Talk of war with China reveals Australia’s delusions of grandeur
Talk of war with China reveals Australia’s delusions of grandeur, Independent Australia, By Dean Aszkielowicz | 26 May 2021, Australians need to be realistic when it comes to China, write Dr Dean Aszkielowicz and Paul Taucher.
THE LAST MAJOR CONFLICT in the Pacific ended over 75 years ago. Japan, the United States, China and the European colonial powers fought a war that cost millions of lives. It contributed to the downfall of several empires and overturned the regional political order.
Further, the American use of atomic bombs against Japan led to subsequent generations living with the fear of nuclear war.
Public figures in Australia who are now loudly predicting that a war with China is looming, ought to think carefully about something like this scenario playing out again. No matter what the behaviour of the Chinese regime is, or what the status of bilateral relations are, war is not an option.
Australia’s message must be peace. At the end of both World War I and
World War II, and again in the wake of the Cold War, political leaders and diplomats insisted that dialogue and international institutions are the key to a peaceful world. This view has persisted and the hope is that cooperation in politics, economics and security will protect sovereignty, increase prosperity, and allow smaller countries to determine their own path in world affairs.
This framework is known as a rules-based order and for much of the post-war era, many countries – including Australia – invested heavily in it. Indeed, much of the recent Australian angst over China stems from a belief that the regime is acting in a way that does not meet these international expectations.
Lately, however, the talk of war in Australia reflects its own emerging lack of faith in the rules-based order and a belief that ultimately the region will collapse into war. This belief downplays Australia’s ability to achieve its goals through diplomacy in the international arena.
Australians who entertain the thought of war also dramatically overstate the ability of the military in the face of an opponent like China. The Australian Defence Force (ADF) is effective, technically advanced and has a proud history. It has made major contributions to peacekeeping operations and supported the U.S. military.
The ADF has been most effective is as a diplomatic tool, by responding to disasters across the globe and through peacekeeping. In these kinds of deployments, the ADF makes an important contribution to supporting a rules-based order.
Much of Australia’s international reputation is built on these operations, and this work is indispensable in building and maintaining partnerships. The most challenging deployments, on the other hand, have been when the ADF has paid the price on behalf of the government for political crusades into practically unwinnable wars.
Australia does not have the capacity to fight a major war with China and deliver results that the Australian people would find acceptable in the aftermath of it. China is a major military and industrial power, whereas Australia is not.
When people predict a war is coming, they are predicting the deaths of thousands of Australians, the destruction of millions of dollars of ADF equipment and the collapse of a key Australian trade relationship.
This needs to be discussed much more openly if people are talking about war.
Even a limited war with China would deliver these outcomes. There are no guarantees, however, that a war would be contained at all, in which case the consequences for Australia would be an order of magnitude larger.
CNN made its thoughts clear when it called the notion of Australia fighting a war with China “ridiculous”.
Of course, those who insist that war with China is looming assume that Australia would not be on its own and would take part in the conflict in support of the U.S. They probably see war talk, in this context, as supporting the American agenda for the region. When the positions of Australia’s partners are considered, however, the recent war talk seems much more like Australia further escalating a situation that others would pay the highest price for.
Opinions in the U.S. are divided over how close war with China really is and over whether America is likely to win a war in the South China Sea. Some projections are very bleak.
Tellingly, Australia finds itself largely on its own in escalating war talk with China. Neither the U.S. nor China seem to want to go to war at the moment………
The hawkish tone of recent comments in Australia are currently out of step with the other major players. They convey an inflated sense of the country’s readiness for such a war and represent a loss of faith in a regional order that Australians spent decades helping to build.
If people in government or the military feel war with China is likely, then they must do everything they can to cool tensions, which is something diplomatic institutions are well equipped for. Issues with China over territory, human rights, or trade, need to be addressed through a renewed commitment by Australia to international institutions and international conventions……….. https://independentaustralia.net/article-display/talk-of-war-with-china-reveals-australias-delusions-of-grandeur,15122
Nuclear submarines – a step towards full nuclear chain, importing wastes, and joining in USA nuclear brinkmanship
Nuclear Submarines – just a foot in the door, Echo By Richard Staples, September 24, 2021 ”…………. Admittedly, nuclear-powered subs can stay underwater virtually indefinitely, but they are relatively noisy. A nuclear reactor with its pumps and heat transfer systems cannot help but make noise continuously. There is only so much that can be done to muffle or quieten them down. In contrast, a submerged conventional submarine can switch off all its motors, and survive on battery power. Provided the crew don’t fart or sneeze, they can be very quiet indeed. And contemporary subs equipped with fuel cells as well as batteries can operate submerged for up to three weeks.
In the next few months we will hear a lot about how superior nuclear-powered submarines are. Vice Admiral Mike Noonan is even claiming superior stealth characteristics – which is simply not true. Yes, they tend to be faster. This is great if you want to go thousands of kilometres in a matter of days. But they are also much more expensive.
A conventionally powered sub like the German-Italian Type 212 costs between €280 and €560 million. Even allowing for Australia paying mug’s prices, we could acquire and run one for far less than a billion dollars. Contrast that with the proposed boats, each of which will probably cost ten times that much. The money we could save could be used to preserve an Australia worth defending – a fleet of firefighting aircraft, stopping the erosion of our health care system, free university education… you fill in the rest.
So, why nuclear subs?
Elements of the Federal coalition and the media are very keen on Australia getting more involved in the nuclear fuel cycle. The Financial Review has jumped straight in lobbying for nuclear power. On July 29 there was kite-flying in the West Australian newspaper about building a nuclear reactor in WA (with UK involvement). This would probably be sited in a remote location (to avoid the NIMBYs) – maybe the Kimberley – and primarily tasked with producing hydrogen. Expect an announcement if the Morrison government is returned at the next election.
Meanwhile the planned nuclear waste dump in SA could very profitably be expanded. High-level N-waste could be taken, not just from military sources. Countries like the UK and Germany (and I dare say France) could solve their dilemma of N-waste by exporting it to a remote location in the third world (Aboriginal land in Australia). So the move to N-powered ships can be seen as a slip into the whole nuclear cycle.
Meanwhile Defence Minister Dutton beats the drums of war, trying to terrify us regarding China’s ‘huge military buildup’ (China is spending less than one-third what the US does). Our own military bill is huge and increasing – $45 billion this year. The recent announcement of AUKUS, a strategic partnership obviously aimed at China, identifies an enemy, and offers a strategic excuse for this expenditure. It is about this country playing a minor role in a US-led game of brinkmanship and global hegemony. We would base our nuclear subs at HMAS Stirling near Fremantle and play the role of Deputy Sheriff in the Indian Ocean, targeting Chinese assets in the Horn of Africa, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Burma. Then there is Dutton talking about more US weapons and GIs being based in Australia. This is AUKUS.
The alternative scenario is that Australia protects itself. In 1986 the Hawke Government received the Dibb Report, which proposed such an approach, but gained little traction. This might include conventionally powered attack submarines that would be far better equipped to deal with any seaborne invasion. Unmanned Undersea Vehicles are a rapidly emerging technology that could also play a role. (Such drones may render crewed subs obsolete anyway).
But rather than preparing for war, we could enhance the prospects for peace.
Above all, Australia is desperately in need of an independent foreign policy and a competent diplomatic service. Building trust and friendship with neighbours to the near north and in the Pacific would be a good start. https://www.echo.net.au/2021/09/nuclear-submarines-a-foot-in-the-door/
This week – AUKUS, nuclear submarines and the new dangers of weapons proliferation and war.
Paul Keating has explained the folly of antagonising China, constantly provoking further militarisation. Regional countries are concerned at the heightened militarisation, and the passage of nuclear submarines through their waters. The use of Highly Enriched Uranium (HEU) fuel brings risks of weapons proliferation. Now the previously nuclear-free zone looks like soon to be bristling with nuclear weapons .
And the big corporations that rule USA policy, UK policy, and now Australian policy, will be rejoicing. Watch as UK’s BAE Systems and USA’s General Dynamics fight it out for the loot from Australian tax-payers.
AUKUS, nuclear submarines, Highly Enriched Uranium and weapons proliferation
The AUKUS decision to equip Australia with SSNs not only is a fool’s errand but also could pose a grave threat to regional and international security.
Australia’s acquisition of SSNs under AUKUS could well open a Pandora’s box of proliferation with non-nuclear-weapon states such as Argentina, Brazil, Canada, Iran, Japan, Saudi Arabia and South Korea among others also going in for nuclear-powered submarines and keeping nuclear fuel (both low- and highly-enriched uranium) outside the scope of IAEA safeguards. This would weaken the IAEA safeguards (verification) system already facing challenges from new technologies and open up possibilities of diversion of nuclear material for nuclear weapons.
Australia’s nuclear-powered submarines will risk opening a Pandora’s box of proliferation, https://johnmenadue.com/australias-nuclear-powered-submarines-will-risk-opening-a-pandoras-box-of-proliferation/ By Tariq Rauf, 22, 2021 The AUKUS decision to equip Australia with SSNs not only is a fool’s errand but also could pose a grave threat to regional and international security.
After first suffering a seeming “brain snap” to acquire a fleet of nuclear-powered submarines (SSNs) some years back, at long last Australia has been promised a fleet of eight SSNs by the Biden administration under the newly minted and awkwardly named AUKUS (Australia, United Kingdom and United States) alliance against China.
Fresh from an ignominious debacle in Afghanistan that led to that bedevilled country once again falling under the repression of the murderous Taliban, the Biden administration has capped off its recent Afghan escapade by driving a stake through the global nuclear non-proliferation regime through its ill-advised decision to supply SSNs and related technology to Australia.
The problem
Nuclear-powered submarines of the United States (and the United Kingdom) reportedly are fuelled with highly-enriched uranium (HEU) of 93 per cent to 97 per cent enrichment level that can last for up to 33 years — this is the same enrichment level as for use in nuclear weapons. In contrast, French nuclear-powered submarines run on low-enriched uranium 5 per cent to 7.5 per cent enrichment level and need to be refuelled on average after about 10 years but do not need weapon-grade enriched uranium.
Nuclear ship propulsion technology and reactor design for military vessels as well as the isotopic composition and quantity of their nuclear fuel remains highly classified. When Canada was considering acquiring a fleet of SSNs in 1987, the two potential suppliers were France (Rubis/Améthyste-class) and the United Kingdom (Trafalgar-class).
In the case of the United Kingdom, Canada was informed that US Congressional approval would be required for the UK to construct and supply SSNs (with US design reactors and nuclear fuel) to Canada. The nuclear ship propulsion reactor design and nuclear fuel information would be subject to a high level of classification. With this requirement for secrecy, Canada would not have been able to provide detailed information to the IAEA under its Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) safeguards agreement (INFCIRC/164) thereby creating a loophole or gap in IAEA safeguards coverage in Canada. A certain (likely unspecified) large quantity of HEU for naval nuclear fuel would be taken out of safeguards for use in the SSNs and the spent fuel coming out the boats after 30 years or more also would be subject to secrecy. Thus the IAEA would not be able to measure the quantity or isotopic composition or to verify the HEU in naval use.
The IAEA Additional Protocol, to safeguards agreements, provides for the “broader conclusion” regarding the absence of undeclared nuclear material or activities. As such, to be clear and precise, were Australia to withhold from the IAEA information on and access to its naval nuclear fuel, then the IAEA would be unable to provide a broader conclusion for Australia under its additional protocol INFCIRC/217/Add.1.
Australia and the two other AUKUS states have communicated to the IAEA director general their intention for the Royal Australian Navy to acquire a fleet of SSNs and this means that at some future time Australia would be invoking paragraph 14 of its NPT safeguards agreement to exclude significant quantities of highly-enriched uranium for naval nuclear fuel. Thus, the claim by AUKUS states “that a critical objective of this cooperation will be to maintain “the strength of both the nuclear non-proliferation regime and Australia’s exemplary non-proliferation credentials” and that they will be “engaging with the IAEA throughout the coming months” is at best an oxymoron.
It should be matter of serious concern for the IAEA board of governors that the “IAEA will engage with them [AUKUS] on this matter in line with its statutory mandate, and in accordance with their respective safeguards agreements with the agency” — as this does not make much sense in that the paragraph 14 provisions on keeping HEU naval nuclear fuel out of safeguards apply only to Australia and not to the UK and the US (the latter two being nuclear-weapon states).
The only responsible course for the IAEA board of governors should be to warn Australia regarding the deleterious effects on safeguards should it implement paragraph 14 provisions and keep large quantities of HEU for its fleet of SSNs outside of IAEA safeguards. The IAEA board would be well advised to reject any request placed before it from Australia or from any other NPT non-nuclear-weapon state to implement paragraph 14 provisions. Rather, the board should take the responsible decision to revoke application of paragraph 14 of INFCIRC/153 (Corr.) and in all related safeguards agreements, much like the board rescinded the original provisions of the Small Quantities Protocol in 2005.
Australia’s acquisition of SSNs under AUKUS could well open a Pandora’s box of proliferation with non-nuclear-weapon states such as Argentina, Brazil, Canada, Iran, Japan, Saudi Arabia and South Korea among others also going in for nuclear-powered submarines and keeping nuclear fuel (both low- and highly-enriched uranium) outside the scope of IAEA safeguards. This would weaken the IAEA safeguards (verification) system already facing challenges from new technologies and open up possibilities of diversion of nuclear material for nuclear weapons. The AUKUS decision to equip Australia with SSNs not only is a fool’s errand but also could pose a grave threat to regional and international security.
This article was first published by the Toda Peace Institute and is reproduced with permission. Tariq Rauf was formerly head of verification and security policy coordination, office reporting to the director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency and previously advised Canada’s parliamentary committees on national defence and foreign affairs.
USA has conned Australia into paying for its super-costly nuclear submarine project
Last week’s AUKUS announcement was nothing more than PR stunt in Australia, with the government merely committing to spend the next 18 months deciding what to buy—which conveniently kicks any actual the decision far enough down the road to avoid the next federal election.
Has PM put Australia on the hook to finance struggling UK, US submarine projects? Michael West Media, By Marcus Reubenstein| September 23, 2021,
“Almost comical”. Experts lambast Scott Morrison’s “crazy” AUKUS deal to buy nuclear submarine tech from parlous UK and US programs. Marcus Reubenstein finds a real prospect Australia will be used to “underwrite” the foundering foreign submarine industry.
Twenty-five years of ongoing maintenance delays for nuclear submarines, chronic shortage of both parts and skilled workers, under capacity at shipyards, and attack class submarines missing from deployments for up to nine months. These sound like potential problems for Australia’s future nuclear submarine fleet but they are actual problems right now confronting the US Navy and its fleet of 70 submarines.
The US is at the cutting edge of nuclear propulsion. It has the largest and most sophisticated submarine fleet in the world, its first nuclear submarine was commissioned 67 years ago, and the US has literally decommissioned twice as many nuclear subs as Australia is planning to buy.
If the US cannot manage to keep its fleet in the water, how can the Morrison government commit up to $100 billion of taxpayer money to secure nuclear submarines and guarantee they will be always operational and ready for deployment?
Professor Hugh White, ANU Professor of Strategic Studies, former Deputy Secretary of Defence and an eminent figure in strategic policy, wrote in The Saturday Paper, “The old plan was to build a conventionally powered version of a nuclear-powered French submarine. It was crazy.”
“The new plan—to buy a nuclear-powered submarine instead—is worse”.
Says White, “There is a reason why only six countries, all of them nuclear-armed, operate nuclear powered subs.”
The sales pitch is underway
Last week’s AUKUS announcement was nothing more than PR stunt in Australia, with the government merely committing to spend the next 18 months deciding what to buy—which conveniently kicks any actual the decision far enough down the road to avoid the next federal election.
The ripples of the announcement, however, reached British shores in double-quick time. Just two days after the AUKUS alliance UK Defence Secretary Ben Wallis announced a $320 million (£170m) grant to be shared between BAE Systems and Rolls Royce to develop technology for Britain’s next generation submarines.
According to Department of Finance figures, In the past twelve months BAE Systems has collected $1.88 billion from Australian taxpayers. The Astute class submarine, touted as one of the two options Australia is considering, is manufactured by BAE Systems.
US Naval analyst, and Forbes Defense columnist, Craig Hooper predicts AUKUS could give the US Navy a big shot in the arm as well. He says a deal with Australia could effectively underwrite major improvements to the US Navy’s outdated submarine maintenance facilities by supporting “America’s decade-long, $US25 billion ($34.6 billion) effort to refit the U.S. Navy’s four aging public shipyards. With yard repair costs already high, America would go to great lengths to welcome any additional bidders for shipyard capability improvements.”
US subs in dry dock In a report published six months ago, the US Congressional Budget Office (CBO) found: “The Navy’s four shipyards have experienced significant delays in completing maintenance on its submarines (all of which are nuclear-powered).” ………. Should Australia go down the nuclear sub path what choice will it have other than to outsource the fleet’s maintenance? …..
Her Majesty’s sub optimal fleet
Britain, touted as the alternative nuclear submarine supplier to Australia, has problems of its own. The Royal Navy operates ten submarines, only four of them were designed and commissioned this century.
Like their American nuclear counterparts there are systemic problems keeping these subs in service……
That report also indicated significant delays to the BAE Systems built Astute hunter-killer submarines, the same class of nuclear submarine being touted for Australian as part of the AUKUS deal………. https://www.michaelwest.com.au/has-pm-put-australia-on-the-hook-to-finance-struggling-uk-us-submarine-projects/
Former subs boss blasts ‘hocus pocus’ nuclear deal
Former subs boss blasts ‘hocus pocus’ nuclear deal
A former head of ASC has blasted Australia’s “insane deal” with the US and the UK to build nuclear-powered submarines in Adelaide, deriding a “hocus pocus” announcement he says raises major issues about nuclear and defence capability. https://indaily.com.au/news/2021/09/20/former-subs-boss-blasts-hocus-pocus-nuclear-deal/ Tom Richardson @tomrichardson
Hans Ohff, who was managing director and CEO of the then-Australian Submarine Corporation from 1993 to 2002, says he does not believe the mooted submarine deal will materialise as planned for Australia, saying: “I believe it will be stymied because the US military establishment will not underwrite the tacit agreement made between the US President, the British and Australian PMs.”
Ohff insists “there will be no transfer of technical know-how to Australia”, arguing “the submarine propulsion train – not just the reactor – will be a black box accessible only to the US”.
In an emailed statement sent to InDaily’s Your Views, Ohff, who is also a research fellow at Adelaide University, said it was incumbent on the federal government “to inform the Australian people on the strategic, environmental, commercial, and political ramifications and consequences before deciding on the acquisition of nuclear-powered attack submarines”.
“We need to fully appreciate the issues and complexities associated with the design, assembly, operation and maintenance of nuclear submarines powered with highly enriched… weapons-grade uranium,” he said.
“We need to understand that the acquisition of HEU [Highly Enriched Uranium]-235 fissile material would challenge the spirit if not the letter of the Treaty of Non- Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.”
Speaking to InDaily, he went further, saying the plan would have “unbelievable consequences, both here and in Europe” as well as “massive consequences for Outer Harbor”.It’s almost comical – if it wasn’t so serious… Prime Minister Morrison and his Defence Minister have blown up the bridge behind them
“There are big issues with putting highly enriched uranium reactors anywhere in Australia, let alone Outer Harbor,” he said.
In further correspondence, he said “a nuclear-safe site has to be identified [and] a concerned population will have to agree to the warehousing, installation, launching and pre-commissioning of submarines that include HEU-235 reactors”.
Ohff described the centrepiece of the new AUKUS security pact as effectively “spur of the moment between Biden, Johnson and Morrison”, saying: “In the end we won’t get the subs the Government wants to procure – it’s all hocus pocus.”
In the end, the US military is unlikely to agree to the transfer of technology,” he said.
“It’s almost comical – if it wasn’t so serious.”
Ohff said he had received concerned reactions from industry contacts “all over the place”.
“In Europe, everyone over there is shaking their head,” he said.
Ohff said he “agreed entirely” with strong criticism of the new subs plan by independent senator and former submariner Rex Patrick, who – like him – has also been an outspoken critic of the now-scuppered deal with Naval to provide a fleet of Shortfin Barracuda Attack Class vessels.
Ohff wrote for the Australian Strategic Policy Institute in 2017 that the French model “unites design and building risks, high program costs and an extended delivery schedule [but] promises few or no capability gains.
He told InDaily today the design was “not suitable for anything” but “that’s not the issue”.
“The issue is how to get out of that contract properly and into a new one – who wants to deal with Australia now for next generation submarines?” he said.
“It appears that Prime Minister Morrison and his Defence Minister have blown up the bridge behind them before securing an alternative solution to the ill-conceived, impractical and expensive French Attack submarine design,” Ohff said.
He said if the nuclear-powered subs were built at all, “it won’t be till the 2040s, and the world will have changed dramatically by then”.
“By 2040 the Virginia class will be an outdated design, no longer built for the US Navy [and] unlikely to be relevant for warfare in the second half of the 21st century,” he said.
“Carrier Battle Groups will no longer be effective against autonomous weaponry; and the China question will be resolved one way or another.
“[Australia] requires submarines now.
“Nuclear boats in 20 to 30 years will not resolve this issue [and] leasing nuclear submarines from [Britain or the US] is unrealistic.”
Ohff said the Life-of-Type Extension of the Collins Class fleet would be “more complex, more time-consuming and more expensive” than the Government expects, “leaving the Navy without submarines to train submariners, let alone fight a war”,
“If the government doesn’t expedite the procurement of modern SSKs [diesel-electric submarines] for operational availability by the 2030s, the Royal Australian Navy will no longer be a submarine navy,” he said.
He said a next-generation Collins Class would have been the “obvious choice”, criticising diplomatic missteps to date, including “Tony Abbott’s handshake-agreement with Japanese PM Shinzo Abe being overturned by [Malcolm] Turnbull in favour of the French”.
He said the German tendered price had been “a fraction of the French proposal [but] they were not selected on unexplained or spurious grounds”.
He said Australians “need to be satisfied that we have capacity to develop and deploy the management systems and procedures necessary to safely operate and maintain these vessel at sea and in port
“Thus, if the government doesn’t immediately commit to six conventional-powered AIP [Air-independent propulsion] subs that can be in service by mid-2030 the RAN will have no submarine squadron, save for a few ageing Collins boats.”
He said basing “a squadron of US Navy nukes in Australian waters would be politically untenable”, arguing: “Deploying Astute or Virginia-type submarines in the littoral waters of the [South China Sea] would be suicidal.”
Morrison and cronies have really botched this nuclear submarine deal
With an election deadline approaching, Scott Morrison and Peter Dutton perhaps have judged that a campaign fought on national security concerns will be much more successful in motivating a fearful public to vote to the right on the spectrum.
‘Sub-standard’: Submarine deal botched by Morrison and his cronies, Independent Australia, By George Grundy | 23 September 2021 ”………………. It’s unclear just how much money has been wasted on the now-abandoned French project, but it’s in the billions. Extraordinarily, Morrison didn’t even have the good grace to inform France of the change in plans until just prior to fronting the media. His claim that he “tried” to speak to the French President the night before the announcement is just another example of how stupid he must think the Australian public are.
Imagine the damage this does to Australia’s reputation abroad. Just imagine trying to negotiate in good faith any kind of bilateral or multinational agreement with Morrison still in charge. Our word is our bond and Scott Morrison has guaranteed that, in the near future at least, Australia’s word is worthless and not to be trusted.
Actually, we won’t have to wait: Australia is currently negotiating a free trade agreement with the EU, of which France is a key member. The threat of tougher tariffs for countries that, like Australia, don’t meet their Paris Climate Agreement targets is likely to be rigidly enforced and France is already trying to delay negotiations in order to punish Australia.
The Glasgow Climate Conference, in just six weeks, is now sure to be a doozy.
Then there is, as with every Morrison announcement, the sheer emptiness in the details. There is no contract, no design, no agreed budget. It’s not clear where the submarines will be built, what level of Australian involvement there will be or how the nuclear fuel will be handled………
If Australia becomes the first nation to rely solely on the supply of enriched uranium from partners abroad, it means a significant element in national defence strategy is entirely dependent on another sovereign country.
After all that spending, Australia’s new military posture will be more assertive yet more reliant on allies abroad. And if we even consider the second option, homemade fuel, it merely confirms very reasonable suspicions that this inevitably paves the way for a domestic nuclear program.
This is something that has long been the dream of those on the far-Right, who will find any way to avoid stopping digging up coal and see the fictitious “zero emissions” allure of nuclear power as a salve to those who give a damn about the environment………….
It should also be noted that China hasn’t involved itself in a single war since 1945. Instead, we have thrown in our lot with the belligerence of the UK and America, which has invaded fifteen countries in the last 40 years.
The deal also greatly enhances the chances of America’s “rotation” troop bases in Australia becoming permanent and larger, something Defence Minister Peter Dutton has already discussed. American fighter jets on Australian soil would, correctly, be viewed as a dramatic escalation by China and other Asia-Pacific nations……..
It is possible to hold the belief that China is a vital trading partner whilst at the same time harbouring concerns about Chinese military and territorial expansion, but at best these submarines will be arriving in 20 years. Destabilising a region while hoping things hold together for two decades until the cavalry arrives is not generally noted as a sound military strategy.
The insanity of this decision is best exposed when you consider the climate change disasters that are already ravaging the world with terrifying regularity. $90 billion would offer so many opportunities for climate risk mitigation it boggles the mind………
With an election deadline approaching, Scott Morrison and Peter Dutton perhaps have judged that a campaign fought on national security concerns will be much more successful in motivating a fearful public to vote to the right on the spectrum……. https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/sub-standard-submarine-deal-botched-by-morrison-and-his-cronies,15547
Maritime and electrical trades unions stand against nuclear submarines
Maritime and electrical trades unions stand against nuclear submarines https://www.greenleft.org.au/content/maritime-and-electrical-trades-unions-stand-against-nuclear-submarines Kerry SmithSeptember 21, 2021Issue 1320Australia On September 21, International Day of Peace, the Maritime Union of Australia (MUA) said it opposed Prime Minister Scott Morrison’s reckless commitment to develop nuclear-powered submarines as part of a military alliance with the United States and Britain.
At a time when Morrison should have been pursuing vaccination supplies and providing maximum support to our health system and millions of people in lockdown, he has been pursuing secret military deals”, the MUA said.
“The deal will continue to escalate unnecessary conflict with China. Workers have already been impacted, with seafarers stranded on coal ships and some trades shut down.”
The MUA said $90 billion had been “wasted with the previous submarine contract”, scrapped just five years after it was signed. Nuclear submarines will cost much more.
“Only six countries in the world have nuclear submarines, and they all have nuclear power stations”, the MUA said, adding: “Advocates for nuclear power and nuclear weapons have been emboldened. The submarines will use highly enriched uranium ideal for nuclear weapons.”
The government has repeatedly tried to set up nuclear waste dumps on First Nations people’s land and the decision will intensify that pressure.
Instead, the union is calling for the billions to be redirected to: building a strategic shipping fleet in Adelaide that could operate in cabotage and international trades; building renewable energy and offshore wind turbines to ensure we prevent global heating from exceeding 1.5°C; raising JobSeeker payments to well above poverty levels; pay rises for health workers and investment in public health systems; pay rises for teachers and investment in public schools to make them COVID-19 safe; and investment in firefighting capacity to be ready for the next bushfire season.
Workers have no interest in war with China or any other country”, the MUA said, adding that it stands in “solidarity with workers in all countries in opposing war and wasteful environmentally harmful military spending”.
The Electrical Trades Union (ETU) is also opposed to the nuclear submarine deal, saying on September 16 that it would expose Australia to greater danger on multiple fronts.
ETU National Assistant Secretary Michael Wright said: “This decision represents a betrayal of responsibility to Australia’s non-nuclear policy and a betrayal of two generations of highly-skilled, secure, well-paying Australian shipbuilding jobs.”
Further, Wright said, nuclear technology is inherently dangerous: “Has Morrison given any thought to where the spent fuel rods from these nuclear submarines will be stored? Australians have a right to know the answers to these important questions before the prime minister makes such dangerous decisions on our behalf.”
Auustralia’s Nuclear submarines will be obsolete- this week we focus on the AUKUS submarine mess
Why will they be obsolete?
Because of the rapid advances in artificial intelligence (AI), detection systems and signal processing, combined with swarming autonomous unmanned systems – by 2040 these present USA and UK models will probably be too easily detectable, and so, effectively useless.
Why does Australia want nuclear submarines?
Other reasons – helping the USA by buying these very costly submarines which are not particularly useful for monitoring our coastline, but good for long distance. Helping Scott Morrison to look important on the world stage.
One white elephant submarine deal replaced with a worse one
Australia’s submarine policy has previously eschewed nuclear propulsion. Now, as a dowry for receiving such largesse, Canberra is offering up Australia as a confirmed US asset in policing the Indo-Pacific. US Navy commanders will be smacking their lips at maintaining attack vessels in Australia as part of the arrangement……
Nuclear white elephants: Australia’s new submarine deal, Green Left, Binoy KampmarkSeptember 16, 2021Issue 1319Australia Few areas of public expenditure are more costly and mindlessly wasteful than submarines. Australia’s effort is particularly impressive.
Pick a real winner by signing a contract for a yet-to-be-designed attack class submarine, supposedly “necessary” in an “increasingly dangerous” region. Ensure the submarine design is based on a nuclear model, but remove that attribute and charge at least twice as much for a less capable weapon. Make sure the order is for 12 of these yet-to-be-designed-and-built systems. And make sure that they are only ready sometime in the 2030s (by which time they risk being obsolete).
The dubious honour for this contract, initially costing $50 billion, went to the French submarine company DCNS (now called Naval Group), which nudged out German and Japanese contenders with pre-existing designs………
The French military establishment praised it as the “contract of the century”. Le Parisien’s editorial lauded the prospect of thousands of jobs. French Defence Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian proclaimed a “50-year marriage” had begun……..
On September 15, the Canberra press gallery was awash with rumours that a divorce was being proposed.
The following day, Prime Minister Scott Morrison announced a security ménage à trois with the United States and Britain, with Australia as the subordinate partner. The glue that will hold this union together is a common suspicion: China.
Replacing the Attack Class submarine will be a nuclear-powered alternative with Anglo-American blessing, based on the US Virginia class or British Astute class.
The joint statement announcing the creation of AUKUS said the three countries were “guided” by “enduring ideals and shared commitment to the international rules-based order”. They resolved “to deepen diplomatic, security, and defence cooperation in the Indo-Pacific region, including by working with partners, to meet the challenges of the twenty-first century.”
AUKUS, they said, would be a new “enhanced trilateral security partnership” to further such goals.
The agreement is nothing less than an announcement to the region that the Anglophone bloc intends to police, oversee and, if necessary, punish…….
The first initiative is a “shared” ambition “to support Australia in acquiring nuclear-powered submarines for the Royal Australian Navy”. US and British expertise will be drawn on to “bring an Australian capability into service at the earliest achievable date” from the submarine programs of both countries…..
Australia’s submarine policy has previously eschewed nuclear propulsion. Now, as a dowry for receiving such largesse, Canberra is offering up Australia as a confirmed US asset in policing the Indo-Pacific. US Navy commanders will be smacking their lips at maintaining attack vessels in Australia as part of the arrangement……
The enduring problem of Australia being able to build these submarines will have US lawmakers pushing for their construction on home soil, a situation that could mirror the Naval Group contract headaches. Australia also lacks a shipyard able to build or maintain such vessels.
In helping create AUKUS, Canberra has exchanged one white elephant of the sea for another. It has also significantly increased the prospects for a potential nuclear conflict in the Indo-Pacific region. The warmongers will be ecstatic.
[Dr Binoy Kampmark lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne. Email bkampmark@gmail.com.] https://www.greenleft.org.au/content/nuclear-white-elephants-australias-new-submarine-deal
Ballarat Council considers supporting the U.N. Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons
Question raised as to why Ballarat councillors are discussing nuclear weapons, https://www.3ba.com.au/news/local-news/108123-question-raised-as-to-why-ballarat-councillors-are-discussing-nuclear-weaponsNuclear arms will be on the agenda at Wednesday night’s City of Ballarat council meeting, with one councillor labelling it a waste of time.
Councillors will vote on whether or not to support a treaty on the prohibition of nuclear weapons.
Cr Ben Taylor says it’s disappointing they are dealing with items that have nothing to do with Ballarat.
“We’re in the middle of a lockdown, people are worried about their jobs and their kids not going to school and Ballarat City Council seems to want to put their attention on the prohibition of nuclear weapons.”
“It’s got nothing to do with Ballarat and nothing to do with Australia,” Cr Taylor said.
Nuclear submarines may never eventuate; it’s just Scott Morrison’s giant new election ploy
The timing of Mr Morrison’s announcements also merits some consideration. In our view, this project is a political stunt aimed to distract from Covid failures, please coalition constituencies, and split the Labor Party and render the Greens shrill and sidelined.
In reality, it is likely that after a passage of years of staged announcements and pseudo-planning there will be little to show for it, and the enormously expensive, strategically ill-considered, and force-structure distorting project will quietly die.
But, to use Prime Minister Morrison’s phrase, “let us be clear,” in terms of Australian security, it is a gigantic nuclear election stunt that in the long run may increase the risk of nuclear war while drawing Chinese return fire on our vulnerable export sectors, including iron ore.
“To be clear” again, it is utterly mendacious of Prime Minister Scott Morrison to say that these forces have nothing to do with nuclear weapons because Australian submarines won’t be so armed, assuming it does not cross that barrier in the future if the submarines ever come to pass. As noted above, they may play a crucial role in US nuclear strike and defence operations……..
Scott Morrison’s Giant Nuclear Election Ploy, APLN Asial Pacific Leadership Network. 19 Sep 21,
Even leaving aside the fiscal profligacy and defence opportunity costs for Australia of the literal blank cheque issued by the Morrison government, the nuclear submarine decision takes Australia into the heart of naval warfighting in East Asia and Southeast Asia.
Further, the Australian nuclear submarine decision will have knock-on effects in Japan and the Republic of Korea, leading them not only to move their already highly capable submarine fleets to nuclear power, but also thereby heighten the likelihood they will then equip those submarines with nuclear weapons.
For several decades the US has been concerned to negate two military advances the Chinese regard as essential protection against literally existential threats. The Australian submarines will be designed primarily to contribute to negating both of those military advances.
Continue readingHow much will Australia’s nuclear submarines cost the taxpayer?
How much does a nuclear submarine cost?
Jessica YunFri, 17 September 2021 Is the new ‘AUKUS’ alliance to build Australia a fleet of nuclear-powered submarines battles growing criticism, a key question has emerged: how much do nuclear submarines actually cost?Before we get to that, what’s a nuclear submarine? It’s not considered a nuclear weapon, first of all. It all comes down to how it’s powered; a nuclear submarine works from its own miniature nuclear reactor, whereas conventional submarines use diesel-electric engines.In terms of how much they’ll cost, not even the Federal Finance Minister knows.
“Finalisation of those costs is something that will be assessed in [that] 12-18 month process we’re now embarking on with the UK and the US,” Finance Minister Simon Birmingham told ABC Radio National when asked about how much building the submarines would cost.
“The Prime Minister has acknowledged that it will likely cost more than what we had assessed for the conventionally powered submarines.”
Before the new AUKUS deal, Australia had a $90 billion contract with France to build 12 conventional submarines. To make way for the new defence pact, that deal has now been scrapped.
Opposition Leader Anthony Albanese has taken aim at the question marks around what this will cost Australian taxpayers.
“We know there are contracts in place already that will be breached. And we know there will be substantial compensation costs payable,” Albanese said. These ‘walk-away’ costs are estimated to be in the hundreds of millions.
“And Australian taxpayers are entitled to know, given that under this Government they began with arrangements with Japan, then arrangements with France, and now we have these arrangements with the United States and potentially the UK as well.”
What DO we know about the nuclear submarine deal and the costs so far?
T he new ‘AUKUS’ partnership will see Australia acquire a fleet of “at least eight” nuclear-powered submarines to “protect our national security interests” and “work with our partners across the region to achieve the stability and security of our region”, in Prime Minister Scott Morrison’s words………the new AUKUS deal means that we’ve torn up a $90 billion contract with France’s Naval Group to build 12 “Attack class” submarines, infuriating France along the way.
How much nuclear submarines cost around the world
The US Navy’s latest submarine model, the Virgina-class submarine, claims to have the latest tech in stealth, intelligence gathering and weapons system tech.
According to documents prepared for the US Congress, procuring a Virgina-class submarine is estimated to cost US$3.45 billion, or AU$4.73 billion, per boat.
Australia doesn’t currently have a domestic nuclear industry. SA Senator Rex Patrick told Yahoo Finance he expects each submarine will cost at least $5 billion to build.
Australian National University research fellow and nuclear science expert AJ Mitchell said there would be an “eye-watering cost” to constructing these high-tech watercrafts.
“Each nuclear submarine typically costs several billion dollars to build, and requires a highly skilled workforce with expertise in nuclear science,” Mitchell wrote in a new piece for The Conversation……… https://au.finance.yahoo.com/news/how-much-nuclear-submarine-cost-022130602.html
Big questions remain about Australia’s nuclear submarines, but it’s a massive financial gain for nuclear corporations
The possibility of a submarine deal with Australia came at an opportune moment. It provided Biden with a chance to demonstrate support for a close ally and boost its military strength. For Boris Johnson it could show that
relations with the US had not fallen apart because of the chaotic Afghanistan withdrawal, and it validated claims that the UK can play a prominent security role in the Indo-Pacific region.
For Australians it provides reassurance that it is still backed by its oldest allies. Having abandoned a “forever war”, the US and UK have signed up to what the Australian prime minister, Scott Morrison, has described as a “forever
partnership”. The test will lie in this submarine project being more successful than the French-backed one it has replaced. This is not something that can be taken for granted.
The big questions about the boats’ design and manufacture will not be answered until 2023. The value
of the contract will be massive, and we should expect the competing claims of all three partners to be pressed hard when they are deciding their contributions. Instead of building diesel-powered submarines with the French, Australia upgraded its requirement to nuclear-powered submarines. These are quieter, can spend more time at sea and can travel greater distances, but they are fiendishly difficult to construct. Although the UK’s Astute-class programme is now running reasonably smoothly, with each boat costing almost £1.5 billion, the first vessel was almost five years
late and massively over budget.
Times 19th Sept 2021
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/the-submarine-deal-is-a-real-downer-for-china-x6t89v022
Malaysia and Indonesia warn Australia’s Indo-Pacific pact could trigger nuclear arms race
Malaysia and Indonesia warn Australia’s Indo-Pacific pact could trigger nuclear arms race, Taipei Times, 19 Sep 21
The new AUKUS alliance will involve Australia, the US and Britain exchanging technology and intelligence
Australia will have access to US nuclear technology, which will enable it to build nuclear submarines
Australia’s nuclear arms ban remains in new deal
Birmingham said there was no “quid pro quo” in Australia agreeing to step up its strategic relationship with the UK and the US.
He insisted that nuclear weapons would not be based within Australia’s jurisdiction. “We’ve been clear, Australia’s position in relation to nuclear weapons does not change, will not change,” he said yesterday.
“We will meet all of our non-proliferation treaty arrangements and obligations and not be changing any of our policies in relation to the nuclear weapons technology.”
Birmingham did not rule out an increase in the number of UK and US military personnel on Australian shores. “We already have US troops and marines who work in Australia on rotational deployments at times,” he said………….
it is not just the French who have been made uneasy by the AUKUS arrangement, which is still to be worked out in detail. Australia’s allies in the Indo-Pacific have also raised concerns over what the deal will mean for tensions in the region.
Malaysia said on Saturday that Canberra’s decision to build atomic-powered submarines could trigger a regional nuclear arms race, echoing concerns already raised by Beijing.
“It will provoke other powers to also act more aggressively in the region, especially in the South China Sea,” the Malaysian prime minister’s office said, without mentioning China……https://www.taipeitimes.com/News/world/archives/2021/09/20/2003764684
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 