Going to war with China will be an unequivocal disaster for Australia
Perhaps the Honourable Minister should also be and remain quiet – or better still be removed from his portfolio – because he is doing nothing for the Labor cause; and seems to be actively attempting to reduce Labor’s chance at a second term. He should unequivocally realise that if Australia goes to war the Liberal mantra will become, ‘this is on you Labor, you dragged us into this war and it is up to the LNP to get us out.’
the US will not place any of its assets at risk in order to defend Australia, this should be fundamentally and clearly understood by the people of Australia.
19 June 2025 AIMN Editorial, By Dr Strobe Driver https://theaimn.net/going-to-war-with-china-will-be-an-unequivocal-disaster-for-australia/
“Up shit creek in a barbed-wire canoe, without a paddle”: The implausible direction Australia’s current Defence Minister is taking the country.
For those of you who aren’t familiar with the above mentioned expression it means things are about as bad as they can get; likely to get worse; and are as it stands, a continuum of a disaster.
This is where Australia stands at the moment when examining Australia’s role in the Asia-Pacific; the rise of China; the ‘position’ this is placing Australia in terms of it being a ‘middle power’ in the region; the dependence on the United States of America (US) as an ally; and the way in which the current Defence Minister (the Honourable Richard Marles (MP) is approaching the current and future components of the regional strategic situations.
The spat between former prime minister Keating and the current Deputy Prime Minister and Defence Minister Marles is ongoing and is far too detailed to go into here other than to mention Keating believes Marles has essentially ‘ceded Australia’s sovereignty’ to another country (the US); and Marles wants ‘strategic transparency from China in its regional military build-up’ and of course the well-worn argument that Australia will be dragged into a war should the US-China situation become ‘kinetic’ – in other words the fighting becomes real. So, with this in mind let’s ‘cut to the chase’ and figure out how Australia would actually ‘fair’ in the outbreak of a war with China and utilise some rationale.
First and foremost, and as I have previously stated in my book The Brink of 2036, the US having sought and gained assurance that Australia is its ‘closest ally’ decides it will ‘go after’ China over its retrocession claims on Taiwan and a war breaks out – the question that begs is, what does that make Australia? This makes Australia an enemy of China and therefore, the Chinese military is now legally entitled to strike Australia.
China would veto any and all conversation in the UNSC (as it is a Permanent Five (P5) member) and use all of its legal powers to circumvent any and all United Nations’ debate about its use of force against US allies. Secondly, the US will not place any of its assets at risk in order to defend Australia, this should be fundamentally and clearly understood by the people of Australia. The US may come to Australia’s aid – it will utilise discretion – however, should it be deemed necessary, it will only enter into any and all aspects associated with the protection of Australia when its assets are not at a high risk of destruction/incapacitation. Where does this leave Australia? One could safely argue a dyad: alone, unless the US’ intervenes.
For the purpose of this essay war has been declared and therefore, a perspective is needed.
The most telling perspective is that Australia faces a rising power and bearing in mind China has continued its rise exponentially since circa-2010, as before that one could safely argue its rise was only incremental, and thus, it is now a major regional power – soon to become a global one. Hence, Australia will have become the enemy of an enormously powerful country.
What then, would said country do to its middle-power regional enemy? There are no surprises here as it is being played out by Israel in the Gaza strip; and the Russian Federation in Ukraine and moreover, it is exceedingly visible; and easy-to-understand. As a side issue, though an important one, and just to strike further terror into the hearts of Australians, the US and Russia as members of the P5 have shut down through the power of veto any and all conversation about whether Israel’s incursion into Gaza and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine are not warranted. One need not even bother to assume what pathway China will take in its war/fight with Australia. With this in mind let’s move towards China’s kinetic tactics on Australia.
As with any war the first things that need to be destroyed are ‘bases and bridges.’ Bases because they house personnel and vital equipment and bridges which essentially refer to anything (not just bridges over a waterway) that equipment can be transported from in order to get ‘to’ a place/location. China with its significant and enormous amount of missiles and the ability to place them through assets (submarines in particular), will fire hundreds of them into Australian assets – some for advantage and some for ‘publicity,’ that is to say, ‘here’s what we can do.’ The former will be RAAF bases, RAN and RAA bases with a single focus on maintenance and repair facilities; and the latter will be major railway lines (the Ghan; Indo-Pacific; and north east coast public lines); and then major highways the Bruce Highway in particular, will be targeted as will the Darwin-Adelaide highway.
As with any war the first things that need to be destroyed are ‘bases and bridges.’ Bases because they house personnel and vital equipment and bridges which essentially refer to anything (not just bridges over a waterway) that equipment can be transported from in order to get ‘to’ a place/location. China with its significant and enormous amount of missiles and the ability to place them through assets (submarines in particular), will fire hundreds of them into Australian assets – some for advantage and some for ‘publicity,’ that is to say, ‘here’s what we can do.’ The former will be RAAF bases, RAN and RAA bases with a single focus on maintenance and repair facilities; and the latter will be major railway lines (the Ghan; Indo-Pacific; and north east coast public lines); and then major highways the Bruce Highway in particular, will be targeted as will the Darwin-Adelaide highway.
As with any war the first things that need to be destroyed are ‘bases and bridges.’ Bases because they house personnel and vital equipment and bridges which essentially refer to anything (not just bridges over a waterway) that equipment can be transported from in order to get ‘to’ a place/location. China with its significant and enormous amount of missiles and the ability to place them through assets (submarines in particular), will fire hundreds of them into Australian assets – some for advantage and some for ‘publicity,’ that is to say, ‘here’s what we can do.’ The former will be RAAF bases, RAN and RAA bases with a single focus on maintenance and repair facilities; and the latter will be major railway lines (the Ghan; Indo-Pacific; and north east coast public lines); and then major highways the Bruce Highway in particular, will be targeted as will the Darwin-Adelaide highway.
The Honourable Defence Minister should cease and desist with his current monologue and political ineptness toward China and should be upfront with the Australian people in what will happen, should we go down this ‘rabbit hole’ of exceptionalism in the region; and yet, willingly yet aimlessly back the US. Australia will become a failed state if we go to war and it is timely to remind the Australian public there are (approximately) as many personnel in the NYPD as there are personnel in the Australian Defence Force.
Perhaps the Honourable Minister should also be and remain quiet – or better still be removed from his portfolio – because he is doing nothing for the Labor cause; and seems to be actively attempting to reduce Labor’s chance at a second term. He should unequivocally realise that if Australia goes to war the Liberal mantra will become, ‘this is on you Labor, you dragged us into this war and it is up to the LNP to get us out.’
The level of political-ineptness and downright political-maladroitness shown by this minister is however nothing new, as Australia seems to have had a cavalcade of utterly hopeless defence ministers over the past three decades. The real problem this time is this one is politically stupid-to-the-core when Australians need astute, articulate and well-defined decision-making.
Meanwhile, China continues to plan its ongoing rise to ‘pax-Sino’ and we have someone at the helm who is plainly and insufferably politically incompetent when there is a dire need to truly understand the milieu of Australia’s defence needs.
‘Punishment phase’ explained: The punishment phase of aerial bombardment is designed to ‘inflict enough pain on enemy civilians to overwhelm their territorial interests’ and in doing so induce surrender, or hasten total defeat. See: Robert Pape. Bombing To Win: Air Power and Coercion in War. New York: Cornell University Press, 1996, 59.
Dr Strobe Driver – Strobe completed his PhD in war studies in 2011 and since then has written extensively on war, terrorism, Asia-Pacific security, the ‘rise of China,’ and issues within Australian domestic politics. Strobe is a recipient of Taiwan Fellowship 2018, MOFA, Taiwan, ROC, and is an adjunct researcher at Federation University.
Lucky We Didn’t Go For Nuclear…
19 June 2025 Rossleigh , https://theaimn.net/lucky-we-didnt-go-for-nuclear/
Regular readers may have noticed that I try and stay out of the Middle East and there’s a good reason for that… apart from the potential Weapons of Mass Destruction which sometimes fall into the hand of people who don’t own the copyright and who won’t pay the USA for bombs, planes, bullets or submarines.
Apparently the Middle East is where modern civilisation started and I fear that it’s where it may en
Anyway, people are very wedded to their particular views and I’d like to say that I’m definitely not taking the sort of view that anyone can accuse me of being anything… I’m completely neutral on all of it and if I use the word “genocide” I’m talking about in general terms and I’m neither being anti-semitic nor anti-Aryan…
When it comes to bombs hitting hospitals – whether it’s in Gaza, Israel or Iran – I blame the country itself for building them too close to the country itself and we must expect a certain amount of collateral damage in any war…
The point I’m trying to make has nothing to do with the Middle East but it’s more do with our own situation in Australia where it was suggested that it would be good to go nuclear in order to generate power…
Now I know some of you are going to try and link this to Iran who are only claiming to build nuclear power stations and we all know that they’ve been on the verge of creating a nuclear bomb since Reagan got the US president role that should have earned him an Oscar, so it’s clear that they must really be on the verge by now and not something that people make up because we don’t like countries that oppress women and gay people… unless they also make movies about how terrible it is to do such a thing and give Oscars to people who play them on…
I mean, look, why would Iran need nuclear power when they have plenty of oil. No, don’t try and make the point that we have plenty of gas and sunshine because John Howard sold our gas for a really good deal and Tony Abbott took our sunshine away and…
I digress! Sorry.
I was just trying to make the point that if we had gone down the nuclear path we’d have never been able to beat New Zealand at anything like cricket again because they would have surely argued that they have a right to defend themselves and that we probably only a few months away from bowling underarm or developing a nuclear weapon and we’d be a legitimate target.
Mm, I am wondering whether anyone would have made some sort of statement arguing that New Zealand had a right to defend itself because it always strikes me that whenever anyone says something like that, one has to wonder who is arguing against it. I mean nobody actually says that people don’t have a right to defend themselves, they just argue that Llap Goch…
Oh, Llap Goch. It was in Monty Python’s “Big Red Book” and it was the Welsh Art of Self Defence which in summary suggested that the best self-defence was attack and that the art of surprise was attack and that the best way to surprise was to attack BEFORE your opponent had even thought of attacking you.
Whatever, if you need your lawyer to tell the jury that you have a right to defend yourself it’s almost like the police have already decided it wasn’t self defence or you wouldn’t be on trial because it’s a generally accepted thing that one has that right and…
Oh, I guess this why you should never take the stand as the defendant!
Warmongering Marles commits Australia to US war against China amid Iran mayhem.
Let’s never forget the truth, that Iran is compliant with its international nuclear reporting; Israel is not. Israel doesn’t even allow the IAEA to check their nuclear facilities, Iran is a member of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, unlike Israel.
It is not the generals emblazoned with their medals who will pay the price if we march off to another worthless American war. It is not the pusillanimous media pundits, nor the preening politicians. It is young Australians who will pay the price.
by Michael West | Jun 17, 2025 | https://michaelwest.com.au/warmongering-marles-commits-australia-to-us-war-against-china-amid-iran-mayhem/
The craven appeasement of Benjamin Netanyahu by Western media and political elites has brought the world to the brink of war. Now Richard Marles says Australia’s part in a US war against China is a fait accompli. Michael West reports.
The closest Deputy PM Richard Marles has come to war may well be a school debating stoush at Geelong Grammar but here he is today, on page 1 of Rupert Murdoch’s warmongering The Australian, committing young Australians to war against China. Should it transpire.
Our major trading partner, which has posed us no threat but buys 40% of our exports and has delivered nothing but prosperity to The Lucky Country.
Given the way things are shaping up in Europe, America and the Middle East, the spectre of World War 3 has never loomed so large. This morning Donald Trump warned Iranians to evacuate Tehran, the capital and home to 10 million people. Now there are reports of Trump seeking executive orders to invade.
There is little doubt that the Neville Chamberlains in Western governments and media, these sapless appeasers of the political and media elites, who have supported ‘our friend Israel’ and its demonic leadership of genocidaires, are culpable for the deaths of thousands (in Gaza and the West Bank, Syria, Lebanon and now Iran). They are guilty of genocide, the world’s most egregious crime, and now Israel’s attacks on Iran, in a world daily edging closer to WW3.
They could have stopped this. Cowed by Israel money and the fear of being called antisemitic, they didn’t. Who loses this? Everybody, Israel included. The first casualty of Israel’s unprovoked assault on Iran last week was a child, buried under rubble.
It is Western appeasement of the Netanyahu government which has led to this; principally the US, UK and Germany, with Australia a bit player albeit with blood dripping from its hands.
Sucked in by Benjamin Netanyahu, again, sucked in by the Israel propaganda of Iran’s nuclear program, world mainstream media again – the very people who fell for the ’40 babies beheaded’ and mass rapes of October 7 – are now running Israel’s ‘regime change’ narrative.
Plus ca change
We’ve seen it before: in Vietnam the ‘domino theory’, in Iraq the fabled WMD which turned regime change when that was found out. “Liberty, freedom and democracy” they cried, after Netanyahu sold them into that war. A million dead, a spate of world terrorism. Islamic State.
And Afghanistan, whose cause turned from Osama bin Laden to regime change to remove the Taliban. Twenty years later the Taliban were back in office.
These abysmal failures, one after another, and now we’ve got Murdoch again beating the drums of war for an attack on China.
Australia is walking into another disastrous war by kowtowing to the US. AUKUS – the controversial security alliance – has made us less safe, not more safe.
The government of Anthony Albanese, feebly abetted by a warmongering Coalition and media, dead-set scared of what the US will say, or the chicken-hawk Coalition, is wedged … if they don’t go all the way with Donald J.
Real strength is being able to stand up to bullies and make the right decisions, not cravenly cave to the demands of our ‘allies’ carrying out a genocide in Gaza and now destabilising the whole world. The ‘global rules based order’ is a sick joke.
Iran support
And make no mistake, that is what we are doing, destabilising the world. China has said it would back Iran in the face of Israeli aggression, Russia has its own thing going with Ukraine but presumably backs Iran. Pakistan, a neighbour and ally of Iran, says it will nuke Israel if Israel nukes Iran.
North Korea – whose decision to get nukes has been entirely vindicated by Western aggression – backs Iran. It is topsy turvey. In Syria, Israel and the US have installed a puppet regime of former Isis and Al Qaeda types – yes the very terrorists who they funded to commit war crimes are now their allies.
This is an almighty mess, and at its epicentre is Israel which decries the regime in Iran, a country which has not attacked another country in 300 years, a country where, despite an authoritarian government, embraces freedom of religion. Mosques, churches and synagogues are free.
In Palestine and Lebanon, Netanyahu and his cronies have been gleefully bombing mosques and churches. No arabs or Thai workers have been crowding the bomb shelters this week as Israelis scurried for cover from Iran’s retaliatory strikes, crying victimhood. In this apartheid state, bomb shelters are only for Jews.
Plainly, we are on the wrong side, the ‘genocide’. And now we see Richard Marles and his media proxies talking about the threat from China and the inevitability of joining a US war.
As Israel continues to murder dozens of civilians daily under cover of media blackouts, starving and murdering Gazans as they scramble for food – and annexing the West Bank – the war crimes by the US/Israel alliance are legion, too many to be listed here; they are daily.
This morning Israel bombed an Iranian TV station mid-broadcast, unapologetically gloating about it in the media; like the grotesque terrorism of its pager explosives, another war crime, targeting journalists going about their jobs.
Follow the money
Trump, the self-described peacemaker, has lost control. And behind it, if we follow the money is an epic laundering operation which has dragged in the entire political class in the US.
It is quite simple: America sends billions in public money, earned by their taxpayers, to support Israel every year. Israel in turn sends money to its lobby groups such as AIPAC, bribing almost every politician on Capital Hill to support its genocide and deny its daily war crimes, its land theft, rape and torture of prisoners, its unrelenting, barbaric military aggression.
And Australia, we are sending our tributes to these US warmongers via AUKUS for submarines which may never arrive, certainly not in time for this looming war, if it occurs. We can only hope common sense prevails. But when it comes to cajoling Australia into its next useless war, the US only has to pamper one man, and that’s Albo.
War powers reform
We can be thankful it’s not Peter Dutton. But few would put store in Albo to stand up to US pressure. The rub is that, in the UK and US, the decision to go to war is made by a vote of Parliament or Congress. In Australia, there is no vote. It is down to the PM, one man. It’s Albo’s call.
So what can we expect? The warmongers of the media are stepping up their campaigns. We have seen it all before, it will all be about downplaying Israel’s aggression. It will all be about demonising the Iranian regime, driving spurious arguments for regime change as if it is our right to meddle in the affairs of countries which want peace and which have done no wrong.
It will be about the elusive, unfounded threat of Iranian nukes, it will dehumanise Iranians, just like it did the people of Gaza. the machine will do all it can to manufacture consent for war. This – Fox News ‘secret Iranian nuclear weapons site revealed’ – is a taste of things to come.
Iran compliant, Israel not
Let’s never forget the truth, that Iran is compliant with its international nuclear reporting; Israel is not. Israel doesn’t even allow the IAEA to check their nuclear facilities, Iran is a member of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, unlike Israel.
These facts will be dutifully buried in an avalanche of lies and spin but if the world needs regime change, they should start with Israel, not Iran. Somehow Netanyahu has managed to – in his jungle of lies – inveigle the US into war with Iraq and ‘regime change’ in a plethora of countries.
He has trashed the reputation of his country forever, demolished any credibility it might have enjoyed, lost to the Palestinian resistance in Gaza after almost two years, and failed miserably in his two stated aims of ousting Hamas and returning the hostages.
And this despite America and the US deploying more firepower than Nagasaki and Hiroshima, killing and maiming 100s of thousands of civilians. And now starving them to boot.
Still the IDF can’t summon the guts to go down in the tunnels and take Hamas on, mano a mano, preferring instead to frock up in the lingerie of their victims and blithely prance around on social media celebrating their war crimes.
Netanyahu and his cronies, including America, have destroyed Israel through their brutality and stupidity and given rise to antisemitism. While blaming everybody else from peace protestors to Palestinians, they are squarely to blame.
It is not the generals emblazoned with their medals who will pay the price if we march off to another worthless American war. It is not the pusillanimous media pundits, nor the preening politicians. It is young Australians who will pay the price.
Nuclear news this week – NOT the corporate version
Some bits of good news – French Polynesia Just Created The World’s Largest Marine Protected Area. Resurgent tuna and rebounding elephants: the dogged conservation efforts bearing fruit
TOP STORIES.
Refresher On The Rules For Discussing Israeli Wars- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xNxx-zNsDBg
Sources: US Will Enter Israel’s War With Iran.
Israel Starts Bombing Iran, IRGC Chief Reported Killed – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DMT1c2JHPQ4
‘We Are Preparing for War’ With China ‘Threat’, Says US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kLOTTVI_LAA
It’s austerity from Reeves – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TwQxdCLjL9s
Miliband’s Sizewell plan in meltdown over potential cost – ALSO AT https://nuclear-news.net/2025/06/13/2-a-milibands-sizewell-plan-in-meltdown-over-potential-cost/
Climate. How the ‘evil twin’ of the climate crisis is threatening our oceans. Could Britain face a winter ice age? How temperatures could one day plummet due to climate change.
From the archives. Why can’t Iran have nuclear weapons?
AUSTRALIA. AUKUS: A Very Antipodean Stupidity. AUKUS faces bigger tests than Trump’s ‘America first’ review, US and UK experts warn. Group of Australian MP’s Call for AUKUS Inquiry, US launches AUKUS review to ensure it meets Donald Trump’s ‘America First’ agenda.
NUCLEAR ITEMS.
ECONOMICS.
- Cost of Miliband’s nuclear plant doubles to more than £40bn -ALSO AT https://nuclear-news.net/2025/06/15/2-b1-cost-of-milibands-nuclear-plant-doubles-to-more-than-40bn/
- Another delay for Sizewell C nuclear despite Government 14bn pledge.
- UK pledges £11.5bn of new state funding for Sizewell C nuclear plant -ALSO AT https://nuclear-news.net/2025/06/12/1-b1-uk-pledges-11-5bn-of-new-state-funding-for-sizewell-c-nuclear-plant/
- Great British Energy’s budget has been nuked.
- China banned from investing in Sizewell C, energy secretary Ed Miliband vows.
- The World Bank is lifting its decades-long ban on financing nuclear energy… ALSO AT https://nuclear-news.net/2025/06/14/1-b1-world-bank-lifts-ban-on-funding-nuclear-energy-in-boost-to-industry/
- European Power Costs Surge on Fresh Fears of French Nuclear Reactor Corrosion.
US suspends export licences for nuclear equipment suppliers selling to China .
| ENERGY. GB Energy handed £2.5bn bill for funding small modular reactors . |
| ENVIRONMENT. Revealed: three tonnes of uranium legally dumped in protected English estuary in nine years |
| ETHICS and RELIGION. The ‘unsustainable’ reason behind who can have nuclear weapons, and who can’t. |
| HISTORY. Securing the nuclear nation, (Russia). |
| LEGAL. Firm fined £26k after worker exposed to radiation at Teesside site. Hinkley Point C | Court rules that nuclear developers must follow environmental information law. Campaigners launch legal challenge against Sizewell C’s ‘secret’ flood defences. |
| MEDIA. Fox News Just Helped Netanyahu Spread The Lie That Iran Tried To Assassinate Trump https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kzDRij_M05g |
| OPPOSITION to NUCLEAR . Protect the Lake District Coast and Irish Sea from an Unprecedented Atomic Experiment. Cumbrians receive postal call to back nuke dump democracy petition. NFLAs welcome new group opposed to nuke waste dump in South Copeland. Group protest against Sizewell C ahead of Spending Review. |
| POLITICS. The Spring Statement Combines Austerity with Dangerous Military Spending. Ed Miliband presses the nuclear button for Berkeley. Six years late and £28bn over budget, this project signals disaster for Ed Miliband’s nuclear plansUK taxpayers to spend billions more on Sizewell C nuclear plant._ ALSO AT https://nuclear-news.net/2025/06/13/2-b1-uk-taxpayers-to-spend-billions-more-on-sizewell-c-nuclear-plant/ Sizewell C nuclear plant gets £14bn go-ahead from government. GB Energy’s promised £8.3bn budget raided to pay for small nuclear reactors. Lincolnshire council pulls out of nuclear waste disposal siting process. UK Greens react to plans for new nuclear plant at Sizewell. Scotland to prioritise renewable energy over nuclear power. |
| POLITICS INTERNATIONAL and DIPLOMACY. Condemning the Right to Self Defence: Iran’s Retaliation and Israel’s Privilege. The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPoA), destroyed by President Trump, would have prevented the current attacks between Israel and Iran . Pacific Rim countries say no to U.S.-China war. |
| SECRETS and LIES. Iran says it will release Israeli nuclear secrets as pressure grows to reimpose sanctions. |
| SPINBUSTER. When did nuclear power become “clean”? |
| URANIUM. Russia said on Wednesday it stood ready to remove highly enriched uranium from Iran– ALSO AT https://nuclear-news.net/2025/06/14/1-b1-russia-said-on-wednesday-it-stood-ready-to-remove-highly-enriched-uranium-from-iran/ |
| WASTES. Sizewell C Nuclear not just a waste of money – a waste of time, too! Survey Results Show Tremendous Dissatisfaction with Nuclear Waste Project and Proponent https://nuclear-news.net/2025/06/15/2-b1-survey-results-show-tremendous-dissatisfaction-with-nuclear-waste-project-and-proponent/ |
| WAR and CONFLICT Injustice of nuclear-weapons state Israel‘s striking Iranian nuclear sites. Israel’s Netanyahu banks on TACO Trump as he Launches War on Iran to disrupt Negotiations. The whole planet is being kept hostage by a death cult. SPECIAL BULLETIN: Israel Launches Major Strikes on Iran. Israel Launches ‘Operation Rising Lion’ To Strike Iran’s Nuclear Program, Netanyahu Vows To Eliminate Threat. Satellite imagery reveals damage to key Iran nuclear sites. Israeli attack could drive Iran to seek nuclear weapons, IAEA chief warns. ‘TO THE POINT OF UNINHABITABILITY’ . Zelensky’s spectacular Operation Spiderweb has backfired spectacularly. |
| WEAPONS and WEAPONS SALES. Hidden Costs: Nuclear Weapons Spending in 2024. World entering new era as nuclear powers build up arsenals, SIPRI think tank says. European Commission assesses nuclear investment needs of around €241 billion by 2050. Paris wants to manufacture drones in Ukraine. Here is why you should support the Global Network’s Golden Dome statement. Golden Dome Idiocy. Nuclear submarines plan is an expensive mistake – there are better things for UK to spend money on: Andy Brown. |
Why the AUKUS ‘dream’ was never realistic and is likely to die
it has always been clear that Washington will sell us its submarines only if it is absolutely certain Australia would commit them to fight if the US goes to war with China.
The Albanese government has never acknowledged it is willing to make that commitment.
it has always been clear that Washington will sell us its submarines only if it is absolutely certain Australia would commit them to fight if the US goes to war with China.
The Albanese government has never acknowledged it is willing to make that commitment.
Hugh White, Jun 16, 2025, https://www.thenewdaily.com.au/opinion/2025/06/16/aukus-submarines-review-australia
The first clear sign the Trump administration was taking a long hard look at AUKUS came two weeks ago, when US Secretary of Defence Pete Hegseth gave his first major speech on US strategic policy in Asia at the annual Shangri-La Dialogue in Singapore.
In a long presentation that catalogued a host of initiatives with America’s Asian allies, AUKUS was not mentioned once.
This was noteworthy, because under the Biden administration, AUKUS was the poster-child for US military engagement in the region, name-checked at every opportunity. Now we understand why.
The Pentagon’s review of AUKUS, announced last week, marks the first time any of the three partners – the US, Britain and Australia – has tested the AUKUS dream against hard military and strategic realities. It is unlikely to survive.
AUKUS was always a long shot, right from the start. That was clear from the moment, back in September 2021, that then prime minister, Scott Morrison, sprung the dream of an Australian nuclear-powered submarine force on an astonished public. For that dream to be realised, a lot of things would have to go right, and most of them were much more likely to go wrong.
But the flaw that looks set to kill the AUKUS dream is one that was not part of the original plan. The way Morrison and his then defence minister, Peter Dutton, originally conceived it, there would be no need for Australia to acquire US-built Virginia-Class subs in the 2030s before taking delivery of Australian-built subs to replace the Collins-class boats. They were confident that subs built in Australia, almost certainly to a British design, could be delivered fast enough to enter service as the old Collins subs were being retired, ensuring no gap in our capability.
It became clear this was not going to work out only after Labor took office in 2022, as the new government tried to turn Morrison’s vague idea into a viable project. It soon found there was simply no way to bring new Australian-built nuclear subs into service until long after the Collins boats had to be retired.
To save the AUKUS dream, it was necessary to fill the gap between the retirement of the Collins and the delivery of the first of what we now know as the UK-designed, Australian-built SSN-AUKUS class of submarine. That was when the idea of Australia getting ex-US Navy Virginia class boats first surfaced.
It was a desperate measure that vastly increased the already formidable risks of the whole AUKUS idea. One reason is that it meant the Royal Australian Navy had the almost impossible task of managing and operating not one but two very different kinds of nuclear submarine, powered by two very different nuclear power plants.
For a navy that has struggled to keep the much simpler Collins subs at sea, the task of operating just one class of nuclear-powered subs was truly formidable. To expect it to effectively operate two quite different classes of nuclear submarine simultaneously was frankly absurd.
But there is another reason why the decision to buy Virginia subs to cover the capability gap undermined the viability of the whole AUKUS plan.
Very simply, the US has no submarines to spare. The facilities and workforce that build and maintain its submarines have never recovered from the savage cuts imposed in the 1990s after the end of the Cold War. No serious steps were taken to rebuild it even after it became clear China had become a formidable new maritime rival.
The result is that America’s two submarine construction yards have for many years been delivering barely half as many Virginia-class subs as the Pentagon now says America needs – about 1.2 a year instead of two a year.
This problem was acknowledged when the AUKUS partners announced the detailed plan in 2023. It was optimistically claimed that everything necessary would be done to increase production to the level of 2.3 subs a year required to meet US needs and provide extra boats for Australia.
So far, there is no sign of that happening. Elbridge Colby, the senior US official conducting the Pentagon’s AUKUS review, will almost certainly puncture the irresponsible optimism around this crucial issue and make it clear that unless there is a miracle in US submarine production, America will not sell any Virginia-class subs to Australia.
But that’s not all. Even if that miracle is achieved, US leaders and officials still have to ask whether it makes sense for America to pass the extra submarines to Australia rather than bring them into service with the US Navy.
Any subs sold to Australia weaken America at a time when it is already struggling to match China’s fast-growing navy. So it has always been clear that Washington will sell us its submarines only if it is absolutely certain Australia would commit them to fight if the US goes to war with China.
The Albanese government has never acknowledged it is willing to make that commitment. The Biden administration, desperate for its own reasons to keep the AUKUS dream alive, did not press Canberra on this very sensitive point.
The Trump administration will be much tougher. Colby’s review will also certainly conclude that America should not sell Virginia-class subs to Australia, unless Canberra offers much clearer and more public guarantees that Australia will go to war with China if the US ever does.
For Canberra, this could well be a deal-breaker, making the end of the AUKUS dream. It certainly should be.
Hugh White’s new Quarterly Essay, Hard New World: Our Post-American Future, is published this month.
Hugh White, Emeritus Professor of Strategic Studies at the Strategic and Defence Studies Centre, Australian National University
AUKUS faces bigger tests than Trump’s ‘America first’ review, US and UK experts warn.
The deal could undermine Australia’s sovereignty. it could lock Australia into following the Americans into a confrontation with China over Taiwan.
“You are in the punch-up, whether you like it or not.”
The deal could undermine Australia’s sovereignty. it could lock Australia into following the Americans into a confrontation with China over Taiwan.
“You are in the punch-up, whether you like it or not.”
ABC News, Four Corners, By Mark Willacy, Ninah Kopel and Lara Sonnenschein, 16 June 5
Key defence figures on both sides of the Atlantic warn the risks to AUKUS run deeper than whether a review finds Australia’s biggest ever defence deal is “America first” enough for Donald Trump.
They’ve told Four Corners of the damage being done to decades-old alliances by Mr Trump’s unpredictability and contempt for the US’s allies, the UK’s increasing focus on Europe, and concerns neither country has the capability to deliver the submarines on time or on budget.
With Australia’s allies holding all the cards, and our Indo-Pacific defence strategy at stake, it’s possible we could be left billions out of pocket, without submarines, and with one of our oldest alliances in tatters.
AUKUS alliance ‘undermined’
Even before the US decided to review the deal, a senior member of the country’s powerful Armed Services Committee was warning Mr Trump’s “idiotic” and “bullying” behaviour towards allies presented risks to the alliance with Australia.
The US president has repeatedly said that he regards Canada as the “51st state”, while his belittling of Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskyy in the Oval Office in February shocked American allies around the world.
Mr Trump has also threatened to take back control of the Panama Canal and has not ruled out military force to wrest Greenland from Denmark.
The House Armed Services Committee’s highest-ranking Democrat, congressman Adam Smith, said Canberra had reason to be concerned about whether “the strong partnership between the US and Australia will remain”.
“I cannot possibly be critical enough of the way the Trump administration has treated our partners and allies since they were elected … it’s really stupid,” he said.
“Their contempt for allies and partners has the potential, not just to undermine the AUKUS agreement, but to undermine the very national security of the United States of America.”
Former US National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan also fears that Mr Trump has undermined America’s standing with its allies and partners.
“I think this is a great source of alarm,” Mr Sullivan, who served in the role under president Joe Biden, told Four Corners. “The direction of travel right now is quite disturbing.”
Mr Sullivan said he understood why allies such as Australia, may be wondering where they stand with the US president.
“I’m not sure that [Mr Trump’s] looking for territory Down Under … not to make light of it,” Mr Sullivan said.
“But I can see why people are asking questions. ‘Hey, what the heck is going on here? This isn’t right.'”
Key voices in the UK, the third alliance partner, are also troubled about the implications for AUKUS.
Former Royal Navy admiral Alan West said, “dear old Trump coming in, that has … stood everyone on their heads really”.
“Things that we absolutely took as a certainty are no longer a certainty,” said Lord West, formerly the official who oversaw the Royal Navy’s operations.
“What he’s been saying about Canada [being the 51st state] is outrageous actually. It’s like stamping on a fluffy bunny really, isn’t it? It’s just terrible.”
America first?
Under the AUKUS agreement the US is supposed to transfer at least three nuclear-powered Virginia-class attack submarines to Australia in the 2030s.
But it’s not building enough Virginia-class submarines for its own fleet, let alone enough to supply Australia.
To meet its targets the US would need to build them at a rate of 2.3 a year. It’s only making 1.2 a year.
Christopher Miller, who served as the acting Defense Secretary in the dying days of the first Trump administration, warns production is “moving too slow”.
“I think probably most of that’s on the United States side, to be perfectly honest with you,” Mr Miller said.
“The problem is we don’t have the workforce, the welders, the skilled machinists that are required.”
Adam Smith conceded slow production had put pressure on the AUKUS deal.
“But I’m hoping that the AUKUS deal will also put pressure the other way. It’ll put pressure to solve that problem,” Mr Smith said.
Earlier this year Australia’s Defence minister handed over $800 million to his US counterpart. It’s the first of six payments designed to help bolster the struggling American submarine industry.
The chief of the Royal Australian Navy, Vice Admiral Mark Hammond, told Four Corners Washington was determined to boost production and to fulfil its obligations under the deal.
“That is the United States Navy’s job to set the conditions to enable that to succeed,” Vice Admiral Hammond said.
“They’re being backed up with strategic investment by the United States and by Australia. So I’ve got every reason to believe they will succeed.”
‘They can walk away’
The Trump administration said its review of AUKUS includes ensuring it is “aligned with the president’s ‘America first’ agenda” and that “the defence industrial base is meeting our needs”.
AUKUS critics, like the former commander of the Royal Australian Navy’s submarine squadron, Peter Briggs, warn that Australia could lose everything it has bet on the nuclear subs.
“This is a good deal for the Americans,” Mr Briggs said. “If they see that the AUKUS program is impacting on their capabilities, they can walk away from it.”
“No penalties, no refunds. That’s it.”
Under the United States’ AUKUS legislation, the president has to certify to Congress that any transfer of Virginia-class submarines to Australia would not degrade America’s undersea capabilities. Otherwise, the transfer will not take place…………………………
American leverage
The man leading the review, Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Elbridge Colby, has been staunchly opposed to transferring any Virginia-class submarines to Australia while they are needed by the US.
Last year, before his elevation to the Pentagon, Mr Colby told the ABC it would weaken American strike power.
“It would be crazy for the United States to give away its single most important asset for a conflict with China over Taiwan,” he said at the time.
That view isn’t shared by other Republicans close to Donald Trump.
“We’re not ‘giving them away’. I mean, we are putting them in the hands of our friends in Australia,” Republican congressman Rob Wittman told Four Corners.
He said having Australia equipped with Virginia-class subs would place an obligation on Canberra to use them to assist the US in the Indo-Pacific.
“To me, that’s a lever. That’s where we can leverage the ability for Australia to do even more in partnership,”
Mr Wittman said.
“That’s a force multiplier for the United States and our friends in that region of the world.”
The prospect of “leverage” concerns some, who warn the deal could undermine Australia’s sovereignty.
Mr Briggs fears it could lock Australia into following the Americans into a confrontation with China over Taiwan.
“You are in the punch-up, whether you like it or not,” Mr Briggs said………………………………………
Shifting priorities
Mr Trump’s approach to diplomacy and the US’s lagging production are not the only factors threatening to disrupt AUKUS.
Under the plan the UK will design a brand-new nuclear-powered submarine called the SSN-AUKUS. Construction is due to begin by the end of this decade in the UK and Australia.
But the UK is facing more pressing challenges closer to home.
Since the signing of the agreement in 2021, Europe has seen the outbreak of the largest war on the continent since World War II. Senior UK defence experts say that has up-ended the country’s defence priorities.
…………………….The US isn’t alone in struggling with submarine production.
Former First Sea Lord Alan West said the UK currently does not have the workforce or the specialist skills to deliver the SSN-AUKUS on time……………………. Lord Ricketts said Australia should not expect the SSN-AUKUS to arrive on time or budget.
“I think any sensible defence calculation will be that these things will be more expensive and later than is currently expected,” he said……………………………………….. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-06-16/aukus-risks-trump-review-defence-four-corners/105412740
Pacific Rim countries say no to U.S.-China war
The question that the people of the Pacific and Pacific Rim countries are asking is: Why do we have to respond to this demand by the U.S.? We are not threatened by China. Where is the dire urgency that demands such a huge distortion of our public spending on the military?
The indications are that the United States is preparing for war against China, but cannot wage such a war from the West Coast of the USA. It needs military bases, port facilities and airfields in the countries on the west side of the Pacific Rim; for example, South Korea, Japan, the Philippines, Guam, Micronesia and Australia. Without these bases, without the backing of the military forces and munitions and manufacturing capabilities of the Pacific Rim countries, the United States cannot launch and sustain a war against China.
By Bevan Ramsden | 16 June 2025, https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/pacific-rim-countries-say-no-to-us-china-war,19837
As the U.S. pushes Pacific Rim allies to ramp up military spending for a possible war with China, a new campaign asks: at what cost and for whose benefit? Bevan Ramsden writes.
THE PACIFIC and Pacific Rim countries have a geographical commonality. They are encircled by, or have a border with, the vast, blue, peaceful Pacific Ocean. They also share a political commonality. The people and countries of this region are under pressure to lift their military spending at the expense of addressing their social needs.
The pressure comes from the United States, whose Defence Secretary, Peter Hegseth, at the recent Singapore Defence Summit, declared that the U.S. expects its allies in this region to increase their defence spending to 5% of their GDP. His justification was a “possibly imminent threat” posed by China. He emphasised how the U.S. is “reorienting towards deterring aggression by China” and made it clear that the Donald Trump Administration’s defence strategy revolves around stifling the rise of China.
Responding to this expectation would involve the doubling of South Korean expenditure on military defence, from 2.6% of its GDP to 5%.
It would mean Japan’s military defence spending would have to triple from 1.8 % of its GDP to 5%.
In Australia, such an increase would represent a two-and-a-half times increase from 2% to 5% of its GDP.
These examples show that the 5% target represents a massive increase in military spending, which can only be made by reducing funding for urgent infrastructure, social needs such as health and education and loss of resources to address the real threat to their living environments, the climate crisis.
The question that the people of the Pacific and Pacific Rim countries are asking is: Why do we have to respond to this demand by the U.S.? We are not threatened by China. Where is the dire urgency that demands such a huge distortion of our public spending on the military?
Another commonality among the countries of the Pacific Rim, particularly those on the western and southern rim of the Pacific, is U.S. troops and U.S. military installations stationed on their territory. In the case of South Korea, these are substantial, close to 30,000 and put that country’s military virtually under the control of the U.S.
Japan has 57,000 U.S. troops, including 20,000 on Okinawa, where the U.S. Kadena Air Base is its largest outside of the USA. Clearly, this level of foreign military occupation exerts substantial pressure on Japan’s foreign policy.
The Philippines has four U.S. bases with troops rotating through its territory and training with its defence forces, and is setting up logistic centres for equipment and munitions.
The people of Guam, a territory under direct U.S. control, are subject to 7,000 U.S. troops, with almost a third of the land controlled by the U.S. military. The Joint Region Marianas is a U.S. military command combining the Andersen Air Force Base and the Naval Base Guam.
Andersen Air Force Base hosts B-52 bombers and fighter jets. Naval Base Guam is the home port for four nuclear-powered fast attack submarines and two submarine tenders. American military commanders have referred to the island as their “permanent aircraft carrier”.
Australian governments, in their subservience to the U.S., have signed the Force Posture Agreement, giving the U.S. military unimpeded access to Australia’s ports and airfields and enabling the establishment of a Northern Territory base for its B-52 bombers, some of which are nuclear-capable. The Agreement is giving the U.S. fuel and munitions storage areas to support war operations and an $8 billion port facility for servicing their nuclear submarines and storage of their nuclear waste.
The people of Pacific Rim countries, including Australia, need to ask: Why does the U.S. have these extensive military facilities in our countries and why are they demanding such huge military expenditures from us?
The answer, unfortunately, is not for the benefit of the people of this region but for its own foreign policy objectives, which include maintaining its dominance in the region by “containing” China and preventing the rise of its influence.
The indications are that the United States is preparing for war against China, but cannot wage such a war from the West Coast of the USA. It needs military bases, port facilities and airfields in the countries on the west side of the Pacific Rim; for example, South Korea, Japan, the Philippines, Guam, Micronesia and Australia. Without these bases, without the backing of the military forces and munitions and manufacturing capabilities of the Pacific Rim countries, the United States cannot launch and sustain a war against China.
So the United States needs us but we don’t need such a war.
It would only bring devastation to our lives and our economies, and if it turned nuclear, who would survive?
The Pacific Peace Network, with representatives from the Pacific Rim countries and together with World Beyond War, has produced a solidary campaign which is being launched on 21 June 2025.
This is a campaign in which the people of each country on the Pacific Rim, including Australia, can say no to such a war and no to an increase in military spending for it, through a common petition which is a call on their governments.
The common petition can be accessed here at the World Beyond War website.
This call on governments reads:
For sustainable peace and the survival of our peoples and environment, we ask you:
- refuse to join military preparations for a U.S.-China war;
- declare you will not fight in a U.S.-China war;
- declare neutrality should such a war break out; and
- do not allow your territory or waters to be used in such a war, including the collection and relay of military intelligence, sales of weapons and hosting combatant troops and facilities.
Later this year, the petitions will be presented to their respective governments by peace activists in each country.
Where is scrutiny of UK’s nuclear submarine plans?
Samuel Rafanell-Williams, Scottish CND
VERY serious questions have yet to be either asked
or answered about the UK Government’s proposed military spending plans,
following its Strategic Defence Review (SDR) announcement two weeks ago.
In particular, there has yet to be any serious scrutiny of the proposal to
build 12 nuclear-propelled submarines under the Aukus agreement, the
military co-operation agreement between the US, UK and Australia. This
scrutiny is especially necessary given that the Pentagon this week
announced a review of its commitment to the agreement, raising questions
about whether the billions of pounds committed by the UK Government are
destined for the drain.
The Aukus agreement’s main aim is the material
support of the Australian Navy in the Indo-Pacific, primarily by providing
it with eight nuclear-powered submarines of the kind announced in the SDR.
This means several of the 12 nuclear submarines will probably end up
lurking around in the South China Sea, contributing nothing to the defence
of the UK and raising regional tensions.
The UK Government’s irrational and incoherent military spending plans come at a time when the current generation of submarines based at Faslane are in an increasingly atrocious
state of disrepair. Serious radioactive risk incidents at the naval base
are increasing. The Vanguard nuclear-armed submarines are going on
record-long assignments while their substitutes sit rusting in the repair
docks.
Crew are likely enduring awful conditions during six-month stints
underwater, with some reports saying they ran out of food during the last
assignment. Meanwhile, the Dreadnoughts that will supposedly replace these
ailing vessels are unlikely to enter service for 10 years at least – if
the reactors to power them can be built at all. The UK’s nuclear
superpower farce is unsustainable and a disaster waiting to happen. Those
of us who understand this in Scotland must support the parties which oppose
nuclear weapons in the run-up to the 2026 election, and keep up the
pressure on Scottish parliamentarians to support the UN Treaty on the
Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons.
The National 14th June 2025,
https://www.thenational.scot/politics/25239090.scrutiny-uks-nuclear-submarine-plans/
The ‘unsustainable’ reason behind who can have nuclear weapons, and who can’t
there was no evidence of active weaponisation, or that Israel’s strike was “pre-emptive in the sense that Iran was clearly planning an attack on Israel that was imminent”.
“the most flagrant example of double standards that you could possibly imagine”.
Israel has said its attack on Iran on Friday was partially aimed at destroying its nuclear infrastructure. But it’s far from the only country to have developed its capacity in recent years.
By Alex Gallagher, 16 June 2025, https://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/the-unsustainable-decision-on-who-gets-to-have-nuclear-weapons-and-who-doesnt/dpk5breh3
On Friday, Israel launched its largest attack on Iran in decades, with a wave of airstrikes that hit nuclear facilities, military sites and residential buildings in the capital, Tehran.
Iran responded with retaliatory strikes on Israel, and the two countries have continued trading missile fire for days.
Iran’s health ministry said 224 people have been killed by Israel’s attacks, while Israel said 13 have been killed by Iranian strikes. Hundreds of people have been wounded in both countries.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said the goal of Friday’s strikes was partially to wipe out Iran’s nuclear program, calling the strikes “pre-emptive”.
The strikes caused significant damage to linked sites such as the Natanz nuclear facility and a uranium enrichment facility in Isfahan, and killed multiple nuclear scientists in addition to military officials and civilians.
Israel has long claimed Iran is developing a nuclear weapon, with Netanyahu calling it an “existential threat to Israel”.
Iran has consistently denied it is developing nuclear weapons, saying its uranium enrichment program is exclusively for peaceful purposes such as energy, and international assessments have found no evidence that Iran, over the past 20 years, has had an active nuclear weaponisation program.
Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has repeatedly said there is an Islamic fatwa — a legal ruling — against the development of nuclear weapons, and that such development is prohibited under Islamic law.
Shortly before Israel’s strikes on Iran, the United Nations’ global nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), declared Iran was in breach of its non-proliferation obligations for the first time in 20 years.
The IAEA cited “many failures” since 2019 to uphold its obligations to provide the agency with “full and timely co-operation regarding undeclared nuclear material and activities”.
Earlier this month, the IAEA said Iran had enough uranium enriched to near-weapons grade to potentially make nine nuclear bombs.
In recent days, Foreign Minister Penny Wong, Defence Minister Richard Marles and Opposition leader Sussan Ley have all described Iran’s nuclear program as a significant “threat” to international peace and security.
Tilman Ruff is an honorary principal fellow at The University of Melbourne and the co-president of International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War and was a founding chair of the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons.
He told SBS News while it’s “pretty clear that Iran was flirting with nuclear weapons” and had an early nuclear weapons program around 20 years ago, there was no evidence of active weaponisation, or that Israel’s strike was “pre-emptive in the sense that Iran was clearly planning an attack on Israel that was imminent”.
Israel has never formally confirmed or denied if it has nuclear weapons itself, long maintaining a policy of deliberate ambiguity.
It’s also never signed two key international agreements aimed at the non-proliferation and prohibition of nuclear weapons. These factors have contributed to the widely held perception that Israel owns nuclear weapons.
Ruff described Israel’s “extremely dangerous” attack on Friday as “the most flagrant example of double standards that you could possibly imagine”.
When it comes to countries developing nuclear capacities, Ruff said the “inherent ambiguity” of nuclear programs made it a far bigger issue than just Iran.
“Any country that’s determined to do so, that’s got either an enrichment plant or a nuclear reactor, can build a nuclear weapon,” he said.
“If you can produce uranium to run in reactors, then you’ve got everything you need to enrich it to weapons grade. And there are other countries with vast stocks much larger than Iran’s of weapons-usable material.
“There are many other countries who have been flirting with having nuclear facilities and the capacity to produce fissile material quickly to shorten the path to a weapon, should they choose to do so.”
Which countries have nuclear weapons?
Eight countries have declared they have nuclear weapons: Russia, the United States, China, France, the United Kingdom, India, Pakistan and North Korea.
Russia and the US control the vast majority of these weapons, together possessing around 90 per cent of the 12,241 estimated warheads that exist globally, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI).
While Israel is also strongly believed to have nuclear weapons, including by SIPRI, it has long maintained a policy of deliberate ambiguity.
Ruff said there had been “very clear threats” of nuclear weapon use from Israeli government members.
Most recently, in November 2023, Israeli minister Amihai Eliyahu said a nuclear strike on Gaza would be “one way” of responding to Hamas’ October 7 attack on Israel.
Some viewed Eliyahu’s comments as an implicit admission that Israel had nuclear capabilities.
The comments were disavowed by Israeli politicians, including a rebuke by Netanyahu.
SIPRI, in its annual assessment of armaments, disarmament and international security on Monday, warned the world’s nuclear arsenals were being enlarged.
SIPRI stated that the nine nuclear-armed states continued to modernise and upgrade their nuclear capabilities throughout 2024.
SIPRI’s Hans M Kristensen said: “The era of reductions in the number of nuclear weapons in the world, which had lasted since the end of the Cold War, is coming to an end.”
“Instead, we see a clear trend of growing nuclear arsenals, sharpened nuclear rhetoric and the abandonment of arms control agreements.”
What steps have been taken to limit nuclear weapons?
Multiple international agreements have aimed at curbing the spread of nuclear weapons with a view towards disarmament.
The United Nations-backed Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Weapons (NPT) came into effect in 1970, and included agreements from Russia, the US, the UK, China and France.
Those states agreed to pursue disarmament in exchange for the rest of the treaty’s signatories agreeing never to acquire nuclear weapons.
The treaty has overwhelming support, with 191 states being party to it, including Iran.
Israel is one of the few countries — along with India, Pakistan, North Korea and South Sudan — to not have signed on, due to its policy of deliberate ambiguity.
Ruff said a shortcoming of the treaty was that, while it contained a detailed regime regarding non-proliferation by states that didn’t already have nuclear weapons, there were no clear details or timeframe for other countries to implement disarmament.
AUKUS: A Very Antipodean Stupidity
14 June 2025 Dr Binoy Kampmark, https://theaimn.net/aukus-a-very-antipodean-stupidity/
Call it abandonment, anxiety, or just latent stupidity. The messy goo of feelings and fuzzy notions behind Australia’s most injudicious strategic decision is yielding its nasty harvest. Conceived by paranoid armchair strategists, flabby think tankers and profligate spenders happy to expend other people’s money, the tripartite agreement between Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States is rapidly unravelling.
Even during the Biden administration, whose bumbling watch this agreement was hatched under, there were doubts. The ogrish price tag (US$239 billion or A$368 billion) that would be billed to the Australian taxpayer; the absurd time schedules (delivery of nuclear-powered submarines by the 2030s and 2040s); the contingencies and qualifications (Congressional concerns about transferring Virginia Class (SSN-774) submarines to the Royal Australian Navy), all pointed to the fact that Canberra had fallen for a lemon, childishly refusing to taste its stinging bitterness.
The central point of the tediously named Pillar One of the AUKUS agreement (there is no pillar, one or otherwise), which involves the transfer of US Virginia class boats to the RAN – was always its viability. While President Joe Biden was gradually losing his faculties in the White House, the Congressional Research Service was pertinently noting the obstacles that would face any transfer. The CRS report released on May 22, 2023 was the sort of thing that should have alarmed Australian defence planners, instead of turning them into paid up ostriches dreaming of consultancies. For one thing, it made it clear that Congress was always going to be the one to convince in the matter. “One issue for Congress is whether to approve, reject, or modify DOD’s AUKUS-related legislative package for the FY2024 NDAA [National Defense Authorization Act] sent to Congress on May 2, 2023.” That package included the authorisation for the transfer of “up to two Virginia-class SSNs to the government of Australia in the form of sale, with the costs of the transfer to be covered by the government of Australia.”
There were also weighty doubts about the “net impact on collective allied deterrence and war fighting capabilities of transferring three to five Virginia-class boats to Australia while pursuing the construction of three to five replacement SSNs for the US Navy.” This is a point that has never gone away. To give, even to an ally, and a perceived advantage yet diminish, however small and fictional, the supposed power of the US submarine fleet, is never going to take place if the annual production of 1.2 Virginia boats remains as it is. Mississippi Senator Roger Wicker was always of the view that “the AUKUS plan would transfer US Virginia-class submarines to a partner nation even before we have met our own Navy’s requirements.”
The fact that the Trump administration is now conducting a review of AUKUS can be seen as a mere formality – for those who think formalities smooth matters. The Australian Defence Minister Richard Marles certainly hopes so, calling it “a completely natural step for an incoming government to take.” That Yankee stronghold of renown in Canberra, the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, apes the line with simian consistency: “It’s normal, after a change of government, for a new administration to review existing commitments in the light of new policy priorities: in this case, ‘America First’.”
But nothing about the Trump government is a formality, or any review’s outcome a foregone conclusion. The presence of Undersecretary of Defense Policy Eldridge Colby should be disconcerting to the AUKUS band leaders and comparisons to Britain’s own review of the pact by Sir Stephen Lovegrove should be seen as fantastically distant. “AUKUS,” in Colby’s assessment, “is only going to lead to more submarines collectively in 10, 15, 20 years, which is way beyond the window of maximum danger, which is really this decade.” Putting to one side the warmongering stirring in the latter part of the statement, Colby is certainly not wrong about the time that will elapse before any delivery takes place.
Down under, the strategists are scurrying and fretting, a sight that is proving enormously entertaining. But the political classes have only themselves to blame for this pigsty of a conundrum. As former Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull notes with snappy precision, the AUKUS agreement is perfectly positioned for the US to not follow through. It can still stick to the letter of the agreement without having to ever transfer a single submarine to Australia, all the time raking in Australian largesse. “This is because it has always been part of the deal, and part of the US legislation, that the transfer of submarines to Australia is highly conditional.”
The legislation in question notes that the President will submit to the relevant congressional committees and leadership a certification no later than 270 days prior to the transfer of vessels that the move “will not degrade the United States underseas capabilities”; is consistent with the country’s foreign policy and national security interests and furthers the AUKUS partnership. That furtherance, however, involves the US ensuring “sufficient submarine production and maintenance investments” that will meet undersea capabilities; Australia supplying “appropriate funds and support for the additional capacity required to meet the requirements” under the provisions; and Canberra’s “capability to host and fully operate the vessels authorized to be transferred.”
The latest development in this overpriced show shows it up as a series of fictions: for Australia, the boyish hankering for nuclear powered submarines in the first place; for the United States, the fact that it needs more nuclear armed boats in order to look more ridiculous in having an arsenal it can never use. It was the military industrial complex in full song, nourished by expensive games, dubious scenarios and drab excuses for war.
With Donald Trump in the White House, the Make America Great Again philosophy mushes the terminology of sweet friends and mortal foes, turning it into the mortar of self-interest. Washington’s interests come first, and Australia’s own idiotically misplaced interests are barely visible in the White House situation room. Then again, never ask Australian strategic thinkers about their interests, ever the hostage of governing fears and treasured prejudices.
Freedom Of Information win as Information Commissioner rebukes Defence secrecy
by Rex Patrick | Jun 15, 2025 , https://michaelwest.com.au/foi-win-as-information-commissioner-rebukes-defence-secrecy/
After more than four years, the Information Commissioner has compelled the Defence Dept. to hand over information sought about expert advice on Australia’s Naval shipbuilding program. Rex Patrick reports.
In the FOI review decision, the Information Commissioner issued a scathing rebuke of Defence secrecy, saying,
“… the assertion made by the Department that disclosure of the relevant material would undermine the willingness of individuals to serve on the panel and provide full and frank advice.
“does not appear to be supported by cogent reasoning or evidence.”
Ouch!
The information we had sought was about advice provided to the Government by the Naval Shipbuilding Expert Advisory Panel, formerly the Naval Shipbuilding Advisory Board. The panel exists to “provide independent, expert advice on all matters relating to the performance of the naval shipbuilding enterprise, and assist in identifying emerging challenges that may require further consideration by Government.”
Recent costs for the board, which is laden with retired US admirals, are not available, but from 2016/17 to 2018/19 the taxpayer forked out $6.4m– an average of $2.1m a year – for their advice.
When I asked to see some of that expensive advice in 2021 (not an unreasonable proposition given the disaster area Defence shipbuilding management had already become, and it’s not got better since), I was denied access to all of the documents, bar some trivial logistical information.
I appealed the decision with the Information Commissioner, who, four years later, has ordered Defence to hand over more information.
Fearful advice
Defence told the Information Commissioner
“There is a close connection between the documents at issue to a governmental process, and disclosure of the relevant material would impair the Government’s ability to receive frank and candid advice.”
That was Defence’s ‘argument’ for secrecy. The sky was going to fall in if advice on an almost $200B naval shipbuilding program (as it was before AUKUS came along and made that look cheap) was made available to the public who were paying for it.
I pushed back hard, pointing out to the Information Commissioner that the Department had not provided any evidence to establish that disclosure of the relevant material would discourage members of the panel from providing quality advice and recommendations.
I further pointed out that the advisory board members would be under a contractual obligation to provide comprehensive advice and recommendations having regard to their expertise, and failure to do so would amount to a breach of their contractual obligations.
The Information Commissioner accepted this and berated Defence for its fantasy claims:
“The Department was provided several opportunities to make submissions in support of their claim that disclosure of the material at issue would be contrary to the public interest. However, other than an assertion that panel members would be less likely to provide full and frank advice and recommendations, the Department has not provided any evidence of substance to establish that disclosure would have this effect.”
And when it came to the idea that no one would serve on the $2m per annum advisory board if their advice were at risk of being disclosed, the Information Commissioner was again scathing, stating:
“Similarly, although the Department contends that disclosure of the relevant material would undermine the willingness of individuals to serve on the panel, the Department has not provided any evidence to support its claim.”
In other words, no evidence from a department that’s committed to spending $56.1B in the coming financial year.
Secrecy does not help
Defence procurement is a mess. MWM has been reporting this for some time. The mainstream media is just waking up to the incompetence of our Defence procurement organisation.
Defence procurement is in need of significant reform. Excessive secrecy, a default setting for Defence bureaucrats, conceals incompetence, maladministration and waste. It enables corruption in a portfolio where tens, even hundreds of millions, are regarded as small change.
The capabilities of our Defence Force and its current operations deserve a level of secrecy,
“but the same is not true for projects that deliver that capability.”
Oversight requires access to information. That includes access to the very expensive advice Government receives in relation to Defence projects. If the providers of that advice are not willing to have it peer reviewed by experienced project management experts in the general community, the Government should not rely on it.
We now await the release of the documents, and to find out what the Defence Minister knew, or didn’t know.
Unfortunately, Defence procurement change will not occur until the Prime Minister, Anthony Albanese, demands it. Defence Minister Richard Marles won’t counsel the Prime Minister because, time and time again, he’s been caught out drunk on Defence-Kool-Aid.
Crossbench Calls for AUKUS Inquiry
Crossbench MPs from the House of Representatives and Senate have written to Deputy Prime Minister and Defence Minister Richard Marles, calling for an urgent parliamentary inquiry into AUKUS.
In April, the UK Parliament’s Defence Committee announced an inquiry into the AUKUS arrangements, and this week the US defence department announced they were undertaking a rapid review of AUKUS.
AUKUS represents Australia’s largest defence investment in decades and is central to our defence and foreign affairs strategy.
Australians are concerned to know more about the strategic and financial implications of this policy which has been jointly adopted by major party governments without significant parliamentary scrutiny.
A full and formal parliamentary inquiry is therefore both important and timely.
Quotes from letter to Deputy Prime Minister, Richard Marles
Allegra Spender, Independent MP for Wentworth
AUKUS is the centrepiece of our defence and foreign policy strategy, but it’s been adopted by the major parties with very poor public engagement. AUKUS will shape Australia’s future for decades with enormous implications both financially, economically, and strategically, but in discussions at the community level, there are consistent questions and concerns that have not been addressed. AUKUS won’t work without wider community interrogation and engagement, and a parliamentary inquiry is the first step to building that.
We also need a more open discussion of the challenges facing AUKUS. Most urgently, the US Navy is currently short of attack submarines and there is a very clear risk that the US President at the time will not be able to certify that the Virginia class submarines can be transferred to Australia without undermining US Navy capability: a requirement of the current enabling legislation. We must publicly face those risks and actively manage them including identifying viable alternatives.
Helen Haines, Independent MP for Indi
In light of the reviews of AUKUS by our two partner nations and the consequential nature of the agreement, it important for our Parliament to apply the same level of scrutiny.
Andrew Wilkie, Independent MP for Clark
More than ever an Australian Inquiry into AUKUS is needed, and President Trump’s caution about the deal gives Australia a great chance to reset. Nuclear subs were always the wrong technology for Australia’s future submarine needs given the shallow littoral and offshore waters in our region, not to mention the ridiculous cost and impractical timeframe.
Nicolette Boele, Independent MP for Bradfield
Any time Parliament commits to spend $368 billion, we should at least have a full parliamentary inquiry. The case for an inquiry on AUKUS is even stronger given the rules of global co-operation have dramatically changed since it was signed.
AUKUS now risks our defence — because we don’t know if these submarines will ever arrive. It risks our budget — because we may waste $368 billion in taxpayer’s money. And it risks our Australian values, which we do not import from the United States.
Sophie Scamps, Independent MP for Mackellar
Circumstances have changed significantly since the AUKUS deal was first announced and it’s only reasonable it be reviewed in the current context.
This is the largest investment in our defence capability in decades, other parties are conducting their own reviews, and the Australian community largely supports a parliamentary inquiry – it’s high time the Government responds.
Senator Jacqui Lambie
We’ve poured billions into AUKUS with nothing to show for it but broken promises and cancelled defence programs. It’s a $368 billion blank cheque to the US and UK with zero guarantee of real capability for decades.
Australians deserve better and it’s time for a full parliamentary inquiry into this dud deal.
Senator David Pocock
With the UK and now the US reviewing AUKUS, Australia is now the only country not actively considering whether the agreement in its current form best serves our national interest. Given the scale and cost of this deal, a transparent review is not just sensible, it’s overdue.
Kate Chaney, Independent MP for Curtin
AUKUS is a monumental strategic commitment with far-reaching implications for our economy, sovereignty, and security posture, yet it continues to unfold with minimal public transparency and virtually no parliamentary accountability. Australians want to understand whether this is the best use of our resources and the right path for our security.
The 375 billion dollar blunder
12 June 2025 Roswell, https://theaimn.net/the-375-billion-dollar-blunder/
It’s just my opinion, but…
When then-Prime Minister Scott Morrison secretly negotiated the AUKUS pact in 2021, he didn’t just commit Australia to the most expensive defence project in its history – he also blindsided France, abruptly cancelling a $90 billion submarine deal and damaging an important diplomatic relationship. Now, with the Trump Administration threatening to torpedo AUKUS, Australians are left wondering: Was this deal always a $375 billion mistake?
For that eye-watering sum, Australia could have transformed healthcare, built affordable housing, or lifted thousands out of poverty. Instead, we locked ourselves into a decades-long military splurge for submarines that won’t arrive until the 2040s – assuming they ever do. Meanwhile, the U.S. and UK get a massive economic windfall while we foot the bill for their shipyards.
Worse still, Trump’s comments expose the fragility of relying on America’s political whims. If Washington pulls out, Canberra shouldn’t just walk away – it should claw back every cent we have paid them. Why waste money on a deal that may never deliver?
Defence planning is vital, but not at the expense of everything else. If Trump kills AUKUS, it might be the best thing that ever happened to Australia’s budget.
US launches AUKUS review to ensure it meets Donald Trump’s ‘America First’ agenda
By Brad Ryan and Emilie Gramenz in Washington DC, ABC News, 11 June 25
In short:
The US is reviewing the AUKUS security pact with Australia and the UK, which Australia is depending on to acquire nuclear-powered submarines.
A US defence official said it would ensure the pact met President Donald Trump’s “America First” agenda, as the US struggles to build enough submarines for its own fleet.
But Defence Minister Richard Marles said he was “very confident this [AUKUS] is going to happen” and it was only natural for the new US administration to review it.
The Pentagon is reviewing the AUKUS security pact between Australia, the US and the UK to ensure it aligns with President Donald Trump’s “America First” agenda, a US defence official told the ABC.
But Defence Minister Richard Marles said he remained confident the pact would remain intact, and a review was a “perfectly natural” thing for a new administration to do.
The news follows US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s recent request for Australia to significantly boost its defence spending “as soon as possible”.
The US defence official said the review “will ensure the initiative meets … common sense, America First criteria”.
“As Secretary Hegseth has made clear, this means ensuring the highest readiness of our service members, that allies step up fully to do their part for collective defence, and that the defence industrial base is meeting our needs,” the official said.
Under the AUKUS pact, Australia would be armed with nuclear-powered submarines at a cost of more than $350 billion.
Elbridge Colby, who is the under secretary of Defense for Policy and has voiced scepticism about AUKUS, is leading the review, according to the UK’s Financial Times.
Last August, Mr Colby tweeted he was an AUKUS “agnostic”.
“In principle it’s a great idea. But I’ve been very skeptical in practice,” he wrote, but added he’d become “more inclined based on new information I’ve gleaned”.
Mr Marles told ABC Radio Melbourne he was “very confident this [AUKUS] is going to happen”.
“The meetings that we’ve had with the United States have been very positive in respect of AUKUS,” Mr Marles said. “That dates back to my most recent meeting with Pete Hegseth in Singapore.”
……………………………………………. The Australian government paid the US almost $800 million earlier this year — the first in a series of payments to help America improve its submarine manufacturing capabilities.
………… Mr Hegseth met Defence Minister Richard Marles in Singapore, and said Australia needed to lift its defence spending.
Mr Trump himself has said little publicly about the AUKUS pact, and his criticisms of America’s traditional alliances have fuelled anxieties about its future in Canberra and London.
When a reporter asked Mr Trump about AUKUS in February, he appeared to be unfamiliar with the term, replying: “What does that mean?”…………………………..
Under “Pillar I” of the two-pillar AUKUS deal, the first submarine would arrive in Australia no sooner than 2032. It would be a second-hand US Virginia-class vessel.
The US would subsequently supply Australia with between three and five submarines, before Australia began building its own in Adelaide, modelled on British designs.
Mr Albanese was expected to meet Mr Trump on the sidelines of the G7 summit in Canada next week. But that’s now in limbo after the US condemned Australia and several other countries that placed sanctions on two far-right Israeli ministers.
…………..Critics of the deal, including former prime ministers Malcolm Turnbull and Paul Keating, have long warned it is unfair and risky. “I’ve never done a deal as bad as this,” Mr Turnbull told Radio National earlier this year.
The Greens have proposed a “plan B” defence policy that would eventually see AUKUS cancelled.
There are also longstanding concerns around the US’s consistent failure to meet its own submarine-building targets to fully stock its military fleet…………………………………………….https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-06-12/aukus-pentagon-review-donald-trump-america-first/105406254
This week’s Not the Corporate Nuclear News
Some bits of good news –Patagonia Azul: Argentina’s largest coastal marine reserve unveiled. Scientists in Japan Develop Non-Toxic Plastic That Dissolves in Seawater Within Hours
Praised for Rescues and Life Lessons, DADS are Seen by Most as a Top Life Mentor, Says New Poll.
Some bits of good news –Patagonia Azul: Argentina’s largest coastal marine reserve unveiled. Scientists in Japan Develop Non-Toxic Plastic That Dissolves in Seawater Within Hours
Praised for Rescues and Life Lessons, DADS are Seen by Most as a Top Life Mentor, Says New Poll.
TOP STORIES. Trump’s Nuclear Power Obsession.
US Vice President JD Vance announces new strategy of blatant imperialism, aimed at China.
Playing with Fire- Ukraine’s Operation Spiderweb. A peace deal in Istanbul won’t happen until NATO is off the table.
Let’s not pretend nuclear works.
Climate. The World Isn’t Ready for the Mental Health Toll of Extreme Heat.
Noel’s notes. Priming us up for war – “it’s not so bad, after all” – Britain’s Labour government leads the way Jubilation at Ukraine’s Operation Spiderweb – but is this joy justified?
AUSTRALIA. Nuclear policy was at odds with Liberal philosophy AUKUS has serious problems, Australia probably won’t receive any submarines: Malcolm Turnbull. US military waste contractor with flawed safety record backing Australian N-waste dump.
NUCLEAR ITEMS.
| ART and CULTURE. Zelensky Offers to Broker Peace Between Musk and Trump |
| ATROCITIES. When Will Western Support for Israeli Genocide Finally Crack? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yg_6e77Squg What’s Really Happening in Palestine. |
ECONOMICS. UK government has already allocated £6.4bn to the Sizewell C nuclear project!
This is what Britain really needs to defend itself – and it doesn’t include spending billions on arms.
Trump’s embrace of dystopian Palantir spying tool sends stock soaring.
| ENERGY. Vatican City Is Now Powered By Solar. |
| ETHICS and RELIGION. This Is Israel.Greta Thunberg Speaks from Aid Ship Heading to Gaza Despite Israeli Threats: It’s My Moral Obligation. |
| EVENTS 13 June How can European countries break out of the downward spiral of militarisation, increasing their exports of war weapons, and unaccountability for war crimes? 17 June – WEBINAR : STATE of the NUCLEAR REVIVAL. |
| HISTORY. The United States and Greenland, Part I: Episodes in Nuclear History 1947-1968. |
| HUMAN RIGHTS.Madleen Gaza flotilla live tracker: Greta Thunberg, crew taken to Israel. Greta Thunberg on Gaza: Why we joined the Freedom Flotilla | Talk to Al Jazeera – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OY38HjfrNGQ |
| LEGAL. Opposition to Sizewell C Nuclear Power Station sea defence plans lodged. TASC’s new legal challenge against Sizewell C’s secret flood defences. |
| MEDIA. Nuclear Power will ruin France -ALSO AT https://nuclear-news.net/2025/06/07/1-a-nuclear-power-will-ruin-france/ The Hidden Story: Israeli ‘Aid’ Is Part of Genocide Plan. From Media Darling to Persona Non Grata: Greta Thunberg’s Journey. |
OPPOSITION to NUCLEAR . Scots aren’t having our voices heard – nuclear is one such case study. Protesters raise environmental fears as wait continues for Sizewell C funding announcement.
Stop Sizewell C carries out bold projection on Sizewell B dome a week before the Spending Review, highlighting alternatives for Sizewell C’s £40 billion cost.
It’s over! Anti-nuke dump campaigners in East Lincolnshire celebrate victory.
POLITICS. Nuclear power: a dream not worth having.
during Anglo-French summit -ALSO AT https://nuclear-news.net/2025/06/05/1-b1-sizewell-c-nuclear-project-to-get-go-ahead-during-anglo-french-summit/ Sizewell C nuclear power plant ‘could get go-ahead within weeks’. Sellafield nuclear clean-up too slow and too costly, say MPs.
Ukraine “Stinks Of Authoritarianism” – Kiev Mayor Klitschko Hits Out At Zelensky.
POLITICS INTERNATIONAL and DIPLOMACY.
- US vetoes Gaza ceasefire again, due to concerns it could save Palestinian lives. US Vetoes UN Resolution Calling for a Ceasefire in Gaza.
- Nuclear Watchdog Meeting Sparks Tensions With Iran. Tehran releases explanatory note defending 60% enrichment. Trump Says New Iran Deal Must Allow US To ‘Blow Up Whatever We Want’. Ayatollah Rejects US Nuclear Proposal, Vows Iran To Keep Enriching Uranium.
- Iran says IAEA new report on nuclear activities politically motivated, based on Israel’s fake documents. Truce or trap?
- RAY McGOVERN: Putin Would Not Rise to the Bait. Ukraine makes sure peace talks go nowhere.
| PUBLIC OPINION. Revulsion for Israel surges worldwide, new survey finds. |
| SAFETY. A superhighway to nuclear hell.The Nuclear Gambit: Trump just handed the atom to the highest bidder.The NRC’s new Mission Impossible: Making Atoms Great Again. Zaporizhzhia ‘extremely fragile’ relying on single off-site power line, IAEA warns. Sellafield failing to address ‘intolerable risks’, damning parliamentary report warns. |
| SECRETS and LIES. Epstein, Israel, ISIS, Palantir.Defence review dodges Britain’s nuclear blind spot – ALSO AT https://nuclear-news.net/2025/06/09/1-b1-defence-review-dodges-britains-nuclear-blind-spot/ |
| WASTES. £127M wasted on failed UK nuclear cleanup plan . Sellafield’s race against time: nuclear waste clean-up not going quickly enough, Public Accounts Committee (PAC) warns. They Dumped 200,000 Radioactive Barrels Into the Atlantic: 35 Years Later, French Scientists Are Going After Them. |
1 This month
of the week – Disrupting War & Militarism in Oceania. Active solidarity. Radical practice.
Antinuclear 