The AUKUS pact, hailed as Australia's ticket to great-power status with nuclear-powered submarines, is teetering on the edge of collapse. The Trump administration's "America First" review, led by sceptics like Elbridge Colby, signals that the US may not deliver the promised Virginia-class submarines, or worse, could abandon the deal entirely. This isn't just a hiccup; it's a glaring neon sign that Australia's decades-long dependence on the US is a liability in the face of China's relentless rise. The time for clinging to Uncle Sam's coattails is over. If AUKUS falls apart, Australia must take a radical step: develop its own nuclear weapons to deter China and secure its future as a sovereign, grown-up nation!
Let's cut the bs. China's military build-up is staggering, over 370 naval ships, a growing nuclear arsenal projected to hit 1,000 warheads by 2030, and an aggressive posture in the South China Sea and Taiwan Strait. Beijing's influence in the Pacific, from Solomon Islands to Vanuatu, is creeping closer to Australia's doorstep. This isn't Berlin-to-Sydney distance nonsense; it's a strategic encirclement that threatens Australia's trade routes, regional influence, and national security. Without AUKUS's submarines, Australia's aging Collins-class fleet is a sitting duck, incapable of projecting power or deterring Chinese advances. Relying on geography alone is delusional when China's missiles and navy can reach far beyond its shores.
Nuclear weapons are the ultimate equalizer. A credible Australian nuclear deterrent, like a dozen warheads with long-range delivery systems, would force China to think twice before flexing its muscles near Australia's interests. Look at North Korea: a pariah state with a handful of nukes keeps superpowers at bay. Australia, with its vast uranium reserves (30% of global supply) and scientific know-how, could achieve similar deterrence, tailored to its needs.
Straining ties with the US is a concern, but let's get real: the US is already straining the relationship itself. Tariffs on Australian goods, threats to ditch AUKUS, and Trump's "big, beautiful ocean" rhetoric show Washington's priorities lie at home, not in Canberra's backyard. The US has its own submarine shortages and a political climate that screams isolationism. Betting Australia's survival on a fickle ally is not just naïve, it's reckless as Paul Keating maintains. I hate to agree with anything Paul Keating says, but he is right on this one.
Yes, pursuing nuclear weapons might ruffle feathers in Washington. The US could grumble about proliferation, maybe even threaten to scale back intelligence-sharing or basing rights. But compared to the existential threat of a China-dominated Indo-Pacific, that's a price worth paying. The US respects strength, and a nuclear-armed Australia would demand respect as a true partner, not a weak dependent. Besides, if AUKUS is dead, the US has already broken faith, why should Australia cling to a one-sided alliance?
Australia's commitment to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) is a sticking point, but let's not fetishize it. The NPT hasn't stopped North Korea, Iran, or others from pursuing their interests, and major powers like China and Russia exploit its loopholes while expanding their arsenals. Withdrawing from the NPT would spark diplomatic backlash, sure, Japan and New Zealand might clutch their pearls, but survival trumps sentimentality. Australia could frame its nuclear pursuit as a necessary response to a collapsing US security guarantee and China's unchecked aggression. A clear, transparent case to the world could mitigate some of the fallout.
Domestically, the Greens and Labor might balk, but public opinion can shift when national security is at stake. Explain to Australians that without AUKUS, they're defenceless against a superpower 5,000 miles away, and the nuclear option starts looking less like madness and more like maturity.
Australia isn't starting from zero. It has the world's largest uranium reserves, a robust scientific community, and a defence budget (A$50 billion annually) that could be redirected. Developing a nuclear arsenal wouldn't be quick, estimate 10-15 years for a basic capability, but it's feasible with focus. Key steps include:
Uranium Enrichment: Build a domestic enrichment facility, leveraging Australia's uranium wealth. Partner with private sector firms like Silex Systems, which already explore laser enrichment technology.
Warhead Development: Recruit expertise from allies (discreetly) or repurpose civilian nuclear research. Australia's Lucas Heights reactor could be a starting point for R&D.
Delivery Systems: Invest in long-range missiles or repurpose existing platforms (e.g., F-35s or future drones) for nuclear payloads. Australia's shipbuilding capacity, already geared for AUKUS, could adapt for missile submarines and/or advanced drones.
Regional Messaging: Signal to China that any aggression will face catastrophic consequences, while reassuring neighbours like Indonesia that Australia's arsenal is defensive.
South Korea's latent nuclear capability shows it's possible for a middle power to prepare without immediate weaponisation. Australia could follow a similar "breakout" strategy, building infrastructure while maintaining ambiguity to avoid premature backlash.
Critics will cry that nuclearisation is provocative, expensive, or diplomatically suicidal. But what's the alternative? Clinging to a dying AUKUS dream while China's navy sails circles around Australia's obsolete submarines? Doubling down on conventional defences that can't match China's scale? Or worse, cosying up to Beijing, as Paul Keating might suggest, and surrendering Australia's sovereignty without a fight? This is the most likely position of the Labor Party and Greens at the end of the day. The old World War II "Brisbane line" would move to Antarctica.
Nuclear weapons aren't a panacea, but they're a statement: Australia is done being the kid at the geopolitical table. Nukes signal to China, the US, and the world that Australia can defend itself, no babysitter required. If AUKUS collapses, it's not a crisis, it's an opportunity to grow up. A nuclear-armed Australia would deter China, secure its Pacific interests, and redefine its place in the world.
The question isn't whether Australia can afford to go nuclear, it's whether it can afford not to!