This article takes approximately 5 minutes to read.
Take the time to support us by sharing our work to friends and families.
2021 has become apparent that it is not the year of fortune for the majority, but instead brought unemployment, misleading statements, anti-vaccine persons, lockdowns, COVID-19 and great political foul play within governments around the globe. The words “Cold War” and or “Tepid War” are terms used to label a state of political confrontations between nations which does not directly enforce militaristic action but instead the use of propaganda, economical deficits, espionage or proxy wars.
Mentioning the term Cold War commonly refers to the American-Soviet Cold War, which took place from 1947-1991. However, with the growing concern of China and its control over the world, especially within the Indo-Pacific and Australia actions against them may be consider such a war. Therefore, introducing a dynamic power state which may dictate a new world order.
AUKUS (standing for Australia, United Kingdom and the United States) is a trilateral security agreement between these three nations. The AUKUS agreement allows Australia to be introduced to exclusive technology which only six other nations posses in their naval armament, this being nuclear submarines.
Australia, (unlike the other two countries) does not have any connections to nuclear power nor weaponry. Instead, Australia has approximately one third of the worlds’ uranium resource, thus making them the third ranking producer globally. In addition, America is the largest importer of uranium from Australia, accounting for over half of the final demand (including both direct exports, and exports that are processed in third countries).
The technology being introduced to Australia from the United Kingdom and the United States was recently announced in mid-September 2021 alongside each of their leaders; “that fella down under” (Scott Morrison), Joe Biden and Boris Johnson.
With the new nuclear submarines coming into Australia (which will be manufactured in South Australia), it has aroused many concerns and misconceptions with it. The new deal will cost taxpayers (under their initial estimate) of AU$100B however, the deal may see a much higher rise in cost, upwards of billions. This would be due to an incompetent failed government Australia has and the Morrison’s Government insurances of maelstrom of waste and spending.
This similar scenario was seen with Lockheed Martin and its Joint Strike Fighter, the F-35. Which was a sovereign risk and a spill of billions of taxpayer money, “A costly failure” said Heather Wilson, the then secretary of the US Air Force.
Nuclear Subs
F-35
After the foolery announcement of AUKUS, France withdrew its ambassador from Australia and began to rightfully bash Australia through press conferences.
Before this submarine deal was publically announced to the globe, Australia had a 14-year (2007) contract with France for its Future Submarine Program (FSP) – known as Project SEA 1000. This contract was won by the French Naval Group (formerly known as DCNS) and had an initial cost of AU$50B, even this had debate for being too good to be true.
Rear Admiral Greg Sammut had to concede in an estimates hearing before Australian senators that another AU$50 billion would be required to sustain the submarines for the duration of their operating life.
“Many of the detailed costs of acquisition and sustainment will be determined during the design process through choices made but at this point early estimation of the sustainment costs for the fleet are of the order of up to $50 billion on a constant price basis.”
A month or so after visiting France, Paris to discuss this French Submarine deal, Scott Morrison closed the deal without discussing such matters further with France. Being rightfully upset, France was essentially ditched out of a AU$90B contract for diesel powered submarines classified as the Collin Class Submarines, which definitely had downfalls but did practically destroy an American Submarine during war games. Since 2020, there have been reports indicating that such matters of a divorce between France and Australia would occur and that Australia had been planning an option B just in case the previous deal had flopped.
"The Government's own advisory body, including three American admirals, even recommended the Government should consider walking away from the project,"
China is a growing power globally. They are a leading manufacture, posses multiple nuclear vessels and armaments, with also the power capability. Housing roughly over a billion people, China has a population which has a mandatory military service (something Australia does not). The Morrison government is hoping that China will launch an attack on Taiwan, which will then enlist in the US protecting Taiwan, thus Australia following the US into ‘glorious’ battle.
Throughout the new reign of Xi Jinping, there has been many atrocities committed by the Chines Government, such as human rights offenses (such as killing a portion of the Muslim population). In addition, they are leading a new frontier of the world, by investing heavily into developing nations with infrastructure or aiding the Taliban with funding, and they’ve also bought large capacities of Australia’s water from the Morrison Government and ports.
Currently, Scott Morrison is playing a game which may endanger everyone with a war, a war comparative to a local tribe with sticks to a full fledge, futuristic militia.
Many details are still unknown with the AUKUS agreement. Because Australia will now have the technology of nuclear reactors in the submarines, which could lead Australia to create power reactors or even nuclear weaponry (although they say differently). Although Australia is a part of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), there are still loopholes which the Morrison Government may take advantage of. Because of Australia’s new addition of nuclear submarines, it has now become a target to China with the potential of being struck with nuclear weaponry.
Australia should switch to fully invest into better defense programs which are headed and operated by Australians for Australians to infuse complete sovereignty which would eliminate competition of other nations, all that would need to be done is better investing into education and defense sectors. Maybe it’s time for a referendum to be held to see what the 2021 onwards citizens of Australia to vote for nuclear power.
If this Cold War extends into a duplicated atrocity, then you will see a grasp of power towards authoritarianism, greater to what it is now. Australia will become an easy target through the naval scene, however, as Paul Keating has said, ‘wars are won on the land’ compared to the water.
The US, UK, Canada, India, Taiwan and so forth would be nations which would play a role into establishing an offensive position into a war. While the possible opposition would include, Indonesia, North Korea, Russia, Afghanistan, other Middle Eastern nations and African nations.
A notable omission in the AUKUS agreement was New Zealand, and their long-standing ANZUS treaty. This would be due New Zealand being sensible with not antagonising their largest trading partner, China.
New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Adern has publicly said in the awakening of the AUKUS line up that they won’t let the nuclear submarines into their waters. Jacinda Adern is a leader which has the competency and sensibility to ask the people of her nation if they were to tear up billions of ancient military hardware and hold nuclear submarines in their harbours near homes.
It appears to not be about fighting the rise of China but instead a political agenda and game for the Morrison Government to gain election points and seize the opportunity to look tough.
“I suspect there was a domestic political agenda at play, which was for Scott Morrison to make himself look big, important and hairy-chested in dealing with his domestic Australian political audience on the nature of the China challenge,”
“If the United States military with all its might could not beat a bunch of Taliban rebels with AK47 rifles in pickup trucks, what chance would it have in a full blown war against China, not only the biggest state in the world but the commander and occupant of the largest land mass in Asia?”
While fighting a guerilla force is somewhat different to a conventional armed force, the point still stands that they are wildly different and will use different means to successfully win a war. Also, realistically, the Taliban has decades of experience with unconventional fighting, whereas China is just a figure.
There is a drastic difference between not knowing the enemy and knowing the enemy.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Coati & Dolphin acknowledges that we operate on First Nations land. We recognise the ongoing connection Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people have with Country throughout this continent since time immemorial. We recognise the Turrbal people in which lands we operate on.