"Japan’s New
Submarine-Launched Hypersonic Missile Plan Mark a New Era in Indo-Pacific
Deterrence and China Is Watching Closely" of August 28, 2026
August 28, 2026
Shortest Way for Australia to develop Nuclear Weapons: Hire 1,000s of Israelis.
Can the Trump/Hegseth regime presiding over formerly trustworthy America now be trusted to endanger its own nuclear safety in order to protect its allies like Ukraine, NATO, Australia and free Asia nations against nuclear aggressors? Instead the new US is a potential future threat to Canada, Denmark-Greenland and even resource rich Australia.
South Korea has ample conventional submarine protection in its tiny geo-strategic region, but it shares a long land border with nuclear armed North Korea. It is only a nuclear armed South Korea that could deter North Korea from nuclear blackmail. Hence South Korea is building nuclear powered submarines as apex nuclear weapon deterrent platforms against North Korea.
Against nuclear armed North Korea, China and Russia Japan has retained tonnes of weapons usable Plutonium and has retained a $multi-billion Enriched Uranium-Plutonium reprocessing factory.
As nuclear weapons proliferate to Australia's north over the next 20 years Australia only has those 2 decades to build our own nuclear capability in time.
Here's another view based on the old "US will defend us" assumption. A no-change hope that nuclear weapons will not proliferate to our north in South Korea, Japan or maybe to Taiwan.
---
---
The shortest, cheapest way for Australia to develop nuclear explosives and weapons would be to hire 1,000s of Israelis to build a "Dimona style complex" along with missiles of all types designed to carry nuclear war-heads. All of these activities could occur in Australia's ample desert areas (vastly larger than the Negev).
This would be useful in a future Australian nuclear deterrent situation where Australia is under medium-long term threat from the usual suspects:
A. China of course if Chinese expansionism did not stop at Taiwan. "Regional security analysts and Taiwanese officials warn that China's strategic ambitions would expand to neighboring Indo-Pacific nations, key maritime choke points, and global technological supply chains if Beijing annexed Taiwan. [1, 2]"
and
B. Suspects now include a continuation of constant aggressive American expansionist war making. Trumpism in the extreme aims at making Canada the 51st state and maybe Australia the 52nd.
Trumpism breaks traditional U.S. foreign policy molds by rejecting long-term military entanglements while simultaneously deploying aggressive, transactional, and extraction-focused force.
"Though early Trumpism was frequently characterized as "isolationist" due to its skepticism of nation-building and traditional alliances like NATO, the philosophy evolved toward what critics call a "new imperialism" or "nationalist interventionism". [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
"Though early Trumpism was frequently characterized as "isolationist" due to its skepticism of nation-building and traditional alliances like NATO, the philosophy evolved toward what critics call a "new imperialism" or "nationalist interventionism". [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
The foreign policy framework of Trumpism can be understood across several dimensions:
Direct, Resource-Driven Force Over Long-Term Wars
Unlike the neoconservative "forever wars" or liberal internationalist "nation-building" interventions of past decades, Trumpism rejects prolonged military occupations. Instead, it favors hyper-kinetic, unilateral actions designed to achieve immediate, tangible economic or resource benefits: [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
August 27, 2026
Early Singapore Involvement: Australia's "We Will Build an ICBM" Threat Yielded AUKUS Pillar 1
Singapore and Gilmore Space Technologies
Adam Gilmour (above) CEO, Co-Founder of Gilmour Space Technologies with ERIS Block 1, Australia's dual-use capable rocket. ERIS has the classic ICBM size and shape (eg. like a Minuteman III) especially in tonnage at launch. The shape also includes ERIS not having strap-on boosters that would impede each Eris being placed in ICBM silos. (Photo Gilmour Space via Byron Bay's The Echo, March 1, 2024).
[As at 2017 - Adam Gilmour an Australian entrepreneur has chosen Singapore as his base to build his own space startup and carve out a niche of his own...[Adam Gilmour's] rocket factory was located near Changi airport in Singapore,...he [Gilmour] ran an open-plan facility buzzing with activity and packed with futuristic-looking prototypes...his engineers were busy testing a new 3-D printer, which makes rocket fuel in record time. ...“We are working on low-cost small satellite launch vehicles to take satellites with masses up to 400 kilogram to orbit. This capability is matched by few other providers in the industry and we plan to be the cheapest in the market” he explained.]
---------------------------------
Australia has since the 2000s been revisiting nuclear deterrence weapon options, including long range strike platforms. ICBMs based in central Australia could hit Beijing. The dual use Eris 1 rocket at 23m tall and total 34 tonnes mass at liftoff is more than coincidently the size of a US Minuteman III ICBM at 18.3m and total 36 tonnes.
Missile carrying nuclear powered submarines (particularly versatile Virginia Block V and VI - SSGNs) could also hit Beijing and/or Shanghai with SLBMs or SL(Hypersonic)HMs.
Australian Threat
By 2022 an Australian (Aus) bargaining threat to the US was established. Unless the US and/or UK made SSNs available to Aus, Aus could build thermonuclear warheads affixed to "Gilmour" ICBMs. China being the usual potential target.
The US (the aging Biden regime, at least) reacted with AUKUS Pillar 1. The UK (SSN owning junior partner) wanted (or was persuaded) to join this deal. This is, in part, because UK nuclear powered submarine tech and Trident II missile availability to the UK heavily relies on the US.
SILEX makes Australia HEU Capable
The primary stage for an Australian thermonuclear weapon is a fission bomb which Australia could produce using the SILEX process yielding 95% HEU. This would be the trigger for a "secondary" Deuterium–TRITIUM fusion bomb.
Deuterium is extracted by separating heavy water (D₂O) from ordinary water and then isolating the deuterium gas. This is all within Australian scientific-industrial capabilities. Deuterium–TRITIUM fusion (D-T fusion) is a type of nuclear fusion in which one deuterium (2H) nucleus (deuteron) fuses with one tritium (3H) nucleus (triton) giving one helium-4 nucleus.
As a dual-use cover Australia could build CANDU (Canadian Deuterium Uranium) reactors to generate large amounts of electricity (for Aus large cities). This is while simultaneously producing TRITIUM through neutron capture in CANDU reactor's heavy-water moderator and coolant.
A major problem is the US has called Australia's nuclear bomb blackmail bluff with promised SSNs only likely to emerge mid 2040s onwards. So the US remains Australia's extended deterrence nuclear guardian. But could the likes of a Trump, Hegseth or their America First successors ever be trusted to sacrifice San Francisco to protect Sydney from "Shanghai-Beijing's" nuclear capability?
Fortunately/Unfortunately? Australia, having spent $Billions in up front deposits to the US and UK submarine industrial bases, has lost its SSN bargaining power.
This is indicated by Australia's Defence Industry Minister, Pat Conroy's only passing threat in July 2026 where he stated the Submarine Rotational Force-West (SRF-West) rotation of US submarines through HMAS Stirling in Western Australia would conclude in 2032 unless what? Delivery of the first US SSN to the RAN in 2032 was implicit. This has led to delayed SSN transfer to Australia. This may be forcing Australia to return to nuclear weapon intentions.
August 24, 2026
August 21, 2026
UK Carrier jokes: Can't even attract local escorts! No Astute thinking.
BAE is a virtual monopoly in Britain building the aircraft carriers (above) and all the submarines ie. the final Astute, SSBN-Dreadnoughts and SSN-AUKUS.
---
The lucid commentary in the video above, of BAE dealing with average 18 month-serving politicians, low profile admirals and officials, is a sad tale that applied to Britain's largest carriers ever. These 2 Queen Elizabeth-class carriers have less capability, based on poor planning and 3rd rate program management.
The extravagant size of the carriers sucked in money, shipbuilding and ultimately crew resources at the expense of building enough smaller vessels for other UK RN roles, including escorts. Britain's 2 much smaller Audacious-class carriers built 75 years ago, could each actually deploy around 45 aircraft, rather than just plan on paper Elizabeth style. The 2 Audacious' aircraft averaged the same F-4 Phantom jet size as the F-35Bs the Elizabeth class are restricted to.
Britain:
- has too few crew, too little money and airwings too small to operate the 2 carriers simultaneously
- ie. usually has too few F-35Bs to serve on even one of the 2 carriers. Frequently US Marine Corps F-35Bs are required to make up the numbers on these 2 Brit carriers.
- finds the carriers break down too often
- Britain's decision to only have the ski-jump/vertical takeoff F-35Bs means the F-35Bs have low fuel/range, low weapons' load with F-35Bs being the Only fixed wing types
- finds the carriers break down too often
- Britain's decision to only have the ski-jump/vertical takeoff F-35Bs means the F-35Bs have low fuel/range, low weapons' load with F-35Bs being the Only fixed wing types
- in contrast US and French CATOBAR carriers (the French carrier being far smaller than Brit carriers) can operate more aircraft, with more fuel, range and weapons and can also operate fixed wing ASW aircraft, unlike Brit carriers (restricted to short range, short loiter ASW helicopters).
- Brits can only afford/crew 2 British destroyer or frigate escorts per carrier group
- hence must rely on 2 or 3 foreign escorts to make up the numbers in a carrier group
- frequently finds all Britain's Astute SSNs are under medium-longish term unscheduled repair
- hence a British carrier group must rely on an essential US or French navy SSN to defend the group
The list goes on of British missteps and poor decisions as documented in the video above.
Britain (BAE) had severe problems building the Astutes on time and on budget with ongoing reactor piping defects that render most, sometimes all of Britain's Astute SSN force in mid to lengthy term unscheduled docking. Britain also needs its small and problematic submarine building workforce to truly begin and complete its huge Dreadnought-class SSBN program. In the early 2000s Britain relied on US companies to resolve Britain's Astute problems. But this time those US companies have their own severe problems building US Columbia-class SSBNs and of course Virginia repair problems. See the US's own chronic availability shortfalls.
Should Australia buy (or build under British/BAE management) inevitably evolved Astutes class SSNs (called SSN-AUKUS) from a Britain that has planned and built its SSNs and carriers so poorly over the last 2 decades?
August 18, 2026
USN said it needs 66 SSNs: Today only 32 SSNs fully operational/available
I AI Googled "how many SSNs does the USN say it needs and when did it say it" which yielded on August 18, 2026:
The US Navy stated it needs 66 SSNs, a requirement formally established in its 2016 Force Structure Assessment (FSA) released in December 2016. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
Context and Shortfalls
--------------------------------------
I AI Googled "how many US SSN submarines are operational and of these how many being repaired" which yielded on August 18, 2026:
"The US Navy maintains an active total inventory of 49 to 50 SSNs, but a severe shipyard maintenance backlog significantly impacts their availability: [1, 2, 3]
- Operational (Available for Duty): Approximately 31 to 32 submarines are fully operational or available for training and deployment.
Fleet Breakdown by Class
- Virginia-class: 26 operational/active hulls
- Los Angeles-class: Approximately 21 hulls (following recent drawdowns and retirements like the USS San Juan in mid-2026)
The Maintenance Backlog Crisis
The U.S. Navy's official readiness target is to have no more than 20% of its fast-attack force sidelined for maintenance at any given time. However, compounding factors have doubled that target rate. Workforce shortages, supply chain delays, and the prioritizing of high-priority ballistic-missile submarine programs (Columbia-class) have left many SSN units stuck in long-term maintenance overruns or sitting completely idle. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6]
Pete Comment
This has clear negative consequences for Australia's hope the US would deliver 3 Virginias to Australia in the 2030s under AUKUS Pillar 1.
Under the AUKUS agreement, the U.S. president [of the day, probably in 2031] must formally certify that transferring nuclear-powered attack submarines (SSNs) to Australia will not degrade U.S. undersea capabilities or violate sufficiency requirements. [1, 2]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)