AUKUS Treaty NEWS ONLY

[GTX]

Have Australian's been informed that the US may launch attacks against Chinese mainland or military targets from Australian territory, drawing them into a conflict they have no wish to be involved in?

And what is your basis for raising this potential "red herring" argument? How do you know that there are not clauses addressing such? It is also very likely that in the situation whereby the USA (or UK for that matter given this thread is supposedly about AUKUS) were to launch an attack on China, that Australia would also willing participate.

Have Australian's been informed that the US may launch attacks against Chinese mainland or military targets from Australian territory, drawing them into a conflict they have no wish to be involved in?

Not adequately. Most Australians are ignorant as to the real subtelties of their nation's lack of their own foreign policy. For too long they have been willing to subsume their foreign policy in the US's.

Enough with the thinly veiled and tiresome anti-US posts! I am an Australian and while I would recognise and criticise some US actions/policies over the years, the ongoing anti-US biased posts of some here which are arguably off-topic have no basis in facts. Further ongoing posts such as this will invoke potential formal warnings!

 

[Arjen]

Apologizing in advance for my near-complete ignorance of Australian politics, I think this thread was likely to gravitate to internal Australian politics from the beginning. Think carefully about using moderator tools in subjects where you might be perceived to have a partisan interest.
On the other hand, this thread may need moderating because it seems to be veering away from the forum's core business. Please keep it civil.

 

[Fluff]

Hopefully not off topic, but the point of Soviet Russia was mentioned, and if you think about how little trade was done between Europe and USSR, and compare that to China to Say the G20 and its as if where with Russia the politics dictated the trade, with china, we utterly ignore the politics and trade like crazy. And then we are surprised they can now afford a CV fleet, stealth aircraft etc.

As before I would point out that no-one really looks to be invading anyone, and I hope the mutual deterrent and preparedness keeps it that way, for all parties. Which is I hope what this treaty is intended to achieve. Kumbaya.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Ultimately this isn't a geopolitics forum. Perhaps the debates are better held on another forum.

 

[apparition13]

United States pushes back on New Zealand and allies' hopes of joining AUKUS

One of America's most senior military commanders dismisses suggestions the AUKUS security partnership could soon be expanded to include other allies such as New Zealand or Japan.

www.abc.net.au

If it's just in reference to building nuclear subs, I doubt either Japan or NZ can even if the wanted to, due to constitutional issues and public opinion respectively. If it's about an alliance system built around AUKUS, then it's not the least sensible. The more the merrier.

 

[Fluff]

United States pushes back on New Zealand and allies' hopes of joining AUKUS

One of America's most senior military commanders dismisses suggestions the AUKUS security partnership could soon be expanded to include other allies such as New Zealand or Japan.

www.abc.net.au

If it's just in reference to building nuclear subs, I doubt either Japan or NZ can even if the wanted to, due to constitutional issues and public opinion respectively. If it's about an alliance system built around AUKUS, then it's not the least sensible. The more the merrier.

Maybe 'Friends of Aukus' but its a bit rude in an anglo-saxon way......

 

[jeffb]

And what is your basis for raising this potential "red herring" argument? How do you know that there are not clauses addressing such? It is also very likely that in the situation whereby the USA (or UK for that matter given this thread is supposedly about AUKUS) were to launch an attack on China, that Australia would also willing participate.

How is it a "red herring"? How does the question mislead or distract? Have they been informed or not? Are there restrictions on the US from launching attacks? I've certainly not seen any discussion of the potential consequences or analysis of the actual treaty in the press at all, all I've seen is the Australian nuclear subs cover story and Dutton mumbling something about no nuclear weapons. Hard to argue it's not relevant.

Enough with the thinly veiled and tiresome anti-US posts! I am an Australian...

Which is interesting because you're aware of the history of both the UK and the US in their dealings with Australia, right?

 

[jeffb]

I mean, I get the general prohibition on politics on this forum and it's perfectly reasonable for the majority of threads where politics really shouldn't come into it.

But this a thread about a political treaty.

 

[Josh_TN]

The general impression I get, far removed from Australian politics, is that AUKUS has bipartisan support even to the extent that the previously taboo nuclear issue is no longer a stumbling block to popular opinion.

Is your argument that the agreement has been mischarcterized and the Australian population misled? If so, what specific data points or concessions has the Australian population been misled on? It seems incredibly unlikely that the US gets to use Australia as a sort of AirstripOne…can you address specific stipulations in the agreement that are disadvantages to Australia or on which the population has been misled?

 

[Josh_TN]

If there is no declaration of assured support from the US, is it actually the case that Australia is required to host US forces in any way? That was not my impression, but I haven't read the full document. My impression was that commitments from both sides were of a more relaxed nature than NATO and that this was bilateral.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

I mean, I get the general prohibition on politics on this forum and it's perfectly reasonable for the majority of threads where politics really shouldn't come into it.

But this a thread about a political treaty.

Indeed. So does the topic belong on the forum at all?

 

[apparition13]

Well, yes. It's a treaty to build nuke subs for/in Australia.

 

[jeffb]

Well, yes. It's a treaty to build nuke subs for/in Australia.

No, it's a lot more than that. The nuke subs are merely the first initiative under AUKUS

It basically subsumes our Foreign Policy deeply into the US's and offers us little choice, if there is a war with China we are committed.

Dubbed by some as ANZUS 2.0, AUKUS is a trilateral agreement, but one that notably excludes New Zealand. With the UK’s inclusion instead, this agreement shifts the ANZUS Treaty’s Pacific Ocean focus to one that encompasses the Indo-Pacific and Atlantic Oceans too. It is an arrangement with global reach and profound, long-term implications.

There is much to unpack from this far-reaching announcement. It was only known publicly that a major announcement was coming less than 24 hours beforehand. In the slick promotional video that preceded remarks by Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison, UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson and finally US President Joe Biden, the fact that the three nations are democracies was touted as a defining and unifying feature.

Yet the publics of the three nations were kept in the dark about what was afoot, and were instead presented a fait d’accompli. “AUKUS is born”, Morrison declared. Few knew it was even in gestation.

The secrecy surrounding AUKUS is troubling given its significance, especially for Australia. These stakes were clearly demarcated in today’s White House press briefing ahead of the formal leaders’ announcement. AUKUS in its scope and aims:

• binds decisively Australia to the United States and Great Britain for generations.

To further underscore the significance for Australia, the US spokesperson described AUKUS as:

• the biggest strategic step Australia has taken in generations.

The most significant component of AUKUS announced so far is that Australia will acquire nuclear-powered submarines. The US and the UK have shared this nuclear technology in an arrangement dating back to 1958.

 

[Fluff]

And what is your basis for raising this potential "red herring" argument? How do you know that there are not clauses addressing such? It is also very likely that in the situation whereby the USA (or UK for that matter given this thread is supposedly about AUKUS) were to launch an attack on China, that Australia would also willing participate.

How is it a "red herring"? How does the question mislead or distract? Have they been informed or not? Are there restrictions on the US from launching attacks? I've certainly not seen any discussion of the potential consequences or analysis of the actual treaty in the press at all, all I've seen is the Australian nuclear subs cover story and Dutton mumbling something about no nuclear weapons. Hard to argue it's not relevant.

Enough with the thinly veiled and tiresome anti-US posts! I am an Australian...

Which is interesting because you're aware of the history of both the UK and the US in their dealings with Australia, right?

So if I understand your point, you think the 3 countries should spell out, to the world, the exact rules of engagement? You see this tactically as a good idea? Have you ever played Chess?

And If China is already threatening to strike Australia, you think this is ok, all fine? Has Australia threatened to Strike China? I think you will find its a defensive agreement. If I was in aus, every time China threatened to strike, I would order another 6 F-35, or a mini-carrier, or another submarine.

I'm assuming you mean only the negative dealings? Your aware that the UK created the modern Australian state?

 

[Fluff]

I think some of these comments read like CCP propaganda 101.

Australia is a sovereign nation, and not some backwater statelet you can buy with trinkets. So I'd assume they are aware of the content and largely initiated the treaty. All parties see benefits, which we have discussed. There will be future deals, and I'd hope in both directions, such as Loyal wingman.

The fact that China doesnt like it, doh........

 

[jeffb]

So if I understand your point, you think the 3 countries should spell out, to the world, the exact rules of engagement? You see this tactically as a good idea? Have you ever played Chess?

Have you? You can see all the pieces all the time.

 

[Fluff]

So if I understand your point, you think the 3 countries should spell out, to the world, the exact rules of engagement? You see this tactically as a good idea? Have you ever played Chess?

Have you? You can see all the pieces all the time.

Then our understanding of chess is very different.

I like to discuss the broad church of these issues, and I appreciate the forbearance of the admins on what is a specific focused site, but even I tire.

I note you ignore my comments on China behaviour, usually a sign of a person being sponsored, IMHO.

 

[Arjen]

a person being sponsored, IMHO.

Unlikely.

 

[jeffb]

So if I understand your point, you think the 3 countries should spell out, to the world, the exact rules of engagement? You see this tactically as a good idea? Have you ever played Chess?

Have you? You can see all the pieces all the time.

Then our understanding of chess is very different.

I like to discuss the broad church of these issues, and I appreciate the forbearance of the admins on what is a specific focused site, but even I tire.

I note you ignore my comments on China behaviour, usually a sign of a person being sponsored, IMHO.

Sorry Fluff, I'm having trouble following your logic. I didn't actually divine any comments on China's behavior out of your posts and your comment about Chess went over my head as well. Were you talking about revealing strategy?

You're coming across as angry now and I don't understand why.

 

[Fluff]

So if I understand your point, you think the 3 countries should spell out, to the world, the exact rules of engagement? You see this tactically as a good idea? Have you ever played Chess?

Have you? You can see all the pieces all the time.

Then our understanding of chess is very different.

I like to discuss the broad church of these issues, and I appreciate the forbearance of the admins on what is a specific focused site, but even I tire.

I note you ignore my comments on China behaviour, usually a sign of a person being sponsored, IMHO.

Sorry Fluff, I'm having trouble following your logic. I didn't actually divine any comments on China's behavior out of your posts and your comment about Chess went over my head as well. Were you talking about revealing strategy?

You're coming across as angry now and I don't understand why.

Sorry, I'm not specifically pointing at your posts, just some posts really sound like the poster must mention:

- bad america
-foolish Australians
- westerners dont like bloodshed for another country
- china strong, can threaten anyone

on chess, yes, you can of course see both sides pieces, but not their plan. Why would the 3 countries tell china what their plan is, plus they dont have much of a plan, its a deterrent, not a direct threat. Back to chess, the deal gets more pieces on the board, thats all it does.

I'm not angry, just annoyed to see such posts, which dont feel like real dialog, or discussion, most people would agree with some points, disagree with other points, offer an alternative etc. Posts which suggest or rather state, that Aus is stupid arent IMHO very 'good'

I dont think china is stupid for building a navy, it has every right to, as aus has every right to make a deal with uk and US.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

The topic is locked. This was a decision validated by me as the forum owner, as one moderator was involved in the discussion. AUKUS has technology implications, but these are not being debated, its all about China, US, and Australian politics. My posts trying to guide the discussion away from politics fell on deaf ears. I get that people want to discuss topics like this, but fundamentally, underlying political differences keep spilling over into public arguments with no possible resolution, which impacts negatively on the forum overall.

 

[GTX]

After consultation amongst the Moderation Team, it has been decided to re-open this thread as a NEWS ONLY Thread. This means that any commentary/arguments/opinions other than news will be deleted. The only exceptions will be where someone adds something to explain/add to a particular news article. News means the likes of articles. Do not try to post youtube videos or similar where someone is just having a rant or providing an opinion.

 

[GTX]

AUKUS Partners to Develop Common Control System for Drones - Naval News

During Exercises off the Australian Coast the AUKUS partners progressed the goal of an AUKUS Common Control System.

www.navalnews.com

 

[GTX]

AUKUS FORUM | Issue 3

AUKUS Issue 3 FORUM Dec 2023 NEWS NUCLEAR EXPERTISE ADDED TO ADVISORY BOARD Jasmin Diab joins the AUKUS FORUM Advisory Board INDO PAC REINFORCES NEED FOR the FORUM The Hon Arthur Sinodinos AO, Regional industry shares his observations...

www.calameo.com

 

[GTX]

 

[GTX]

5 stories from 2023 on the historic AUKUS security pact - Breaking Defense

Even before the big announcement from the heads of state in March, 2023 has been filled with AUKUS news.

breakingdefense.com

 

[GTX]

How Australia, The UK And U.S. Are Creating The Next Big Military Alliance | Aviation Week Network

By streamlining defense collaboration in key emerging technologies, the AUKUS nations aim to develop “integrated deterrence” in the Indo-Pacific.

aviationweek.com

 

[GTX]

From a few months ago:

Navy takes early steps with Australian, UK vendors on shared sub work

The U.S. Navy is increasing its submarine work with Australian and British firms, even as it awaits passage of four key measures to enable AUKUS.

www.defensenews.com

 

[GTX]

Huge milestone for Adelaide’s nuclear submarine shipyard

 

[GTX]

New Zealand to explore AUKUS benefits, boost security ties with Australia

 

[GTX]

'Non-negotiable': New Zealand's prime minister reveals red line on AUKUS involvement

New Zealand's new prime minister has chosen Australia for his first international trip in the job, visiting Sydney on a one-day tour.

www.sbs.com.au

 

[GTX]

AUKUS Ends Year on High with Submarine Construction Milestone

The Albanese Government has taken the next significant step towards building nuclear-powered submarines in Australia, marking the commencement of

www.miragenews.com

 

[Archibald]

New Zealand to explore AUKUS benefits, boost security ties with Australia

"And you ? Do you find it... lisible ? When I plonounce the new acclonym... NEZAUKUS... NZAUKUS ? "

 

[Scott Kenny]

"And you ? Do you find it... lisible ? When I plonounce the new acclonym... NEZAUKUS... NZAUKUS ? "

I'd go for ANZUKUS, spoken kinda like "ANZACs"

I think NZ's "No Nukes" line is going to make it hard for them to join.

 

[GTX]

I'd go for ANZUKUS, spoken kinda like "ANZACs"

I think NZ's "No Nukes" line is going to make it hard for them to join.

Possibly. As per the article above, the new PM Chris Luxon has reaffirmed New Zealand's "non-negotiable" nuclear-free position. That said, there is talk of them just joining pillar 2. One will have to see. There has also been talk of Japan and others doing the same. See the following for some discussion on this topic:

Is ‘AUKUS Plus’ a Viable Option?

The absence of an Asian voice in an Indo-Pacific security alliance does not bode well. How can AUKUS include other states?

thediplomat.com

Canada hopes to join Aukus defence pact, says report

Ottawa ‘highly interested’ in joining group amid fears country could be shut out of intelligence and tech sharing

www.theguardian.com

AUKUS sub deal is one pillar of regional security

AUKUS can be a bulwark of regional security, but it will be even more effective with additional partners, Japan among them.

www.japantimes.co.jp

Japan and South Korea should be invited to join Aukus, UK parliamentary committee says

Influential UK foreign affairs select committee recommends Japan and South Korea join the security partnership to develop critical technology

www.theguardian.com

'Door is open' for New Zealand to join AUKUS, Blinken says

“We've long worked together on the most important national security issues, and so as we further develop AUKUS, as I said, the door is open to engagement,” Blinken said.

www.politico.com

 

[BlackBat242]

I fully expect Japan to graduate to SSNs in the not too distant future... considering that nuclear power generation plants have been in service in significant numbers there starting in 1966.

• Up until 2011, Japan was generating some 30% of electricity from its reactors and this was expected to increase to at least 40% by 2017. The plan is now for at least 20% by 2030, from a depleted fleet.
• The first two reactors restarted in August and October 2015, with a further nine having restarted since. 16 reactors are currently in the process of restart approval.

Nuclear Power in Japan - World Nuclear Association

Japan needs to import some 90% of its energy requirements. Nuclear energy has been a national strategic priority since 1973. Following the 2011 Fukushima accident this policy was reviewed and reaffirmed.

world-nuclear.org

 

[Scott Kenny]

Possibly. As per the article above, the new PM Chris Luxon has reaffirmed New Zealand's "non-negotiable" nuclear-free position. That said, there is talk of them just joining pillar 2. One will have to see.

Kinda hard to consider a military alliance when one of the "allies" won't allow the ships of the other into their waters.

NZ law requires a statement that there are no nukes onboard, US law prohibits such a statement.

There has also been talk of Japan and others doing the same.

Japan and RoK would be good allies, if they could do something about the bad blood between the two.

 

[GTX]

AUKUS inflection point: Building the ecosystem for workforce development

 

[GTX]

AUKUS: Impossible to Break – Strengthening Deterrence in the Indo-Pacific

Image Source: Australian Insitute of International Affairs Announced in September 2021, AUKUS is a trilateral security partnership between the United States, Australia, and the United Kingdom. The …

georgetownsecuritystudiesreview.org

 

[GTX]

Even more US-Australia submarine collaboration on the horizon

The new year will bring new work between the two navies.

www.defensenews.com