Isn’t it exciting? The USA is letting Australia buy air-to ground missile for attacking China
US State Department clears $500 million in anti-radiation missiles for Australia
The AARGM-ER is a medium-range air-to-ground missile, employed for the suppression or destruction of enemy air defense systems.
By AARON MEHTAon February 27, 2023 https://breakingdefense.com/2023/02/us-state-department-clears-500-million-in-anti-radiation-missiles-for-australia/
WASHINGTON — The US State Department has approved a potential Foreign Military Sale to Australia of Advanced Anti-Radiation Guided Missiles-Extended Range (AARGM-ERs), with a estimated price tag of $506 million.
Sales announcements are not final; Foreign Military Sales (FMS) cases announced like these have been approved by the executive branch, and now Congress must weigh in or do nothing. Should the Hill not object — an almost unfathomable situation, given relations with Australia — the quantities and dollar values in the deals can change during negotiations with industry.
The AARGM-ER is a medium-range air-to-ground missile, employed for the suppression or destruction of enemy air defense systems. According to the Pentagon, the weapon is compatible with the F/A-18C/D, FA-18E/F, EA-18G, Tornado IDS/ECR, F-16 C/J and the F-35 joint strike fighter — the latter of which is set to be the core of Australia’s military aviation fleet for years to come.
Australia is seeking to buy up to 63 AARGM-ERs and up to 20 AARGM-ER Captive Air Training Missiles (CATMs). Also included, per the announcement, are “Dummy Air Training Missiles (AARGM-ER DATMs), containers, component parts and support equipment; Repair of Repairables; software (Classified and Unclassified); publications (Classified and Unclassified); training (Classified and Unclassified); transportation; U.S. Government and Contractor engineering support; and other related elements of logistical and program support.”
This would be the second batch of AARGM-ERs approved by State for the Lucky Country in the last year. In June 2022, DSCA announced a $94 million agreement for 15 of the weapons.
Per the DSCA, “The proposed sale will improve Australia’s capability to meet current and future threats by suppressing and destroying land- or sea-based radar emitters associated with enemy air defenses. This capability denies the adversary the use of its air defense systems, thereby improving the survivability of Australia’s tactical aircraft.”
If the nuclear submarines aren’t ready in time – no worries – Australia will get lots of fun weaponry against China.
Mind the capability gap: what happens if Collins class submarines retire before nuclear boats are ready?
Nuclear subs are the first ‘pillar’ of Aukus, but defence experts are pointing to the second pillar – hypersonic weapons, AI and drones
Tory Shepherd, Guardian, 28 Feb 23,
“………….. The federal government is considering the defence strategic review and advice from the submarine taskforce on acquiring a fleet of nuclear-powered submarines, but there are concerns that they will not be in service in time for a seamless handover from the Collins class.
The defence minister, Richard Marles, has been sounding increasingly positive that there will be no such gap.
“I’m feeling confident about our ability to deal with this,” he told Guardian Australia in January, adding it would be part of “the optimal pathway” to be announced soon…………….
Acquiring that fleet of at least eight nuclear-powered submarines is the first “pillar” of the Aukus partnership between Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States, but the second pillar, which includes hypersonic weapons, artificial intelligence and underwater drones, will be needed in the short term.
It will be at least a decade before even the first submarine is delivered and some estimates even push the timeline out to 2050.
The prime minister, Anthony Albanese, is expected to meet with both the US president, Joe Biden, and the UK prime minister, Rishi Sunak, in the US in March, to announce the governments’ plans.
Marles has emphasised the “genuinely trilateral” nature of the Aukus agreement between the three countries, leading to speculation a new hybrid submarine to replace the ageing Colins class fleet will be built using elements of both the US and the UK’s boats.
The life of the Collins fleet will be stretched out as much as possible with life-of-type extensions, but the boats are still set to be retired by the end of the next decade.
When former prime minister Scott Morrison announced he was scrapping the deal with France to build 12 boats in favour of the Aukus deal to build “at least” eight submarines in South Australia in 2021, he also announced plans to acquire various missiles, including hypersonic and precision strike guided missiles over the next decade.
On top of the missiles, there is a second pillar of Aukus that includes working with the UK and the UK on underwater drones, quantum technology, artificial intelligence and autonomous technology, advanced cyber capabilities, electronic warfare, and other innovations.
………………………… In a statement last year, the White House said the Aukus partners had made “strong progress” on the advanced capabilities. Trials of autonomous vehicles are set to begin this year, it said, and trials of quantum technologies for position, navigation and timing, would happen over the next three years.
Work had already started on autonomous and artificial intelligence-enabled systems to improve the speed and precision of decision-making processes, while the three countries were also strengthening their defences against cyber-attacks, sharing information on electronic warfare, developing advanced hypersonic and counter-hypersonic capabilities.
The director of the Lowy Institute’s international security program, Sam Roggeveen, said there were other capabilities Australia could buy that could do “similar things” to submarines – such as sinking ships.
“One area we’re already getting into is mine warfare,” he said.
“But we’re also investing in anti-ship missiles that can be fired from the air and we’re even getting some land-based missile capability.”
Other options that have been floated include building entirely new air warfare destroyers equipped with more than 100 missile launching cells, in order to bolster firepower, or building an interim conventional submarine……………….. more https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/feb/28/mind-the-capability-gap-what-happens-if-collins-class-submarines-retire-before-nuclear-boats-are-ready
Avalon Militarism
With this military bonanza unfolding on February 28, the Australian Defence Minister, Richard “Call me Deputy Prime Minister” Marles, has tooted his justifications for more hardware, more military merchandise and more engagement with the defence industry.
His address to the Avalon 2023 Defence and Industry Dinner revealed a boyish credulity typical in so many who lead that portfolio. The boys-with-toys credo becomes all seducing. Air forces, he noted, “are the coolest part of any military.” Trying to amuse, he called Top Gun Maverick “an important and insightful documentary.”
https://theaimn.com/avalon-militarism/, February 28, 2023, Dr Binoy Kampmark
The global pandemic was not completely catastrophic in its effects. It led to the cancellation, and postponement, of wasteful projects and events. It spared public money. But as the pandemic slides into the shadow of policymaking, bad habits have returned. The profligates are here to stay.
One such habit is the Avalon air show, a celebration of aeronautical militarism in the southern hemisphere best done without. In 2021, the organisers announced with regret that the event would be cancelled due to COVID-19 restrictions and uncertainty. Last October, however, organisers promised a return to form in 2023. Those with tickets “can look forward to a whole new program with jaw-dropping aerial displays, a refreshed food and beverage offering, and live entertainment.”
Also known as the Australian International Airshow and Aerospace and Defence Exposition, Avalon2023 promises to “showcase” much in the “dynamic world of aviation, aerospace and space, new materials, fuels and ways of flying.”
The program features both a specialist dimension and complimentary conferences “open to any accredited Trade Visitor.” The specialist aspect will feature presentations from, among others, the Royal Australian Air Force, Australian International Aerospace Congress, Australian Association for Unscrewed Systems (AAUS), Australian Industry Defence Network (AIDN), and the Australian Airports Association.
With this military bonanza unfolding on February 28, the Australian Defence Minister, Richard “Call me Deputy Prime Minister” Marles, has tooted his justifications for more hardware, more military merchandise and more engagement with the defence industry. His address to the Avalon 2023 Defence and Industry Dinner revealed a boyish credulity typical in so many who lead that portfolio. The boys-with-toys credo becomes all seducing. Air forces, he noted, “are the coolest part of any military.” Trying to amuse, he called Top Gun Maverick “an important and insightful documentary.”
With that treacly tribute out of the way, Marles could get down to the business of frightening Australians and delighting the military industrial mandarins. Australia faced “the most challenging and complex set of strategic circumstances we’ve seen since the Second World War.” The “global rules-based order” had been placed “under immense pressure”, largely due to the Russian invasion of Ukraine. “The post-Cold War era – a period of democratic expansion and unprecedented integration of global trade and investment – is now over.”
The scriptwriter had evidently gone to sleep in drafting such words. The post-Cold War era was streaked by brutal invasions and interventions (Iraq and Libya, to name but two instances), supposedly by the rules-abiding types in Washington, London and Canberra. The Russian invasion did feature the imposition of will by a larger state on a smaller neighbour using “power and might”, but the US-led invasion that kicked the hornet’s nest of sectarian violence in 2003 came from the same stable of thought.
The speech then follows a familiar pattern. First, call out the Russians. Then highlight the Oriental Armed Scourge to the North. “In the Indo-Pacific, China is driving the largest conventional military build-up we’ve seen anywhere in the world since the Second World War. And much of this build-up is opaque.”
Australia’s security, assured by its remote location and geography, could no longer be taken seriously. “Today we face a range of threats – including longer-range missiles and hypersonics and cyber-attacks – which render our geographic advantages far less relevant.”
The enemy could do damage from afar, causing harm “without ever having to enter our territorial waters or our air space.” It was therefore important to place Australian defence upon the footing of “being able to hold any potential adversaries at risk much further from our shores.”
This was a rather devious way of laying the ground for more cash and larger budgets, ignoring the clear point that Australia has no truly mortal enemies, but wishes to make them as Washington’s obedient deputy.
One particular product is meant to take centre stage. The Australian Defence Force is lagging in the department of murderous drone technology. One promises to be unveiled at Avalon. As reported by the national broadcaster, “The unscrewed air system has been developed by BAE Systems Australia and is designed to be stored in shipping containers.” The device is allegedly capable of carrying a lethal payload in excess of 100 kilograms.
Australia’s Chief of Air Force, Air Marshal Robert Chipman, has made no secret of his desire for low-cost killer drones. “We’ve seen a proliferation of low-cost drones and loitering munitions delivering both ISR [intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance] and fires to great effect,” he told a Melbourne audience filled with foreign air force chiefs and senior officials, “they don’t replace the roles of contemporary combat aircraft, but they might serve as a useful complement.”
With that in mind, the RAAF was “considering the potential of low-cost drones that bring mass to our air combat system, and we’re considering what new measures are necessary to defend against them.” Such views thrilled the war mongering offices at The Australian, which expressed satisfaction that Australian military policy was finally “moving in the right direction.”
Chapman has been particularly busy in the leadup to the Avalon airshow, walking the tightrope of defence propaganda. Self-praise and capability must be balanced against a fear of achievement on the part of an adversary.
In an interview with the Australian Financial Review last week, the Air Marshal revealed that the RAAF had also joined the hysteria about targeting high altitude surveillance balloons. He also defended the merits of the F-35 fighter jet, praising their pilots as having “retained an edge over drones or other unscrewed platforms despite advances in technology.”
China, however, was causing jitters in the area of hypersonic missiles, capable of delivering a warhead at five times the speed of sound with extreme manoeuvrability. “I think China is in front when it comes to hypersonics […] and that is something we are actively working to address.” Thank goodness, then, for the Avalon Air Show, even if the organisers were not sagacious enough to invite both Chinese and Russian manufacturers.
Margaret Beavis | Here’s how to tone down the nuclear threat
We are at a turning point.
By signing the UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, Australia would join 122 countries who supported the treaty at the United Nations. Although the US will very actively discourage such action, Thailand, New Zealand and the Philippines are all signatories and remain US allies.
By Margaret Beavis, February 27 2023 https://www.canberratimes.com.au/story/8100096/nuclear-war-is-not-winnable-heres-how-to-eliminate-the-threat/
With the invasion of Ukraine and now Putin suspending the New Start Treaty, the risk of both nuclear proliferation and nuclear war is increasing. But we can play a role in preventing this.
For more than seven decades we have been told that nuclear weapons are an essential political tool that make us safer, but in reality, each day we wake up without nuclear conflict is indeed a lucky day.
Myths come into being through the telling and re-telling of stories. Myths exist to help us make meaning of our world and our lives, however, not all myths are true.
There are three big myths about nuclear weapons.
The first myth is that a nuclear war is “winnable”. The research, however, is both clear-cut and horrifying. Even a “small” regional nuclear exchange – say between Pakistan and India – using less than 1 per cent of the global nuclear arsenal, would kill around 100 million people.
Massive fires would loft millions of tons of smoke into the stratosphere. Decade-long global cooling will follow. Crop yields of rice, wheat and corn would fall 15 to 30 per cent.
Conservatively estimated, around 2 billion people would starve.
If the US and Russia used their 1800 deployed weapons, food production would cease in most parts of the world. Most, if not all, of the human race would starve.
The second myth is an outdated, dogmatic belief that nuclear weapons make us safer. Nuclear deterrence assumes the threat of mutually assured destruction will prevent the use of nuclear weapons.
However, risk analysis demonstrates the reverse is true. Given increasing conflict, brinkmanship, and unpredictable world leaders, plus the risks posed by cyberattacks and extremists, it’s hard to rely on a mutually assured destruction strategy.
But the biggest risk, looking at history, is inadvertent use. We have – at least seven times – come within a hair’s breadth of global conflagration, due to human, computer or radar error, unusual weather patterns and even a faulty computer chip.
The US and Russia have come close on five occasions since 1979. It is inevitable that eventually our luck will run out.
The third myth is that nuclear disarmament is irresponsible. But it is hopelessly unrealistic to assume these weapons will never be used.
We are at a turning point.
By signing the UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, Australia would join 122 countries who supported the treaty at the United Nations. Although the US will very actively discourage such action, Thailand, New Zealand and the Philippines are all signatories and remain US allies.
Sacred site, nuclear target are neighbours
26 February 2023, By ROD MOSS https://alicespringsnews.com.au/2023/02/26/sacred-site-nuclear-target-are-neighbours/
At the distant point of the track is the Joint Defence Facility, colloquially known as the Space Base or Pine Gap. Prior to awareness of Kweyrnpe, I’d joined peace activists in the 1980s, protesting at its gates about its role in war, surveillance and nuclear targeting.
Not until the mid nineties did I understand the significance of Kweyrnpe to the Hayes families when Patrick senior asked me to take him there to talk about the paintings.
He’d mentioned it was a sacred site when, as its TO, he’d been toured through the defence facility.
His grandson, Vernon Alice had accompanied him. The base was honouring an agreement with the TOs whenever new installations occurred though the family remain none the wiser about its inner workings.
Some of the younger men had spent time in Big House, the correctional centre, visible to the south of Kweyrnpe.
Whatever privations they’d endured, several admitted it wasn’t too bad as, unlike many inmates, they’d been on their own country which possibly explained the casual acceptance of many of their sentences and recidivism.
Initially it was the rock formations that fascinated me and those and the sky were painted first. But it wasn’t finished with me. Or me with it.
Some weeks later I imagined, then added, a wild dog pack lurching stealthily towards the viewer over; intruders beneath that apocalyptic sky.
The ridge to the right separates the initiated men’s site, with its overhang of protected paintings, from the women and children’s side which is adorned with native pines / alukerrwe.
Though no signage existed in the small car park at the time of this painting, a visitors book and a board with brief information about its significance for Arrernte has been erected advising on appropriate behaviour. A simplified story about the place also fronts the paintings.
Australian Defense Minister Attempts to Reassure Thailand Over Nuclear Subs
Defense Post 24 Feb 23, Australia’s defense minister aimed to reassure Thailand on Friday that plans to acquire a new fleet of nuclear submarines would enhance “collective security” in the region after neighboring countries voiced concerns.
The submarine issue came up during a visit to Manila earlier this week, Defense Minister Richard Marles told AFP in an interview, and was also on the agenda for Friday’s talks with Thai Prime Minister Prayut Chan-O-Cha, who is responsible for defense……………..
Malaysia and Indonesia have expressed concerns about the acquisition, warning against an arms race.
But Marles said Australia wanted to build a “sense of confidence” about the plan…………….
Marles said Friday that “acquiring a conventionally powered submarine is not going to form part of any solution.” https://www.thedefensepost.com/2023/02/24/australia-thailand-nuclear-subs/
The US Can Secretly Rotate Nuclear Warheads Through Australia
And the clear message coming from Moriarty, with the consensus of foreign affairs minister Penny Wong, is that for all Australia knows, the US could run nuclear warheads through the country, without informing anyone, and that’s what governments going back decades have agreed to.
Washington’s proposed rotating of B-52s through the north is understood to be a threat to Beijing, and coupled with the broad US access to our military sites, as well as the joint facilities at Pine Gap and North West Cape, these arrangements likely hardwire us into any US war on China.
22/02/2023 BY PAUL GREGOIRE, https://www.sydneycriminallawyers.com.au/blog/the-us-can-secretly-rotate-nuclear-warheads-through-australia/
After a midmorning break on budget estimate proceedings, defence secretary Greg Moriarty delivered a response to a question put by Greens Senator Jordan Steele-John earlier in the day, which has since escalated the current debate over Australia relinquishing sovereignty to the US.
Steele-John quizzed Moriarty, on 15 February, as to whether B-52 bombers that will be “cycling through” the country, following the US Army having built storage space for six such fighters as part of its upgrade of RAAF Base Tindal, “will be solely conventionally capable, not nuclear capable”.
“It’s clear that stationing of nuclear weapons in Australia is prohibited by the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty, to which Australia is fully committed,” advised Moriarty, adding that this treaty, nor that of non-proliferation, prevent foreign aircraft visiting or transiting local airfields or airspace.
According to the defence head, “successive Australian governments have understood and respected the longstanding US policy of neither confirming nor denying the presence of nuclear weapons on particular platforms”.
And the clear message coming from Moriarty, with the consensus of foreign affairs minister Penny Wong, is that for all Australia knows, the US could run nuclear warheads through the country, without informing anyone, and that’s what governments going back decades have agreed to.
Unimpeded access
When Steel-John further queried Moriarty as to whether this could see nuclear weapons transiting, Wong intervened stating that the question involves talk of “rotational forces under an agreement with another government”, so she’d like to provide an answer after the “opportunity to consult”.
The pre-prepared response later delivered by Moriarty included the admission that “US bomber aircraft have been visiting Australia since the early 1980s and have conducted training in Australia since 2005”. And over this time, Canberra has respected Washington’s policy of warhead ambiguity.
Moriarty added that this policy is in line with the 2014 Force Posture Agreement between the two nations, which provides the US with unimpeded access to certain local military facilities, of which it gains operational control over when it’s carrying out any construction activity at such a site.
The FPA officially established that US troops rotate through the north of Australia, with their number now having grown to 2,500 marines annually, as well as having improved interoperability between the nations’ air forces. And it’s this agreement that’s led to the construction of a B-52 storage site.
Washington’s proposed rotating of B-52s through the north is understood to be a threat to Beijing, and coupled with the broad US access to our military sites, as well as the joint facilities at Pine Gap and North West Cape, these arrangements likely hardwire us into any US war on China.
Ambiguity abounds
“As I understand from that, secretary, the government’s reading of Australia’s treaty obligations does not prohibit nuclear armed B-52s from being temporarily present in Australia,” Senator David Shoebridge suggested to Moriarty following his explanation of the opaque US stance on warheads.
However, at this point, Wong cut in on what appeared to be a fairly straightforward assessment coming from the Greens senator in regard to what the defence secretary had just explained.
“There’s no suggestion,” the foreign minister countered. “No one at this table has talked about nuclear armed B-52s.”
Wong then reiterated some of the points made by the defence secretary that clearly led to Shoebridge’s assumption: Canberra has long understood and respected “the longstanding US policy of neither confirming nor denying” and this doesn’t impinge on our international obligations.
Shoebridge then framed it in a different way, as he asked whether Defence considers this nation isn’t under any obligation to prevent nuclear armed US bombers from entering if they’re not a “permanent presence”. However, the minister, again, claimed he was “reading more into it”.
Then, after further reasonable prodding from the Greens member, Wong, quite tellingly, explained that she and the defence secretary weren’t in a position to go any further than the answer that was provided, and she then implied it was unfair to the community to posit further “hypotheticals”.
Whilst initial diplomatic moves made by Wong since taking over the foreign affairs portfolio have served a modicum of hope that the mounting tensions between Beijing and Canberra might be allayed, her December visit to the US saw this dashed.
Wong and defence minister Richard Marles were in Washington to meet with US secretary of state Antony Blinken and defence secretary Lloyd Austin late last year, as part of the annual AUSMIN conference, which had a focus on countering China’s “destabilising military activities” this time.
And the conference saw Austin extend an invitation to Japan – which is a part of the QUAD security arrangement, along with this country, the US and India – to join in the US Force Posture Initiatives, which are the operational arrangements established under the FPA, on Australian soil.
The resurrected QUAD has become of increasing importance with its new focus on Beijing. In fact, Anthony Albanese’s first act as prime minister was to fly to Japan for a QUAD meeting, while the following month saw him in Madrid for a NATO conference, which had China on its agenda.
And while the Albanese administration hasn’t repeated the hawkish ravings that former PM Scott Morrison and defence minister Peter Dutton were spouting at the end of their reign, the US presence in Australia, likely guarantees involvement in a war with China prior to any official decision.
Ending at the starting line
Following Wong’s explanation that all that could be said had been, Shoebridge put it to Moriarty that he understands that Australia doesn’t challenge the US on warhead ambiguity, and he then asked whether our treaty obligations aren’t breached by B-52s potentially carrying nuclear arsenal.
In response, the minister became even more ruffled than she had been prior, and she reiterated that the various treaties aren’t being threatened.
Wong then accused Shoebridge of drumming up concerns, to which he countered that he wasn’t “fearmongering” and put the question to the defence secretary one more time.
“I think the minister has outlined Australia’s treaty obligations,” Moriarty told the Greens senator, as he brought the exchange regarding B-52s to a close.
“As I said, under the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty, to which we are fully committed, stationing of nuclear weapons is prohibited.”
Nuclear weapons uncertainty must be resolved
This masthead has previously expressed reservations about the lack of debate around the AUKUS pact, which will eventually lead to us operating US-built nuclear submarines, and was essentially sprung on us by the Morrison government.
any suggestion that US bombers eventually based here could potentially be used to deliver nuclear weapons, even a hint of which could make Australia a first-strike target, must be thoroughly interrogated.
EDITORIAL The Age 16 Feb, 23 https://www.theage.com.au/national/nuclear-weapons-uncertainty-must-be-resolved-20230216-p5cl6d.html
Have nuclear weapons been creeping onto Australian shores? That was the impression you may have well reached watching a Senate estimates hearing on Wednesday, when Defence Secretary Greg Moriarty indicated that American planes and ships could – in theory, at least – come here with a nuclear payload without breaching international protocols.
The South Pacific Nuclear Zone treaty, also known as the Treaty of Raratonga, expressly prohibits the “stationing” of nuclear weapons on Australian soil. But it has little to say about how we are supposed to deal with nuclear-equipped foreign planes and vessels that pass through.
Said Moriarty, “There is no impediment under this treaty … to the visit of foreign aircraft to Australian airfields or transit of Australia’s airspace, including in the context of our training and exercise programs and Australia’s force posture co-operation program with the United States.”
As for the potential that those planes are carrying nuclear weapons, he explained, we typically choose to make it none of our business. Abiding by a US policy called “warhead ambiguity”, apparently we don’t ask, they don’t tell, and the Australian public is none the wiser. Foreign Minister Penny Wong put it another way: “The responsible way of handling this is to recognise that the US has a ‘neither confirm nor deny position’ which we understand and respect.”
We have been able to sustain this likely fiction since B-52 bombers first began visiting Australian airfields in the 1980s. But the revelations late last year that the US now plans to build dedicated facilities to house six of its strategic bombers at Tindal air base, outside Darwin, raises the stakes, including for our co-signatories in the Treaty of Raratonga and neighbours and potential geopolitical rivals across the Pacific region.
Hearing of the plan in November, Beijing accused Australia and the United States of “triggering an arms race in the region”: hardly unexpected but not a complaint that was entirely without substance.
None of the B-52s officially stationed here would be able to carry nuclear weapons without breaching the treaty: “stockpiling, storage, installation and deployment” of any nuclear explosive device is prohibited. But there would surely be little to prevent companion aircraft passing through with payloads unknown: who would be checking? Nor would China and Indonesia necessarily care to recognise the difference. As for the treaty, when would “visiting” cross the line into “stationed”?
This masthead has previously expressed reservations about the lack of debate around the AUKUS pact, which will eventually lead to us operating US-built nuclear submarines, and was essentially sprung on us by the Morrison government. China, again, criticised that development, labelling our transition from diesel to nuclear as an “extremely irresponsible” threat to regional stability.
Indonesia, too, expressed its concerns. Writes military strategist Mick Ryan, “As a non-aligned country, it is very sensitive to the deployment of combat power from external nations into their area of interest.” Also expressing concerns are those who argue fuelling the boats with weapons-grade uranium could breach the international non-proliferation treaty.
Not so long ago, the merest hint that Australia was dabbling in nuclear anything with our American allies – power, submarines, weapons – would have provoked citywide protests. These days, apparently, not so much, especially if what is actually happening is hard to make out, hidden under a cloak of deniability or diplomatic technicalities. Even domestic nuclear power has re-emerged as an acceptable topic for discussion, if not necessarily enthusiastic adoption, after decades of staunch opposition. Yet we must not be lulled into ambivalence: any suggestion that US bombers eventually based here could potentially be used to deliver nuclear weapons, even a hint of which could make Australia a first-strike target, must be thoroughly interrogated.
Irresponsible Politics: Australia’s B-52 Nuclear Weapons Problem, and weasel words from Foreign Minister Penny Wong.
an irritated Wong deferred the issue in its entirety to Washington’s judgment, accepting the principle of “warhead ambiguity”.
This stubbornly irresponsible approach by the Australian government and its public servants means that the Australian public, at no point, can know whether US aircraft or delivery systems will have nuclear weapons, even if they transit through airspace or are based, for however long, on Australian soil. As Australian Greens Senator and Foreign Affairs spokesperson Jordon Steele John described it, “Australians have resisted the nuclearization of our military for decades and now the Albanese government is letting the Americans do it for us.”
February 17, 2023, Dr Binoy Kampmark, https://theaimn.com/irresponsible-politics-australias-b-52-nuclear-weapons-problem/
It is not farfetched to make the point that delivery systems capable of deploying nuclear weapons will lead to them carrying those very same weapons. Whatever the promises made by governments that such delivery systems will not carry such loads, stifling secrecy over such arrangements can only stir doubt.
That is the problem facing the AUKUS alliance which makes Australia a central point of reference for Washington and its broader ambitions in curbing China. The alliance is increasingly being characterised by a nuclear tone. First came the promise to furnish Australia with nuclear powered submarines, absent nuclear weapons. Then came the announcement to deploy six B-52 bombers to the Northern Territory’s Tindal airbase, south of Darwin.
Australia, in being turned into a US garrison state, is very likely going to be a site where nuclear weapons are hosted, though pedants and legal quibblers will dispute what, exactly, constitutes such hosting. Whether this is done so transiently, or whether this will be an ongoing understanding, is impossible to say. Any such arrangement is bound to make a nonsense of the South Pacific Nuclear-free Zone Treaty, otherwise known as the Treaty of Rarotonga, to which Australia is a party
The Albanese government is doing little to clarify the matter, and, in so doing, drawing even more attention to itself. In Senate estimates hearings held on February 15, the Greens pressed for clarification on the issue of nuclear weapons on Australian soil. Senator David Shoebridge asked whether Canberra was complying with the Treaty of Rarotonga, and whether visiting B-52s could carry nuclear weapons.
The latter question was almost a moot point, given that all B-52Hs are nuclear capable. The only issue is the type of nuclear enabled weapon they might carry. The nuclear gravity bomb days of the aircraft are over, but they are more than capable of being armed with nuclear-tipped cruise missiles.
In his response, Department of Defence Secretary Greg Moriarty manufactured a state of compliance with international obligations. The circle could thereby be squared. “I think more generally, it is clear stationing of nuclear weapons in Australia is prohibited by the South pacific nuclear free zone treaty, to which Australia is fully committed.”
The same, however, could not be said about visiting “foreign aircraft to Australian airfields or transit of Australia’s airspace, including in the context of our training and exercise programs, and the Australia and the Australian force posture cooperation with the United States.”
Disconcertingly, Moriarty went on to acknowledge that the practice of carrying nuclear weapons on US aircraft, if it had been going on, was entirely consistent with Australia’s own commitments to both the Treaty of Rarotonga and the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. “US bomber aircraft have been visiting Australia since the early 1980s and have conducted training in Australia since 2005. Successive Australian governments have understood and respected the longstanding US policy of neither confirming nor denying the presence of nuclear weapons on particular platforms.”
Moriarty went on to acknowledge that, “Australia will continue to fully comply with our international obligations, and the United States understands and fully respects Australia’s international obligations with respect to nuclear weapons.”
Shoebridge, less than content with the secretary’s response, shot back with another question: “So, Mr. Moriarty, do I understand from that answer that defence does not believe that there is a restraint under Australia’s current treaty obligations [permitting] nuclear armed B-52 bombers to be present in Australia, provided it’s not a permanent presence?”
Moriarty never got a chance to respond. Left with an opportunity to correct the outlandishly servile, not to mention opaque nature of US-Australian security relations, Foreign Minister Penny Wong became stroppy. The tradition of Master Washington and Servant Canberra would not be bucked. “I’m the minister, and I’m responding.”
In responding, thereby channelling the self-interested voice of the US imperium, an irritated Wong deferred the issue in its entirety to Washington’s judgment, accepting the principle of “warhead ambiguity”. “It is part of ensuring we maintain that interoperability that goes to us making Australia safe. We have tried to be helpful in indicating our commitment to the South Pacific nuclear free zone treaty. We are fully committed to that. And we’ve given you the answer that the secretary has given you.”
It was, the Senator continued to elaborate, beneath the minister to “engage in any more hypotheticals” – what Shoebridge was wishing to do, she accused, was “drum up concern, and I don’t think it’s responsible.” What, then, was the appropriate response in the world according to Wong? “The responsible way of handling this is to recognise that the US has a ‘neither confirm nor deny position’ which we understand and respect.”
This stubbornly irresponsible approach by the Australian government and its public servants means that the Australian public, at no point, can know whether US aircraft or delivery systems will have nuclear weapons, even if they transit through airspace or are based, for however long, on Australian soil. As Australian Greens Senator and Foreign Affairs spokesperson Jordon Steele John described it, “Australians have resisted the nuclearization of our military for decades and now the Albanese government is letting the Americans do it for us.”
This ingloriously subservient status to Washington has been laid bare yet again, and along with that, the increasingly likely prospect of being targeted in any future conflict that involves the United States. Hardly a responsible state of affairs, and one on the verge of being treasonous.
Murdoch Propaganda Pushes Australia To Double Its Military Budget For War With China – The time to start resisting is now.
And at 45:50 we finally get to the real purpose of this Sky News special: the need to “dramatically increase” the Australian military budget, and the need to manufacture consent for that increase.
I always get people complaining that I focus too much on the US war machine when I live in Australia, but anyone who’s paying attention knows the behavior of the US war machine is as relevant to Australians as it is to Americans. They are beating the drums for a future war of unfathomable horror all to please a dark god known as unipolarism, and it threatens to destroy us all.
The time to start resisting is now.
Caitlin Johnstone, Feb 16 2023,
In the latest escalation in Australia’s increasingly forceful campaign to manufacture consent for war with China, the Murdoch-owned Sky News Australia has aired a jaw-droppingly propagandistic hour-long special which advocates a dramatic increase in the nation’s military spending.
Australians are uniquely vulnerable to propaganda because our nation has the most concentrated media ownership in the western world, the lion’s share of it by Rupert Murdoch, who has well-documented ties to US government agencies going back decades. The propaganda campaign against China has gotten so aggressive here in recent years that I’ve repeatedly had complete strangers start babbling at me about the Chinese threat in casual conversation, completely out of the blue, within minutes of our first meeting each other.
The Sky News special is one of the most brazenly propagandistic things I have ever witnessed in any news media, with its opening minutes featuring footage of bayonet-wielding Chinese troops marching while ominous cinematic Bad Guy music plays loudly over the sound of the marching. In its promotional clip for the special, Sky News Australia tinged all footage pertaining to China in red to show how dangerous and communist they are. These are not decisions that are made with the intention of informing the public, these are decisions that are made with the intention of administering war propaganda.
The first expert Sky News brings on to tell viewers about the Chinese menace is Mick Ryan, an Adjunct Fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, which is funded by military-industrial complex entities like Raytheon, Boeing, Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman, and is also directly funded by the US government and its client states, including Australia and Taiwan. Sky News of course makes no mention of this immense conflict of interest while manufacturing consent for increased military spending, calling Ryan simply a “former major general.” This is on the same level of journalistic malpractice as running an article by Colonel Sanders on the health benefits of fried chicken but calling him “Harland David Sanders, former fry cook.”
The next expert Sky News presents us with is Australian former major general Jim “The Butcher of Fallujah” Molan, who oh-so-sadly passed away last month. I’ve written about Molan previously specifically because the Australian media love citing him in their propaganda campaign against China, last time when he was pushing the ridiculous claim that China is poised to launch an invasion of Australia.
The other experts Sky News brings in are former CIA Director and US Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, Taiwan’s Foreign Minister Joseph Wu, Taiwan’s Director of Chinese Affairs Dr Lai Chung, Japan’s ambassador to Australia Yamagami Shingo, Australian Shadow Defense Minister Andrew Hastie, and John Coyne of the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, a virulent propaganda firm which is once again funded by US-aligned governments and military-industrial complex war profiteers.
So it’s about as balanced and impartial a punditry lineup as you’d expect.
At the 8:15 mark of the special, Sky News repeats the unevidenced propaganda claim that former Chinese president Hu Jintao was politically purged during the 20th Communist Party Congress last year.
At 19:15 Jim Molan talks about the need to fight and die with our allies the Americans while patriotic cello music plays in the background.
At 21:30 we are shown images of Australia being bombed alongside the Chinese flag (very subtle, guys).
At 24:25 Sky News accidentally does a version of the “look how close they put their country to our military bases” meme with a graphic display of all the US war machinery that surrounds China. The US would never tolerate being encircled by the Chinese military like that and would immediately wage war if China tried; it’s clear that the US is the aggressor in this conflict and China is reacting defensively.
“The United States plays a major strategic role in the Indo-Pacific,” says Sky News anchor Peter Stefanovic as the screen lights up with graphics showing the military presence surrounding China. “With 375,000 personnel, there’s a vast network of operations that extend from Hawaii all the way to India.”
At 26:30 we are shown a digital representation of China’s satellite systems in space, with the Chinese satellites colored red to help us all appreciate how evil and communist they are.
At 27:45 we are shown illustrations of how much smaller Australia’s military is than China’s or America’s to help us understand how important it is to increase the size of our nation’s war machine, ignoring the fact that Australia’s total population is a tiny fraction of either of those countries.
At 32:45 we are told that the AUKUS pact will “beef up America’s military presence in the north of Australia,” and that “America has long used Australia as a key strategic outpost,” showing images of Pine Gap and other parts of the US war machine which dot this continent. “Now, there’s more to come,” says Stefanovic, with US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin describing the surge in US military presence we’re to expect in Australia.
At 34:10 the Australian Strategic Policy Institute guy explains why the US is so keen to use Australia in its planned confrontation with China, saying the continent’s geography puts it in “the Goldilocks location” of being close enough to China to be meaningful but far enough away that its war machinery can’t be easily struck.
At 35:15 Stefanovic warns that “our nation could quite literally be brought to its knees” if a war to the north sees shipping lanes cut off since Australia is so heavily dependent of imports. You would think this is an argument about the importance of maintaining a peaceful relationship with China, but instead it’s used to foment fear of China and argue for the need to be able to defeat it in a war.
And at 45:50 we finally get to the real purpose of this Sky News special: the need to “dramatically increase” the Australian military budget, and the need to manufacture consent for that increase. Australia currently has a military budget of $48.7 billion, a little less than two percent of the nation’s GDP. The late Butcher of Fallujah tells Sky News that “we need to at least double our defense expenditure” to four percent, and the special’s pundits openly discuss the need for Australians to be persuaded to accept this using narrative management…………………….
To be clear, this is not just a call to increase military spending, this is a call to propagandize Australians into consenting to more military spending. It’s not very often that the propaganda comes right out and explains to you why it is propagandizing you.
I always get people complaining that I focus too much on the US war machine when I live in Australia, but anyone who’s paying attention knows the behavior of the US war machine is as relevant to Australians as it is to Americans. They are beating the drums for a future war of unfathomable horror all to please a dark god known as unipolarism, and it threatens to destroy us all.
The time to start resisting is now. https://caitlinjohnstone.substack.com/p/murdoch-propaganda-pushes-australia?r=pf4vw&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&fbclid=IwAR2-MoxPsyKvcurWfgwc2Qd8aFn6YwgGaG4clg0wgUKO7NYQypg76A-zLUY
With weasel words, Australia’s top military brass, and sycophant Richard Marles, justify allowing U.S. nuclear weapons in Australia
US nuclear-armed bomber visits allowed under Australian treaty obligations The Age, Matthew Knott, February 15, 2023
American B-52 bombers armed with nuclear warheads could rotate through Australia without breaching treaty obligations, the nation’s most senior defence public servant has indicated.
The Australian public would never be informed whether such aircraft are carrying nuclear weapons under the so-called US policy of “warhead ambiguity” in which it neither confirms nor denies if particular forms of military equipment are nuclear-armed.
While adamantly refusing to address hypothetical scenarios, Foreign Minister Penny Wong said: “The responsible way of handling this is to recognise that the US has a ‘neither confirm nor deny position’ which we understand and respect.”
It was revealed last year that the United States is preparing to build dedicated facilities for up to six B-52 bombers at Tindal air base, south of Darwin, for use in the Northern Territory dry season.
Nuclear weapons opponents and the Chinese government blasted the plan on the basis it could escalate tensions in the Asia-Pacific and accelerate an arms race in the region………………….
Australia is prohibited from permanently housing nuclear weapons in the country under its treaty obligations. But Moriarty, speaking in general terms, suggested US nuclear-armed bombers could temporarily pass through Australia without breaching international law.
“The stationing of nuclear weapons in Australia is prohibited by the South Pacific Nuclear-free Zone Treaty to which Australia is fully committed,” Moriarty said.
“There is no impediment under this treaty or the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty to the visit of foreign aircraft to Australian airfields or transit of Australia’s airspace, including in the context of our training and exercise programs and Australia’s force posture co-operation program with the United States.”
The B-52 is a long-range, heavy bomber that can carry out ocean surveillance and anti-ship operations and “can carry nuclear or precision guided conventional ordnance”, according to the US government……………
Greens defence spokesman David Shoebridge said: “It is highly alarming that Australian military facilities are being made available for the US to launch its nuclear-capable bombers.
“This decision not only makes us a nuclear target – it further erodes our sovereignty.
“The US has made it clear it won’t tell anyone when their B-52’s are nuclear armed or not. This leaves Australia in the dark about our role in the USA’s global nuclear strategy.”
Defence Minister Richard Marles said that while Australia had agreed to an increased tempo of American rotations in northern Australia, there had been no change in policy regarding the presence of nuclear-armed weapons.
“America maintains a policy of ambiguity in terms of the nature of assets that are on their platforms and they do that so as to amplify their extended nuclear deterrence,” he told the ABC.
Asked whether US nuclear-armed bombers should be allowed in Australia, opposition defence spokesman Andrew Hastie said: “Of course, we want to see a greater presence of the American military in the Indo-Pacific.”……………………………………………
When the ABC’s Four Corners revealed the plan to build dedicated facilities for the B-52s in October, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Zhao Lijian said: “Such a move by the US and Australia escalates regional tensions, gravely undermines regional peace and stability, and may trigger an arms race in the region.”
Greens foreign affairs spokesman Jordan Steele-John said: “Nuclear-capable B-52 bombers have no place on Australian bases, on Australian shores or in Australian airspace. They are an offensive weapon that will destabilise our region.” https://www.theage.com.au/politics/federal/us-nuclear-armed-bomber-visits-allowed-under-australian-treaty-obligations-20230215-p5ckrs.html—
Australian government OK with not knowing whether or not visiting US aircraft carry nuclear weapons!
“………………… Appearing before a Senate estimates hearing, Defence secretary Greg Moriarty and senior military figures were also quizzed about a nuclear submarines deal with the United States and Britain.
Mr Moriarty said the AUKUS agreement would also accelerate the acquisition of guided weapons…………….
“There is no impediment under either treaty to the visit of foreign aircraft to Australian airfields or transit of Australia’s airspace, including in the context of our training and exercise programs,” he said.
“Successive Australian governments have understood and respected the long-standing US policy of neither confirming nor denying the presence of nuclear weapons on particular platforms.”……..
Canberra mulls defence overhaul as subs decision nears (msn.com)
The Defence Strategic Review and Australia’s ‘Alliance’ obsession
After that Australian forces, or rather their equipment, was aligned to a newer kind of threat from irregular or insurgent forces in Western Asia, conflicts in which Australia had little or no direct interest but was engaged there to keep the US on-side
The proposed long term acquisition of nuclear submarines has completely upended our diplomatic and strategic positioning, as revealed (perhaps unintentionally) by Defence Minister Richard Marles when he told a gathering in London this month that the AUKUS goal is to create “a more seamless defence industrial space” between the three countries, affirming that Australia is more tied at the hip to the US than previously admitted – because we would not have national control over the submarines in relation to their location and deployment, thereby severely compromising our national sovereignty.
The submarines would have little purpose for independent defence if ranged against China
Pearls and Irritations. By Andrew Farran, Feb 16, 2023
How might the renown mid-20th century linguist Ludwig Wittgenstein have addressed the current defence strategic review?
As the perceptive mid-20th century Cambridge based English/Austrian linguist Ludwig Wittgenstein explained, the answer you get to a question depends on how the question is formed. The same wisdom could have been conveyed to military planners in the past when they set out to plan force structures for twenty or more years ahead. Wrong question. Wrong answers.
Looking back, think of all the military expenditure over the past twenty years and more that has been wasted as being unusable or irrelevant to purpose. Think of the lost opportunities for sound force development and the money saved that might have been available for under-resourced schools, hospitals and welfare assistance falling short of need.
After World War Two planning remained where it had left off, with established formations around divisions, battalions and platoons, essentially ground forces and an expensive aircraft carrier unsuitable for serious combat. After much debate a viable carrier fleet was seen as unattainable and unaffordable with the loss of the existing fleet air arm. Upgrades on traditional lines were undertaken following the Korean War but thereafter with Vietnam becoming the main preoccupation (misconceived), and keeping faith with the US on military commitments, the conventional wisdom in military circles was that future conflict would involve containing insurgents in Asian jungles and the protection of naval approaches around continental Australia and its resources of a conventional nature.
Nonetheless a parallel objective was the search for a silver bullet that would provide cover for all contingencies whether existing or not. Hence the embrace by government of the F111 fighter/bomber not withstanding the tribulations of its procurement and eventual deployment (the latter being relatively little as it happened). After that Australian forces, or rather their equipment, was aligned to a newer kind of threat from irregular or insurgent forces in Western Asia, conflicts in which Australia had little or no direct interest but was engaged there to keep the US on-side – being our insurance in case of larger dangers closer to home.
…………………………. The real threat to America today is largely internal given rising levels of rioting and disaffection (racial and otherwise). But concern over America’s decline vis a vis China, whether real or not, is now front and centre on force structure issues.
…………….. As before we have looked for a magic pudding that would enhance our profile and please our once great and powerful friends. Hence as was the case with the F111s, and more recently the F-35s we have become fixated with nuclear powered submarines, having decided they are needed for long range deployment.
There is much that is unreal about this move. Firstly long range deployment implies that China is the potential or envisaged enemy requiring Australian engagement at that level. While China might be seen as flexing its muscles lately it has done nothing in this regard that is different from the United States. Both seek to protect and advance their relative status. But for neither side would this be advanced by military conflict.
……………..
wider world has a vested interest in the avoidance of counter-productive warfare and a deep felt need for viable multilateralism.
(See Jeffrey Sachs, “The new geopolitics”.)
………………………… The proposed long term acquisition of nuclear submarines has completely upended our diplomatic and strategic positioning, as revealed (perhaps unintentionally) by Defence Minister Richard Marles when he told a gathering in London this month that the AUKUS goal is to create “a more seamless defence industrial space” between the three countries, affirming that Australia is more tied at the hip to the US than previously admitted. – because we would not have national control over the submarines in relation to their location and deployment, thereby severely compromising our national sovereignty.
That would be a high price to pay even if we were engaged in a major war as was the case in 1942; but it is not and should not be the price we pay on speculation over assumed threats that are anything but imminent. The submarines would have little purpose for independent defence if ranged against China which can deploy a growing number of nuclear powered and armed submarines together with some 50 conventional powered ones (bearing in mind too that North Korea could deploy just as many given that the Korean War remains unresolved).
The Strategic Review currently underway will certainly strengthen our capacity to protect our immediate off-shore regions and coastline with new technologies including drones for enhanced surveillance, medium range missiles and sea mines, and survivable platforms to support them – while appreciating at the same time that in a high conflict situation the Chinese or any other militarily powerful nation could lob missiles on our vulnerable locations with disconcerting accuracy (including cities, Pine Gap and North West Cape). That point could well be the end of us sooner than we would like to think
So why buy into this unless doing so would make a difference when we know it would not. There is a lot more to this issue for the government to consider than when Prime Minister Menzies and his Cabinet decided on Australian forces being deployed in Vietnam or when Prime Minister Howard and his kitchen cabinet decided similarly in the case of Iraq – both gigantic mistakes. https://johnmenadue.com/the-defence-strategic-review-and-australias-alliance-obsession/
7.30 Report: Sarah Ferguson Opens Up New Perspectives on the AUKUS Nuclear Submarine Deal
The secrecy associated with the formation of the Submarine Taskforce should be of great concern to Australians of all persuasions as our partners in France had no clues about what was happening behind the scenes as they made preparations to supply the contracted diesel submarines that more fully complied with commitments to the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone with the support of New Zealand and other island states. No wonder that President Macron had little respect for Scott Morrison. (The video and the news clip of the French President’s remarks are available here.)
February 14, 2023 By Denis Bright
Sincere appreciation must be extended to the Albanese Government for allowing Vice Admiral Jonathan Mead AO to be interviewed in some depth on the 7.30 Report (13 February 2023). Sarah Ferguson was up to speed again in her interviewing skills with a seasoned naval officer who was assigned to active service in the Persian Gulf in 2006 as Captain of HMAS Parramatta.
The Vice Admiral’s understanding of nuclear technology being applied in the selection of the new submarine options was of course beyond reproach through his involvement with the clandestine Nuclear Submarine Taskforce established by the Morrison Government. Our US allies are great salespersons for the Anglo-American military industrial complexes in the post-Brexit era.
At least Britain’s BAE Systems as potential manufacturers of the AUKUS Submarines paid some tax in 2020-21 with a payment of $26.293 million to the ATO on a revenue base of $1.062 billion and a declared taxable income of just $123.484 million. The US military and aerospace giant Lockheed Martin kept its tax bill to $14.891 million on an income take of just over half a billion and a taxable income of $53.056 million (ABC News Taxation List, 2 November 2022).
The concerns of ordinary Australians about the financial and security costs of the AUKUS Submarine deal extend well beyond concerns about the technical capacity of those sealed reactors which are expected to operate for 30 years for the full life of the submarines until the year 2070 approaches.
The secrecy associated with the formation of the Submarine Taskforce should be of great concern to Australians of all persuasions as our partners in France had no clues about what was happening behind the scenes as they made preparations to supply the contracted diesel submarines that more fully complied with commitments to the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone with the support of New Zealand and other island states. No wonder that President Macron had little respect for Scott Morrison. (The video and the news clip of the French President’s remarks are available here.)
…………………………………………………….. The Naval News video admitted that the Émeraude had transited the South China Sea in stealth mode. This was confirmed by coverage from France 24 (12 February 2021). Perhaps the stealth mode was to test the awareness of Chinese vessels and shore installations. Other military French vessels have done navigation runs through the Taiwan Straits which is always provocative when the current Democratic Party (DPP) holds power in Taipei and is calling for a formal declaration of independence from China to cheers from far-right global opinion.
…………….For China, the Taiwan Straits are definitely disputed waters as most countries in the US Global Alliance supported a One China Policy fifty years ago. This should have ended the US practice of using Taiwan for propaganda purposes throughout the Cold War.
……………………….. Just imagine the outrage in the Murdoch press if Chinese submarines made jaunts into Bass Strait to annoy the naval officers at HMAS Cerberus or to scare students at the Vice Admiral’s old secondary school at St. Bede’s in Mentone if the remnants of the federal LNP tried to establish Tasmania as an Independent Nationalist State with the support of a friendly US Administration.
Annoying China as well as alienating some ASEAN nations and members of the Pacific Island Forum will not assist with the current repair work on trading and investment relations with China.
The proposed AUKUS submarine deal imposes frightful financial burdens on Australia during inflationary times in which costs estimates for the AUKUS submarines extends into the 2040s (The Guardian 14 December 2021). Losses on trade and investment opportunities with China would of course extend these costs with 43 per cent of our exports destined to China at present (Latest data from Trading Economics).
Taiwan can assist to defuse tensions by giving a guarantee that it is not about to make a declaration of independence from the mainland. Relations between Taiwan and the Mainland seem to be improving again as China reverts to commercial diplomacy over displays of military strength. This style of diplomacy at least ensures that the economy of Taiwan is more fully integrated with the Mainland. Over 12,000 Taiwanese students were studying in Chinese academic institutes prior to the COVID-19 epidemic.
Despite all the negative media coverage of China in the Murdoch press, 42 per cent of Taiwan’s exports went to China in 2021-22 and 22 per cent of Chinese imports originated in either China or Hong Kong (CNBC 4 August 2022). Many Taiwan-based companies and services operate in China and Hong Kong.
With President Tsai Lng-wen unable to seek a third term as President in 2024, the popularity of the DPP seems to be on the wane. The opposition KMT gained 50.14 per cent of the vote at the recent local government elections on 26 November 2022 and controls fourteen local government areas to five held by the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP).
The Taiwanese electorate is undoubtedly evaluating the sustainability of nationalist rhetoric favouring a declaration of Taiwanese independence while the Australian government is negotiating those AUKUS submarine deals.
Signs of some thawing in cross-strait relations include a recent visit by the vice-chairman of the KMT to China and the restoration of more frequent fast ferry services between China’s Fujian Province and the adjacent Taiwanese islands of Kinmen and Matsu which are just a few kilometres off-shore.
There is great scope for the 7.30 Report to extend its coverage of the upsurge in regional strategic tensions with China after election cycles in Taiwan which bring the DPP into office. Re-election of the KMT in Taiwan in 2024 may totally defuse the current situation and leave Australians to bear the financial costs of the AUKUS submarine deal.
Opportunities exist to invite guest speakers onto future 7.30 Report programs to consider the impact of nuclear-powered submarines on the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone which was ratified by all South Pacific nations as well as differing viewpoints on commercial ties with China.
Extending the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty to coverage ASEAN Countries, the South China Sea and Taiwan might be a logical extension for consideration.
Toning down provocative visits by unfriendly naval vessels can be part of a Win-Win Deal to avoid future flyovers by Chinese jets.
Even the jellyfish in Moreton Bay are not very welcoming about the prospects of nuclear-powered ships:
According to a leading marine biologist and jellyfish expert Lisa-ann Gershwin, if the fleet is based in Brisbane, which is one of the shortlisted sites of the Australian government, the nuclear-powered submarines may be forced into an emergency reactor shutdown by swarms of jellyfish.
Gershwin added that Brisbane is “close to the absolute worst place” for a nuclear submarine base, due to the conditions in Moreton Bay and the usual jellyfish blooms.
Safety protocols for nuclear powered ships which sometimes carry nuclear weapons into Australian ports have been prepared by all states and territories as the ACT has its Jervis Bay facility which is separated from land-locked Canberra. The Queensland Government has made its precautions public in the publication Nuclear Powered Warship Visits to the Port of Brisbane.
Perhaps more public discussion as presented on the 7.30 Report can give the Australian government more wriggle room before the contracts are signed to initiate the AUKUS submarine deal. Payment of $835 million has already been made by the Albanese Government to France for breach of contract on the previous arrangements as negotiated by Malcolm Turnbull’s Government.
Appeals from our US allies for more military commitment from Australia and more use of the Pine Gap electronic base for offensive operations have landed Australia in compromising situations for decades from interventions in Vietnam to Afghanistan. The nostalgia for a return to the Cold War era with new military bases in the Philippines is an unfortunate regression. The ASEAN region to our north is better off left as a zone of peace and sustainable development.
By the time Australians discuss these issues, there may be a KMT Government in Taipei, and peaceful Win-Win scenarios may make the AUKUS deal redundant. Cheers then to the 7.30 Report’s contribution to strategic sanity. This style of reporting offers guest speakers who are saturated in knowledge of their specialist topics. I can only promote discussion and would be a real novice in head-to-head discussions with the Vice Admiral.
Richard Marles and Jonathan Mead babble on about nuclear submarines, (adding to the confusion).
Australia will have ‘unequivocal’ control over nuclear-powered submarines, insists chief adviser
‘When we take command of our first boat, we will have sovereign capability’, says Vice Admiral Jonathan Mead,
Daniel Hurst Guardian, 14 Feb 23,
The head of Australia’s nuclear-powered submarine taskforce insists Australia will retain full operational control over the submarines, while potentially having US or British engineers on board to provide technical advice.
The comments follow renewed debate in recent weeks over whether the flagship project of the Aukus pact – which relies on support from the US and the UK – will lead to an erosion of Australian sovereignty.
The former prime minister Malcolm Turnbull has been calling on the government to answer whether the submarines could be “operated, sustained and maintained by Australia without the support or supervision of the US navy”, and whether that effectively meant “sovereignty would be shared with the US”.
But the head of the taskforce advising the Australian government on the acquisition of at least eight submarines, Vice Admiral Jonathan Mead, used an interview with ABC TV on Monday evening to assert Australian control.
“When we take command of our first boat, we will have sovereign capability,” he told the 7.30 program.
“We will be commanding and controlling, under the Australian government direction, that nuclear-powered submarine.”…………………………….
Like the defence minister, Richard Marles, Mead expressed confidence that the plan to be announced soon would ensure there was no capability gap between the retirement of Australia’s existing Collins class diesel-electric submarines and the entry into service of nuclear-powered boats. But he did not provide specifics.
Mead also described the purpose of nuclear-powered submarines as being to “put the greatest question of doubt in the enemy’s mind” and “if necessary, respond with massive firepower”.
Marles used a speech to parliament last week to declare that acquiring nuclear-powered submarines would “dramatically enhance” Australia’s sovereignty, rather than undermine it………
Marles said Australia would “always make sovereign, independent decisions on how our capabilities are employed”.
In the wake of that speech, Turnbull tweeted that it was “quite a different thing to have a major platform that cannot be operated without the supervision/support of another country”
Turnbull said on Monday evening: “I think the question which has not been answered is: could the submarines be operated if US technical advice/support were withdrawn? The entire resources of the Australian news media have been unable to pin the government or the navy down on that.”
Paul Keating, the former Labor prime minister has previously raised concerns about increased reliance on US support and suggested Australia’s sovereignty was being “wilfully suborned”. https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/feb/13/australia-will-have-unequivocal-control-over-nuclear-powered-submarines-insists-chief-advisor
1 This month
Chernobyl: The Lost Tapes – A good documentary on Chernobyl on SBS available On Demand for the next 3 weeks– https://www.sbs.com.au/ondemand/tv-program/chernobyl-the-lost-tapes/2352741955560
15 April – Zoom –Nuclear Power is Not the Solution
Apr 15, 2026 01:00 AM in Canberra, Melbourne, Sydney
Join the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War (IPPNW) on Tuesday, April 14th for a timely webinar exploring the risks associated with nuclear power and challenging the myth that it offers a simple, safe, carbon-free solution to the climate crisis
21 April Webinar: No Nuclear Weapons in Australia
Start: 2026-04-21 18:00:00 UTC Canberra, Melbourne, Sydney (GMT+10:00)
End: 2026-04-21 19:30:00 UTC Canberra, Melbourne, Sydney (GMT+10:00)
Event Type: Virtual
A virtual link will be communicated before the event.
Host Contact Info: australia@icanw.org
of the week – Australians for War Powers Reform (AWPR)
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity
Antinuclear 