With a newly formed defence alliance with Britain and the United States, Australia has formally embarked on a hotly contested programme to equip its naval forces with nuclear submarines.

The agreement is the first to be signed publicly since the three countries announced in September the formation of a defence alliance, AUKUS, to confront strategic tensions in the Pacific, where China and the US are at odds.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/aukus-deal-may-spark-off-race-to-acquire-nuclear-submarines-warns-iaea-chief-422298">AUKUS deal may spark off race to acquire nuclear submarines, warns IAEA chief</a>

Defence Minister Peter Dutton and diplomats from the United States and the United Kingdom signed an agreement that allows for the exchange of sensitive "naval nuclear propulsion information" between their nations.

"The agreement will permit cooperation, which will further improve our mutual defence posture," US President Joe Biden said in a statement on Friday ahead of Dutton's signing ceremony in Canberra with US Charge d'Affaires Michael Goldman and British High Commissioner (ambassador) Victoria Treadell.

Watch |&nbsp;Gravitas: Is the West dumping Quad for Aukus?

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/gravitas-is-the-west-dumping-quad-for-aukus-413630/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

The AUKUS deal will provide Australia with eight state-of-the-art, nuclear submarines capable of long-range missions. In addition, the agreement allows for the sharing of cyber, artificial intelligence, quantum, and unspecified undersea capabilities.

Beijing has expressed anger about the agreement, describing it as an "extremely irresponsible" threat to the region's stability.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/french-ambassador-accuses-australia-of-deceit-over-submarine-deal-426382">French ambassador accuses Australia of deceit over submarine deal</a>

France was also infuriated by the move, after finding out at the last moment that its own diesel-electric submarine contract with Australia, which was estimated to be worth $65 billion has been scrapped.&nbsp;

Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison has stood by his handling of the agreement. Unapologetic, he states that it was in his country's national interest and that he knew that the agreement was bound to ruffle some feathers.

With a newly formed defence alliance with Britain and the United States, Australia has formally embarked on a hotly contested programme to equip its naval forces with nuclear submarines.

With a newly formed defence alliance with Britain and the United States, Australia has formally embarked on a hotly contested programme to equip its naval forces with nuclear submarines. The agreement is the first to be signed publicly since the three countries announced in September the formation of a defence alliance, AUKUS, to confront strategic tensions in the Pacific, where China and the US are at odds. Also read | AUKUS deal may spark off race to acquire nuclear submarines, warns IAEA chief Defence Minister Peter Dutton and diplomats from the United States and the United Kingdom signed an agreement that allows for the exchange of sensitive "naval nuclear propulsion information" between their nations. "The agreement will permit cooperation, which will further improve our mutual defence posture," US President Joe Biden said in a statement on Friday ahead of Dutton's signing ceremony in Canberra with US Charge d'Affaires Michael Goldman and British High Commissioner (ambassador) Victoria Treadell. Watch | Gravitas: Is the West dumping Quad for Aukus? The AUKUS deal will provide Australia with eight state-of-the-art, nuclear submarines capable of long-range missions. In addition, the agreement allows for the sharing of cyber, artificial intelligence, quantum, and unspecified undersea capabilities. Beijing has expressed anger about the agreement, describing it as an "extremely irresponsible" threat to the region's stability. Also read | French ambassador accuses Australia of deceit over submarine deal France was also infuriated by the move, after finding out at the last moment that its own diesel-electric submarine contract with Australia, which was estimated to be worth $65 billion has been scrapped. Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison has stood by his handling of the agreement. Unapologetic, he states that it was in his country's national interest and that he knew that the agreement was bound to ruffle some feathers.

AUKUS: US, Australia, UK sign key deal in nuclear submarine alliance

When Australia made its trumpet-blast announcement that it would build nuclear-powered submarines with the help of the United States and Britain, the three allies said they would spend the next 18 months sorting out the details of a security collaboration that President Joe Biden celebrated as “historic.”

Now, a month into their timetable, the partners are quietly coming to grips with the proposal’s immense complexities. Even supporters say the hurdles are formidable. Skeptics say they could be insurmountable.

Australia’s prime minister, Scott Morrison, has laid out an ambitious vision, saying that at least eight nuclear-propelled submarines using U.S. or British technology will be built in Australia and enter the water starting in the late 2030s, replacing its squadron of six aging diesel-powered submarines.

For Australia, nuclear-powered submarines offer a powerful means to counter China’s growing naval reach and an escape hatch from a faltering agreement with a French firm to build diesel submarines. For the Biden administration, the plan demonstrates support for a beleaguered ally and shows that it means business in countering Chinese power. And for Britain, the plan could shore up its international standing and military industry after the upheaval of Brexit.

But the Rubik’s Cube of interlocking complications that pervades the initiative could slow delivery of the submarines — or, critics say, sunder the whole endeavor — leaving a dangerous gap in Australia’s defenses and calling into question the partnership’s ability to live up to its security promises.

“It’s a dangerous pathway we’re treading down,” said Rex Patrick, an independent member of Australia’s Senate who served as a submariner in the Australian navy for a decade.

“What’s at stake is national security,” Patrick said. Given the decadeslong wait for a squadron of new submarines, he added, Australia risked “buying a parachute for after the plane has crashed.”

To pull off the plan, Australia must make major advances. It has a limited industrial base and built its last submarine more than 20 years ago. It produces a few graduates in nuclear engineering each year. Its spending on science research as a share of the economy has lagged the average for wealthy economies. Its past two plans to build submarines fell apart before any were made.

As well, the United States and Britain face hurdles to expanding production of submarines and their high-precision parts for Australia, and to diverting expert labor to South Australia, where, Morrison has said, the boats will be assembled. Washington and London have heavy schedules to build submarines for their own navies, including hulking vessels to carry nuclear missiles.

“I don’t think this is a done deal in any way, shape or form,” said Marcus Hellyer, an expert on naval policy at the Australian Strategic Policy Institute.

“We sometimes use the term nation-building lightly, but this will be a whole-of-nation task,” he said. “The decision to go down this path while burning all of our bridges behind us was quite a brave decision.”

U.S. officials have already spent hundreds of hours in talks with their Australian counterparts and have no illusions about the complexities, said officials involved. Morrison “has said this is a high-risk program; he was upfront when he announced it,” Greg Moriarty, the secretary of the Australian Department of Defense, told a Senate committee this week.

Failure or serious delays would ripple beyond Australia. The Biden administration has staked American credibility on building up Australia’s military as part of an “integrated deterrence” policy that will knit the United States closer to its allies in offsetting China.

“Success would be tremendous for Australia and the U.S., assuming open access to each other’s facilities and what it means in deterring China,” said Brent Sadler, a former U.S. Navy officer who is a senior fellow at the Heritage Foundation. “Failure would be doubly damaging — an alliance that cannot deliver, loss of undersea capacity by a trusted ally and a turn to isolationism on Australia’s part.”

Australia is hoping for a reversal of fortune after more than a decade of misadventures in its submarine-modernization efforts. The plan for French-designed diesel submarines that Morrison abandoned had succeeded a deal for Japanese-designed submarines that his predecessor championed.

“No living Australian prime minister has commissioned a sub that actually got built,” Greg Sheridan, a columnist for The Australian newspaper, wrote in a recent article critical of Morrison’s plan.

Australia’s latest proposal contains many potential pitfalls.

It could turn to the United States to help build something like its Virginia-class attack submarine. (Such submarines are nuclear-powered, allowing them to travel faster and stay underwater much longer than diesel ones, but they do not carry nuclear missiles.)

But the two American shipyards that make nuclear submarines, as well as their suppliers, are straining to keep up with orders for the U.S. Navy. The shipyards complete about two Virginia class boats a year for the Navy and are ramping up to build Columbia-class submarines, 21,000-ton vessels that carry nuclear missiles as a roving deterrent — a priority for any administration.

A report to the Senate Armed Services Committee last month warned that the “nuclear shipbuilding industrial base continues to struggle to support the increased demand” from U.S. orders. That report was prepared too late to take into account the Australian proposal.

“They are working at 95-98% on Virginia and Columbia,” Richard V. Spencer, a Navy secretary in the Trump administration, said of the two U.S. submarine shipyards. He supports Australia’s plan and said his preferred path on the first submarines was to galvanize specialized suppliers to ship parts, or whole segments of the submarines, to assemble in Australia.

“Let us all be perfectly aware and wide-eyed that the nuclear program is a massive resource consumer and time consumer, and that’s the given,” he said in a telephone interview.

Other experts have said Australia should choose Britain’s Astute class submarine, which is less expensive and uses a smaller crew than the big American boats. The head of Australia’s nuclear submarine task force, Vice Adm. Jonathan Mead, said this week that his team was considering mature, “in-production designs” from Britain, as well as the United States.

“That de-risks the program,” he said during a Senate committee hearing.

But Britain’s submarines have come relatively slowly off its production line, and often behind schedule. Britain’s submarine maker, BAE Systems, is also busy building Dreadnought submarines to carry the country’s nuclear deterrent.

“Spare capacity is very limited,” Trevor Taylor, a professorial research fellow in defense management at the Royal United Services Institute, a research institute, wrote in an email. “The U.K. cannot afford to impose delay on its Dreadnought program in order to divert effort to Australia.”

Adding to the complications, Britain has been phasing out the PWR2 reactor that powers the Astute, after officials agreed that the model would “not be acceptable going forward,” an audit report said in 2018. The Astute is not designed to fit the next-generation reactor, and that issue could make it difficult to restart building the submarine for Australia, Taylor and other experts said.

Britain’s successor to the Astute is still on the drawing board; the government said last month that it would spend three years on design work for it. A naval official in the British Ministry of Defense said that the planned new submarine could fit Australia’s timetable well. Several experts were less sure.

“Waiting for the next-generation U.K. or U.S. attack submarine would mean an extended capability gap” for Australia, Taylor wrote in an assessment.

The challenge does not stop with building the submarines. Safeguards to protect sailors and populations, and meet nonproliferation obligations, will require a big buildup of Australia’s nuclear safety expertise.

Residents in some parts of Barrow-in-Furness, the town of 67,000 that is home to Britain’s submarine-building shipyard, are handed iodine tablets as a precaution against possible leaks when reactors are tested. The Osborne shipyard in South Australia, where Morrison wants to build the nuclear submarines, sits on the edge of Adelaide, a city of 1.4 million.

Australia operates one small nuclear reactor. Its sole university program dedicated to nuclear engineering produces about five graduates every year, said Edward Obbard, the leader of the program at the University of New South Wales in Sydney. Australia would need many thousands more people with nuclear training and experience if it wants the submarines, he said.

“The ramp-up has to start now,” he said. 
&nbsp;

When Australia made its trumpet-blast announcement that it would build nuclear-powered submarines with the help of the United States and Britain, the three allies said they would spend the next 18 months sorting out the details of a security collaboration that President Joe Biden celebrated as “historic.

When Australia made its trumpet-blast announcement that it would build nuclear-powered submarines with the help of the United States and Britain, the three allies said they would spend the next 18 months sorting out the details of a security collaboration that President Joe Biden celebrated as “historic.” Now, a month into their timetable, the partners are quietly coming to grips with the proposal’s immense complexities. Even supporters say the hurdles are formidable. Skeptics say they could be insurmountable. Australia’s prime minister, Scott Morrison, has laid out an ambitious vision, saying that at least eight nuclear-propelled submarines using U.S. or British technology will be built in Australia and enter the water starting in the late 2030s, replacing its squadron of six aging diesel-powered submarines. For Australia, nuclear-powered submarines offer a powerful means to counter China’s growing naval reach and an escape hatch from a faltering agreement with a French firm to build diesel submarines. For the Biden administration, the plan demonstrates support for a beleaguered ally and shows that it means business in countering Chinese power. And for Britain, the plan could shore up its international standing and military industry after the upheaval of Brexit. But the Rubik’s Cube of interlocking complications that pervades the initiative could slow delivery of the submarines — or, critics say, sunder the whole endeavor — leaving a dangerous gap in Australia’s defenses and calling into question the partnership’s ability to live up to its security promises. “It’s a dangerous pathway we’re treading down,” said Rex Patrick, an independent member of Australia’s Senate who served as a submariner in the Australian navy for a decade. “What’s at stake is national security,” Patrick said. Given the decadeslong wait for a squadron of new submarines, he added, Australia risked “buying a parachute for after the plane has crashed.” To pull off the plan, Australia must make major advances. It has a limited industrial base and built its last submarine more than 20 years ago. It produces a few graduates in nuclear engineering each year. Its spending on science research as a share of the economy has lagged the average for wealthy economies. Its past two plans to build submarines fell apart before any were made. As well, the United States and Britain face hurdles to expanding production of submarines and their high-precision parts for Australia, and to diverting expert labor to South Australia, where, Morrison has said, the boats will be assembled. Washington and London have heavy schedules to build submarines for their own navies, including hulking vessels to carry nuclear missiles. “I don’t think this is a done deal in any way, shape or form,” said Marcus Hellyer, an expert on naval policy at the Australian Strategic Policy Institute. “We sometimes use the term nation-building lightly, but this will be a whole-of-nation task,” he said. “The decision to go down this path while burning all of our bridges behind us was quite a brave decision.” U.S. officials have already spent hundreds of hours in talks with their Australian counterparts and have no illusions about the complexities, said officials involved. Morrison “has said this is a high-risk program; he was upfront when he announced it,” Greg Moriarty, the secretary of the Australian Department of Defense, told a Senate committee this week. Failure or serious delays would ripple beyond Australia. The Biden administration has staked American credibility on building up Australia’s military as part of an “integrated deterrence” policy that will knit the United States closer to its allies in offsetting China. “Success would be tremendous for Australia and the U.S., assuming open access to each other’s facilities and what it means in deterring China,” said Brent Sadler, a former U.S. Navy officer who is a senior fellow at the Heritage Foundation. “Failure would be doubly damaging — an alliance that cannot deliver, loss of undersea capacity by a trusted ally and a turn to isolationism on Australia’s part.” Australia is hoping for a reversal of fortune after more than a decade of misadventures in its submarine-modernization efforts. The plan for French-designed diesel submarines that Morrison abandoned had succeeded a deal for Japanese-designed submarines that his predecessor championed. “No living Australian prime minister has commissioned a sub that actually got built,” Greg Sheridan, a columnist for The Australian newspaper, wrote in a recent article critical of Morrison’s plan. Australia’s latest proposal contains many potential pitfalls. It could turn to the United States to help build something like its Virginia-class attack submarine. (Such submarines are nuclear-powered, allowing them to travel faster and stay underwater much longer than diesel ones, but they do not carry nuclear missiles.) But the two American shipyards that make nuclear submarines, as well as their suppliers, are straining to keep up with orders for the U.S. Navy. The shipyards complete about two Virginia class boats a year for the Navy and are ramping up to build Columbia-class submarines, 21,000-ton vessels that carry nuclear missiles as a roving deterrent — a priority for any administration. A report to the Senate Armed Services Committee last month warned that the “nuclear shipbuilding industrial base continues to struggle to support the increased demand” from U.S. orders. That report was prepared too late to take into account the Australian proposal. “They are working at 95-98% on Virginia and Columbia,” Richard V. Spencer, a Navy secretary in the Trump administration, said of the two U.S. submarine shipyards. He supports Australia’s plan and said his preferred path on the first submarines was to galvanize specialized suppliers to ship parts, or whole segments of the submarines, to assemble in Australia. “Let us all be perfectly aware and wide-eyed that the nuclear program is a massive resource consumer and time consumer, and that’s the given,” he said in a telephone interview. Other experts have said Australia should choose Britain’s Astute class submarine, which is less expensive and uses a smaller crew than the big American boats. The head of Australia’s nuclear submarine task force, Vice Adm. Jonathan Mead, said this week that his team was considering mature, “in-production designs” from Britain, as well as the United States. “That de-risks the program,” he said during a Senate committee hearing. But Britain’s submarines have come relatively slowly off its production line, and often behind schedule. Britain’s submarine maker, BAE Systems, is also busy building Dreadnought submarines to carry the country’s nuclear deterrent. “Spare capacity is very limited,” Trevor Taylor, a professorial research fellow in defense management at the Royal United Services Institute, a research institute, wrote in an email. “The U.K. cannot afford to impose delay on its Dreadnought program in order to divert effort to Australia.” Adding to the complications, Britain has been phasing out the PWR2 reactor that powers the Astute, after officials agreed that the model would “not be acceptable going forward,” an audit report said in 2018. The Astute is not designed to fit the next-generation reactor, and that issue could make it difficult to restart building the submarine for Australia, Taylor and other experts said. Britain’s successor to the Astute is still on the drawing board; the government said last month that it would spend three years on design work for it. A naval official in the British Ministry of Defense said that the planned new submarine could fit Australia’s timetable well. Several experts were less sure. “Waiting for the next-generation U.K. or U.S. attack submarine would mean an extended capability gap” for Australia, Taylor wrote in an assessment. The challenge does not stop with building the submarines. Safeguards to protect sailors and populations, and meet nonproliferation obligations, will require a big buildup of Australia’s nuclear safety expertise. Residents in some parts of Barrow-in-Furness, the town of 67,000 that is home to Britain’s submarine-building shipyard, are handed iodine tablets as a precaution against possible leaks when reactors are tested. The Osborne shipyard in South Australia, where Morrison wants to build the nuclear submarines, sits on the edge of Adelaide, a city of 1.4 million. Australia operates one small nuclear reactor. Its sole university program dedicated to nuclear engineering produces about five graduates every year, said Edward Obbard, the leader of the program at the University of New South Wales in Sydney. Australia would need many thousands more people with nuclear training and experience if it wants the submarines, he said. “The ramp-up has to start now,” he said.

Nuclear-powered submarines for Australia? Maybe not so fast.

The chief of International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)—the UN’s nuclear watchdog—has warned that the nuclear submarine deal signed between Australia, US and UK could potentially spark off another race for nuclear submarines, suggesting that “other countries might follow Australia’s example”.

During a visit to Washington, Rafael Grossi, the director general of the IAEA, said he had sent a special team to look into the safety and legal implications of the AUKUS partnership announced last month, in which the US and UK will help Australia build a fleet of nuclear-powered submarines, reports the Guardian.

“We have to have specific agreements to make sure that whatever they receive technology-wise or material-wise, is under safeguards,” Grossi was quoted as saying on Tuesday.

“There has to be a specific arrangement with the IAEA. Now we have to dot the Is and cross the Ts, which has never been done before, and it’s a very, very demanding process,” he added.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/russias-foreign-minister-lavrov-slams-quad-aukus-417837">Russia's foreign minister Lavrov slams Quad, AUKUS</a>

Grossi said it “cannot be excluded” that other countries would use the AUKUS precedent to pursue their own nuclear submarine plans.

According to the Guardian, Canada and South Korea are contemplating building nuclear-powered submarines, which can stay underwater longer and are quieter than their conventional counterparts. Brazil too has an ongoing nuclear submarine project.

Watch

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/south-east-asian-nations-cautions-over-aukus-pact-414836/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

Grossi said one of the key factors that is hindering other nations to emulate Australia was the technical challenges in building a nuclear-propelled submarine.

“To have a nuclear reactor in a submarine in a vessel operating safely is a very difficult thing to do,” he said.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/after-aukus-submarine-dispute-india-and-france-pledge-to-act-jointly-in-indo-pacific-region-414776">After Aukus submarine dispute, India and France pledge to act jointly in Indo-Pacific region</a>

The IAEA director general said the US and the UK need ensure that the nuclear material and technology was transferred to Australia in a safe way that did not raise risks of nuclear weapon proliferation.

He said the issue had been raised in his talks with US secretary of state Antony Blinken in Washington this week.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/opinions-blogs/biden-you-should-be-aware-that-your-submarine-deal-has-costs-417409">Biden, you should be aware that your submarine deal has costs</a>

“I think he’s fully aware of the implications, and we are going to have an engagement, formal engagement, soon in a tripartite way or otherwise,” Grossi said. “I already set up a taskforce within the inspectorate, composed of very experienced safeguards inspectors and legal experts to look into this.”

The AUKUS pact will also focus on military capability, an sharing of cyber capabilities and other undersea technologies.

The AUKUS is being seen as a counterbalance to China’s growing influence in the South China Sea.

China has slammed the move saying the pact “seriously undermines regional peace and intensifies the arms race.”&nbsp;

The AUKUS deal also spurned France as it forced Australia to cancel a $37bn deal with a French company building diesel-powered submarines.

France was also irked with the fact that despite being a traditional Western ally, it found out about the new pact only a few hours before the public announcement.

(With inputs from agencies)

The chief of International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)—the UN’s nuclear watchdog—has warned that the nuclear submarine deal signed between Australia, US and UK could potentially spark off another race for nuclear submarines, suggesting that “other countries might follow Australia’s example”.

The chief of International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)—the UN’s nuclear watchdog—has warned that the nuclear submarine deal signed between Australia, US and UK could potentially spark off another race for nuclear submarines, suggesting that “other countries might follow Australia’s example”. During a visit to Washington, Rafael Grossi, the director general of the IAEA, said he had sent a special team to look into the safety and legal implications of the AUKUS partnership announced last month, in which the US and UK will help Australia build a fleet of nuclear-powered submarines, reports the Guardian. “We have to have specific agreements to make sure that whatever they receive technology-wise or material-wise, is under safeguards,” Grossi was quoted as saying on Tuesday. “There has to be a specific arrangement with the IAEA. Now we have to dot the Is and cross the Ts, which has never been done before, and it’s a very, very demanding process,” he added. Also read | Russia's foreign minister Lavrov slams Quad, AUKUS Grossi said it “cannot be excluded” that other countries would use the AUKUS precedent to pursue their own nuclear submarine plans. According to the Guardian, Canada and South Korea are contemplating building nuclear-powered submarines, which can stay underwater longer and are quieter than their conventional counterparts. Brazil too has an ongoing nuclear submarine project. Watch Grossi said one of the key factors that is hindering other nations to emulate Australia was the technical challenges in building a nuclear-propelled submarine. “To have a nuclear reactor in a submarine in a vessel operating safely is a very difficult thing to do,” he said. Also read | After Aukus submarine dispute, India and France pledge to act jointly in Indo-Pacific region The IAEA director general said the US and the UK need ensure that the nuclear material and technology was transferred to Australia in a safe way that did not raise risks of nuclear weapon proliferation. He said the issue had been raised in his talks with US secretary of state Antony Blinken in Washington this week. Also read | Biden, you should be aware that your submarine deal has costs “I think he’s fully aware of the implications, and we are going to have an engagement, formal engagement, soon in a tripartite way or otherwise,” Grossi said. “I already set up a taskforce within the inspectorate, composed of very experienced safeguards inspectors and legal experts to look into this.” The AUKUS pact will also focus on military capability, an sharing of cyber capabilities and other undersea technologies. The AUKUS is being seen as a counterbalance to China’s growing influence in the South China Sea. China has slammed the move saying the pact “seriously undermines regional peace and intensifies the arms race.” The AUKUS deal also spurned France as it forced Australia to cancel a $37bn deal with a French company building diesel-powered submarines. France was also irked with the fact that despite being a traditional Western ally, it found out about the new pact only a few hours before the public announcement. (With inputs from agencies)

AUKUS deal may spark off race to acquire nuclear submarines, warns IAEA chief

Australia on Friday shrugged off angry Chinese reaction over US-UK-Australia alliance that will involve Australia receiving nuclear submarine technology from the trans-Atlantic partners. It is widely believed that the three countries have come together in order to counter growing Chinese assertion in the South China Sea and in view of its ever-increasing military expenditure.

US President Joe Biden announced the new Australia-US-Britain defence alliance on Wednesday. China's government described the alliance as an "extremely irresponsible"&nbsp;

China has its own "very substantive programme of nuclear submarine building", Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison said Friday in an interview with radio station 2GB.

"They have every right to take decisions in their national interests for their defence arrangements and of course so does Australia and all other countries," he said.

Also Read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/damage-control-mode-blinken-calls-france-vital-partner-in-indo-pacific-413653">Damage control mode: Blinken calls angry France a vital partner in Indo-Pacific</a>

In a series of media interviews, the Australian leader said his government was reacting to changing dynamics in the Asia-Pacific region where territory is increasingly contested and competition is rising.

Australia is "very aware" of China's nuclear submarine capabilities and growing military investment, he said in an interview with Channel Seven television.

"We are interested in ensuring that international waters are always international waters and international skies are international skies, and that the rule of law applies equally in all of these places," he said.

Australia wanted to ensure that were no "no-go zones" in areas governed by international law, he said.

"That's very important whether it is for trade, whether it is for things like undersea cables, for planes and where they can fly. I mean that is the order that we need to preserve. That is what peace and stability provides for and that is what we are seeking to achieve."

(With inputs from agencies)

Australia on Friday shrugged off angry Chinese reaction over US-UK-Australia alliance that will involve Australia receiving nuclear submarine technology from the trans-Atlantic partners.

Australia on Friday shrugged off angry Chinese reaction over US-UK-Australia alliance that will involve Australia receiving nuclear submarine technology from the trans-Atlantic partners. It is widely believed that the three countries have come together in order to counter growing Chinese assertion in the South China Sea and in view of its ever-increasing military expenditure. US President Joe Biden announced the new Australia-US-Britain defence alliance on Wednesday. China's government described the alliance as an "extremely irresponsible" China has its own "very substantive programme of nuclear submarine building", Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison said Friday in an interview with radio station 2GB. "They have every right to take decisions in their national interests for their defence arrangements and of course so does Australia and all other countries," he said. Also Read | Damage control mode: Blinken calls angry France a vital partner in Indo-Pacific In a series of media interviews, the Australian leader said his government was reacting to changing dynamics in the Asia-Pacific region where territory is increasingly contested and competition is rising. Australia is "very aware" of China's nuclear submarine capabilities and growing military investment, he said in an interview with Channel Seven television. "We are interested in ensuring that international waters are always international waters and international skies are international skies, and that the rule of law applies equally in all of these places," he said. Australia wanted to ensure that were no "no-go zones" in areas governed by international law, he said. "That's very important whether it is for trade, whether it is for things like undersea cables, for planes and where they can fly. I mean that is the order that we need to preserve. That is what peace and stability provides for and that is what we are seeking to achieve." (With inputs from agencies)

Aukus: China calls the alliance 'irresponsible', Australia shrugs

After US, Australia and Britain announced the establishment of a new security partnership for the Indo-Pacific region, China lashed out at the move saying that "countries should not build exclusionary blocs targeting or harming the interests of third parties."

"In particular, they should shake off their cold war mentality and ideological prejudice," the Chinese embassy in Washington said.

The deal which involves helping Australia acquire nuclear-powered submarines to guard against future threats was announced jointly by US President Joe Biden, Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison and UK PM Boris Johnson.

PM Morrison said that the submarines would be built in Adelaide in close cooperation with the United States and Britain and that Australia will continue to meet its nuclear non-proliferation obligations.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/australian-nuclear-vessels-prohibited-from-entering-new-zealand-prime-minister-ardern-413371">Also Read:&nbsp;Australian nuclear vessels prohibited from entering New Zealand, says&nbsp;Prime Minister Ardern</a>

"Our world is becoming more complex, especially here in our region, the Indo-Pacific. It affects us all. The future of the Indo-Pacific will impact all our futures to make these challenges, to help deliver the security and stability our region needs, we must now take our partnership to a new level," PM Scott Morrison said while announcing the deal.

"A partnership that seeks to engage, not to exclude, to contribute, not take; and to enable and empower, not to control or coerce," the Australian PM added.

None of the three leaders however mentioned China and US officials said that move was not aimed at countering Beijing. However, US President Biden in his speech said that the new trilateral partnership was meant to address the current environment in the region.

"Today, we're taking another historic step to deepen and formalise cooperation among all three of our nations because we all recognise the imperative of ensuring peace and stability in the Indo-Pacific over the long term," Biden said.

"We need to be able to address both the current strategic environment in the region and how it may evolve because the future of each of our nations and indeed the world depends on a free and open Indo-Pacific," the US president added.

(With inputs from Agencies)

After US, Australia and Britain announced the establishment of a new security partnership for the Indo-Pacific region, China lashed out at the move saying that "countries should not build exclusionary blocs targeting or harming the interests of third parties.

After US, Australia and Britain announced the establishment of a new security partnership for the Indo-Pacific region, China lashed out at the move saying that "countries should not build exclusionary blocs targeting or harming the interests of third parties." "In particular, they should shake off their cold war mentality and ideological prejudice," the Chinese embassy in Washington said. The deal which involves helping Australia acquire nuclear-powered submarines to guard against future threats was announced jointly by US President Joe Biden, Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison and UK PM Boris Johnson. PM Morrison said that the submarines would be built in Adelaide in close cooperation with the United States and Britain and that Australia will continue to meet its nuclear non-proliferation obligations. Also Read: Australian nuclear vessels prohibited from entering New Zealand, says Prime Minister Ardern "Our world is becoming more complex, especially here in our region, the Indo-Pacific. It affects us all. The future of the Indo-Pacific will impact all our futures to make these challenges, to help deliver the security and stability our region needs, we must now take our partnership to a new level," PM Scott Morrison said while announcing the deal. "A partnership that seeks to engage, not to exclude, to contribute, not take; and to enable and empower, not to control or coerce," the Australian PM added. None of the three leaders however mentioned China and US officials said that move was not aimed at countering Beijing. However, US President Biden in his speech said that the new trilateral partnership was meant to address the current environment in the region. "Today, we're taking another historic step to deepen and formalise cooperation among all three of our nations because we all recognise the imperative of ensuring peace and stability in the Indo-Pacific over the long term," Biden said. "We need to be able to address both the current strategic environment in the region and how it may evolve because the future of each of our nations and indeed the world depends on a free and open Indo-Pacific," the US president added. (With inputs from Agencies)

'Cold war mentality': China lashes out at US, Australia, UK nuclear submarine deal

China is enhancing its nuclear arsenal. Earlier it launched missiles into the South China Sea and now it has powered its nuclear submarines with ballistic missiles that are capable of hitting US.

China's nuclear submarine armed with ballistic missiles expand range in US

In a move likely to anger Beijing, a French nuclear attack submarine was among two navy ships that recently conducted a patrol through the South China Sea, its defence minister announced. &nbsp;

China claims most of the strategic waters as its territory.&nbsp;

On Twitter, Defence Minister Florence Parly said late on Monday, the SNA Emeraude was accompanied by support ship BSAM Seine for the passage.&nbsp;

"This extraordinary patrol has just completed a passage in the South China Sea. A striking proof of the capacity of our French Navy to deploy far away and for a long time together with our Australian, American and Japanese strategic partners," she tweeted along with a picture of the two vessels at sea.&nbsp;

China lays claim to nearly all of the South China Sea while Taiwan, the Philippines, Brunei, Malaysia and Vietnam all also claim parts of the region, believed to hold valuable oil and gas deposits.&nbsp;

US warships occasionally carry out 'freedom of navigation' missions through or close to waters claimed by Beijing to stress Washington's rejection of those claims.&nbsp;

The USS John S McCain last week sailed near islands in the South China Sea claimed by Beijing and conducted a transit through the Taiwan Strait, prompting a warning from China.&nbsp;

NATO member France has exclusive economic zones in the Pacific around its overseas territories and has stressed the importance of defending freedom of navigation in the region.&nbsp;

"Why such a mission? To enrich our knowledge of this area and affirm that international law is the only rule that is valid, whatever the sea where we sail," Parly tweeted.&nbsp;

The French patrol comes after the inauguration of US President Joe Biden, who has underscored support for Washington's Asian allies after four chaotic years of the Donald Trump administration.&nbsp;

In April 2019, there was a naval incident in the Taiwan Strait when Chinese ships told the French frigate Vendemiaire to leave the waterway that separates the Chinese mainland and Taiwan, another sensitive area claimed by Beijing.&nbsp;

In a move likely to anger Beijing, a French nuclear attack submarine was among two navy ships that recently conducted a patrol through the South China Sea, its defence minister announced.

In a move likely to anger Beijing, a French nuclear attack submarine was among two navy ships that recently conducted a patrol through the South China Sea, its defence minister announced. China claims most of the strategic waters as its territory. On Twitter, Defence Minister Florence Parly said late on Monday, the SNA Emeraude was accompanied by support ship BSAM Seine for the passage. "This extraordinary patrol has just completed a passage in the South China Sea. A striking proof of the capacity of our French Navy to deploy far away and for a long time together with our Australian, American and Japanese strategic partners," she tweeted along with a picture of the two vessels at sea. China lays claim to nearly all of the South China Sea while Taiwan, the Philippines, Brunei, Malaysia and Vietnam all also claim parts of the region, believed to hold valuable oil and gas deposits. US warships occasionally carry out 'freedom of navigation' missions through or close to waters claimed by Beijing to stress Washington's rejection of those claims. The USS John S McCain last week sailed near islands in the South China Sea claimed by Beijing and conducted a transit through the Taiwan Strait, prompting a warning from China. NATO member France has exclusive economic zones in the Pacific around its overseas territories and has stressed the importance of defending freedom of navigation in the region. "Why such a mission? To enrich our knowledge of this area and affirm that international law is the only rule that is valid, whatever the sea where we sail," Parly tweeted. The French patrol comes after the inauguration of US President Joe Biden, who has underscored support for Washington's Asian allies after four chaotic years of the Donald Trump administration. In April 2019, there was a naval incident in the Taiwan Strait when Chinese ships told the French frigate Vendemiaire to leave the waterway that separates the Chinese mainland and Taiwan, another sensitive area claimed by Beijing.

French nuclear attack sub patrols South China Sea

Russia's newest nuclear submarine on Wednesday successfully test-fired a Bulava intercontinental ballistic missile from the White Sea off Russia's northwestern coast, the defence ministry said.

The Knyaz Vladimir, or Prince Vladimir, fired the missile from underwater that landed on target on the Kamchatka peninsula in far eastern Russia, the ministry said.

The defence ministry said the "missile's flight went according to plan" and it landed at the set time.

Launched in 2017, the Prince Vladimir submarine is the first upgraded model of Russia's Borei class of ballistic missile submarines, designed to be more manoeuvrable and quieter than previous models.

It is currently being tested and is set to enter service with the Russian Navy's northern fleet in December this year, the fleet's commander Vice Admiral Moiseyev told TASS state news agency.

Other Borei class submarines already in service include the Yury Dolgoruky and the Alexander Nevsky. They can carry up to 16 Bulava missiles, which are designed for use on these submarines.

Russia's newest nuclear submarine on Wednesday successfully test-fired a Bulava intercontinental ballistic missile from the White Sea off Russia's northwestern coast, the defence ministry said.

Russia's newest nuclear submarine on Wednesday successfully test-fired a Bulava intercontinental ballistic missile from the White Sea off Russia's northwestern coast, the defence ministry said. The Knyaz Vladimir, or Prince Vladimir, fired the missile from underwater that landed on target on the Kamchatka peninsula in far eastern Russia, the ministry said. The defence ministry said the "missile's flight went according to plan" and it landed at the set time. Launched in 2017, the Prince Vladimir submarine is the first upgraded model of Russia's Borei class of ballistic missile submarines, designed to be more manoeuvrable and quieter than previous models. It is currently being tested and is set to enter service with the Russian Navy's northern fleet in December this year, the fleet's commander Vice Admiral Moiseyev told TASS state news agency. Other Borei class submarines already in service include the Yury Dolgoruky and the Alexander Nevsky. They can carry up to 16 Bulava missiles, which are designed for use on these submarines.

Russia's newest nuclear submarine test fires ballistic missile

20 years ago, India conducted a set of five nuclear tests. With Pokhran II, India became a nuclear power. It forced the world take note of India. Two decades later, India has entered an exclusive club. India is now a nuclear triad, it means that the country has the capability of launching Nuclear weapons from land, air and sea. It is a major milestone, not just because it gives India a place in an elite club, but also because it provides India with a significant deterrence capability.&nbsp; 
&nbsp; 
The completion of the nuclear-triad is critical for a country like India which has a clear policy of 'no first use of nuclear weapons'. The Nuclear arsenal is only to be used if India is attacked. That is called the second-strike capability. It is a country's ability to respond to a nuclear attack in equal measure. Completion of the nuclear triad is crucial for an effective second-strike capability.&nbsp; 
&nbsp; 
India is now capable of delivering nuclear weapons by aircraft, ballistic missiles and via a submarine. Nuclear prowess on different platforms is important for India as two of its neighbours are nuclear powers.&nbsp; 
&nbsp; 
The ability to fire nuclear missiles from under the sea is particularly important. Submarines, unlike fighter aircraft and land-based missile systems, are harder to track and destroy. Launching a nuclear weapon through land-based systems is the most common method, but it carries the risk of being detected and attacked. Hence, launching from underwater can prove to be the biggest threat in case of war.&nbsp; 
&nbsp; 
INS Arihant is a Strategic Strike Nuclear Submarine, which allows it to remain underwater longer than diesel-electric ones. INS Arihant can stay underwater indefinitely and avoid detection, making it the most dependable platform for a second strike.&nbsp; 
&nbsp; 
Has India entered the big boys club? 
&nbsp; 
Yes, it has but the country still has a long way to go. It is a feat in itself that India can now place itself on the same list as the five members of the UN Security Council. The big five are the permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, which includes China, Russia, United States, United Kingdom and France. India is only the sixth nation to complete the triad. But while that calls for a celebration, India is still far behind compared to those 5 nations. For example, China has 14 nuclear-powered submarines, whereas India has only 2 nuclear submarines. India is in the process of building 6 nuclear-powered submarines.&nbsp; 
&nbsp; 
What's next for India? 
&nbsp; 
INS Aridhaman is the second Arihant-class submarine. It is the second ingeniously built nuclear-powered submarine and is reportedly more powerful than INS Arihant. The submarine was originally reported to be named INS Aridhaman, but was called INS Arighat when it was launched last year. Aridhaman is reported to have the capacity of carrying twice as many missiles as INS Arihant. It can also travel faster than Arihant under water.&nbsp; 
&nbsp; 
Is the long-awaited indigenisation here? 
&nbsp; 
INS Arihant is the country's first indigeniously built nuclear-powered submarine, but it would have not have been possible without assistance from Russia. The process of developing Arihant began in the 1980s with help from the Soviet Union. Russian experts worked with scientists at the Bhabha Atomic Research Centre to develop INS Arihant. Having said that, you cannot take away the fact that it is indeed Made in India.&nbsp; 
&nbsp; 
Will it reduce dependence on imports? 
&nbsp; 
No. India is far away from reaching that stage. While we should be proud of the first Made in India nuclear-powered submarine, we cannot forget the fact that India is the world's largest importer of major arms. A recent report suggested that India has spent close to $100 billion in the last one decade on military imports. In the last four years, India's imports are said to be far greater than that of China or Pakistan. India still imports some of the most basic weapons like revolvers and automatic rifles like the Kalashnikov.&nbsp; 
&nbsp; 
(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

20 years ago, India conducted a set of five nuclear tests. With Pokhran II, India became a nuclear power. It forced the world take note of India. Two decades later, India has entered an exclusive club.

20 years ago, India conducted a set of five nuclear tests. With Pokhran II, India became a nuclear power. It forced the world take note of India. Two decades later, India has entered an exclusive club. India is now a nuclear triad, it means that the country has the capability of launching Nuclear weapons from land, air and sea. It is a major milestone, not just because it gives India a place in an elite club, but also because it provides India with a significant deterrence capability. The completion of the nuclear-triad is critical for a country like India which has a clear policy of 'no first use of nuclear weapons'. The Nuclear arsenal is only to be used if India is attacked. That is called the second-strike capability. It is a country's ability to respond to a nuclear attack in equal measure. Completion of the nuclear triad is crucial for an effective second-strike capability. India is now capable of delivering nuclear weapons by aircraft, ballistic missiles and via a submarine. Nuclear prowess on different platforms is important for India as two of its neighbours are nuclear powers. The ability to fire nuclear missiles from under the sea is particularly important. Submarines, unlike fighter aircraft and land-based missile systems, are harder to track and destroy. Launching a nuclear weapon through land-based systems is the most common method, but it carries the risk of being detected and attacked. Hence, launching from underwater can prove to be the biggest threat in case of war. INS Arihant is a Strategic Strike Nuclear Submarine, which allows it to remain underwater longer than diesel-electric ones. INS Arihant can stay underwater indefinitely and avoid detection, making it the most dependable platform for a second strike. Has India entered the big boys club? Yes, it has but the country still has a long way to go. It is a feat in itself that India can now place itself on the same list as the five members of the UN Security Council. The big five are the permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, which includes China, Russia, United States, United Kingdom and France. India is only the sixth nation to complete the triad. But while that calls for a celebration, India is still far behind compared to those 5 nations. For example, China has 14 nuclear-powered submarines, whereas India has only 2 nuclear submarines. India is in the process of building 6 nuclear-powered submarines. What's next for India? INS Aridhaman is the second Arihant-class submarine. It is the second ingeniously built nuclear-powered submarine and is reportedly more powerful than INS Arihant. The submarine was originally reported to be named INS Aridhaman, but was called INS Arighat when it was launched last year. Aridhaman is reported to have the capacity of carrying twice as many missiles as INS Arihant. It can also travel faster than Arihant under water. Is the long-awaited indigenisation here? INS Arihant is the country's first indigeniously built nuclear-powered submarine, but it would have not have been possible without assistance from Russia. The process of developing Arihant began in the 1980s with help from the Soviet Union. Russian experts worked with scientists at the Bhabha Atomic Research Centre to develop INS Arihant. Having said that, you cannot take away the fact that it is indeed Made in India. Will it reduce dependence on imports? No. India is far away from reaching that stage. While we should be proud of the first Made in India nuclear-powered submarine, we cannot forget the fact that India is the world's largest importer of major arms. A recent report suggested that India has spent close to $100 billion in the last one decade on military imports. In the last four years, India's imports are said to be far greater than that of China or Pakistan. India still imports some of the most basic weapons like revolvers and automatic rifles like the Kalashnikov. (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Nuclear triad and why it's significant for India

Nuclear submarine INS Arihant completes deterrence patrol

nuclear-submarine

Nuclear Submarine, News on Nuclear Submarine, stories on Nuclear Submarine, articles on Nuclear Submarine, Nuclear Submarine stories at Wion, Nuclear Submarine news, Nuclear Submarine latest news