Do you remember the once-popular AUKUS nuclear submarine plan involving the US, UK, and Australia a few years ago? This military procurement project, which was dubbed "the largest in Australian history," is finally approaching its historic conclusion - the US is considering terminating the project. Looking back, Australia sacrificed its deal with France to build 12 conventional submarines, angering China in the process, and paid a large sum of money to help the Pentagon upgrade nuclear submarine infrastructure. Then what did Australia gain from it?

All countries that follow the US blindly should seriously consider this question.

In the past, the US, UK, and Australia announced the establishment of a new security alliance named "AUKUS," choosing a "Virginia-class" attack nuclear submarine as the background for their press conference.

Bloomberg reported on the 11th that the "Pentagon is considering scrapping the 'AUKUS' nuclear submarine agreement signed with Australia and the UK." It was reported that the US Department of Defense has initiated a review of the relevant agreement. In 2021, the Morrison government of Australia suddenly announced the cancellation of its super deal with France to construct 12 conventional submarines (for which they paid a large compensation, damaging relations with France), and instead joined the US and UK in announcing the establishment of a new security alliance named "AUKUS." The core project involves the US and UK providing nuclear submarine technology to Australia, assisting them in building a large fleet of nuclear submarines.

Specifically, the US will provide Australia with three "Virginia-class" attack nuclear submarines in the early 2030s, with the possibility of providing two additional units if necessary. Subsequently, with US technical support, Australia will jointly develop the "AUKUS"-type attack nuclear submarines with the UK. The UK will begin equipping this new type of submarine by the end of the 2030s, while infrastructure-poor Australia may not receive its domestically built version until the early 2040s.

Therefore, whether in terms of time span or cost, the "AUKUS" nuclear submarine agreement can be called Australia's "century project" - according to estimates by the Australian government, by 2055, Australia is expected to spend 368 billion Australian dollars on purchasing nuclear-powered submarines.

Australia also shares part of the research and development costs for the UK's new generation of attack nuclear submarines.

It should be noted that at that time, Australia had absolutely no experience in constructing, maintaining, operating nuclear submarines, nor any supporting facilities, and even lacked technical talent in nuclear facilities. Everything had to start from scratch, so the AUKUS nuclear submarine plan faced numerous criticisms from the very beginning, being accused of "betting Australia's national destiny." However, despite the controversy, the Morrison government persisted in promoting the project, frequently citing the "China threat" as a reason, actively serving as a vanguard for the US "Indo-Pacific Strategy," and safeguarding hegemonism and power politics centered around the US.

Even more laughable was that, to ensure timely delivery of nuclear submarines from the US, Australia provided an extra $2 billion to help American shipbuilding companies improve their infrastructure...

However, times have changed. After the Morrison government fell, opposition voices within Australia surged. Hugh White, former deputy minister for strategy and intelligence at the Australian Department of Defense, stated that the "AUKUS" plan itself was a bad idea for Australia. He said, "This plan ties Australia to the immature China-containment strategy of the Biden administration, which cannot possibly succeed but increases the risk of catastrophic war. The sooner we reduce losses and exit the 'AUKUS' plan, the better. If Trump's administration provides such an opportunity, we should seize it."

Bloomberg reported that even the US has lost interest in the project. The US nuclear submarine construction plan has long been plagued by delays and cost overruns. Some officials during the Trump administration expressed skepticism about the rationality of the plan. Two anonymous US defense officials revealed that this review is being led by the third-ranking official at the Pentagon, Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Colin Kahl. He previously publicly questioned the value of the project. Last year, he criticized the project as "insane" on social media.

In fact, from the US perspective, losing interest in the "AUKUS" nuclear submarine plan is quite normal - the US attack nuclear submarine fleet is under urgent pressure for renewal and replacement. According to plans, the Navy needs to commission two new "Virginia-class" attack nuclear submarines annually just to barely meet demand, but the current actual production rate is only an average of 1.4 per year. Given that the US Navy cannot meet its own nuclear submarine needs, it is understandable that the Pentagon would not welcome Australia's request for three additional "Virginia-class" nuclear submarines.

As for the claim that Australia's nuclear submarines could assist the US Navy in operations, in the eyes of the Pentagon, such "assistance" is far too distant - the Australian Navy, lacking any relevant foundation, does not know when it will become proficient in the daily operation and maintenance of nuclear submarines. Instead of relying on unreliable Australian nuclear submarines for assistance, it would be better to let these submarines play a greater role in the hands of the US Navy itself...

Thus, the current predicament of the "AUKUS" nuclear submarine plan was indeed "expected" by all parties involved. Looking back at this "century project" for Australia, the US and the UK gained some extra funds from Australia; although France did not secure the previous submarine contract, Australia did pay some compensation; only Australia, after several years of折腾, ended up "losing both face and fortune" and found itself "between a rock and a hard place."

Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Lin Jian responded on the 12th, stating that China has repeatedly expressed its stance on the so-called "trilateral security partnership" established by the US, UK, and Australia, and the advancement of nuclear submarine and other cutting-edge military technology cooperation. We consistently oppose the creation of bloc confrontation and increasing the risk of nuclear proliferation, and we oppose the arms race.

Council of Ten/Driver Ma Shitao

Original article: https://www.toutiao.com/article/7515087744159433266/

Disclaimer: This article solely represents the author's personal views. Please express your attitude by clicking the "like/dislike" buttons below.