nuclear-news

Let’s stop pretending AUKUS makes us safer

Margaret Beavis, February 2, 2026 —https://www.theage.com.au/national/let-s-stop-pretending-aukus-makes-us-safer-20260202-p5nysl.html

A couple of weeks ago, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney highlighted the need for
“naming reality”. Accordingly, we have to “name” the wishful thinking that is AUKUS. While it
is clear Australia needs a credible submarine capability, the AUKUS plan is neither credible
nor capable of meeting Australia’s defence needs. The Australian Defence Force has
correctly described this as a high-risk project – with no Plan B.

It is highly questionable whether a few nuclear-powered submarines (SSNs) will be effective
in defending Australia: too big for our northern waters, too few, difficult to man, unreliable
and potentially obsolete by 2050, if not before. But not to worry – they will probably never
come.

It is very unlikely, under the AUKUS Pillar I agreement, that the US will sell us three to five
Virginia-class nuclear-powered submarines, given US legislation, ongoing US shipyard
sustainment difficulties and major build delays.

The US legislation is very clear. The AUKUS Submarine Transfer Authorization Act, Code
10431, says that the transfer of Virginia-class submarines to Australia “will not degrade the
United States undersea capabilities”.

To meet its own needs, the US must build two Virginia-class SSNs per year. To supply
Australia, it must build at a rate of 2.33 annually; the current rate is 1.13 and has proved very
resistant to increasing, despite major increases in funding (by $US9 billion since 2018).
Australia’s $US3.3 billion contribution is not enough. In addition, the US is now prioritising
construction of the much larger Columbia submarines, making increased production rates of
Virginia-class submarines even less likely.

Operational availability is also a problem, though seldom mentioned. Rear Admiral Jonathan
Rucker, the program executive officer for Attack submarines, noted that with the “Virginia-
class of Attack submarines suffering from maintenance woes and low operational availability,
the US Navy is working to ensure its next Attack submarine is easier to sustain”. This makes
it even less likely the US can spare submarines. Even if they do – how available will they
be? Indeed, during a conflict, would we even get spare parts if US subs needed them too?

How many times does Australia need to be told this a very long shot? Last year, the US
Navy’s Chief of Operations Admiral Daryl Caudle testified that there are “no magic beans” to
boosting the US’ shipbuilding capacity. UK submarine building is even more behind, but that
is another story.

Elbridge Colby, the US under-secretary of defence for policy, said in 2024 that “it would be
crazy for the United States to give away its single most important asset for a conflict with
China over Taiwan when it doesn’t have enough already … money is not the only issue – it’s
also time, limits on our workforce, so both sides of this vitally important alliance need to look
reality in the face.”

From our partners
Late last year, his Pentagon review of AUKUS was reportedly significantly modified by the
president’s office before Trump declared AUKUS was “full steam ahead”.

The US Congressional Research Service in October 2024 proposed that Australia did not
receive any US SSNs but focused on other defence capabilities. It noted that “there is little
indication that, prior to announcing the AUKUS Pillar I project … an analysis of alternatives
or equivalent rigorous comparative analysis was conducted to examine whether Pillar I
would be a more cost-effective way to spend defence resources”.

So why is the US keen to go ahead with this? The benefits for it are obvious. Much more
important than the (non-refundable) billions of dollars is having a new base at Garden Island
and a new maintenance shipyard at Henderson in WA. Even better, the AUKUS agreement
locks us into US war-fighting plans for the next 40 years. Decisions when Australia goes to
war will be made in DC, not in Canberra.

Current US missile and warhead developments mean Virginia-class subs (in reality US-
operated subs) will probably carry nuclear missiles by the early 2030s. The initial assurance
that they would not be nuclear-armed has vanished, just as the initial assurance we would
not end up with the weapons-grade nuclear waste has vanished.

Fuel for these subs requires serious enrichment technology, significantly weakening nuclear
non-proliferation norms. Japan, South Korea, Iran and Turkey are now interested in this
technology. Also, which lucky community will host the high-level nuclear waste?

‘High probability of failure’: Former top official’s dire AUKUS warning

By hosting these submarines (and nuclear-capable B-52 bombers in the Northern Territory),
we not only lose sovereignty but also become a target ourselves. These submarines are too
big to defend Australia’s northern waters, and there will be too few of them – if any – toprovide meaningful defence. Advances in underwater detection technology will probably render them obsolete by 2050, if not before.

Finally, the massive cost of these submarines will cannibalise spending on other more
effective defence weaponry. It will also limit funds available for health, education and other
critical social needs. Austerity in the UK has severely damaged the NHS, once a source of
national pride. Don’t think it can’t happen here.
AUKUS Pillar II and the UK submarines are also extremely problematic, but that needs
another article.

We must have a public independent review of AUKUS. We need to consider alternatives that
are more cost-effective and in our national interest. Sovereignty matters.
Defence secrecy is no excuse, and wishful thinking is very poor strategy. It is time to stop
gaslighting the public.

Dr Margaret Beavis is the vice president of the Medical Association for Prevention of
War.

February 5, 2026 - Posted by Christina Macpherson | AUSTRALIA, spinbuster