Quentin Parker

Opinion | Hysteria over Aukus nuclear-powered submarines is off the mark

Some have misunderstood the plan as involving nuclear-armed submarines; others that it amounts to nuclear proliferation

The greater concerns are the eye-watering costs to the Australian taxpayer, the unhelpful political messaging from the commentariat, and the significant environmental considerations

Reading Time:3 minutes

Why you can trust SCMP

Quentin Parker

Published: 1:00am, 24 Mar 2023Updated: 2:34am, 24 Mar 2023

There has been much media coverage and an almost hysterical reaction from various quarters surrounding the controversial Aukus nuclear submarine deal. It is clear the political implications at least are highly significant as three strong and historically traditional “Anglo-Saxon” allies – Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States – come together under the Aukus umbrella in what is touted as a historic defence accord focused on the Pacific.

An editorial in the Post said it is clear that “the plan amounts to nuclear proliferation” – but it is not, as many readers have been only too happy to point out in their comments.

First, whether this decision is helpful in furthering world peace or prudent in the current geopolitical climate is not for me, a mere scientist, to judge. For me, the greater concerns are the eye-watering costs to the Australian taxpayer, the often clumsy and unhelpful political messaging from the commentariat, and the significant environmental considerations.

The issues surrounding the processing and storage of spent reactor fuel are arguably more important than the ramp-up in military capability for a mid-ranking power like Australia, which in any event would be unlikely to act unilaterally in any great power game.

Indeed, Australia, as part of the deal, should have argued strongly for any spent reactors to be taken back to the US for storage after the submarine’s working life is over – especially for the three Virginia-class US submarines Australia will purchase to start with by the 2030s, with the option to buy two more.

After all, these vessels are all American built and currently remain on the US’ inventories. They were all presumably already included in the US’ forward planning for eventual decommissioning and disposal, so why not let that process continue?