Experts’ chilling warning Australia is at greater risk of nuclear attack under controversial security pact
A public inquiry into the AUKUS security pact has heard warnings from military and policy experts that the agreement makes Australia more likely to be attacked, potentially with nuclear weapons, and increases the risk it could be drawn into a war between the United States and China. Former senior officials Michael Keating and Jon Stanford told the crowd-funded inquiry that policies of "integrated deterrence" and "pooled sovereignty" under AUKUS give Washington greater access to Australian military facilities without granting Australia equivalent control, effectively tying the country's defence strategy to the US.
The pair pointed to the build-up of US military infrastructure in Australia, including facilities for US nuclear-powered submarines at the HMAS Stirling base in Western Australia, where around 1,000 US Navy personnel are due to be stationed from next year, as a factor that could make Australia a prime military target. They also noted Australia lacks a formal US defence guarantee, unlike allies such as Japan, the Philippines and South Korea, and cited former French foreign minister Jean-Yves Le Drian's criticism of Australia's 2021 decision to scrap a $90 billion submarine deal with France in favour of AUKUS. The pair urged the government to abandon AUKUS submarines in favour of alternatives such as low-enriched uranium-powered vessels from France or South Korea. The independent inquiry, led by former politician Peter Garrett with backing from the Australia Peace and Security Forum, also heard from former home affairs secretary Mike Pezzullo, who argued Australia should deepen military integration with the US while retaining independent decision-making power over entering conflicts.
In short
- Experts warn AUKUS raises Australia's risk of nuclear attack
- Pact ties Australia's defence strategy closely to the US
- Inquiry hears calls to abandon AUKUS submarines for alternatives
Steelman: both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Critics argue that AUKUS gives the United States greater access to Australian bases and facilities without giving Australia comparable control, potentially drawing it into a US–China conflict. They say the increased military presence could make Australia a target while the country lacks a formal US defence guarantee, and that alternative submarine options could preserve more independence.
The case against
Supporters argue that AUKUS strengthens Australia’s ability to deter conflict through closer cooperation with the United States and the United Kingdom, and that shared facilities and capabilities can improve defence readiness. They may see the alliance as a practical response to a more challenging regional security environment, with deeper integration offering protection rather than making Australia more vulnerable.
Explained simply
AUKUS is a security partnership between Australia, the United States and the United Kingdom, announced in 2021. Its best-known plan is to help Australia acquire nuclear-powered submarines, which use nuclear reactors for propulsion but are not nuclear-armed.
The partnership also involves closer military co-operation and greater use of Australian facilities by US forces. Supporters see this as strengthening defence ties; critics question how much control Australia retains over decisions that could involve it in a conflict.
The debate matters because Australia’s relationship with the US and China affects its defence planning and regional security. Australia has no formal US defence guarantee, and its submarine plans also replaced a major agreement with France, which drew criticism from French officials.
Americas Art Culture Government Politics World