Antinuclear

B-2 Bomber Strikes in Yemen and their significance for Australia

Australia is the only foreign country publicly known to have provided direct military support for the B-2 strikes in Yemen.

The obvious question that comes to mind therefore is why the Australian government acquiesced to involving Australia in the B-2 strikes?

what, if any, are the limits to Australia’s support for US strategic bomber operations should the region become engulfed in all-out war?

s. Washington now views Australia as ‘the central base’ of its Indo-Pacific operations squarely targeted at China

By Vince Scappatura Nov 12, 2024

Australian territory has been used in supporting US B-2 bombers en route and in return from strikes against Houthi targets in Yemen on October 17, and highlights the profound strategic significance of this event for the future role Australia may play in US strategic bomber operations against China, in the Asia Pacific and beyond.

NAPSNet Special Report:

Vince Scappatura, “B-2 BOMBER STRIKES IN YEMEN AND THEIR SIGNIFICANCE FOR AUSTRALIA”, NAPSNet Special Reports, November 11, 2024, https://nautilus.org/napsnet/napsnet-special-reports/b-2-bomber-strikes-in-yemen-and-their-significance-for-australia/

I.  Introduction

Washington now views Australia as ‘the central base’ of its Indo-Pacific operations squarely targeted at China; and the strikes in Yemen make clear that the United States is willing and able to utilise its new base capabilities in Australia to devastating effect.[1]

Vince Scappatura documents the novel use of Australian territory in supporting US B-2 bombers en route and in return from strikes against Houthi targets in Yemen on October 17, and highlights the profound strategic significance of this event for the future role Australia may play in US strategic bomber operations in the Asia Pacific and beyond.

Vince Scappatura is Sessional Academic in the Macquarie School of Social Sciences at Macquarie University, and author of The US Lobby and Australian Defence Policy,………………………………………….

The global significance of B-2 strikes in Yemen

In a statement published late on the evening of Wednesday 16 October 2024 (EDT), Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin revealed US forces had conducted strikes against five hardened underground weapons storage locations in Houthi-controlled areas of Yemen.[1] Although the US Navy also played a role in the operations, US Central Command announced the use of US Air Force B-2 Spirit long-range stealth bombers.[2]

The decision to launch strikes using the distinctive bat-wing bomber, which has been employed relatively infrequently in combat operations, contains a significance beyond the immediate conflict with the Houthis and carries implications that have assumed greater importance in light of the results of the recent US presidential election.

In the first instance the strikes signal the possibility of a larger conflagration in the Middle East, with the B-2’s unique combination of stealth and ‘bunker buster’ capabilities sending a clear message to Iran about America’s commitment to the defence of Israel; a commitment Washington has made even as Israel has taken a series of escalatory steps against Iran that have placed the region on the brink of all-out war.

However, they also carry a broader significance in demonstrating the ability of the US Air Force to deliver devastating strikes worldwide, including nuclear strikes due to the dual-capable role of the B-2, which is particularly salient for any future operations against both China and Russia.

Moreover, the B-2 strikes have momentous strategic implications for Australia, although this fact was left unexamined in media coverage of the event.

The Australian Department of Defence (hereafter Defence) confirmed to the Australian Broadcasting Commission (ABC) that Australian airspace and airbases were accessed in support of the strikes.[3] This participation marks the first time since World War II that Australian territory has been directly used to support US strategic bomber operations.

This novel use of Australian territory follows significant infrastructure developments at airbases across the north of the country, still ongoing, that are ultimately being developed to enable full-spectrum support for US ‘deterrence’ operations against China.[4]

The B-2 strikes in Yemen are the first active demonstration of these developing capabilities and a harbinger of more comprehensive Australian support for any future US strategic air operations, including potential nuclear missions, perhaps in the Middle East, but also ultimately against China and even Russia.

The Australian government is yet to acknowledge the profound strategic implications foregrounded by the strikes in Yemen, while Defence has been unnecessarily opaque about the details of the operation. A full account and wide understanding of Australia’s role in the strikes and what it portends are crucially important for democratic transparency and accountability, while the spectre of the forthcoming Trump administration contributes to the urgency.

Trump’s erratic and unpredictable decision-making, combined with the president’s sole authority over the use of nuclear weapons, highlights the risks of the United States, and by implication, Australia, becoming engulfed in a fateful conflict that is neither anticipated nor desired by their respective peoples. If there was a time for Australian political leaders to be forthright about the dangers of positioning Australia in the frontline of US strategic bomber operations it is now more than ever.

A rare bomber strike; and a message to Iran

…………………………………………….The Pentagon refused to divulge the specific type of ordinance that was employed in the strikes, although an anonymous source revealed to a specialist military journal that the B-2s dropped 2,000-pound BLU-109 JDAM ‘bunker buster’ bombs.[8]

Of particular significance for Iran is the fact that the B-2 is uniquely capable of employing the 30,000-pound GBU-57 Massive Ordinance Penetrator (MOP) in combat operations, reportedly reaching targets of up to 200 feet underground.[9] Iran’s nuclear facilities are known to be deeply embedded underground at Fordow and Natanz and could only plausibly be destroyed by the employment of the MOP.[10]

Although Iran wasn’t mentioned by name, the Pentagon made it clear that the employment of the B-2 was not only a message to the Houthis but any ‘potential adversaries that hide things deep underground. It’s a message to them as well.’[11]

An historic first for Australia

Although aspects of the Australian role in supporting the B-2 strike mission remain unclear, the fact that it prefigures future support for a range of US missions involving conventional and nuclear forces in contingencies anywhere in the world demands a full account and understanding.

Australia is the only foreign country publicly known to have provided direct military support for the B-2 strikes in Yemen. Moreover, achieving this level of logistical cooperation represents a significant milestone in Australia-US military cooperation.

In its statement to the ABC, Defence declared that support for US strikes in Yemen was provided ‘through access and overflight for US aircraft in northern Australia’. The ABC also reported that air-to-air refuelling aircraft were part of the mission, although Defence declined to confirm this claim.[12]

The precise extent and nature of Australia’s support is still unknown, including whether any Australian Defence Force (ADF) capabilities were employed in support of the B-2 bombers. Defence has so far declined to comment further about Australia’s involvement, citing operational security. However, a Defence department spokesperson did issue a clarification to the ABC that American B-2s were not operating out of RAAF Base Tindal in the Northern Territory at the time of the strikes.

RAAF Base Tindal is currently undergoing a major infrastructure expansion project to support the future forward-deployment of up to six B-52 (and eventually, possibly B-2 and B-1) strategic bombers, along with refuelling and transport aircraft. The upgrades include a squadron operation facility for mission planning, crew briefings and intelligence, along with maintenance facilities, strategic fuel reserves, and earth covered magazines for stockpiling munitions. The massive fuel storage facilities at Tindal have already been completed.[13]

B-2 bombers are known to have been operating out of RAAF Base Amberly in Queensland across the months of August and September in a Bomber Task Force mission that saw the aircraft covering vast distances throughout Australia and the Indo-Pacific, including ‘hot pit’ refuelling at the US base in Diego Garcia. However, the BTF mission had concluded by September 18.[14]

The clarification about Tindal issued by Defence, along with the nondescript use of the term ‘US aircraft’, leaves open the possibility that B-2 bombers operated from other RAAF bases in northern Australia, either en route or in return from Yemen, although there is no operational reason for the B-2s to have landed in Australia as against overflying and refuelling from aircraft operating from Australian airfields.

……………………………..photos taken by local Australian aviation enthusiasts provide evidence for a plausible scenario whereby US tankers operating out of Australia were used to refuel US B-2 bombers both enroute and in return from strikes in Yemen.

Western route to the Middle East

To fly over Australian airspace enroute to Yemen, US B-2 bombers are likely to have flown west over the United States and out across the Pacific Ocean before continuing over northern Australia and across the Indian Ocean to their eventual target.

A similar route, although traversing further to the north of Australia into Southeast Asia, was used when B-2 bombers launched strikes against the Taliban in Afghanistan in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks on 11 September 2001. To reach their targets without landing, the bombers were required to carry out aerial refuelling five times off the coasts of California, Hawaii, Guam, the Strait of Malacca and finally Diego Garcia (see figure 1).[16]

Although there is a shorter and more direct route to Yemen flying east from the United States, this path has the advantage of avoiding the need to inform and seek permission from several countries in Europe and the Middle East whose airspace would otherwise be traversed. Flying a carefully plotted western path over northern Australia would avoid the airspace of several Southeast Asian states with large Islamic populations and potential political sensitivities to the strikes. Whether intended or not, it also signals to China and Russia that US strategic airpower can attack them via their ‘soft’ southern underbelly as was planned and exercised during the Cold War.

Overflying northern Australia

The presence of B-2s over Australian airspace at the time of the strikes in Yemen can be confirmed by aircraft communications with civilian air traffic control towers responsible for managing Australia’s airspace.[17] This type of communications is publicly available via online sources such as LiveATC.net.[18]

………………………………………………….Having left their location in the Coral Sea after checking in with the Brisbane Centre on October 16 at 3pm AEST, the B-2 bombers arrived at their target destinations in Yemen approximately 19 hours later at around 3am in local time on October 17.[24]

As reported by ABC News, air-to-air refuelling aircraft were a part of the B-2 mission that logistically required ‘access and overflight’ in northern Australia. This claim was neither confirmed nor denied by Defence…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

Unanswered questions

There was no immediate post-strike assessment provided by the Pentagon when the strikes in Yemen were first announced on October 16………………………………………..

Although the Pentagon provided only scant details of the strikes, there has not to date even been an official statement about Australia’s participation in the operation made by the Minister for Defence or released on the website of the Australian Department of Defence. Nor has there been a post-operation account about the success or otherwise of the strikes.

This lack of transparency by Defence is typical but especially unwelcome given the operation marks an escalation in Australia’s participation in the conflict in the Middle East and especially its contested role in providing direct and indirect support to Israel in its wars in Gaza and Lebanon where there are reasonable grounds for believing war crimes and even genocide have been committed.[33]

Defence frequently promotes capability demonstrations of increased interoperability between the ADF and US military forces in official media releases, and Australia’s participation in the US strikes in Yemen represents the first combat demonstration of how Enhanced Air Cooperation under the framework of the US Force Posture Initiatives can be successively used for strategic bomber operations.[34] But if the joint operation was intended to contribute to ‘deterrence’ then the logical approach would have been to draw attention to it.

The obvious question that comes to mind therefore is why the Australian government acquiesced to involving Australia in the B-2 strikes? Australia’s long history of reflexive support for US military operations probably goes a long way in explaining the decision. But incremental decisions announced in a series of recent AUSMIN consultations has led to an unprecedented degree of Australia-US defence integration with implications for Australian participation in US global military operations that political leaders in Australia may not have fully appreciated.[35]

Whatever the rationale, Australians have a right to know about the nature and extent of Australia’s support for the strikes in Yemen, including what US aircraft were involved and what Australian bases they may have operated from. Specifically, Defence should be transparent with the Australian people about the following questions:

• Although it seems unlikely, did the B-2s in fact land at any Australian bases?
• US aerial refuelling aircraft were undoubtedly part of the mission. But did they draw from Australian or US dedicated fuel reserves?
• Were any ADF capabilities employed to support the B-2 strikes during their overflight of Australia or in the region more broadly?
• What assessment was made to ensure Australia’s participation in the strikes was compliant with International Humanitarian Law?

Finally, participation in the B-2 strikes in Yemen have taken Australia a step closer to becoming further entangled in the conflict in the Middle East. This leads to the obvious question of what, if any, are the limits to Australia’s support for US strategic bomber operations should the region become engulfed in all-out war?

Merely citing ‘operational security’ in refusing to answer such questions is wholly inadequate. Democratic transparency and accountability require any potential operational security concerns to be fully explained and justified.

The future of US strategic bomber operations in Australia

Although the strikes in Yemen point to the risks Australia faces in reflexively supporting its ally in yet another conflict in the Middle East, ultimately this unique demonstration of Australia’s growing capabilities to contribute to US strategic air operations is a harbinger of more comprehensive support for any future US conflict with China and/or Russia.

The Australian government has displayed no willingness to publicly acknowledge, let alone debate, the implications of America’s steady military buildup in the north of the country and the deepening integration of the ADF with US armed forces. Washington now views Australia as ‘the central base’ of its Indo-Pacific operations squarely targeted at China; and the strikes in Yemen make clear that the United States is willing and able to utilise its new base capabilities in Australia to devastating effect.[36]

It is critical therefore that the Australian public and its political leaders at all levels comprehend the profound implications of participating in the B-2 strikes in Yemen. It prefigures similar and more prominent roles for Australia in American conventional and nuclear operations not only in the Middle East, but in East Asia and the Pacific, and especially around China and even Russia.

Although tactical surprise may require opacity before and during such a joint operation, there is no excuse for the failure to share with the Australian people what Australia has done, not least so that they are prepared to make informed judgements that will restrain or enable future expanded joint operations now envisioned by the two governments under the 2014 Force Posture Agreement and more recent AUKUS rubric, but not shared with their respective peoples.[37]

Until a full official account is provided, observers could be forgiven for assuming that supine acquiescence on the part of the Australian government in supporting American strikes combined with Defence’s utter lack of accountability explains how Australian airbases and airspace were utilised to support the B-2 strikes in Yemen.

III. ENDNOTES – 1 – 37…………………………………more https://johnmenadue.com/b-2-bomber-strikes-in-yemen-and-their-significance-for-australia/

November 17, 2024 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics international, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Airstrip One: How Albanese has integrated us into Trump’s military machine

Thanks to the Albanese government, the new Trump administration will find Australia a well-established launch pad for any conflict with China.

Bernard Keane, Nov 11, 2024,  https://www.crikey.com.au/2024/11/11/anthony-albanese-australia-us-military-integration-donald-trump/
The next Trump administration will arrive in power to learn that Australia is far more deeply enmeshed in in the US military and intelligence apparatus than in 2020, partly thanks to an eager Albanese government subordinating Australian sovereignty to Washington.

AUKUS is a Biden-era initiative that advocates worry Trump may look askance at, given the pressure it will place on US nuclear submarine production — although the fact that America and the UK can walk away whenever they like, and that Australia is handing $5 billion to each for the privilege of participating, should mitigate Trump’s hostility. That AUKUS will effectively place Australia’s submarine fleet — if it ever arrives — under US control in the 2040s and 2050s may be appealing, but that’s far beyond Trump’s short-term mindset.

But the bigger story of Australian sovereignty under the Albanese government isn’t AUKUS but the steady integration of Australia’s military systems into America’s, and Australia’s transformation into a launch pad for the deployment of American power. The Albanese government has:

• Facilitated “regular and longer visits of US [nuclear submarines] from 2023 to Australia, with a focus on HMAS Stirling. These visits would help build Australia’s capacity in preparation for Submarine Rotational Force-West, an important milestone for the AUKUS Optimal Pathway that would commence as early as 2027”. Submarine Rotational Force-West is the permanent operation of one British and four US nuclear submarines from Perth.
• Allowed US intelligence officials to be embedded in the Defence Intelligence Organisation, a “significant step” toward what Defence Minister (and, as he always insists on being called, Deputy Prime Minister) Richard Marles hailed as “seamless” intelligence ties between the US and Australia.
• Established sharing of satellite imagery “and analysis capability” between Geoscience Australia and the US government.
• 
  Established rotation of State Department officials through the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade “in the areas of technical security, cyber security, and threat analysis”.
• Upgraded Top End RAAF airfields to accommodate more US military aircraft, with more upgrades planned, in work hailed by Stars and Stripes as reflecting how “Australians are alarmed at Chinese efforts to gain influence among their South Pacific neighbours”.
• Established facilities for “prepositioning of initial US Army equipment and materiel in Australia at Albury-Wodonga”.
• Continued the Morrison government’s support for the expansion of the Pine Gap surveillance facility, while it is being used, inter alia, to provide intelligence to the Israeli Defence Forces in their genocidal campaign against Palestinians.
• US Marine rotations through Darwin have also been used as “a hub in a lengthy kill web that could protect the region, should Australia face outside threats. ‘Every single day Darwin is becoming more of a hub for us, not just in Australia but through the island chain,’” one American officer says.

In one recent exercise, “Marines set up a bare bones air base on the York Peninsula, Queensland, Australia complete with a fires unit armed with anti-ship missiles and a sensing unit to run air defense … Marines also used their own and Australian aircraft, including C-130s, C-17s and Ospreys to establish an Expeditionary Advanced Base that set up an Osprey maintenance base to extend the aircrafts operations during military exercises. ‘These are real posture gains being made there that will be useful for us in conflict.’”

This demonstrates the validity of Paul Keating’s description of Australia under Albanese as becoming “a continental extension of American power akin to that which it enjoys in Hawaii, Alaska and more limitedly in places like Guam … the national administrator of what would be broadly viewed in Asia as a US protectorate”.

The difference now is that from January, this “continental extension” will be under the control not of a traditional centrist Democrat, but an unstable populist with a deep hostility to China and a stated determination to weaken the country he believes caused the COVID pandemic, as well as an outright hostility to international law and desire to unshackle Israel from any limitations on its mass slaughter of Palestinians. In the event Trump’s proposed trade war with China significantly increases military tensions, Australia will be Airstrip One for the deployment of American power.

November 11, 2024 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics international, weapons and war | Leave a comment

AUKUS boss insists project remains on track despite frustrations and staff upheaval within submarine agency

In an interview coinciding with the third anniversary of the AUKUS agreement, Admiral Mead rejected criticism within defence that the multi-billion-dollar push to acquire nuclear-powered submarines was cannibalising the budget for other military projects

ABC News, by defence correspondent Andrew Greene, 20 Sept 4

In short:

The head of Australia’s submarine agency has acknowledged staff turnover but insists the $368 billion AUKUS project is on track.

Privately, Australian Submarine Agency insiders and other officials have expressed frustrations with the progress of Australia’s nuclear submarine endeavour.

Staff upheaval and frustrations with leadership are emerging inside the new government agency that is overseeing Australia’s $368 billion AUKUS project, as concerns mount about the ambitious push to acquire nuclear-powered submarines.

Australian Submarine Agency (ASA) boss Vice Admiral Jonathan Mead has rejected claims his organisation is “top heavy” but acknowledged some recent departures of senior figures, while also insisting “AUKUS is real and it’s happening”.

Defence figures, foreign officials and industry representatives have privately spoken to the ABC about their disquiet with the ASA’s progress on preparing for AUKUS, contradicting recent optimistic statements about the trilateral venture.

AUKUS was first unveiled in 2021 by former prime minister Scott Morrison and aims to deliver a nuclear submarine capability for Australia through a security partnership struck with the United States and United Kingdom.

In July last year, the ASA was established to “safely and securely acquire, construct, deliver, technically govern, sustain and dispose of Australia’s conventionally armed nuclear-powered submarine capability” under the AUKUS partnership.

Several weeks ago, ASA staff say they were stunned to learn one of the organisation’s most senior technical directors was leaving after playing a significant role that he had taken on following years of distinguished service in defence and the private sector.

“There’s a lot of disquiet here and we are really struggling to keep staff,” one ASA insider told the ABC, speaking under the condition of anonymity through fear of retribution by defence.

Another source connected to the agency claimed “several” relatively senior and experienced people left the organisation in recent months because of “concerns with the ASA’s top leadership”…………………………………………………………………………………….

Mead defends AUKUS project

Since its establishment under Admiral Mead, the ASA has grown to almost 700 full-time staff, including a dozen military officers holding a 1-star rank or higher, and an annual budget of $330 million, which is mainly comprised of salary costs.

In an interview coinciding with the third anniversary of the AUKUS agreement, Admiral Mead rejected criticism within defence that the multi-billion-dollar push to acquire nuclear-powered submarines was cannibalising the budget for other military projects…………………..

Under stage one of AUKUS, British and American nuclear submarines will rotate out of Perth from 2027. Then in the 2030s, Australia will receive second-hand Virginia boats from the United States, before constructing a new SSN-AUKUS fleet in Adelaide.

Privately, US officials have also expressed alarm at the slow progress in preparing for the stationing of nuclear-powered submarines out of Western Australia, under Submarine Rotational Force-West, and the transfer of second-hand boats in the 2030s.

We keep hearing announcements of new workforce recruitment initiatives, but they need to be far greater and much faster — the sense of urgency just isn’t there,” an American official who is not authorised to speak publicly told the ABC.

Admiral Mead insists “the US is very happy” with Australia’s progress but also declined to say what would happen if American shipyards do not deliver 2.33 Virginia submarines a year by 2028, the target required before boats can be transferred here…………………….

Frustration over slow progress

Frustration with the ASA’s direction is also privately shared by local defence industry representatives who have expressed disquiet with the slow progress in striking a joint venture to build the future SSN-AUKUS fleet in Adelaide.

In March, the government announced the Commonwealth-owned ASC would partner with British-owned company BAE Systems Australia to construct the nuclear-powered boats in Adelaide, but the joint venture is yet to be finalised.

One figure involved in the process claims targets are already being missed, highlighting the competing tensions and agendas between defence and ASC, which is run by the finance department……………………… more https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-09-20/aukus-boss-defends-project-amid-frustrations-staff-turnover/104372920?utm_source=abc_news_app&utm_medium=content_shared&utm_campaign=abc_news_app&utm_content=mail

September 22, 2024 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics international, weapons and war | Leave a comment

That time when Canada cancelled its nuclear submarine order

The decision to cut the Australian community out altogether — except where we will be called upon to service the US military as it builds its base in WA — puts us in the relationship of a vassal state, existing only to do the bidding of our powerful friend.

By Julie Macken and Michael Walker, Aug 30, 2024,  https://johnmenadue.com/that-time-when-canada-cancelled-its-nuclear-submarine-order/

Back in 1987, when no one knew that the Cold War was just about to end, the Canadian Government signed up to build 10 nuclear-powered submarines. That submarine program lasted for all of two years before being cancelled in 1989. No nuclear Canadian sub ever even began construction, let alone getting put in the water.

There is a very real sense of déjà vu when we look at the Canadian experience and the current Australian experience of AUKUS. The good news is that it is not too late to learn the lessons the Canadians learnt for us.

One of the reasons for the Canadian cancellation was the $8 billion price tag, or about $19 billion in today’s money. Two billion dollars per submarine now sounds like a bargain compared to the astronomical $45 billion per submarine under AUKUS. Canada decided it had other priorities where that money could be put to better use.

But before the contract was cancelled in Canada, the ministries involved in its construction became embroiled in conflict, the Government itself was in a cost-of-living-crisis with immediate, real-world needs pressing and the hasty and secretive choice of vessel design came under withering criticism from the Treasury department for poor procurement with the cost expected to blow out to $30 billion ($70 billion today). And finally, media support eroded, with 71% of the population opposed to the project.

Déjà vu much?

On 12 June, the US Congressional Research Document service produced a research and advice document called the Navy Virginia-Class Submarine Program and AUKUS Submarine (Pillar 1) Project: Background and Issues for Congress.

The document points out the AUKUS deal was a three-step process. The first was to establish a US-UK rotational submarine force in Western Australia. The second was that the US would sell us three or five Virginia nuclear powered submarines and the third would be that the UK assists us in building our own AUKUS class nuclear submarines.

But the Congressional report outlines when comparing the “potential benefits, costs, and risks” of the three stage plan, it might just be better for the US to operate more of its own boats out of WA. That is, “procuring up to eight additional Virginia-class SSNs that would be retained in US Navy service and operated out of Australia along with the US and UK SSNs”.

That’s right, why bother with the whole step two and three when the US is best served by simply operating its nuclear-powered attack submarines out of WA?

This is an extraordinary development and one that demands more attention than has been given previously because a number of issues flow from this kind of thinking.

First, this potentially frees up $400 billion that could be put to far better use on a national housing construction program or high-speed rail network running the entire east coast of Australia or other large and much-needed nation-building projects. But not so fast.

The US Congressional Research Document suggests that “those funds (the $400 billion) could be invested in other military capabilities”, such as long-range missiles and bombers, “so as to create an Australian capacity for performing non-SSN military missions for both Australia and the United States”.

The decision to cut the Australian community out altogether — except where we will be called upon to service the US military as it builds its base in WA — puts us in the relationship of a vassal state, existing only to do the bidding of our powerful friend.

The fact that the document only referenced the “potential benefits, costs, and risks” from the US perspective, without any attempt to imagine how Australia may view becoming a life support for a US submarine base, makes the nature of our relationship pretty clear.

Australia’s Government may not consider it necessary to have done its due diligence on AUKUS but the Americans are happy to do that for us and, you guessed it, even though they quietly have doubts about the SSN project, they’ve already thought of plenty of other ways to spend our money on their own defence objectives. Spending it on the well-being and prosperity of our own people didn’t even rate a mention.

August 30, 2024 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics international, weapons and war | Leave a comment

AUKUS 2.0: Albanese Drives It Like He Stole It, and Then Gives It Away to the US

by Paul Gregoire,  15 Aug 2024, Fact Checked, https://www.sydneycriminallawyers.com.au/blog/aukus-2-0-albanese-drives-it-like-he-stole-it-and-then-gives-it-away-to-the-us/

On his jaunt to the US last week, not only did defence minister Richard Marles glorify the US presence across the entire Australian military domain at the AUSMIN, but he also signed an updated version of the AUKUS Exchange of Naval Nuclear Propulsion Information Agreement (ENNPIA).

Then in announcing the updated AUKUS agreement had been tabled on Monday, Marles explained that it “will be central to Australia’s acquisition of a sovereign nuclear-powered submarine (SSN) capability from the 2030s”, including US-made SSN and UK-assisted Australian-made SSN.

“It will also enable Australia to prepare for Submarine Rotational Force-West (SRF-West) at HMAS Stirling from 2027, supporting the rotational presence of up to four Virginia class submarines from the US and one Astute class submarine from the UK,” the deputy PM added in his press release.

Yet, while Marle’s first proposition, that Australia will ever acquire any of the eight proposed SSN of its own, has been shown to be full of holes, a recent paper by the US congress’ thinktank reveals that the mainly US submarine force stationed in WA is a given and it recommends no Australian SSN.

And despite these questions, the Albanese government did table the updated EENPIA, which, if all parties provide a note assuring that domestic requirements are completed, will replace the 2022 original agreement, and this rather lopsided treaty will continue to be in force until the end of 2075.

A lack of sovereignty

The AUKUS ENNPIA establishes a legally-binding framework to facilitate the communication and exchange of naval nuclear propulsion information and nuclear material and equipment from the UK and the US to Australia – the AUKUS powers – in regard to our own coming “sovereign” SSN.

The reason it’s questionable that any boats we may acquire will be sovereign is that the deal adheres to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), which guards against new states acquiring the ability to produce such weapons, so therefore, the reactors in the subs are off-limits.

The plan is to purchase three to five second-hand Virginia class SSN from the states, starting in the early 1930s, with sealed nuclear reactors in them, and in terms of the five Australian-made AUKUS subs, the UK will provide welded naval nuclear propulsion plants to be inserted into the AUKUS SSN.

And author of Nuked, investigative journalist Andrew Fowler told the ABC last month in reference to the Virginia class SSN that if Australia buys these boats, it’s questionable that they can every really be referred to as owned solely by the nation, as treaty obligations guard against that final step.

Non-proliferation requirements

The updated ENNPIA further requires Australia to establish an Article 14 Arrangement under the Agreement between Australia and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) for the Application of Safeguards in Connection with the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.

This 1974 agreement permits Australia to use nuclear material in relation to “peaceful” activities, which is safeguarded under its provisions, and this further entails ensuring that the “material is not diverted to nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices”.

Article 14 of the agreement requires that if Australia plans to use nuclear material in a “non-proscribed military activity”, that our nation and the IAEA must come to an arrangement, so that Australia is permitted to use it in this non-safeguarded manner.

And if Australia is found to be in breach of the NPT, it’s agreement with the IAEA or the Article 14 agreement, the US and the UK have the right to cease the AUKUS agreement and will require the return of all nuclear material and equipment transferred to it, which again raises sovereignty.

Pulling the plug

Australians have been told that the nation is committing at least $368 billion to this AUKUS sub deal, which certainly signals a nation sliding towards a war economy with less social services. And the ENNPIA notes that no public consultation has been undertaken because the process is classified.

But as Greens Senator David Shoebridge told Sydney Criminal Lawyers in April, our nation has already committed AU$4.6 billion to the US for its nuclear submarine industrial base, and another AU$4.6 billion for the UK’s nuclear submarine industrial base.

The updated ENNPIA further provides that “any party may, by giving at least one year’s written notice to the other parties, terminate this agreement”. Yet, there is nothing within it stipulating that Australia will be receiving any refunds on these already progressing investments.

And on such termination or if one party has breached the deal “each other party has the right to require the return or destruction of any naval nuclear propulsion information, nuclear material and equipment that it communicated, exchanged, or transferred pursuant to the agreement”.

So, while this last clause does technically apply to all AUKUS powers, it doesn’t really have any bearing on our nation, as we are to pay for the transference of information, nuclear material and related equipment, and we’re not supposed to provide any in the other direction.

So, Australia is left in a precarious situation where everything can be taken away.

A dumping ground for nuclear waste

In terms of nuclear waste, the AUKUS ENNPIA only “obligates Australia” to store and dispose of “any spent nuclear fuel and radioactive waste resulting from naval nuclear propulsion plants that are transferred”.

However, this document only relates to the exchange of naval nuclear propulsion information coming from the US and the UK. And it does not, for instance, dictate what will happen to the nuclear waste generated by SRF-West: the US and UK SSN force that will operating out of WA from 2027 onwards.

Indeed, the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency last month, signed off on storing the nuclear waste produced by SRF-West on Garden Island, off the coast of Perth, and this will be both low-grade and intermediate-grade waste. And such arrangements could be expanded.

And the Australian Naval Nuclear Power Safety Bill 2023 continues to sit in the lower house, after it went through the parliamentary committee process, which, amongst other measures, facilitates the establishment of a high level nuclear waste dump/s on First Nations land.

There’s a new sheriff in town

So, while the new AUKUS ENNPIA doesn’t facilitate our nation taking on high grade radioactive waste that the US and the UK hasn’t been able to store themselves, the updated document neither rules out that this will be facilitated via other means in the future.

And nor does it spell out what was clear at last week’s AUSMIN meet, which was that increasing interoperability between the US and Australian defence forces is coming, with Washington being the senior partner, and it will have a much greater military presence and in turn, control on the ground.

“If you look at the force posture of the United States on the Australian continent, we’ve seen a growth in marine rotation in Darwin,” our deputy PM said during the AUSMIN, and added that “in fact, that force posture lay down of the United States in Australia is across all domains”.

August 26, 2024 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics international, weapons and war | Leave a comment