There has been much talk in Europe about the extreme that the founders of AUKUS have given to France. The bankruptcy of a contract of EUR 31 billion is not easy to forgive. But equally painful is that France outside the AUKUS, the European Union’s only nuclear power after ‘Brexit’ in the Pacific.

John Keiger, professor of English history, has defined the creation of the II AUKUS. Inside the Anglosfera club underway since the World War, AUKUS plus New Zealand and Canada. “The members of AUKUS surely wanted France to be included as well, because it has a lot to offer in diplomacy and in the military sphere, a strong armed with ships and submarine weapons, a smart and physical presence in the South Pacific. But when it comes to reacting to Fite, he would surely be very committed to the cultural tendency they have to define each measure and every decision.” In England it looks like an interpretation that can be sold well.

The vision of AUKUS has been very different in an interview given by former Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd to the German Der Spiegel. The Australian government has given its military strategy an 180º turn in a short time. Rudd of the Labour Party, in 2009, as its Prime Minister, launched the “White Paper for Defence” to define Australia’s strategic needs. The last report proposed, among its main conclusions, the construction of 12 conventional submarine vessels, which will make Australia the second largest submarine fleet in East Asia.

“Eight years later – says Rudd – they suddenly decide to move to nuclear-powered submarines, at night and covertly have removed the contract that the French company Naval Group won in 2016 fulfilling the requirements of the “White Paper for Defence”. These sudden changes are not of the nature of the Australians, we do not act like this. If you have changed your mind and decided to order conventional fuel packaging by nuclear packaging, you are obliged to tell France that you have changed your requirements and invite you in the new call. Because the French are also able to build and maintain divers powered by nuclear.”

The French Naval Group initially offered the submarines Shortfin Barracuda powered by nuclear power, but as Australia had opted for petrol engines, the company had to adapt the submarines to these conditions, with the consequent delay. After the kick of AUKUS, former Minister Rudd has only questions: “If we do not have a nuclear industry in Australia, how are we going to supply the new submarines? (…) If the supply is to be made by EE.UU. and also in EE.UU. Will these atomic submarines be just one unit of the U.S. Navy, rather than being the strategic branch of Australia’s independent and autonomous army?”

Three or six tons of very pure uranium

Moon of Alabama, one of the most refined analysts of international politics, brings forward from these questions an in-depth explanation of the AUKUS move. Australia, by replacing petrol engines with those driven by atomic energy, will achieve quieter, faster submarines that will last much longer without the need to research for fuel. However, these containers are larger and much more expensive, 50% more expensive. They will need new docks and infrastructure and much more sophisticated crew preparation.

Australia, for its part, does not have a nuclear industry to supply them, so in maintenance they will also depend on the Yankees. Another important point, since we have to have three military ships so that one can only patrol at sea, the other two at the port of maintenance or conversion, Australia always had four of the twelve conventional ships, but with the ones driven by nuclear weapons it can only take two or three out at sea.

“Given everything, Moon of Alabama says, you can’t see at all what Australia has won. So what has led to that step? The only reason Australia faces China politically and militarily is the blackmail of the United States.” China is very much Australia’s biggest partner in its transactions and is not interested in getting angry with it. To draw attention to the Australians, two years ago from the United States he attended the advisor John Mearsheimer at a public video conference: “Some Australians may think there is an alternative alignment with China. OK, you have it at your disposal, rather than going with China with the United States. But I'm going to tell you one thing about this. If you are with China, you have to know that you are our enemies, you have decided to be enemies of the United States. Because there is great competition in the field of security.”

In the AUKUS presentation, Joe Bidene had repeatedly forgotten the name of the Australian Prime Minister. Australian Scott Morrison did not forget that of Gough Whitlam, Labour Prime Minister to whom the United States and the United Kingdom hit in 1975.Lo we count on a Nearby Net of 2020. “So,” says Moon of Alabama, this is the summary of this salsa: Australia has not aligned with the United States to protect itself from China, but to defend itself from the United States.” Bad news for everyone, as Sébastien Philippe has shown at the prestigious Bulletin of Atomic Scientists. See numbers. If the new submarine atoms that Canberra will buy are moved by very rich uranium (Highly Ennriched Uranium HEU), they will consume three or six tons of uranium in 30 years of work, either imported from the United States or produced in Australia, all treaties to prevent the proliferation of fired nuclear weapons.

Imagine how the heads of the International Atomic Energy Agency sweat when the Australians quote you: three or six tons of uranium HEU. Do you remember how little squishy is ignited by Iran's atomic purposes? Iran is talking about producing… 25 kilos of HEU uranium. AUKUS has signed that Australia will have and will use 200 times these products.