AUKUS News, Views, Analysis.

Blitzo said:

There are definitely many ways of to skin this particular cat.

I'm sure some kind of interim capability will be procured, or alternatively they will just suffer some kind of capability gap -- what I'm more interested in is just when they want actual final product will emerge and if (or rather how much) the schedule will shift to the right.

Having the first AUKUS SSN enter service in the early/mid or even late 2040s, and the sheer complexity and cost of this program, makes me wonder what changes may happen between now and then.
Australia's recent major naval projects (Hunter, and then Attack of course) from initial program vision to getting settled on a design, is not exactly brisk.


On top of this, the expected role of the AUKUS SSN for Australia seems predicated on a concept of operations that requires the PLA and PLAN in particular to be unable to context Australian SSNs operating near China's backyard with relative near impunity when supported by Australian allies during wartime. But whew, I think it's a somewhat big bet to think that will be the case in over two decade's time, and I shudder to think how the Australian defense commentators will react if it turns out that the trajectory doesn't go that way.

Click to expand...

Even if one buys into the narrative that China is a grave threat to Australia's national security that must be countered by acquiring a vast array of expensive platforms such as nuclear submarines, the notional timelines being discussed, where a credible capability might be achieved in the mid-2040s, render the idea nonsensical. By 2045 either China and the United States will have settled into a stable modus vivendi, or there will already have been a major conflict between the two superpowers, ending either with the USA retreating back across the Pacific, or China having been put back in its box.

If one were to go by the bellicose rhetoric emanating from Australia's national security establishment about the threat posed by China and the need to build up our forces, one would think that we would begin inducting a new generation of submarines within the next few years in order to boost numbers to the desired level by early/mid-2030s and then sustain them as the Collins-class ages out. Any schedule in which the 2040s play a starring role should just be laughed out of the room.

I mean the submarine fiesta is basically just business as usual for Australian defense, from the Taipan helicopters to the Canberra class LHD, nothing really seems to go quite right.

Australia is consistently trying to punch above its weight class in terms of military procurement due to its massive land mass but it is prevented from doing so successfully due to its low population and skyrocketing cost of running a military.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

09/02/2023 by



Talk of war with China has been mounting over recent years. The current Labor government, and the Coalition before it, have been warning that Beijing has become increasingly aggressive, which is leading to growing tensions in the Indo Pacific that must be countered.
This is not the first time the Australian public has been primed for a potential conflict. At this time twenty years ago, there was rising talk about the threat that Iraq posed due to the weapons of mass destruction it supposedly possessed. And this led to the invasion in March 2003.
Now opposition leader Peter Dutton took on China in the last years of the Morrison administration. And while the Albanese government has taken a more tactful approach with foreign minister , war with China continues to be on the agenda.
Indeed, as with most other wars the nation has been embroiled in since World War Two, Australia hasn’t been directly threatened by China, rather it’s blindly following Washington’s lead on the matter, in a conflict that will serve the interests of our US ally.

Unimpeded access​

AUKUS is part of the build up to war with China. Unveiled by then PM Scott Morrison , the pact is an agreement between Australia, the UK and the US, and while its details are sketchy, it’s clear its focus is on “security challenges in the Indo Pacific region”, which means China.

Central to the AUKUS agreement is that our nation will be provided access to US technology that will see it acquire eight nuclear-powered submarines, which will ensure Australia can approach close enough to China that it can strike the mainland with missiles.
Another military pact involving the US and Australia is the , which provides that an increasing number of US troops rotate through the north of the country on an annual basis, and that Washington has unimpeded access to dozens of Australian military facilities.

Meanwhile, the continues to be the foundational security agreement between this country and the United States.
However, the commonly held belief that ANZUS ensures that the US would be required to back an Australia under attack is a falsehood, as the United States only ever acts in its own interests, whether that be in relation to Beijing or Canberra.

War or peace?​

Long-term Sydney peace activist Nick Deane is taking the opportunity afforded by the passing of two decades since the beginning of the war in Iraq to shine a light on the similarities between the current prepping of the public for a conflict against China and that in the build up to Baghdad.

A member of the , Deane is hosting a forum on the day that Iraq was invaded in Marrickville next month, which will see speakers like Senator David Shoebridge, Dr Alison Broinowski and Mary Kostakidis consider the rising rhetoric on war with China.

spoke to convenor Nick Deane about the similarities between the march to war now and that of 20 years ago, the impact of the Force Posture Agreement and the way forward according to peace activists like him.


Marrickville Peace Group convenor Nick Deane

Nick, you’re currently organising the Can War Be Avoided or Will Peace Be Shattered meeting at Marrickville Town Hall, which will deliberate upon Australia’s military stance.​

The forum’s timing is significant as it coincides with the 20th anniversary of the beginning of the invasion of Iraq. So, why is it important that the inception and impact of this conflict be reflected upon in relation to the present?​

You’ve given me the long title, Can War Be Avoided or Will Peace Be Shattered, but when it’s on the poster, the words will be War or Peace with a question mark.

That’s because, at the moment, we’re standing on the cusp and decisions being made in the next months are going to decide whether we have a warmongering or a peaceful future.

My greatest fear is that we will be dragged into war again.

What we seem to be doing is repeating a pattern we’ve done many times before. You can go back to Korea but, certainly, there’s Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq and even Syria.

We’ve gotten involved in all these wars mostly through America’s influence. In particular, in the case of Iraq, we got involved based on lies about weapons of mass destruction.

So, we need to ask ourselves whether we’re being told lies now that will drag us into yet another war, this time with China.
My answer to that question is there is a fabrication being spun, which considers China some sort of threat to Australia, while there’s not a shred of evidence that it poses any sort of a military threat to us.

It’s worth recalling the lies that were told to us in 2003, which dragged us into war, and ask the question, are we going through the same process again? Is this pattern being repeated? Are we being told lies now?

The threat from China is a lie, and the other complete falsehood is the idea that nuclear submarines will somehow guarantee peace.
In my view, and the view of others like me, it’s exactly the opposite: getting nuclear submarines is going to increase tensions in the world and make peace less likely.

These are the basic connections. And that’s why it’s so important that we recall what happened on 20 March 2003, when the invasion of Iraq started and use that as the starting point to talk about what is happening today.

Under the Morrison government, Australia became a key player in the build up to war with China, while trade relations with Beijing soured.​

With foreign affairs minister Penny Wong taking the lead, the Albanese government has thawed relations with China, although it’s also deepened our defence relationship with Washington.​

How is our nation’s relationship with China at present?​

It is absolutely precarious, notwithstanding Wong’s more subtle and genuinely diplomatic approach.
The Chinese are not stupid. They are anything but. They can see what’s going on in Australia, and they’ve got valid reasons for not liking it.

The danger is that China will punish Australia as an example to other nations in the Quad: India, Japan and the USA.
The danger is they’ll take it on Australia just to show those other nations what they’re capable of. That’s if we carry on down the path we’re on.

John Lander suggests that Australia is in the process of being manipulated by the USA into military confrontation with China. What he’s saying is we could become involved in a proxy war for the USA with China.

I don’t quite subscribe to that, but I can see the danger, as our whole relationship with China is precarious, and it wouldn’t take much for us to upset it badly.

See link for rest of the article.

Lethe said:

Even if one buys into the narrative that China is a grave threat to Australia's national security that must be countered by acquiring a vast array of expensive platforms such as nuclear submarines, the notional timelines being discussed, where a credible capability might be achieved in the mid-2040s, render the idea nonsensical. By 2045 either China and the United States will have settled into a stable modus vivendi, or there will already have been a major conflict between the two superpowers, ending either with the USA retreating back across the Pacific, or China having been put back in its box.

If one were to go by the bellicose rhetoric emanating from Australia's national security establishment about the threat posed by China and the need to build up our forces, one would think that we would begin inducting a new generation of submarines within the next few years in order to boost numbers to the desired level by early/mid-2030s and then sustain them as the Collins-class ages out. Any schedule in which the 2040s play a starring role should just be laughed out of the room.

Click to expand...

Well the rhetoric from what I've tracked over the years is essentially one of:
"The PLA are much scarier in terms of surface navy warships now, but they'll never catch up in undersea warfare so SSNs with missiles are essentially invulnerable".
Take that, along with a belief that China is both very "aggressive" geopolitically, yet also simultaneously very "incompetent" in war, and I can kind of see how the partial "ostrich head in sand" (or perhaps emu?) approach to the AUKUS SSN timeline came about.

Strangelove said:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

09/02/2023 by

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Talk of war with China has been mounting over recent years. The current Labor government, and the Coalition before it, have been warning that Beijing has become increasingly aggressive, which is leading to growing tensions in the Indo Pacific that must be countered.
This is not the first time the Australian public has been primed for a potential conflict. At this time twenty years ago, there was rising talk about the threat that Iraq posed due to the weapons of mass destruction it supposedly possessed. And this led to the invasion in March 2003.
Now opposition leader Peter Dutton took

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

on China in the last years of the Morrison administration. And while the Albanese government has taken a more tactful approach with foreign minister

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

, war with China continues to be on the agenda.
Indeed, as with most other wars the nation has been embroiled in since World War Two, Australia hasn’t been directly threatened by China, rather it’s blindly following Washington’s lead on the matter, in a conflict that will serve the interests of our US ally.

Unimpeded access​

AUKUS is part of the build up to war with China. Unveiled by then PM Scott Morrison

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

, the pact is an agreement between Australia, the UK and the US, and while its details are sketchy, it’s clear its focus is on “security challenges in the Indo Pacific region”, which means China.

Central to the AUKUS agreement is that our nation will be provided access to US technology that will see it acquire eight nuclear-powered submarines, which will ensure Australia can approach close enough to China that it can strike the mainland with missiles.
Another military pact involving the US and Australia is the

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

, which provides that an increasing number of US troops rotate through the north of the country on an annual basis, and that Washington has unimpeded access to dozens of Australian military facilities.

Meanwhile, the

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

continues to be the foundational security agreement between this country and the United States.
However, the commonly held belief that ANZUS ensures that the US would be required to back an Australia under attack is a falsehood, as the United States only ever acts in its own interests, whether that be in relation to Beijing or Canberra.

War or peace?​

Long-term Sydney peace activist Nick Deane is taking the opportunity afforded by the passing of two decades since the beginning of the war in Iraq to shine a light on the similarities between the current prepping of the public for a conflict against China and that in the build up to Baghdad.

A member of the

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

, Deane is hosting a forum on the day that Iraq was invaded in Marrickville next month, which will see speakers like Senator David Shoebridge, Dr Alison Broinowski and Mary Kostakidis consider the rising rhetoric on war with China.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

spoke to

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

convenor Nick Deane about the similarities between the march to war now and that of 20 years ago, the impact of the Force Posture Agreement and the way forward according to peace activists like him.

Marrickville Peace Group convenor Nick Deane

Nick, you’re currently organising the Can War Be Avoided or Will Peace Be Shattered meeting at Marrickville Town Hall, which will deliberate upon Australia’s military stance.​

The forum’s timing is significant as it coincides with the 20th anniversary of the beginning of the invasion of Iraq. So, why is it important that the inception and impact of this conflict be reflected upon in relation to the present?​

You’ve given me the long title, Can War Be Avoided or Will Peace Be Shattered, but when it’s on the poster, the words will be War or Peace with a question mark.

That’s because, at the moment, we’re standing on the cusp and decisions being made in the next months are going to decide whether we have a warmongering or a peaceful future.

My greatest fear is that we will be dragged into war again.

What we seem to be doing is repeating a pattern we’ve done many times before. You can go back to Korea but, certainly, there’s Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq and even Syria.

We’ve gotten involved in all these wars mostly through America’s influence. In particular, in the case of Iraq, we got involved based on lies about weapons of mass destruction.

So, we need to ask ourselves whether we’re being told lies now that will drag us into yet another war, this time with China.
My answer to that question is there is a fabrication being spun, which considers China some sort of threat to Australia, while there’s not a shred of evidence that it poses any sort of a military threat to us.

It’s worth recalling the lies that were told to us in 2003, which dragged us into war, and ask the question, are we going through the same process again? Is this pattern being repeated? Are we being told lies now?

The threat from China is a lie, and the other complete falsehood is the idea that nuclear submarines will somehow guarantee peace.
In my view, and the view of others like me, it’s exactly the opposite: getting nuclear submarines is going to increase tensions in the world and make peace less likely.

These are the basic connections. And that’s why it’s so important that we recall what happened on 20 March 2003, when the invasion of Iraq started and use that as the starting point to talk about what is happening today.

Under the Morrison government, Australia became a key player in the build up to war with China, while trade relations with Beijing soured.​

With foreign affairs minister Penny Wong taking the lead, the Albanese government has thawed relations with China, although it’s also deepened our defence relationship with Washington.​

How is our nation’s relationship with China at present?​

It is absolutely precarious, notwithstanding Wong’s more subtle and genuinely diplomatic approach.
The Chinese are not stupid. They are anything but. They can see what’s going on in Australia, and they’ve got valid reasons for not liking it.

The danger is that China will punish Australia as an example to other nations in the Quad: India, Japan and the USA.
The danger is they’ll take it on Australia just to show those other nations what they’re capable of. That’s if we carry on down the path we’re on.

John Lander suggests that Australia is in the process of being manipulated by the USA into military confrontation with China. What he’s saying is we could become involved in a proxy war for the USA with China.

I don’t quite subscribe to that, but I can see the danger, as our whole relationship with China is precarious, and it wouldn’t take much for us to upset it badly.

See link for rest of the article.

Click to expand...

I live in Australia and this type of news is very fringe. When even someone like Keating can be dismissed and disregarded by Aus mainstream media, you know how bad the current climate is in despite the change in government.

Has anti China rhetoric and stance improved since albo took power? Yes I guess, but only not by much. The China threat narrative is still firmly planted in the media that when someone turns on the evening news they can watch a 30s short news clip on the military upgrading sea mines tech to prepare for future conflict with China and almost everyone is conditioned to think this is fairly normal to warmonger against our biggest trading partner and economic benefactor. Meanwhile on plenty Aus forums, people regard ccp China as evil and murderous regime. Make no mistake we are getting propagandised against China almost everyday.

getready said:

I live in Australia and this type of news is very fringe. When even someone like Keating can be dismissed and disregarded by Aus mainstream media, you know how bad the current climate is in despite the change in government.

Has anti China rhetoric and stance improved since albo took power? Yes I guess, but only not by much. The China threat narrative is still firmly planted in the media that when someone turns on the evening news they can watch a 30s short news clip on the military upgrading sea mines tech to prepare for future conflict with China and almost everyone is conditioned to think this is fairly normal to warmonger against our biggest trading partner and economic benefactor. Meanwhile on plenty Aus forums, people regard ccp China as evil and murderous regime. Make no mistake we are getting propagandised against China almost everyday.

Click to expand...

To be fair Australia did basically got singled out as a whipping boy compared to all the other nations blabbering about Chinese human rights to set an example. It is reasonable for the nation to be wary of China since only a few months ago diplomatically there was a deep freeze and China was basically waging a trade war on Australian goods.

tankphobia said:

To be fair Australia did basically got singled out as a whipping boy compared to all the other nations blabbering about Chinese human rights to set an example. It is reasonable for the nation to be wary of China since only a few months ago diplomatically there was a deep freeze and China was basically waging a trade war on Australian goods.

Click to expand...

It was the nation that was the most noisy and basically anti-China under the previous regime.

Not to mention, it was pretty clear that they were standing very close to the US, so no diplomatic freeze or not, things like AUKUS and the sub deal would probably have happened anyways.

So the chinese leaders probably came to conclusion, that going the diplomatic freeze and trade war was gonna be all in all, OK.

Looks like the US and UK is giving the Australians everything on their submarines. But as construction will begin late 2020s I don't believe it will be in time for any potential AR attempt.

More concerning would be basing B-21s within Australia as they would be relatively safe from Chinese attack

The US government is permitted to have nuclear weapons in Australia. What’s more, Australians are not permitted to know whether or not this is happening. What’s more, not even Australia’s elected senators are permitted to know whether this is happening. It’s assumed to be none of Australia’s business whether there are foreign nuclear weapons in Australia.

During a Senate estimates hearing on Wednesday Greens senators sought details on whether visiting American aircraft such as the B-52s operating out of the Top End are ever nuclear armed.

The committee was told the United States had a longstanding policy of “neither confirming or denying” the presence of nuclear weapons under its practice of maintaining global operational unpredictability.

Foreign Minister Penny Wong was

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

toward Senator David Shoebridge’s line of questioning on US nuclear weapons in Australia, angrily accusing him of trying to “make a political point” and acting in a way that is not “responsible or fair to the Australian community,” just for seeking answers beyond stock “the US can neither confirm nor deny” responses on this extremely important matter.

“The decision for the Australian Government to allow American B-52s into Australia is another clear example of successive major party governments selling out Australian interests for the Americans,” said Greens Senator and Foreign Affairs Spokesperson Jordon Steele John

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

. “Whether it be the AUKUS pact, the coverup of how Australia became involved in the illegal US invasion of Iraq or this newest escalation in the force posture agreement. When it comes to the US, there is no Australian interest this government has not been willing to sell out.

getready said:

I live in Australia and this type of news is very fringe. When even someone like Keating can be dismissed and disregarded by Aus mainstream media, you know how bad the current climate is in despite the change in government.

Has anti China rhetoric and stance improved since albo took power? Yes I guess, but only not by much. The China threat narrative is still firmly planted in the media that when someone turns on the evening news they can watch a 30s short news clip on the military upgrading sea mines tech to prepare for future conflict with China and almost everyone is conditioned to think this is fairly normal to warmonger against our biggest trading partner and economic benefactor. Meanwhile on plenty Aus forums, people regard ccp China as evil and murderous regime. Make no mistake we are getting propagandised against China almost everyday.

Click to expand...

I'm not surprised, this article indicates Australia's News Corp owns over 52% of its newspapers. Its owner, Rupert Murdoch, has been a salty anti-China troll ever since his Chinese wife divorced him in 2014 .

luminary said:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The US government is permitted to have nuclear weapons in Australia. What’s more, Australians are not permitted to know whether or not this is happening. What’s more, not even Australia’s elected senators are permitted to know whether this is happening. It’s assumed to be none of Australia’s business whether there are foreign nuclear weapons in Australia.

During a Senate estimates hearing on Wednesday Greens senators sought details on whether visiting American aircraft such as the B-52s operating out of the Top End are ever nuclear armed.

The committee was told the United States had a longstanding policy of “neither confirming or denying” the presence of nuclear weapons under its practice of maintaining global operational unpredictability.

Foreign Minister Penny Wong was

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

toward Senator David Shoebridge’s line of questioning on US nuclear weapons in Australia, angrily accusing him of trying to “make a political point” and acting in a way that is not “responsible or fair to the Australian community,” just for seeking answers beyond stock “the US can neither confirm nor deny” responses on this extremely important matter.

“The decision for the Australian Government to allow American B-52s into Australia is another clear example of successive major party governments selling out Australian interests for the Americans,” said Greens Senator and Foreign Affairs Spokesperson Jordon Steele John

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

. “Whether it be the AUKUS pact, the coverup of how Australia became involved in the illegal US invasion of Iraq or this newest escalation in the force posture agreement. When it comes to the US, there is no Australian interest this government has not been willing to sell out.

Click to expand...

Since we already have Australia as the leading example, what's going to stop the US from stationing American nuclear warheads in "allied" countries that are closer to China? Remember that both Japan and South Korea have hosted American nukes during the First Cold War.

Then, there's the Domino Effect - Would the Philippines be next to host American nukes? What about Thailand? Malaysia? Indonesia? Vietnam? Palau? Papua New Guinea? India? Maldives?

China is about to face the worst ever geopolitical threat to her utmost survival from the US since the height of the Cold War 1.0. It is of great concern that the current defense posture and MAD policy between China and the US no longer works.

Hence, China should really modify her nuclear weapons policy in response to these sorts of developments. Instead of strictly following the "No Using Nuclear Weapons Against Non-Nuclear States" policy, China should amend that policy - Such that countries that are located in the vicinity of China and are formally "allied" to the US would be excluded from said policy, given that these countries:
1. Host American nuclear warheads, and
2. Becomes the launching pad for the US military to conduct nuclear strikes against the Chinese military and the Chinese populace, whether through strategic bombers, fighters, TELs and/or SSBNs -
Even if said countries do not have nuclear weapons of their own.

For any country that allows the US to station nuclear warheads on their soil AND allows the US to launch nuclear strikes against China from their soil MUST be automatically regarded as a complicit of the US, and hence, rightfully deserves prompt and full nuclear retaliation from China.

If repeated indirect warnings to these countries by China against stationing US nuclear weapons on their own soil and potentially being used as staging grounds for US nuclear strikes against the Chinese military, the Chinese government and the Chinese people have been ignored, then only a solid, direct and stern warning like this can work.

Of course, such change in policy should be kept top secret in order to prevent panic from spreading across neighbouring countries of China. Therefore, this policy amendment can only be made public when tensions between the US and China has become insurmountable, and that the US has shown potential/imminent signs/considerations of launching nuclear attacks against China from these countries.

The end result would depend on what the governments and populace of these countries do. Either they kick out/ward off any attempt by the US to station American nukes on their soil, or they can be prepared to receive nuclear retaliation from China thanks to the parts which they played in any instances where the US launches nuclear attack on China.

The general idea is that if these countries are successful in preventing American nukes from being stationed in their countries, at least the chances of nuclear exchange between the US and China can be reduced somewhat. This is mainly because the available options for the US to launch nuclear attacks against China from anywhere around China's vicinity would be limited.

I do apologize to anyone in this forum which are from the aforementioned countries for proposing things that are cruel, but in light of the recent and possible future developments in East Asia and the IndoPac, I'm afraid that what's left for all of us to rely upon is through the power of the people in your respective countries to avert nuclear armageddon.