A$1 Trillion AUKUS SSNs: No Nuclear Weapons/"Explosives"

It appears Australia has been given access to 8 SSNs by the US and UK with true price approximately being A$1 Trillion* over 51 years under IF Australia does not arm itself with nuclear weapons.

Andrew McLaughlin for Australia's PSNEWS published an excellent report on August 20, 2024 at https://psnews.com.au/many-questions-remain-despite-aukus-partners-signing-updated-agreement/140809/

"Many questions remain despite AUKUS partners signing updated agreement

The AUKUS partners, Australia, the UK and the US, signed an updated 51-year agreement on 5 August [2024] that will enable the export of nuclear powerplants for Australia’s planned fleet of Virginia and SSN-AUKUS nuclear-powered submarines.

The Federal Government says the agreement is essential to Australia’s capacity to safely build, operate and maintain a conventionally armed, nuclear-powered submarine capability. The 37-page agreement was tabled in Parliament on its resumption from the winter break on 13 [correction 12] August and has immediately come under intense scrutiny. 

[see https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Tabled_Documents/6967 and  https://www.asa.gov.au/aukus/aukus-agreement-cooperation-related-naval-nuclear-propulsion ]

“All naval nuclear propulsion reactors for Australia’s nuclear-powered submarine program will be provided by the UK or the US. This Agreement will provide the UK and the US the legal authority to enable the transfer of naval nuclear propulsion reactors and related items to Australia,” the agreement reads.

“The Agreement is critical to meeting Australia’s national interest in achieving the Optimal Pathway for acquiring nuclear-powered submarines for the Royal Australian Navy.”

The Optimal Pathway for AUKUS Pillar One will initially see US and UK submarines conduct extended deployments to HMAS Stirling in Western Australia from 2027. Australia will take delivery of between three and five Virginia-class submarines from the US Navy from 2032, and will build its own SSN-AUKUS submarines, based on a British design with a US combat system, at Osborne in Adelaide for delivery from 2042.

And not that it’s likely, but the updated agreement also effectively prohibits Australia from obtaining nuclear weapons, specifically stating Australia remaining a signatory to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty is a condition of the agreement continuing.

“The Agreement prohibits the use of naval nuclear propulsion information, nuclear material and equipment communicated, exchanged or transferred … for any nuclear explosive device, or for research on or development of any nuclear explosive device [see paragraphs 26 and especially 51 below. This might still permit "Nuclear Weapon Sharing" if all agree ie. US retaining ownership of nuclear explosives shared with Australia. ]. It acknowledges that all Australian nuclear-powered submarines will be conventionally armed,” it says.

The agreement expires on 31 December, 2075, although it says any party may terminate the agreement by giving one year’s notice in writing to the other parties. It suggests the only possible ground for a termination of the agreement is if any party breaches the terms of the agreement, including if Australia obtains its own nuclear weapons or uses the nuclear technology transferred to it to develop nuclear weapons.

But critics claim that, despite Australia investing nearly $10 billion into the UK and US submarine and shipbuilding industrial base, there are no guarantees Australia will ever receive a nuclear-powered submarine.

The original 2023 AUKUS agreement held a disclaimer that the US President of the time would be required to advise Congress that the US could afford to release submarines to Australia. But in order to do that, it needs to be building boats at a rate of 2.33 a year at its two shipyards. The most recent published build rate is 1.35 boats a year, with few indications of any imminent increase.

So, with the US Navy currently only able to build submarines at barely half the rate it needs, it remains difficult to see how Virginia-class submarines could ever be released to Australia. And therein lies the rub.

The updated agreement says nothing to change that.

“The trilateral partners also concluded a non-legally binding Understanding … which reflects the governments’ intended approach to certain articles of the Agreement and provides additional related political commitments. The Understanding would become operative on the date on which the Agreement enters into force.”

Some observers have questioned what “additional related political commitments” could mean, and so far, Australia’s Defence Minister Richard Marles has been unable to explain it.

“What are these? Well, they are secret. The AUKUS saga moves on without much scrutiny,” ABC political journalist Laura Tingle wrote this week.

She and others, including Greens Senator David Shoebridge and former independent senator and ex-navy submariner Rex Patrick, have wondered out loud whether they could mean the US and UK could influence how and where Australia uses its nuclear-powered submarines, or that Australia might be obligated to participate in any action over Taiwan.

“What this agreement makes clear in black and white: If the United States at any point thinks they don’t have enough submarines for themselves, they can pull out of AUKUS 2.0,” Senator Shoebridge said. “Why isn’t the Albanese government being honest about the size of the gamble?”

Tingle wrote: “The idea that any of these such undertakings may have been made, but we aren’t allowed to know, is simply outrageous.”

Speaking to ABC Radio Adelaide on 15 August, Mr Marles offered: “Of course there is risk. But the risk of not doing it is just so much greater.”

But is it, though?

For more than five years, Australian governments of both persuasions have been saying the risk of conflict in the Indo-Pacific is at its greatest since 1939, and that it was likely conflict would occur within the next decade. That notional “decade” is now half a decade old. But the first nuclear-powered submarine is still at least eight but likely more years away.

So, if a conflict were to occur, it would likely be before we get the submarines. Doesn’t that suggest the $10 billion being spent now, and the more than $300 billion that will be spent on these submarines, might be better spent on capabilities that can be acquired sooner?"

PETE COMMENT

* Major Australian weapon systems, especially if built and maintained in Australia, routinely come in at triple the price first estimated. 

Hence the AUKUS submarine program, estimated by the Australian Government in 2021 to eventually cost A$368 Billion, should be tripled to A$1.10 Trillion.

Contrarian View: China's Right to Build Up Its Military

A contrarian view is:

China has a right to build up its military because of China's century of suffering and humiliation, including:

• 1st British opium-pushing invasion of 1839-42. (Numerous massacres. Huge reparations levied against China, unfair treaty imposed on China, plus the UK stripped Hong Kong from China as booty) 

 • 2nd British drug-pushing invasion of China in 1856-60. (Numerous massacres. More reparations and unfair treaties. Ransacked Beijing and Summer Palace) 

• Many other unequal treaties imposed by other foreign nations during the century. 

• Taiping Rebellion of 1850-71, which was not driven by the West (Western forces  actually helped put down the Rebellion), but still a major source of suffering. This is because Western actions had weakened China's central government - weakening that government's ability to impose law and order. Estimated dead may be 20-70 million - difficult to count because central record keeping had diminished with the rest of administration. 

• French naval attack (1884-85). (Chinese fleet destroyed) 

• Japanese invasion of Chinese-controlled Korea (1894-95). (Japan seized Formosa/Taiwan as booty) 

• Boxer Rebellion of (1899-1901). (Western invasion to quell rebellion ransacks Beijing. More massacres and reparations that virtually bankrupted China) 

• Japanese invasion and occupation of northern China (1931-37) (northern China called "Manchuria" by Japanese for imperialist reasons )

• Japanese invasion of Eastern China (1937-45) (Estimated. 20-25 million Chinese killed) 

• Chinese Civil War (1927-49) between Chiang Kai-shek's and Mao's followers. (US funded and armed Chiang for much of the period). Estimated.10-20 million dead. Mao won in 1949. 

• Now defeated Chiang Kai-shek occupies Taiwan (1949), denying it to the Communist regime. He establishes an army in northern Burma to launch guerrilla attacks on mainland China. Chiang also unsuccessfully invasions of mainland China from Taiwan. 

• Note: Western interference continues today eg. QUAD, AUKUS, some other NATO countries (like Germany and France), also India on China's border area and other East Asian bilateral alliances (eg. US with Japan and separately with Taiwan) involving US seek to “contain” China by militarily encircling it. Australia very much involved. 

• As a result, China has an abhorrence of disunity, of foreign intervention and of wars forced on it. 

• That's why, in part, China wants re-unification with Taiwan (as it wanted with Hong Kong): to complete the reunification of China and finally expunge from its memory of the Century of Humiliation. Re-unification of Taiwan may involve expulsion of the US military presence from Taiwan. Also expulsion of any Australian support of Taiwan - Australian support assumed by US foreign policymakers as a requirement of AUKUS security partnership. 

• That's also why the South China Sea—being the main Western invasion route during the 19th century, and a possible one today—is such a sensitive issue for China. Note that Taiwan (like the PRC) both claim the South China Sea within the "Nine-dash line".   

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nine-dash_line#History_of_the_line_segments 

"After retreating to Taiwan in 1949, the [Taiwanese]  ROC government continued to claim the Spratly and Paracel Islands. President Lee Teng-hui claimed^[24] that "legally, historically, geographically, or in reality", all of the South China Sea and Spratly islands were ROC territory and under ROC sovereignty, and denounced actions undertaken there by the Philippines and Malaysia.^[25] Taiwan and China have the same claims and have cooperated with each other during international talks involving the Spratly Islands.^[26][27]

• And finally, that's why, in part, China is so concerned about Islamic and Buddhist separatist forces in Xing Xiang province and Tibet respectively: it wants stable border regions and a united country. In those senses China has its own problems of counter-terrorism like the West and separatism issues (eg. like Spain's Catalan Separatism). So, why criticise China for wanting what we want: a harmonious, unified nation with secure borders and friendly neighbours—especially after all it’s been through, often at the hands of the West?  

Israel vs Iran Exchanges Could Escalate Wars: Ukraine

Anonymous on August 6, 2024 commented “The violence looks like it will spread beyond Lebanon” pointing to Howard Altman’s article Scramble Underway To Prepare For Looming Iranian Retribution Strike On Israel dated August 5, 2024
at https://www.twz.com/news-features/scramble-underway-to-prepare-for-looming-iranian-retribution-strike-on-israel

Pete Comment

The need for an Israeli pre-emptive missile, drone and aircraft strike against Iranian missile and drone launch sites may be necessary assuming, unlike April 13, 2024, Iran does not intend to "telegraph" its intention to launch a major missile and drone strike against Israel.

As I commented as "pete747303e046b1699" on April 27, 2024 at
https://intelnews.org/2024/04/26/01-3342/#comments on IntelNews :

"This short term redemption was possible because Iran apparently gave those Arab countries (Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Jorden, and Iraq) a few days notice that Iran would be sending those drones and missiles through their airspace on the way to Israel. Unsurprisingly some or all of those Arab countries forwarded the warnings to Israel and the US. Also Israel and the US, no doubt by intelligence means, intercepted Iran’s warnings to those Arab countries.

I think Iran may have even telegraphed its intentions far and wide for all to hear in order to signal its displeasure, but not to cause too much death and destruction in Israel."

If, in August 2024, Iran gives no such warning, then death and destruction in Israel may be considerable.

However, a pre-emptive Israeli strike may further escalate matters if Israel adds additional items to the existing Iranian ballistic missile, SAM and drone launch site target list. Such an extended list might include command and control centres containing senior and undercover Iranian Revolutionary Guards, regular Iranian military officers and Iranian proxy groups in Iran, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Yemen.

Further escalation might be triggered by US pre-emptive and/or retaliatory strikes (in support of Israel) against Iran and/or its proxies.

This may provide a pretext for Russia, part sponsor of Iran, to enter the conflict in ways unexpected. Russia may also exert more offensive effort in Ukraine, while the US and the Western world generally, are distracted by the Middle East-Iranian situation.

Russian Created Software on UK Nuclear Subs

In an excellent article Con Coughlin. Defence and Foreign Affairs Editor for UK's The Telegraph reports August 2, 2024 https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/08/02/submarine-revelations-should-be-a-wake-up-call-to-ministers/

"Submarine revelations should be a wake-up call to ministers about defence supply chains"

"On too many occasions, Russia has slipped through the cracks despite numerous steps to limit its access.

It beggars belief that, at a time when Sir Keir Starmer has identified Russia as posing a “generational threat” to our security, engineers working on the Royal Navy’s fleet of nuclear submarines are using computer software that may have been accessed by the Kremlin.

Britain’s nuclear submarines not only play a critical role in safeguarding our national security from hostile powers such as Russia. They also maintain the nuclear deterrent, with the current fleet of four Vanguard nuclear submarines on 24/7 undersea patrols with the ability to deliver a devastating response in the event of the UK coming under nuclear attack.

The importance of preserving this pillar of the UK’s national defence infrastructure is reflected in the fact that the Government is investing tens of billions of pounds in building a new fleet of Dreadnought nuclear submarines and missile systems designed to deter potential aggressors for the next 30-40 years.

Friday’s [August 2, 2024's] revelation, therefore, that the development of computer software for staff working on the Royal Navy’s nuclear submarines was outsourced to engineers in Siberia and Belarus raises serious questions about their operational security.

A dangerous era

Despite [UK] Ministry of Defence stipulations that such work should only be conducted by UK-based staff with the requisite security clearance, concerns have now been raised that the new software could have been exploited to reveal the location of Britain’s submarines, thereby giving hostile states such as Russia a vital advantage in the event of a future nuclear confrontation. 

Certainly, at a time when the UK and its allies have subjected Russia to a wide range of sanctions in response to its unprovoked invasion of Ukraine, questions need to be asked why firms based in Belarus, which could have links to the Kremlin, have been allowed to work on such a sensitive area of Britain’s nuclear security.

Only last month, in his address to the Nato summit in Washington, Sir Keir gave an explicit warning that the “generational threat” posed by Russia and other hostile states meant that we were living in a “new and dangerous era… One defined by volatility and insecurity.”

But while the Government has taken numerous steps to limit the access of Russian businesses to the UK, there is mounting evidence that, on too many occasions, the measures are not being properly enforced, especially when it comes to limiting Russian access to the UK’s legal, financial and property sectors.

The suggestion, therefore, that firms operating in Russia and Belarus are working in such sensitive areas as the Royal Navy’s nuclear submarine fleet should serve as a wake-up call to ministers that, if they are really serious about confronting Moscow, they need to ensure that supply chains are secure."

Pete Comment

The problem may go  further. There may be occasions when UK SSNs are used to protect US SSBNs in the eastern Atlantic. If so part Russian or Belarusian developed software aboard UK SSNs (or onshore at UK naval bases) may be assisting Russia to locate US SSBNs.

Leave Lebanon Immediately: Israeli Invasion Likely

Australia's federal government on 30 July advised Australians not to travel to Lebanon and warned those in the country should “leave immediately”. 

https://www.smartraveller.gov.au/destinations/middle-east/lebanon

Pete Comment

Israel has had a low level border war with Hezbollah in Lebanon and Syria for some time. 

Since October 7/8, 2023 Hezbollah has increased the number of small missiles it has been launching into Israel (including into the Golan Heights). 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel%E2%80%93Hezbollah_conflict_(2023%E2%80%93present)

Also it is dangerous for Australians living in or visiting northern Israel. 

An Israeli land invasion and/or increased shelling of southern Lebanon may occur shortly. 

Rex Airline Problems

 Published July 30/31 in The Guardian https://www.theguardian.com/business/article/2024/jul/30/rex-airlines-federal-government

“Rex airlines enters voluntary administration with all flights between capital cities grounded”

“Federal government says Rex ‘will have a future’ with minister suggesting Labor will step in to save troubled company

Rex airlines enters voluntary administration with all flights between capital cities grounded

Federal government says Rex ‘will have a future’ with minister suggesting Labor will step in to save troubled company

All Rex flights between capital cities have been grounded and the airline has entered voluntary administration just hours after the Albanese government suggested it would intervene to ensure the nation’s third-largest carrier didn’t collapse.

Late on Tuesday, EY – formerly known as Ernst & Young – announced it had been appointed as administrators of the company, and that the airline’s Boeing 737 operations between capital cities such as Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane had been grounded, with Virgin Australia stepping in to offer impacted passengers rebooking “free of charge”.

Rex’s regional operations with its Saab 340 turboprop planes remained [currently] unaffected by the administration and would continue to operate.

The administrators said Rex and Virgin Australia were also exploring opportunities to support regional customers, including by having Virgin Australia sell Rex’s regional services through codeshare or interline arrangements, and making Velocity Frequent Flyer benefits available to Rex’s regional customers.

…Rural mayors across Australia whose communities rely on Rex for connectivity warned of further isolation if the carrier went under, while leaders of larger regional centres feared airfare price hikes from Qantas if the routes were left without competition.

…On Monday [29 July] , the Australian stock exchange announced it had suspended trade in Rex’s shares at the airline’s request “pending it releasing an announcement”.

Rex was initially called Regional Express following its formation after the death of Ansett. Rex has mostly been a regional carrier, operating 36-seater Saab 340 turboprop aircraft.

…Rex has also confronted a shortage of parts to repair its ageing fleet of Saab 340 aircraft for its core regional operations, which have also been hampered by a shortage of pilots for the smaller planes…."