nuclear-news

AUKUS: Are nuclear-powered submarines a good idea for Australia?

“[So] the question for us is, is it sensible for Australia to commit itself to go to war with the US against China — a war we have no reason to believe the US can win, in order to acquire submarines that we don’t need?”

ABC RN / By Nick Baker and Taryn Priadko for Global Roaming 5 Mar 24

There were always going to be questions about a nuclear-powered submarine deal with a (stated) price tag of up to $368 billion.

But, as the dust settles on the AUKUS security pact and Australians patiently wait for the subs that come with it, some defence experts are warning that the deal could fall apart.

“I think the chance of the plan unfolding effectively is extremely low,” Hugh White, an emeritus professor of strategic studies at the Australian National University, tells ABC RN’s Global Roaming.

Professor White was a defence adviser to the Hawke government and worked as a deputy secretary for strategy and intelligence in the Department of Defence. He’s also been a big critic of AUKUS.

So could AUKUS sink? And what would that mean for Australia’s defence plans?

What is AUKUS?

On September 15, 2021, a new trilateral security partnership between Australia, the UK and the US was announced, called AUKUS (A-UK-US).

Australia was scrapping its earlier $90 billion deal with France for 12 conventional-powered submarines and instead securing nuclear-powered submarines through AUKUS.

More details were announced on March 13 last year, including around the two so-called “pillars” of AUKUS.

Pillar One, which has received the most attention, is the submarines.

The plan is for Australia to buy at least three nuclear-powered Virginia class submarines from the US in the early 2030s.

We will then build at least five of a new, nuclear-powered submarine class dubbed the SSN-AUKUS, likely in Adelaide, in the 2030s, 2040s and beyond.

Pillar Two involves the sharing of technology, in areas like quantum computing, artificial intelligence and hypersonic missiles.

Former prime minister Scott Morrison called AUKUS “the best” decision of his government, while current Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has said it would “strengthen Australia’s national security and stability in our region”. 

AUKUS worries

Professor White has two main worries around AUKUS.

“We do need submarines. I think submarines are a very important part of a defensive posture for Australia … [But] I don’t think we need nuclear-powered submarines,” he says.

“They’re so much more expensive. They’re so much more difficult to make. They’re so much more difficult to operate. We’ll end up with far fewer of them in our fleet.”

He says his second concern is far bigger: “I don’t think we’re going to get [the submarines].”

He claims the plan is overly reliant on future decisions and assistance from the US and UK governments, and also full of near-insurmountable technical tasks for Australia.

“I think what’s going to happen … is within the next few years, the whole thing will just come apart in our hands. And we’ll be back to square one trying to work out how to get some more conventional [submarines].”

Allan Behm, the director of the international and security affairs program at the Australia Institute, also doubts the likelihood of the AUKUS deal going ahead as planned.

One reason, he says, is that the technologies, skills and workforce that are required from a country like Australia to build and maintain nuclear-powered subs is pushing our limits, even with the involvement of the US and UK.

“We’re going into a technological domain with which we are totally unfamiliar,” says Mr Behm, who has a 30-year career in the Australian public service and was senior advisor to then-shadow minister for foreign affairs Penny Wong.

“We’re talking about a number of submarines with nuclear propulsion systems in them. And we’ve only got one nuclear reactor in Australia, which is nothing like the very, very highly enriched uranium reactors, the pressure water reactors that exist in nuclear-powered submarines,” he says.

“I think the best parallel would be, how would Australia imagine that it would undertake, conduct and retrieve a moon launch?”

US versus China

If AUKUS goes ahead as planned, is it the best way to keep Australia safe?

It’s been framed as a massive deterrent to China, which keeps building up its military.

Mr Morrison told the ABC last year, AUKUS helps to “change the calculus for any potential aggressors in our region”.

But Professor White says there are pitfalls with this strategy too.

He claims AUKUS could pull Australia into a future US-China conflict over Taiwan, which he contends the US may not win.

“China has focused so strongly and so effectively on building precisely the kinds of forces it needs to prevent the US projecting power by sea and air into the Western Pacific,” he says.

“[So] the question for us is, is it sensible for Australia to commit itself to go to war with the US against China — a war we have no reason to believe the US can win, in order to acquire submarines that we don’t need?”

While Australia has made clear it will have full control over the nuclear-powered submarines under the deal, Professor White says the US may still expect us to support them in a future war.

Cost concerns

The estimated cost of the submarine program will be up to $368 billion over the next 30 years. It’s a figure that has attracted no shortage of criticism.

“It puts so many of our defence eggs in one super expensive basket,” Mr Behm says.

“Short of expanding our defence budget by a considerable amount … we would find ourselves with very constrained capabilities in other fields in order to meet the expenditure targets of this project.”

And, based on other defence projects, he contends there will be cost blowouts.

“Whenever [the Department of] Defence says it’s going to cost you $1, always multiply it by three. And so your $368 billion is, in effect, a lifetime cost of $1 trillion,” he says.

“And you can do a hell of a lot with $1 trillion.”

A safer Australia?

The AUKUS critics have their critics too.

Peter Dean, the director of foreign policy and defence at the University of Sydney’s US Studies Centre, says he has a “diametrically opposed” outlook to Professor White and Mr Behm………………………………………………

Scrap AUKUS, totally rethink defence?

Meanwhile, Professor White, from the anti-AUKUS camp, is advocating a totally different approach to AUKUS.

He says Australia should pivot away from the US and think about “how we can develop our national capability to defend ourselves independently against a major Asian power?”

“Traditionally, Australians have believed that as a very big continent with a relatively small population … we couldn’t possibly defend ourselves. But I don’t think that’s right.”

But he says this would need a change in priorities…………………………………………………

A missing part of the discussion

Mr Behm, also from the anti-AUKUS camp, says there’s an element sometimes missing in discussions about defence.

Diplomacy has got to be central to the way in which you think about your long-term national security,” he says.

“You get much more return on your investment in diplomacy than you ever get out of defence systems, which in the life of almost all of them you never use.”………………………………….

Mr Behm advocates for more emphasis on “how you use the intellectual and cultural resources of the nation to both protect and to promote its deep and long-term security”.

“[So] I would be prepared to argue that the pivot on which our national security rests is the foreign minister.”  https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-03-05/aukus-set-to-sink/103534664

March 6, 2024 - Posted by Christina Macpherson | AUSTRALIA, weapons and war