- The Guardian
- Issue #2207
International Peace Day, Walyalup/Fremantle WA, September 2025.
2. AUKUS and the submarine weapon in our geographical region
In the time we will have been waiting for submarines, underwater drones will have taken centre stage and there are also suggestions that there is technology that can see through water to great depths, so any advantage submarines have is already largely lost.
AUKUS nuclear-powered attack submarine capability, is an affront in the Pacific and South-east Asia, where our neighbours have never been consulted. Through the history of nuclear incidents in the region , from atomic attacks in WW2 to research during the cold war era, they hold deep concern at increasing nuclear traffic in the region and the danger of a nuclear arms race being ignored.
The Australian government has made it clear they are aligned with former and neo-colonial powers against the interests of the region.
The AUKUS pact challenges the 1985 “Treaty of Rarotonga,” the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone, which bans the use, testing, and possession of nuclear weapons within its borders. It has been signed by Australia, the Cook Islands, Fiji, Kiribati, Nauru, New Zealand, Niue, Papua New Guinea, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tonga, Tuvalu, and Vanuatu. Australia cannot uphold its commitment to this treaty while it has a ‘neither confirm or deny’ policy.
3. Sovereignty & Independence Warfare changes ñ Iran vs Israel/USA
The current and now potentially never-ending war between Iran and a combination of Israel and the US has seen a determined country defend itself with a strategy called asymmetrical warfare.
The first issue that arose in this war was the Strait of Hormuz, where the US could not force a passage through Hormuz despite having a very large number of warships at its disposal, as well as Virginia class submarines.
Each of these vessels could not afford to come within 500 kms of the coast of Iran, because Iran possesses carrier-busting supersonic missiles. A direct hit by one of these missiles would be enough to cause the ship to head for a port for repair or worse to be sunk with a mass casualty event.
There is a suggestion that a carrier was hit by a drone, but the US called it a laundry fire. The fire burnt for 30 hours and caused the carrier to seek a port for a quick repair and then to limp back to the US from the Mediterranean near the Gaza area.
These aircraft carriers cost around $13 billion and can be sunk by a relatively cheap missile. The nuclear-powered submarines, when they arrive, will cost around $32 billion each and may be damaged by weapons costing a lot less.
The current conflict has shown that the presence of US bases increases the risk for host countries, creating targets that can be exploited even when the ‘host’ is not at war. For decades, the United States has premised its national strategy on the ability to fight using forward-deployed forces close to enemy territory. The long-held misconception that US forward bases and surface ships enjoy sanctuary from adversary attack has been shown, through the current conflict to be an erroneous premise.
Iran has systematically targeted US air defences in the region including attacks on radars and communications infrastructure. This pattern, shows how easily the regional US defensive shield can be punctured; a shield intended to cover not only itself but its allies. We should take note.
4. Environment and nuclear waste
As Dr Hannah Middleton addressed in her publication ‘Fighting for the Future,’ nothing spoils a planet like war. A sustainable future will not be achieved without also achieving peace – and there will be no peace without achieving sustainability.
The defence sector, globally and nationally, is responsible for exceptionally high levels of greenhouse gasses, pollution and use of non-renewable resources. AUKUS is inextricably part of this sector and contributes through its preparations for war and the manufacture of weapons and military facilities. All of these are highly polluting, highly damaging to the environment and a major contributor to climate change.
At the time ‘Fighting for the future’ was written (2021), the US military was estimated to have emitted a staggering 1.2 billion tons of carbon into the atmosphere, over the preceding 20 years.
The comparison was made against the entire annual carbon emissions of the United Kingdom (roughly 360 million tons).
There will be environmental, health, and safety consequences of nuclear technology and waste management for the Australian community, especially for First Nations peoples.
We strongly oppose any commitment to store high level or other nuclear waste from these submarines in Australia. Any waste site would be imposed on First Nations people and other communities en route or nearby the proposed site.
In the coming decade, long-lived nuclear waste will be stored at HMAS Stirling, near Rockingham in Western Australia, at the Osborne Shipyard in Port Adelaide, and at an as yet unnamed East Coast Submarine Base, possibly Port Kembla or Newcastle.
The nuclear-powered submarines use uranium U-235 enriched to 90 per cent – weapons-grade – as their fuel. There is currently no operational long term high-level nuclear waste facility anywhere in the world.
Many in Australia have campaigned to keep this country nuclear free and to keep radiated contaminated material away from our shores. We have rejected nuclear power and put our trust in producing renewable energy through wind and solar. Now this chink in our armour has caused many to contemplate nuclear power as a viable alternative for energy supplies in the future.
Already the coalition parties are promoting nuclear energy for Australia citing the fact that our navy has gone nuclear.
In an exchange of a hot war between US and China, our ports which harbour nuclear armed submarines or nuclear-powered submarines will become nuclear targets.
Both on the east and west coasts, nuclear submarines will be near significant population centres.
While the danger is remote, it is present.
No government can guarantee a promise to keep nuclear waste “safe” for hundreds or thousands of years and it is arrogant of any government to give that undertaking. We note that the US is currently undergoing regulatory changes to weaken radiation safety standards. With a Federal electoral cycle of three years any safeguards currently in place could be at risk. Where this involves such a critical undertaking the most conservative approach is warranted.
Apart from the waste, nuclear reactors require cooling and discharge of warm water. This can create local thermal plumes that can impact on sea grasses and other marine flora.
5. AUKUS’s impact on our lives
AUKUS has already impacted on our lives in the extraordinary belt-tightening it has driven governments to implement. While leaving the wealthiest people to largely prosper, services for ordinary people are suffering. The government has embarked on a dismantling of the NDIS to save money so that it can divert money to the submarine project.
Other services are in the crosshairs of the government so it can shave enough off the budget to be able to afford nuclear powered submarines. The sense of general unease is causing many Australians to seek solutions from right wing parties with shady and vacant policies, yet the mainstream parties seem relaxed in their determination to acquire these weapons of war.
The figures do not add up to a wise use of Australia’s resources.
The hefty sacrifice which Australia’s taxpayers make to acquire new submarines is not for Australia’s benefit, but for defending the continental US. Australia is heavily supporting US defence spending while ignoring its own vulnerabilities.
Historically, we need to remember that this country was fully embarked on acquiring French submarines. The Defence procurement department hired a consultant to help them understand the submarine world. The person they hired and paid $12 million was a retired US Navy Admiral. He came up with the ‘Virginia Class’ submarine as the best fit for Australia. Given the tie-up between the US military and US arms corporations it is hardly surprising that he came up with the US mess we have ourselves in now.
The process of selecting the Virginia Class and nuclear-powered submarines has been fraught and unsatisfactory from the start.
After we made our decision with the US, we discovered that the US manufacturing structures could not build 2.3 Virginia Class submarines per year and it was closer to barely over 1.0 per year. We therefore have subsidised the US manufacturers several billions of dollars to get them up to the task of producing a Virginia class submarine for us. Instead, we now get 3 second-hand submarines while the new ones become available for the US Navy’s use to protect the US.
At every turn in this AUKUS saga, despite the hefty price we are paying for submarines, we are being dudded. As former Prime Minister Paul Keating, commenting on the ceremony held in San Diego California said “of the three leaders present, only the Australian Prime Minister was paying,” noting: “there’s three leaders standing there. Only one is paying. Our bloke, Albo.”
Australia must comprehensively disengage from America’s criminal war-mongering. To repeat Allan Patience in his article ‘America’s failed wars should be a warning for Australia’ 27/08/2026 quoting Geoffrey Blainey “For every thousand pages on the causes of wars there is less than one page directly on the causes of peace,” finishing with his own thought, “it’s time for Australia to become a regional and global peace power.”
We couldn’t agree more.
The questions the AUKUS Inquiry is examining
01 Cost, Jobs & Fiscal Impact
Is the $368B+ price tag accurate? What are the opportunity costs for national security, housing, jobs, healthcare, education, climate action, and Closing the Gap between Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and non-Indigenous Australians?
02 Strategic Rationale
Does AUKUS genuinely enhance Australian security, or does it increase our exposure to great-power conflict with China?
03 Sovereignty & Independence
Is AUKUS locking Australia further into the US war machine at the expense of our independence as a middle power?
04 Nuclear Non-Proliferation & Environmental Consequences
Does the transfer of nuclear technology set a dangerous precedent? What are the implications for our existing nuclear non-proliferation treaty commitments? Where and how will medium and high-level nuclear waste be stored? What are the long-term environmental risks of operating nuclear-powered submarines in Australian waters?
05 Advanced Capabilities & Education
What is the impact of AUKUS on Australia’s tertiary sector, research institutions, and universities? How is the expansion into AI, autonomous weapons, and emerging technologies reshaping Australian defence, and at what cost to sovereign capability? Why must technological advancement be progressed primarily under the AUKUS banner?
06 Alternatives Considered
Were credible and less costly alternatives to AUKUS properly assessed before the decision was made in secret?
