simpler to manage, and it’s been confirmed by the Pentagon overnight,” he told ABC Radio.

“We’ll get submarines … about six years into their 33-year life cycle. They’ll be cheaper, they’ll be really effective at that stage, and we’ll be acquiring the most capable nuclear-powered conventionally armed submarines in the world.”

Mr Conroy said Australia would save a “considerable” amount by not acquiring a new submarine, but did not disclose the cost.

He denied the used submarines would be more costly to maintain in the long term.

Ed Husic is casting doubt on the prospect of the submarines ever being delivered to Australia.

The comments come after Labor backbencher and former minister Ed Husic called for the government to rethink the multibillion-dollar plan.

Mr Husic said on Tuesday the deal also had to be rethought due to America becoming a more unreliable ally.

“You do wonder whether or not we will get the deal, even the reconfigured one that we have got,” the western Sydney MP told reporters at Parliament House.

Senator Wong said the backbencher was entitled to his view on AUKUS.

“It is in the best interests of our country for this project to continue to proceed. We believe it is necessary for Australian security and we believe chopping and changing will only set the country back,” she told ABC TV.

June 8, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | weapons and war | Leave a comment

Hegseth Orders Pacific Allies To Arm For China War

This turns reality upside down. China is not surrounding the United States. The United States is surrounding China.

Australia is also building a submarine construction yard at Osborne in South Australia. Assembly of the first domestically built submarine is expected to begin in the early 2030s, with delivery projected in the early 2040s. The program binds Australia’s military future to U.S. war planning for decades.

 June 5, 2026, Gary Wilson, Struggle – La Lucha. https://scheerpost.com/2026/06/05/hegseth-orders-pacific-allies-to-arm-for-china-war/

U.S. Secretary of War Pete Hegseth went to Singapore on May 30 with an order for Washington’s allies and partners in the Indo-Pacific: spend more on war or face consequences.

Hegseth used China as the pretext to demand that U.S.-aligned governments spend more on war, buy more weapons and bind their militaries more tightly to Washington.

At the annual Shangri-La Dialogue, Hegseth told defense ministers, military chiefs and diplomats that U.S. military power had carried the region for too long. “The era of the United States subsidizing the defense of wealthy nations is over,” he said. “We need partners, not protectorates.”

That is the language of empire collecting rent.

Washington arms the region. It bases troops across it. It commands the alliance structure. Then it demands that every subordinate government reshape its budget to fit U.S. war plans.

Hegseth said the U.S. expects its allies and partners to raise military spending to 3.5% of gross domestic product — the same demand the Trump administration has pressed on NATO. Governments that comply will move to “the front of the line” for arms sales, intelligence sharing and military-industrial cooperation, he said. Those that refuse will face “a clear shift in how we do business.”

This is not “burden sharing.” It is a demand that governments turn more workers’ wages into missiles, submarines, drones, warships and bases. Every percentage point added to military spending means less for housing, health care, schools, pensions and disaster relief.

Hegseth claimed there was “rightful alarm” over China’s military buildup and warned against “a Pacific dominated by any hegemon.”

Hegseth said the U.S. expects its allies and partners to raise military spending to 3.5% of gross domestic product — the same demand the Trump administration has pressed on NATO. Governments that comply will move to “the front of the line” for arms sales, intelligence sharing and military-industrial cooperation, he said. Those that refuse will face “a clear shift in how we do business.”

This is not “burden sharing.” It is a demand that governments turn more workers’ wages into missiles, submarines, drones, warships and bases. Every percentage point added to military spending means less for housing, health care, schools, pensions and disaster relief.

Hegseth claimed there was “rightful alarm” over China’s military buildup and warned against “a Pacific dominated by any hegemon.”

This turns reality upside down. China is not surrounding the United States. The United States is surrounding China.

China again declined to send its defense minister to the Shangri-La Dialogue. Beijing was represented instead by a delegation led by PLA Major General Meng Xiangqing, who pointed to the concrete threats Washington and its allies are advancing in the region: Japan’s military expansion and AUKUS, the U.S.-British-Australian submarine pact.

Meng tied Japan’s buildup to history. He noted that 2026 marks the 80th anniversary of the opening of the Tokyo Trials, which condemned Japanese militarism after World War II. He questioned whether a country that has not fully reckoned with that legacy has any standing to lecture Asia about defense cooperation.

That was the point Washington wants covered up. U.S. imperialism now needs Japan — the former colonial and military oppressor of much of Asia — as a forward base for confrontation with China.

Japan’s cabinet has approved a record defense budget exceeding 9 trillion yen, roughly $58 billion, for fiscal 2026. The budget funds long-range strike missiles, drone systems and next-generation fighter development. The buildup marks a major break from Japan’s postwar “exclusive self-defense” doctrine, long understood as limiting Japan’s military to defensive operations.

Washington is not worried about the return of Japanese militarism. It is encouraging it, so long as that militarism is tied to U.S. strategy against China.

The military map Hegseth pointed to is the First Island Chain — the arc running from Japan past Taiwan to the Philippines along China’s eastern coastline. Washington calls this “deterrence by denial.” In plain language, it means using bases, fleets, missiles, war exercises and allied governments to hem China in, with Taiwan turned into a forward position in U.S. war plans.

On the sidelines, Hegseth met Philippine Defense Secretary Gilberto Teodoro and pledged stronger military cooperation along the First Island Chain. The two governments pointed to the latest Balikatan war exercise, which brought troops from Australia, Japan, Canada, France and New Zealand onto Philippine soil.

Hegseth praised South Korea for pledging to spend 3.5% of GDP on its military. He praised the Philippines for a 12% increase. He commended Japan for accelerating its “defense transformation.” He cited Australia for deeper integration with U.S. forces.

In every case, the praise was for governments moving their budgets, industries and armed forces closer to U.S. war planning.

Meng also targeted AUKUS, the military pact among the U.S., Britain and Australia formed in 2021. Its central project is equipping Australia with nuclear-powered attack submarines.

On the sidelines of the forum, the three AUKUS partners revised the submarine plan. Australia had been expected to buy at least two used Virginia-class submarines and one new one. Under the revised plan, it will buy three secondhand Virginia-class submarines from the U.S. instead.

Australia showed the pressure beneath Hegseth’s praise. Canberra has already announced that military spending will rise to 3% of GDP by 2033, with about $10 billion more over four years and $38 billion over the decade. But that still falls short of Hegseth’s 3.5% demand.

This is how the Pacific war buildup works in practice: Australian workers pay, U.S. shipyards and weapons firms collect, and the Pentagon tightens its grip on the region.

Australia is also building a submarine construction yard at Osborne in South Australia. Assembly of the first domestically built submarine is expected to begin in the early 2030s, with delivery projected in the early 2040s. The program binds Australia’s military future to U.S. war planning for decades.

China has condemned AUKUS as stoking bloc-to-bloc confrontation in the Pacific. Meng’s remarks made clear that Beijing sees it as part of the same encirclement strategy behind the First Island Chain buildup.

Washington’s direction is clear.

The Shangri-La Dialogue is not a peace conference. It is an annual assembly of military planners and arms buyers. Hegseth’s speech was its keynote sales pitch.

June 7, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | weapons and war | Leave a comment

Australian flotilla survivors describe ordeal after Gaza mission

By Jane Salmon | 4 June 2026. https://independentaustralia.net/life/life-display/australian-flotilla-survivors-describe-ordeal-after-gaza-mission,21133

A humanitarian mission may have ended at the border, but for some Australian participants, the ordeal was only just beginning, writes Jane Salmon.

WHEN ACTIVIST Neve O’Connor boarded a humanitarian flotilla bound for Gaza, she knew there was a possibility she might be stopped.

What O’Connor did not expect, she says, was that the most frightening moments would come after the mission was over.

“Just when we thought we were safe, the beatings started again,” the Melbourne student and community organiser recalls.

O’Connor is among a group of Australian participants in the Global Sumud Flotilla who have returned home alleging they were subjected to violence, intimidation and degrading treatment following the interception of their aid mission.

The flotilla was attempting to deliver food, medicine and baby formula to civilians in Gaza. Participants say they were detained after the vessel was intercepted and have since spoken publicly about what they describe as a pattern of physical, psychological and sexual abuse during their detention.

Now, as lawyers, medical professionals and human rights advocates gather testimony from those involved, participants are revealing details of what they say happened in the final hours before they were deported.

For O’Connor, those memories begin at the airport. After days in detention, she believed the ordeal was finally ending. Instead, she alleges the violence intensified.

O’Connor says:

“Before I could speak to Australian representatives, I was grabbed and dragged away.”

According to O’Connor, participants were prevented from communicating with consular officials and were physically forced through the airport toward their departing aircraft.

She describes a truly unsettling scene.

People were allegedly shoved, kicked and struck as they were moved through the terminal and across the tarmac. O’Connor says she witnessed punches and elbows to the backs of people’s heads, repeated hair-pulling and participants being tripped as they walked. 

One woman, O’Connor alleges, was thrown into a wall with such force that her elbow split open.

O’Connor says she herself was thrown into a door before being tripped and stomped on:

“I fell and several men stomped on me while I was on the ground.”

The alleged assault, O’Connor claims, continued right up to the stairs of a waiting aircraft.

For participants, the airport experience has become one of the most troubling aspects of their journey, occurring at the point when many believed they would finally be leaving danger behind.

O’Connor said:

“This is how Israel said goodbye to people whose only crime was trying to deliver food, medicine and baby formula to starving civilians.”

Participants argue that what they experienced was not limited to one location or one group of officials.

Instead, they allege that abuse occurred throughout the detention and deportation process and involved multiple layers of authority, including soldiers, immigration officers, police, prison guards and airport personnel.

That consistency, they argue, raises broader questions about how humanitarian activists were treated after being detained.

The Australians are also asking questions about their home country’s response.

Some participants say they were unable to communicate freely with consular representatives before departure and are seeking clarification about what Australian officials knew of their treatment during the transfer to the airport.

The questions did not end when the flight landed.

Several participants report being detained and searched upon arrival in Australia. They say mobile phones were confiscated and that they were instructed to provide passwords under threat of legal consequences.

For some, the experience was deeply unsettling.

Fellow participant Juliet Lamont said:

After everything that happened overseas, to be treated like terrorists or extremists rather than humanitarians was shocking.

Australians deserve answers about what happened when survivors came home. Serious questions remain about the treatment of Australians both overseas and upon their return.

The allegations come at a time of intense international scrutiny of Gaza and growing public debate over the treatment of humanitarian activists attempting to challenge restrictions on aid deliveries.

For O’Connor, however, the issue is ultimately personal. Raised believing in fairness and the value of human life, she says the devastation in Gaza compelled her to act rather than remain a distant observer. She rejects the idea that courage is simply enduring hardship. Instead, she sees it in collective acts of solidarity.

O’Connor says:

“Strength and bravery don’t look like grim endurance. They look like people choosing to sail toward Gaza because they refuse to let despair win.”

The Global Sumud Flotilla is calling for accountability over the allegations and has requested a meeting with Prime Minister Anthony Albanese.

Whether that meeting eventuates remains unclear.

What is certain is that, for those who returned home carrying both physical injuries and difficult memories, the voyage did not end when the boat was stopped.

For many participants, the journey is now entering a new phase — one focused not on reaching Gaza, but on seeking answers about what happened after they tried.

Jane Salmon is a refugee advocate whose family has benefitted greatly from the NDIS. You can follow her on Twitter @jsalmonupst

June 6, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | weapons and war | Leave a comment

Will AUKUS keep us safe – at what cost?

AUKUS Public Inquiry, 2 June 2026, Canberra, https://newshub.medianet.com.au/2026/06/will-aukus-keep-us-safe-at-what-cost/155928/

For the first time, the Australian community will have the opportunity to investigate the controversial and secretive AUKUS defence pact. Today, five esteemed Australians will launch a nationwide Public Inquiry into AUKUS at Parliament House, Canberra. From diverse backgrounds and disciplines, but united in their commitment to transparency, democracy and the defence of Australia, Peter Garrett, Carmen Lawrence, Chris Barrie, Leanne Minshull and Karina Lester will head the public inquiry into AUKUS beginning today. Full Commissioner profiles can be viewed here.

There has never been a more critical time to get the truth about AUKUS and what it means for our nation. The Federal Government is planning to spend $368 billion-plus of our taxes on nuclear-powered submarines –  the largest defence spend in our history — without answers to basic questions such as: will Australia receive the submarines we’re paying for on time and on budget; where will the high-level nuclear waste generated by the subs be stored; how many Australian jobs will be created and at what cost, and crucially, will this project keep us safe — or turn us into a nuclear target?

Lead Commissioner Peter Garrett said,

 “AUKUS is by far the most expensive and complex undertaking ever entered into by any Australian Government and yet the opportunity to question, debate and decide has been taken out of the hands of the parliament and the people. A Public Inquiry into this massive spend of taxpayer’s money is long overdue.”

Commissioner Admiral (Retd) Chris Barrie AC said,

 “As Chief of the Defence Force in the late 90s and early 2000s, I investigated the proposition of acquiring nuclear powered submarines for Australia but there was little interest in it then and we all need to know why suddenly, there is huge interest, secrecy and money available for the AUKUS submarines today. That’s what this Inquiry is for.”

Commissioner Dr Carmen Lawrence said,

 “A basic requirement of any functioning democracy is transparency from our Government. It is simply not credible that the Federal Government can take nearly $400 billion from the Australian people, make private deals with US and UK technology companies and foreign governments to access the Australian mainland and our data, and then tell us not to ask questions. Australians would never accept that, and nor should we. That’s why this Inquiry is vital.”

Yankunytjatjara woman and Commissioner Karina Lester said.

“For decades Aboriginal people of this country have had nuclear weapons tested on our traditional lands, we have been pressured to be the solution to nuclear waste. Our traditional lands have been mined on and our communities continually pressured by an industry that has harmed us for generations. What is Australia’s plan to manage the nuclear waste under this AUKUS Agreement? Will Australia be taking in nuclear waste from the UK and the US under this agreement? We fear it will be our mobs and our countries that is expected to take it. And once again, no one has bothered to talk to us. We have the lived experience and that’s why First Nations voices are crucial to this Public Inquiry.”

Commissioner Leanne Minshull said,

 “The projected cost of $368 billion for AUKUS is hard to conceptualise. Think about Australia’s biggest wealth fund, set up in 2006. After 20 years of squirreling away money and banking investment returns, the future fund is now worth $337 billion. The cost of AUKUS would wipe out these generational savings and then some.If we are to spend the equivalent of our national savings, on a single project, the benefit needs to be clear and overwhelming.  What won’t we be able to fund? How many jobs will be created from this project? Where will those jobs be? In a tight labour market, how will those jobs be filled? Will they divert skills from other national priorities like building residential homes? Will these jobs be the worst targeted, most expensive in Australian history?”

This nation-wide inquiry into AUKUS will seek answers to a number of critical questions.  The Terms of Reference can be found here and the website here. The Inquiry will be taking written submissions and conducting hearings across Australia.

AUKUS Public Inquiry media contacts: 

Phil Davey 0414 867 188, phil@mountainmedia.com.au  

Julie Macken 0400 925 217

June 5, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | weapons and war | Leave a comment

Richard Marles accepts used submarines in AUKUS setback

“There’s a reason people like to get new cars rather than old cars, and the same applies to multibillion-dollar submarines.”

“If that’s a win, I’d hate see what happens when we get fleeced by [US President Donald] Trump.”

Jessica Gardner and Paul Karp,  AFR, May 31, 2026

Defence Minister Richard Marles has defended the purchase of three used Virginia-class submarines from the US, arguing it will improve the simplicity of Australia’s pathway to nuclear-powered subs and be significantly cheaper.

The change was laid out in a joint statement issued by Marles, US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth and UK Defence Secretary John Healey following a meeting at the US Embassy in Singapore on Saturday.

However, Michael Shoebridge, director of defence and security think tank Strategic Analysis Australia, says the revised deal does not advantage Australia.

“The reason they’re giving us old ones, is that the new ones are more powerful submarines. This isn’t good news for Australia. This is the US showing its ability to dictate priorities.”

Australia, Britain and the US also announced they would work together to develop ​unmanned undersea vehicles for service by 2027 under pillar 2 of the AUKUS pact, which aims to develop advanced defence technology.

Under pillar I of AUKUS agreed in March 2023, Australia was to buy at least three new and used Virginia-class submarines from the US Navy from 2030, to plug a gap between the retirement of Collins-class vessels and the new SSN-AUKUS models coming off production lines in the 2040s.

On Saturday, however, the ministers said they “welcomed the proposed approach to streamline Australia’s acquisition of Virginia-class submarines” with three in-service rather than a mix of new and in-service submarines.

On Sunday Marles told reporters in Singapore the Albanese government was “really pleased with this outcome”, arguing that three used submarines were better for Australia because “we need to place a premium on simplicity”…………………………………….

Australia has already pumped $US2 billion ($2.8 billion) of a planned $US3 billion into the US industrial base to help lift output. But the dependency on US production rates and the decision of an unknown future US president to proceed with the sales has always left an element of risk over the plan for Australian taxpayers, who will spend $368 billion on AUKUS in the coming decades.

Marles said that buying three used Virginia-class subs “will be more cost-effective … and [the difference] will be significant”.

However, Shoebridge rejected that explanation, saying that new Virginia-class subs are “designed to be easier to maintain”.

“The idea that used Virginias are somehow going to streamline maintenance is wrong,” he said.

“The whole idea is to have a jointly integrated fleet. We’ll have all the different models turning up in Stirling [navy base in Western Australia] and being maintained there.

“If the Virginia-class submarines are all in-service, they will be at least nine years old and they’re designed for a 33-year service life. There’s a reason people like to get new cars rather than old cars, and the same applies to multibillion-dollar submarines.”

……………………………….The Greens defence spokesman, David Shoebridge, said Labor could not spin that Marles had “come back with a handful of second-hand subs”. “If that’s a win, I’d hate see what happens when we get fleeced by [US President Donald] Trump.”

Marcus Strom, the national convenor of rank-and-file member group Labor Against War, said: “Richard Marles is selling the fact he’s been dudded – forced to take dodgy Pete Hegseth’s second-hand subs – as ‘significant savings’.”

………………………….. “Australia is stepping up,” Hegseth said in a speech to the forum. “Together, we are expanding the rotational presence of US forces and collaborating to ensure our defence industrial base build and sustain weapons required for a high-end fight. We appreciate Australia’s investment in real combat power and the commitment to integrate more deeply with the US joint force.”………………………………………… https://www.afr.com/world/asia/no-freeloading-hegseth-praises-australia-for-stepping-up-20260530-p602bp

June 3, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | weapons and war | Leave a comment

US to send only used nuclear subs to Australia in amended defence deal

Sunday, 31 May 2026 https://www.thestar.com.my/aseanplus/aseanplus-news/2026/05/31/us-to-send-only-used-nuclear-subs-to-australia-in-amended-defence-deal

SINGAPORE: Australia will receive only used nuclear-powered submarines from the United States as part of an agreement to “streamline” the AUKUS deal, with the move branded on Sunday (May 31) as a “cost-effective” measure by Defence Minister Richard Marles.

The two nations — together with the third partner in their security pact, Britain — met at Singapore’s Shangri-La Dialogue, which brings together top defence officials and experts from about 45 countries.

Under the 2021 AUKUS deal, Australia is expected to receive at least three so-called “Virginia-class” nuclear-powered submarines from the United States within 15 years.

Australia had been expecting to receive two used submarines and one new one, but the countries announced Saturday that all three will now be in-service vessels from the US Navy stock.

When asked why Canberra was now receiving only used equipment, Marles, who is also deputy prime minister, told reporters on Sunday it would be more cost-effective.

“In the context of a very complicated endeavour, we need to place a premium on simplicity,” said Marles, who added that the submarines will also be the same model.

“I cannot overstate the significance of that, both in terms of the submariners who are operating them, but also the people who are working on them to sustain those submarines,” Marles said.

“It is definitely cost-effective. And to be clear, this is a very expensive programme… and so we are trying to find every cost-effective option as we walk down this path.”

In a joint statement on Saturday, Marles, US Minister for Defence Pete Hegseth, and the UK Secretary for Defence John Healey confirmed the tweak to the submarine agreement.

“The deputy prime minister and secretaries welcomed the proposed approach to streamline Australia’s acquisition of Virginia-class submarines (VCS), simplifying supply chain management, operational and maintenance requirements, and maximising cost efficiencies,” the statement said.

“This approach would enable Australia to acquire three in-service VCS in lieu of a mixture of new and in-service VCS variants.”

The US Navy has 24 Virginia-class vessels but American shipyards are struggling to meet production targets set at two new boats each year.

In the United States, critics have questioned why Washington would sell nuclear-powered submarines to Australia without stocking its own military first.

The AUKUS submarine programme lies at the heart of Australia’s defence strategy and could cost up to US$235 billion over 30 years, according to government forecasts. – AFP

Sunday, 31 May 2026 |

June 2, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | weapons and war | Leave a comment

Nuclear powers are expanding their arsenals instead of disarming. Australia doesn’t have to be complicit in this

The Conversation 25th May 2026

Hundreds of diplomats from almost every country just met for four weeks at United Nations headquarters in New York to review the most comprehensive nuclear non-proliferation treaty in the world. And they agreed to absolutely nothing.

After thousands of interventions, working papers, statements, national reports, side events, preparatory conferences, closed-door meetings and consultations, the delegates couldn’t even reach consensus on the most hollowed-out statement.

Nearly all of the 190 signatories genuflect to the importance of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). Yet, this is the third review conference in a row that has failed to achieve any agreed outcome. Since the treaty was indefinitely extended in 1995, only two conferences, in 2000 and 2010, reached any agreement at all……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

What Australia can do

Smaller, non-nuclear states can make a difference, though, if they stand behind their commitments.

Australia, for one, voiced its disappointment in the failure of the conference to achieve any results. In a short statement, the government said it was “steadfast in its support of the NPT”.

But Australia can – and must – do better than issuing mildly worded statements, especially as it is contributing to escalating nuclear risks with its actions.

For example, the RAAF Base Tindal will soon host American nuclear-capable B-52 bombers. US submarines will also permanently rotate through Australian ports from 2027 as part of the AUKUS agreement. While not nuclear-armed now, those US submarines will be able to carry a new nuclear-tipped cruise missile by 2032. Australia maintains a “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy of ambiguity on nuclear weapons, meaning the US doesn’t have to confirm or deny whether its military craft are actually carrying them. Nuclear powers are expanding their arsenals instead of disarming. Australia doesn’t have to be complicit in this

May 27, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | weapons and war | Leave a comment

Israel Kidnapped Gaza Flotilla Activists, A Father Demands Answers | The West Report.

21 May 2026 The West Report

Gemma O’Toole was aboard the Freedom Flotilla when it was intercepted by Israeli forces. Her father, Patrick Kaiser, says the family went more than 64 hours without hearing from her, while the main footage they had seen showed detained activists zip-tied, placed in stress positions and taunted by Israeli minister Itamar Ben Gvir. As Australia summons the Israeli ambassador and condemns Ben-Gvir’ behaviour, Gemma’s family is calling for stronger action, sanctions, and a serious reckoning with Australia’s selective approach to international law and human rights.

May 24, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | weapons and war | Leave a comment

Secret documents reveal preferred Australian nuclear submarine base – and warn it could be a military target

“It’s no surprise that people don’t want to live next to a bunch of floating nuclear reactors with a big military target on them. It’s also no surprise that the state and federal governments are desperate to hide this truth from the public.”

Port Kembla residents will likely resist base due to risk of nuclear accident and potential as target for ‘military adversaries’, documents state

Ben Doherty, 16 May 26, https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2026/may/16/secret-documents-reveal-preferred-australian-nuclear-submarine-base-port-kembla

A proposed nuclear submarine base in Port Kembla “could be a target for Australian military adversaries”, previously secret New South Wales government documents have revealed.

The documents, prepared by the NSW cabinet office and premier’s department, identify Port Kembla – 75km south of Sydney – as the preferred east coast base for Australia’s proposed nuclear submarine fleet. No site has been announced, but speculation has focused on Brisbane, Newcastle and Port Kembla.

But a Port Kembla base is likely to face fierce public resistance, the documents, tabled in the NSW parliament under an order to produce from Greens MLC Abigail Boyd, state.

“Residents are likely to perceive the east coast nuclear base as a source of risk due to there being nuclear reactors on board the submarines and the military base being a potential military target,” the NSW government analysis says.

“The East Coast Base (ECNB) will harbour submarines that have nuclear reactors fuelled by highly enriched uranium on board. In the event of a military conflict the ECNB could be a target for Australian military adversaries.

“For these reasons NSW residents may perceive the ECNB similarly to a nuclear power station as a source of environmental disaster risk.”

A significant proportion of the Port Kembla population have already expressed opposition to the proposed base. In September, more than 40 organisations signed the Port Kembla Declaration, insisting their community should not be the site of a nuclear base, arguing it would endanger their community.

The documents, only made public on Friday, date from the Perrottet government between 2022 and 2023.

The current minister for planning and public spaces Paul Scully said: “No work is being undertaken by the NSW Government in relation to this matter.”

The federal government announced in March 2022 it intended to build an east coast nuclear base to station the nuclear-powered conventionally armed submarines it intends to buy and then build as part of the Aukus agreement with the UK and US.

Currently, those proposed submarines – if they arrive under Australian command, as scheduled, from 2032 – will be stationed in South Australia and Western Australia, but the federal government has consistently maintained an east coast base is vital to Australia’s strategic interests.

The federal government has previously said a decision on where to site the east coast nuclear base would be taken “later in the decade”, but the NSW government documents state the commonwealth has “committed to ensuring a decision on the location of the base is undertaken by the end of 2023, to be operational by 2040”.

A preliminary cost-benefit analysis by NSW government officials identified Port Kembla as the best site for an east coast nuclear base. It said a base in Port Kembla for nuclear powered submarines, as well as surface naval vessels, would bring an economic benefit of $426m to the state through improved infrastructure, community services and facilities, and increased economic activity such as “growth in highly technical and high-paying jobs”.

The NSW government documents state Port Kembla’s outer harbour “presents a viable alternative as a naval base, with the capacity to accommodate increased berthing, a dry dock and a submarine facility”.

But the NSW government concedes some residents will have to leave their homes, local business could be negatively affected, and rail and road travel worsened. A nuclear submarine base “is likely to have negative impact on the amenity of the local area”, the documents state.

Those closest to the base will be most impacted.

“Residents in proximity will perceive the ECNB as a risk to their community’s health and the local environment.”

The NSW government documents consider the perception of risk of a nuclear accident.

“The probability of a nuclear accident at a submarine base is also reduced by the fact submarines are only sometimes harbouring at the base,” they state.

“On the other hand, a nuclear submarine base is more likely to be a military target – and could be perceived riskier for that reason.”

The documents argue that the public’s “risk perception” of a nuclear submarine base compared to a nuclear power plant is unknown without more detailed research.

Nuclear submarines may be less risky because their nuclear reactors are much smaller than the nuclear reactors at nuclear power stations.

“However, nuclear submarines may be far riskier because they use a highly enriched uranium that is more like the uranium used in nuclear warheads than the uranium used in nuclear reactors and they store enough uranium to operate the nuclear submarine for over 30 years.”

The east coast nuclear base is expected to be at least twice the size of the Western Sydney International Airport project, the NSW government documents state. It is expected to be operational by 2040.

“The department of defence estimates that more than $10bn will be needed for facility and infrastructure requirements to transition from Collins to the future nuclear-powered submarines, including the new east coast submarine base.”

The federal Greens senator David Shoebridge, spokesperson on defence and foreign affairs, said the documents show that both the NSW and federal governments know that a nuclear submarine base will be “damaging and dangerous for the community”.

“It’s no surprise that people don’t want to live next to a bunch of floating nuclear reactors with a big military target on them. It’s also no surprise that the state and federal governments are desperate to hide this truth from the public.”

Shoebridge argued the Labor government was “putting a target” on the largest population conurbation in Australia – about 7 million people who live between Newcastle and the Illawarra.

“This, and any other Aukus base, doesn’t make us safer, as we have seen in the war on Iran, US bases make countries targets.

“We are watching the US actively driving war and instability around the world and instead of distancing Australia from that conflict, we have Labor, One Nation and the Coalition inviting that into our homes.”

The Guardian has put questions to the NSW premier’s office and to the federal department of defence.

It is understood the Government agreed in-principle to the Defence Strategic Review recommendation that an east coast facility be established for Australia’s future submarine capability. The Government has said further decisions on the east coast base won’t be made until the 2030s.

A spokesperson for deputy prime minister, Richard Marles said no decision on the location for this facility had been made.

“As the Government has previously made clear, the timeframe for making a decision is not until the 2030s,” the spokesperson said.

May 18, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | weapons and war | Leave a comment

If AUKUS were NDIS (National Disability Insurance Schemes )? – Rising cost of elusive subs submerged in budget

“No submarines are coming to Australia from the US, despite the billions we’re spending.

by Rex Patrick | May 14, 2026, https://michaelwest.com.au/if-aukus-were-ndis-rising-cost-of-elusive-subs-submerged-in-budget/

The price of the AUKUS submarine program is rising while the chances of subs being delivered is going down. Rex Patrick on the Budget subs spending.

It’s quite hard, indeed impossible, to work out how much the AUKUS submarine program is costing the taxpayer, with few details and much hidden across multiple budgets.

We’ll start with the operation of the Australian Submarine Agency (ASA). The total appropriation to run ASA over the next four years (FY 2026-27 and forward estimates) is $2.35B, which is up from last year’s budget and forward estimates at $1.71B.

“That’s a $37% increase.“

If ASA were the NDIS, the Government would have announced fundamental cuts “to secure its future, so it grows in a sustainable way”.

But there are a number of additional costs spread across other budgets – with no breakdown specifically to AUKUS. For instance, the cost of running the Australian Federal Police’s AUKUS protective security command, as revealed by MWM earlier this year.

Added to that is the cost of the Australian Nuclear Science and technology Organisation’s (ANSTO) provision of expert advice, the Australian Radioactive Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency’s (ARPANSA) provision of safety research, advice and codes and standards.

The Attorney-General is spending money on legal services to ensure AUKUS is complying with Australia’s nuclear non-proliferation obligations, while the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade is spending $43m this year and $44m next year on diplomacy to try to convince the International Atomic Energy Agency to declare the AUKUS program is compliant with Australia’s Comprehensive (Nuclear) Safeguards Agreement.

Funding is also being thrown at the Department of Industry, Science and Resources, the Department of Education, the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations, the new National Environment Protection Agency and the Department of Finance,

“almost everyone’s getting a piece of the action.”

Program advancement

More money being set aside for the actual delivery of the capability, with the total amount of money spent on gone from $2.9B in 2024-25 to $8.2B in 2025-26. A lot of that new expenditure has gone to the US and UK for to employ Americans and Brits, and to improve their shipyards.

“By June 2027 we will have spent $11B on AUKUS without so much as a periscope to show for it.“

Defence is spending money as quickly as they can, faster than they and the government have told the public they would. It might be they have learned something from the French Attack Class program, which was cancelled by Scott Morrison after burning $4B in taxpayers’ money; the lesson being that $4B in sunk cost is not enough to prevent a program from being terminated.

By the end of next year Defence will have spent more than $13B. Surely no government would cancel a program after spending that much money!

On the submarine construction and support infrastructure front, the Government has been keen to announce billions upon billions of dollars in expenditure on submarine facilities, but then put budgets amounts of ‘not for publication’ in the budget documents; Announcements good … budget details bad!

No subs for us…

One of the few nice things about the US system of government is that Congress is a totally separate arm of government to the executive.

The US Congress appropriates all money to government (as is the case in Australia), but because Secretaries (our equivalent of ministers) don’t sit in the Congress, they force Agencies to disclose a lot more details in their budgets.

In our budget documents we get one column in a table to explain the procurement of Virginia Class nuclear powered submarines; in the US Defense budget document there are 20 pages.

In our budget documents there is no indication of when the Royal Australian Navy will get a Virginia Class submarine. In the US Defense Budget document, every Virginia sub delivery date is specified, to the month.

What the US Defense budget papers do tell, apart from delivery dates, is that the best the US is hoping for is a submarine delivery rate of 1.7 boats per annum over the next decade, which is short of the 2 boats per annum necessary to meet their needs, let alone Australia’s.

US law states that their Navy cannot transfer a submarine to Australia if it would adversely affect their own undersea warfare capability.

“No submarines are coming to Australia from the US, despite the billions we’re spending.“

The delivery of AUKUS SSN subs from the UK, according to a new UK Parliamentary report, is not likely to happen either, yet The Dept of Defence spends onwards, with hope being their primary procurement risk mitigation strategy.

No retirement for Collins

In 2009 the Rudd Government announced we were going to get 12 new submarines to replace our 6 Collins Class subs that were due to retire in 2025. However, they can’t be retired because

“Defence has delivered absolutely zero subs to the Navy in those 17 years.”

And so this year we’ll spend $921m on keeping our Collin subs at sea. That’s down on the $1B spent last year, but is grossly expensive compared to other submarine forces around the world. As anyone who tries to keep an old car on the road, with no source of spare parts, knows, it’s expensive.

And the annual costs of keeping the subs at sea doesn’t include a Life of Type Extension (LOTE) to try to deal with obsolescence. That is a separate program which has cost the taxpayer $519m so far, and will cost us another $262m over the next 12 months. The total outlay for the LOTE could reach $11B.

And if the cost spent on not much capability isn’t enough, the potential cost of nuclear waste storage may run into hundreds of billions. At least that won’t happen if the subs don’t appear…

Rex Patrick

Rex Patrick is a former Senator for South Australia and, earlier, a submariner in the armed forces. Best known as an anti-corruption and transparency crusader, Rex is also known as the “Transparency Warrior.”

May 17, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | weapons and war | Leave a comment

Australians continue Gaza aid mission despite recent kidnappings, beatings

15 May 2026 AIMN Editorial, https://theaimn.net/australians-continue-gaza-aid-mission-despite-recent-kidnappings-beatings/

11 Australians departed from Türkiye on Thursday night (Australian time) in the final phase of the Global Sumud Flotilla mission to deliver humanitarian aid to Gaza and break Israel’s illegal naval blockade. They are joined by around 500 participants from almost 50 countries.

Organisers say interception remains a significant risk from Friday night onwards as vessels sail through international waters toward Gaza.

Five of the 11 Australians currently sailing were illegally intercepted by the Israeli navy two weeks ago while traveling from Italy to Greece. 22 flotilla vessels were intercepted and destroyed, and crew members were abducted and held on board an Israeli prison ship for almost two days at sea, reporting violence, abuse and theft of their passports.

Following their release to Greek authorities in Crete, activists have vowed to continue the mission.

The 11 Australians sailing from Türkiye to Gaza are:

●      Juliet Lamont

●      Isla Lamont

●      Anny Mokotow

●      Sam Woripa Watson

●      Zack Schofield

●      Dr Bianca Pullman Webb

●      Neve O’Connor

●      Surya McEwan

●      Helen O’Sullivan

●      Violet Coco

●      Gemma O’Toole

●      Cameron Tribe

Medical professional Dr Bianca Pullman Webb reports that:

“The siege hasn’t ended, the genocide hasn’t ended and Israel continues its crimes with impunity.  Breaking the siege is more important than ever.  Challenging the siege is the least I can do as a person of conscience. Palestinians, including my medical colleagues, deserve to live and work in safety and freedom.

“I’m tired of the genocide and international inaction. The community on the flotilla and what we’re doing gives me hope.”

Nakba Day and National Solidarity Rallies

The flotilla’s departure coincides with Nakba remembrance events. Large rallies are planned across Australia this weekend, connecting the maritime mission with broader public calls for humanitarian access and justice for Palestinians.

About the Global Sumud Flotilla

The Global Sumud Flotilla is a civilian-led international initiative bringing together activists, medical professionals and humanitarian advocates to deliver aid to Gaza and draw attention to the ongoing blockade and humanitarian crisis.

Social media video of Australians speaking to why they are sailing

May 17, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | weapons and war | Leave a comment