Antinuclear

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.

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

AUKUS Inquiry exposes nuclear weapon-sized crater

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

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

AUKUS Public Inquiry 

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

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

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

But the Inquiry will inform the public.

Nuclear weapon material

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

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

Waste responsibility

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

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

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

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

Non-proliferation risk

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

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

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

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

IAEA decision the key

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

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

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

Follow the money

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

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

“AUKUS could weaken the non-proliferation regime.“

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nuclear explosion-sized crater

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

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

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

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

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

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

Are Australian military exports fuelling massacres in Sudan?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why is Australia involved?

But how on earth is Australia involved?

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

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

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

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

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

Defence plays a deadbat 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wong and Marles duck

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

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

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

“This call too has fallen on deaf ears”.

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

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

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

ICC weighs in

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

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

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

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

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

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

July 28, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | weapons and war | Leave a comment

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

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

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.

July 25, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | weapons and war | Leave a comment

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