The US-Australia Submarine Deal: A Promise in Peril?
A shocking revelation has emerged from a recent US congressional report: the highly anticipated Aukus nuclear submarine deal with Australia might be in jeopardy. But here's where it gets controversial... Instead of delivering the promised submarines, the report suggests the US could retain control of them, potentially deploying them from Australian bases under US command in case of a conflict with China over Taiwan.
This alternative scenario, proposed by the US Congressional Research Service, highlights a complex web of geopolitical considerations. And this is the part most people miss: Australia's reluctance to commit to supporting the US in a potential Taiwan conflict is a major sticking point. The report argues that selling submarines to Australia could actually weaken US deterrence capabilities in the region, as these submarines might not be available for use in a crisis.
Released on January 26th, the report cites Australian Defense Minister Richard Marles and the Chief of Navy, emphasizing Australia's stance of making “no promises” regarding support in a US-China war over Taiwan. This lack of commitment raises questions about the strategic value of transferring such advanced technology.
The report delves into the specifics, stating that selling three to five Virginia-class nuclear-powered attack submarines to Australia would essentially remove them from the US arsenal, potentially diminishing its ability to respond to a crisis with China. It further argues that this could weaken deterrence and warfighting capabilities.
Under the original Aukus agreement, Australia was slated to acquire Virginia-class submarines starting in 2032, followed by Australian-built Aukus submarines based on a UK design in the 2040s. However, the Congressional Research report presents a different vision – a “military division of labour” where the US retains the submarines, operating them from Australian bases alongside existing US and UK attack submarines.
Is this a missed opportunity for Australia, or a strategic necessity for the US? The report suggests Australia could redirect the funds saved from not purchasing submarines towards other defense capabilities, potentially supporting US missions in a subordinate role. This could include investments in long-range anti-ship missiles, drones, loitering munitions, B-21 bombers, or systems to defend Australia against attack.
Cybersecurity concerns are also raised, with the report noting the active attempts by “hackers linked to China” to infiltrate Australian government and contractor systems. Sharing nuclear submarine technology, it argues, would expand the “attack surface,” creating more vulnerabilities for China or other adversaries to exploit.
The debate is further complicated by the US's own shipbuilding woes. Here's the harsh reality: US shipyards are struggling to meet the demand for submarines for the US Navy, let alone fulfill Australia's order. For the past 15 years, the US Navy has ordered two submarines annually, but shipyards have consistently fallen short, currently producing only 1.1 to 1.2 boats per year. This backlog raises serious questions about the feasibility of delivering submarines to Australia.
US legislation adds another layer of complexity. It prohibits the sale of any submarine to Australia if it's deemed necessary for the US fleet. The President must certify that relinquishing a submarine won't compromise US undersea capabilities – a difficult decision given the current shortage.
Aukus Pillar One: A Complex Bargain
The first pillar of the Aukus agreement revolves around providing Australia with the technology to operate its own fleet of conventionally armed, nuclear-powered submarines. This involves a two-stage process:
- Stage 1: Australia purchases three to five Virginia-class submarines from the US, with the first delivery in 2032. However, this is contingent upon the US President certifying that the sale won't weaken the US Navy's undersea capabilities. Given the US Navy's current shortage of submarines (only 49 out of a required 66), this is a significant hurdle.
- Stage 2: By the late 2030s, the UK will launch the first Aukus submarine specifically designed and built for the Royal Navy. Australia will then build up to eight Aukus submarines for its own fleet, with the final vessels entering service in the 2060s.
Each Australian submarine is expected to have a 30-year lifespan, leaving Australia responsible for managing the resulting nuclear waste, including high-level waste and spent fuel, for millennia. The Aukus program is projected to cost Australia a staggering A$368 billion by the mid-2050s.
The report also highlights concerns about Australia's strict nuclear non-proliferation laws potentially limiting the US submarine force projection under the current Aukus plan. Australian officials have consistently stated that their attack submarines will only be armed with conventional weapons, adhering to their commitments as a non-nuclear weapon state under the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.
A Double-Edged Sword:
The report, authored by Ronald O’Rourke, a veteran Naval Affairs analyst, presents a nuanced perspective. While acknowledging the potential drawbacks, it also argues for the benefits of maintaining the current Aukus arrangement. Selling Virginia-class submarines, it claims, would send a powerful message to China about the collective resolve of the US, Australia, and the UK to counter China's military modernization. The unprecedented nature of such a sale – the US has never sold a complete nuclear-powered attack submarine before – would further emphasize this determination.
Furthermore, the report suggests that selling submarines would accelerate the establishment of an Australian submarine fleet, creating a second decision-making center for attack submarine operations in the Indo-Pacific alongside the US. This, it argues, would complicate Chinese military planning and enhance deterrence against potential aggression.
The report draws parallels to the US assistance provided to the UK and France in the 20th century to establish their nuclear submarine fleets and arsenals.
A Future in Flux:
Previous Congressional Research Service reports have hinted at the possibility of no submarines being available for sale to Australia. However, Australia has consistently rejected any alternative arrangements, insisting on acquiring its own submarines.
The Guardian has reached out to Australian Defense Minister Richard Marles for comment. The future of the Aukus submarine deal remains uncertain, leaving us with a crucial question: Will the US prioritize its own strategic needs or fulfill its commitment to Australia, potentially reshaping the geopolitical landscape in the Indo-Pacific? What do you think? Is the US justified in potentially withholding the submarines, or should it honor the original agreement? Let us know your thoughts in the comments below.
