On Monday, the US, Britain, and Australia unveiled their plans to develop nuclear-powered submarines under AUKUS, a military pact the three countries signed in September 2021 to coordinate on advanced military technology against China.
President Biden, British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, and Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese formally announced the plans at the US Naval Base Point Loma in San Diego. The ultimate goal is for Australia to begin producing a new type of nuclear-powered submarine known as SSN-AUKUS, but that isn’t expected to happen until the 2040s.
According to a joint statement released by the three leaders, the first part of the plan will be for Australia to embed personnel with the US Navy and the British Royal Navy for training on submarines. The US plans to increase submarine port visits to Australia, and starting in 2027, the British and American navies will begin “forward rotations” of submarines to Australia.
In the early 2030s, the US will sell three of its Virginia class submarines to Australia with the option of selling up to two more. By the late 2030s, the UK plans to deliver the first British-built SSN-Aukus submarine, followed by the Australian-produced version in the 2040s. An Australian military official said Canberra expects to spend up to $245 billion on the initiative by 2055.
Biden, Sunak, and Albanese framed the plans as necessary to uphold the so-called “rules-based order,” which means the US-dominated world order that the Western powers think Beijing’s activities in Southeast Asia threaten. “We believe in a world that protects freedom and respects human rights, the rule of law, the independence of sovereign states, and the rules-based international order,” they said in the joint statement.
The US has big plans for Australia in its preparations for a future war with China. US Navy Secretary Carlos Del Toro recently said that he envisions AUKUS will turn the country into a full-service submarine hub that can oversee all allied underwater activity in the Asia-Pacific. Naturally, China views AUKUS as a major provocation as the submarines will be used to patrol waters near its shores.
China, brokering peace, having not invaded another nation since 1912.
America: “WE NEED TO BUILD MORE NUCLEAR WEAPONS TO KILL THE AGGRESSIVE CHINESE BEFORE THEY STRIKE AGAIN!”
China: “Uh, we’re pretty busy trying to keep a billion human beings alive.”
America: “THE RISING DANGER OF THE CHINESE (please, don’t be late on any of our shipments of manufactured goods) CAN ONLY BE COUNTERED BY POTENTIALLY DESTROYING THE WORLD!!”
China: “Are you sure you’re talking about us? Our “aggression” has mostly been building roads and helping developing nations…”
America: “WE MUST SURROUND THESE DEVIOUS CHINESE ON ALL SIDES WITH NUCLEAR WEAPONS, AND WILL GET RIGHT TO IT AFTER WE FINISH OUR CURRENT APOCALYPTIC CONFLICT WITH RUSSIA.
China: “Wow, you all sound dangerous…”
America: “SEE!!??”
A shameful and stupid decision by Canberra.
Why would any sane government do a deal with another government that has just committed an act of war on a key European ally (Germany)? It is insane.
Reality – even if Australia got 8 (2nd hand) US Virginia class subs tomorrow, it would make absolutely zero difference to its national security. Why? Australia only has 6 crap Collins class subs in its fleet. Adding 8 subs brings the fleet to 14 subs. That’s an extremely weak sub fleet and of course no match for China’s sub fleet, which is massive, state of the art and world class.
So let’s say that Australia’s ‘mighty sub fleet’ of 14 subs somehow gets into conflict with China and it’s allies in the Asia Pacific. Here’s another thing Canberra isn’t telling anyone – none of them would get out of Australian waters. They’d be obliterated by Chinese hypersonic missiles before they even left port, and even if they got out, they wouldn’t last very long.
But forget that. Australia won’t see any of these US subs for years. So right now, there’s nothing Australia gains from the deal. Australia got played, big time. What DC wanted most of all was access to Australian ports for its own nuclear weapons, carried on subs and planes. And Canberra gave it to them. Every Australian port capable of docking & maintaining subs is now a target.
Not just that. China is Australia’s #1 trading partner. China is the #1 power in the Pacific. This was a unique geopolitical opportunity for Australia to exploit its role as a bridge between China and the US, to its own advantage. It could have leveraged benefits for Australia from both sides. It could have demanded Julian Assange’s release. It could have demanded better trade terms from China. It could have demanded that at least 4 of those US subs were delivered within 6 months, for free.
It could have waited out the Biden disaster, and played for time. It could have focussed on diverting the funds to Australian citizens, who have already watched in astonishment as Canberra has sent $500 million (at least) to Zelensky in Kiev.
Instead, Canberra has got onto bed with DC crooks, pissed on Australian citizens, and spat in Beijing’s face. And for what? NOTHING. Just PR, propaganda and spin.
A terrible decision, for which Australia will pay a huge price.
” . . . a unique geopolitical opportunity for Australia to exploit its role as a bridge between China and the US . . .
And the rest.
Another dreamer.
Australia’s most significant policies are decided in Washington.
The Australian Mainstream media is their propaganda arm.
____________
If, as an allied state that does not follow Washington’s diktats, you will be attacked by the US and they have many ways to do this, including kinetic warfare.
____________
As for a war with China, it is Australia that is in the region. The United States and the UK are well removed.
The lesson of The Ukraine, Washington’s good ally in Eastern Europe.
And with the best yet to come . . .
“Rules based order”?… If the script is out, I’m sure there will be a response. I don’t think this is going to be very inviting for other countries, especially non-aligned countries.
AUKUS sounds like a virus.
FUKUS was taken, and it’s too descriptive
How about a “rules-based order” in the US? Our banking system is spreading chaos in ways Feds clearly don’t get. Regional banks have a different role than a Washington-NY-centered financial worldview understands. Literally thousands of small and startup companies are going down the drain. SVB was bank of choice for startups for numerous reasons (we were a customer multiple times). True they seem to have gotten stupid. But this blanket monolithic mindset emanating from the Fed is just like that of our foreign policy “experts” — one size solution fits all. (A solution we like, not reality based).
Gotta have that war, right Uncle Joe? If at first you don’t succeed, try, try again… Right?
Spot on OB1!