Australia to become 'aircraft carrier' for the US with bases and possible nuclear weapons, retired Lieutenant General says
A former Chief of Australia's Army has questioned whether the US has, or is planning to store nuclear weapons in Australia – while also questioning how long it would be until American 'places' become official US 'bases' around the country.
Retired Lieutenant General Peter Leahy – who joined the service in 1971 and rose to become Chief between 2002 until 2008 - has told Sky News that he foresees Australia becoming an 'operational base' for the US under AUKUS.
'Many would remember that during World War II we were the aircraft carrier for the Pacific, I see that happening again. The build-up of American places and let me say … I wonder how much longer we are going to say places rather than bases and I think we need to recognise that,' he said.
'We are seeing fuel farms all over the place, we are seeing a concentration of forces down in Western Australia. There is going to be much more of their air force up around Katherine and Darwin.
'I think a large part of what Australia has got to offer the United States is geography … and a debate yet to be had, are they bases or places?'
His thoughts follow sobering comments from Australia's Chief of Defence, Admiral David Johnson who recently revealed the Commonwealth's national security strategy was being recalibrated with the 'security blanket' of ten-year's warning time having now evaporated.
'We are having to reconsider Australia as a homeland from which we will conduct combat operations. And that again is a very different way - almost since the second world war - about how we think of national resilience and preparedness,' Admiral Johnson told the Australian Strategic Policy Institute's annual defence conference.
'We may need to operate and conduct combat operations from this country.'
The assessment is broadly interpreted as how Australia would respond to a conflict between America and China.
It also takes into account Washington's efforts to reposition strike forces in the region, while keeping them out of immediate danger.
'We are going to become a very important part of that strategic depth for the United States in the Indo-pacific,' Mr Leahy said.
'But I'm yet to figure out as we become more of a base, and we see the positioning of their submarine forces and their bomber forces and perhaps some of their missile forces in Australia, who is going to ask the question, are any of those nuclear armed?'
'Would Australia become a place where we would store nuclear weapons? Because it would seem a bit silly if you've got the capabilities here without the weapons (then) why are you even bothering?
'I think a discussion yet to be had … where are the nuclear weapons?'
A spokesperson from the Department of Defence told Sky News, 'The United States does not store or station nuclear weapons in Australia.
'Stationing of nuclear weapons in Australia is prohibited by the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty … to which Australia remains committed.'
They said Australia would continue to comply with its international obligations.
'The United States understands and respects our obligations regarding nuclear weapons,' the spokesperson said.
It's a case of political incongruity.
Under our alliance relationship, Australia benefits from America's strategic nuclear umbrella.
Concerned Defence Analyst, Peter Jennings believed Admiral Johnson's remarks showed the Department of Defence now needed 'a rethink' with regard to how the homeland would be protected.
'I thought it was a remarkable statement from our Chief of Defence … and one which says to me, that somehow, they have lost sight of what our key military strategies should be, which is about range and long-distance operations,' he said.
'Our military thinking has always been that we will move our forces as forward into a potential military theatre as we can, in order to avoid the conflict coming to our shores. '
'We now need a rethink about just what exactly (are) the foundations of our defence policy.'
He believes Defence Minister, Richard Marles and Defence Industry Minister, Pat Conroy wanted more money but had been refused by Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, saying it 'locked (them) into a policy of non-delivery'.
When it came to the Trump administration, Mr Leahy believed looming discussions over budgets would involve an element of 'bluff and bluster' though in part he supported the Prime Minister's position.
'We need to be careful about what we want. How we acquire it. And how we introduce it into services,' he said.
'I don't think we will get pushed that hard (by America) because of the geographic nature of Australia and our importance,' he said.
'I think the US is still keen to have us as a flag on the table.
'But I also think that they recognise there's only so much in terms of what we can offer in terms of capability, in terms of the scale … but eventually we will need to spend more on defence … because the security situation I don't think is going to get any better.'
When asked by Sky News if Australian governments had wasted years or money, the former Army Chief declared: 'Both. Without a doubt.'
'We should have been doing this (increasing capability) ten-years ago. And we've wasted money. Some of it is opportunity cost. But the thing that concerns me the most is the immediate readiness and preparedness,' he said.
'We are going to spend a shedload of money out there in the future but right now I see our ability to deploy, to be able to look after our own defence - and surely that's the first thing of a responsibly for a government (to) look after ourselves immediately - we are lacking on that. We need to spend more money for capabilities now and those capabilities are needed now.' he said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Herald Sun
40 minutes ago
- Herald Sun
Trump launches mobile service while in office with AU$73-a-month plan
Don't miss out on the headlines from Smartphone. Followed categories will be added to My News. Donald Trump's business empire is poised to expand further with the launch of a new mobile phone service while he serves as President of the United States. The Trump Organisation announced this week it would enter the telecommunications market with T1 Mobile, a service that will piggyback on existing networks owned by American telecom giants. In a nod to Trump's political status, the company will offer customers the '47 Plan,' a reference to Trump being the 47th president. Unlike traditional carriers, T1 Mobile will operate as a virtual network provider, using infrastructure owned by Verizon, AT & T and T-Mobile to deliver its services. The plan will cost Americans $47.45 monthly (about AU$73) for 5G service, positioning it as more expensive than smaller providers like Boost Mobile or Cricket but cheaper than major US carriers. According to the company's website, T1 Mobile will also begin selling a smartphone in August for US$499 (approximately AU$768), which it claims will be 'proudly designed and built in the United States.' This telecommunications venture represents the latest of many Trump family business ventures. Earlier ventures include Trump Media and Technology Group, launched in early 2021, which owns Truth Social and plans to introduce new investment products. Last September, the family backed World Liberty Financial, a cryptocurrency platform selling dollar-linked stablecoins, while Trump personally launched his own crypto memecoin, $TRUMP, hours before his January inauguration. Trump administration officials have dismissed questions about conflict of interest as Trump seeks to make money while serving as president, in part by pointing to the transparent nature of his business ventures. However, critics in Congress and among watchdog groups argue that the ventures offer a means for foreign interests and other shadowy entities to purchase influence. Originally published as Trump launches mobile service while in office with AU$73-a-month plan Read related topics: Donald Trump
Sydney Morning Herald
3 hours ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
US strike on Iran would bring peril at every turn
Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, issued a defiant response to Trump's call for 'unconditional surrender', but Trump said there were indications that the Iranians wanted to talk. There were also reports of an official Iranian plane landing in Oman, where many of the negotiations with Steve Witkoff, the president's special envoy, had taken place before Israel's attack. If Trump is taking a pause, it may be because the list of things that could go wrong is long, and probably incomplete. There's the obvious: It's possible that a B-2 could get shot down, despite Israel's success in taking out so many of Iran's air defences. It's possible the calculations are wrong, and even America's biggest conventional bomb can't get down that deep. 'I've been there, it's half a mile underground,' Rafael Grossi, the director-general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, said last week, as the Israeli operation began. But assuming that the operation itself is successful, the largest perils may lie in the aftermath, many experts say, just as they did in Afghanistan and Iraq. There are many lessons from that ugly era of misbegotten American foreign policy, but the most vital may be that it's the unknown unknowns that can come back to bite. Iran has vowed that if attacked by US forces, it would strike back, presumably against the US bases spread around the Middle East and the growing number of assets gathering in the Persian Gulf and the Mediterranean. All are within missile range, assuming Iran has missiles and launchers left after the Israelis are done with their systematic targeting. Of course, that could start a cycle of escalation: If Americans are killed, or even injured, Trump will be under pressure to exact revenge. 'Subcontracting the Fordow job would put the United States in Iran's sights,' Daniel Kurtzer, a former US ambassador to Israel, and Steven Simon, a veteran of the National Security Council, wrote in Foreign Affairs this week. 'Iran would almost certainly retaliate by killing American civilians. That, in turn, would compel the United States to reciprocate. 'Soon enough, the only targets left for Washington to hit would be the Iranian regime's leaders, and the United States would again go into the regime-change business – a business in which exceedingly few Americans want to be involved any longer.' The reaction could take other forms. Iran is skilled at terrorism, and reacted to the US-Israeli cyberattack on its nuclear program 15 years ago by building a fearsome cyber corps – not as stealthy as China's or as bold as Russia's, but capable of considerable damage. And it has plenty of short-range missiles left to attack oil tankers, making transit in the Persian Gulf too risky. The last thing the White House wants to do is air these risks in public. Democrats are calling for a congressional role, but they have no power to compel it. 'Given the potential for escalation, we must be brought into this decision,' Senator Adam Schiff of California, one of Trump's political rivals, said on CNN on Wednesday. 'Bombing Fordow would be an offensive activity.' And like most offensive activities, there are longer-term perils, beyond the cycle of attack and retaliation. Already the message of these past five days, as interpreted by Iranian leaders or others with nuclear skill, may well be that they should have raced for a bomb earlier, and more stealthily. That was what North Korea did, and it has now ended up with 60 or more nuclear weapons, despite years of American diplomacy and sabotage. It is a big enough arsenal to assure that its adversaries, South Korea and the US, would think twice about conducting the kind of operation that Israel executed against Iran. And history suggests that nuclear programs can be bombed, but not eliminated. 'Nuclear weapons can be stopped through force – the Syrian program is a good example,' said Gary Samore, who was the Obama administration's co-ordinator for weapons of mass destruction when the existence of the Fordow plant was made public. And in Iraq, after the Israelis bombed the Osirak reactor in 1981, to keep Saddam Hussein from getting the fuel for a bomb, the Iraqis 'reacted by building a huge, secret program' that went undetected until after the Gulf War in 1991, Samore said. That was such an embarrassment to American intelligence agencies that more than a decade later they wildly overestimated his ability to do it again, contributing to the second failure – and leading the US into the Iraq War. But Samore added: 'I can't think of a case where air power alone was sufficient to end a program.' That is an important consideration for Trump. He must decide in the next few days whether Israel's attacks on Iran's Natanz enrichment facility, and its bombing of workshops where new centrifuges are made and laboratories where weapons research may have been taking place, are sufficient to set back the Iranian program. In short, he must decide whether it is worth the huge risk of direct US involvement for whatever gain would come from destroying Fordow with American pilots, American warplanes and American weapons. But he also doesn't want to be accused of missing the chance to set the Iranians back by years. 'If this war ends and this Fordow is left intact, then it wouldn't take long to get this going again,' said Samore, now a professor at Brandeis University. Trump has not weighed these questions in public, and it is always hard to know how he is assessing the evidence. He bristled the other day when a reporter noted to him that his own director of national intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, had testified in Congress just a few months ago that Iran had made no decision to produce a bomb. Loading Trump insisted that there wasn't much time left – though he cited no evidence to contradict his own intelligence chief. 'Don't forget, we haven't been fighting,' Trump said on Wednesday in the Oval Office. 'We add a certain amount of genius to everything, but we haven't been fighting at all. Israel's done a very good job today.' Then, muddying the waters anew, he turned to his signature phrase: 'But we'll see what happens.'
The Age
3 hours ago
- The Age
US strike on Iran would bring peril at every turn
Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, issued a defiant response to Trump's call for 'unconditional surrender', but Trump said there were indications that the Iranians wanted to talk. There were also reports of an official Iranian plane landing in Oman, where many of the negotiations with Steve Witkoff, the president's special envoy, had taken place before Israel's attack. If Trump is taking a pause, it may be because the list of things that could go wrong is long, and probably incomplete. There's the obvious: It's possible that a B-2 could get shot down, despite Israel's success in taking out so many of Iran's air defences. It's possible the calculations are wrong, and even America's biggest conventional bomb can't get down that deep. 'I've been there, it's half a mile underground,' Rafael Grossi, the director-general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, said last week, as the Israeli operation began. But assuming that the operation itself is successful, the largest perils may lie in the aftermath, many experts say, just as they did in Afghanistan and Iraq. There are many lessons from that ugly era of misbegotten American foreign policy, but the most vital may be that it's the unknown unknowns that can come back to bite. Iran has vowed that if attacked by US forces, it would strike back, presumably against the US bases spread around the Middle East and the growing number of assets gathering in the Persian Gulf and the Mediterranean. All are within missile range, assuming Iran has missiles and launchers left after the Israelis are done with their systematic targeting. Of course, that could start a cycle of escalation: If Americans are killed, or even injured, Trump will be under pressure to exact revenge. 'Subcontracting the Fordow job would put the United States in Iran's sights,' Daniel Kurtzer, a former US ambassador to Israel, and Steven Simon, a veteran of the National Security Council, wrote in Foreign Affairs this week. 'Iran would almost certainly retaliate by killing American civilians. That, in turn, would compel the United States to reciprocate. 'Soon enough, the only targets left for Washington to hit would be the Iranian regime's leaders, and the United States would again go into the regime-change business – a business in which exceedingly few Americans want to be involved any longer.' The reaction could take other forms. Iran is skilled at terrorism, and reacted to the US-Israeli cyberattack on its nuclear program 15 years ago by building a fearsome cyber corps – not as stealthy as China's or as bold as Russia's, but capable of considerable damage. And it has plenty of short-range missiles left to attack oil tankers, making transit in the Persian Gulf too risky. The last thing the White House wants to do is air these risks in public. Democrats are calling for a congressional role, but they have no power to compel it. 'Given the potential for escalation, we must be brought into this decision,' Senator Adam Schiff of California, one of Trump's political rivals, said on CNN on Wednesday. 'Bombing Fordow would be an offensive activity.' And like most offensive activities, there are longer-term perils, beyond the cycle of attack and retaliation. Already the message of these past five days, as interpreted by Iranian leaders or others with nuclear skill, may well be that they should have raced for a bomb earlier, and more stealthily. That was what North Korea did, and it has now ended up with 60 or more nuclear weapons, despite years of American diplomacy and sabotage. It is a big enough arsenal to assure that its adversaries, South Korea and the US, would think twice about conducting the kind of operation that Israel executed against Iran. And history suggests that nuclear programs can be bombed, but not eliminated. 'Nuclear weapons can be stopped through force – the Syrian program is a good example,' said Gary Samore, who was the Obama administration's co-ordinator for weapons of mass destruction when the existence of the Fordow plant was made public. And in Iraq, after the Israelis bombed the Osirak reactor in 1981, to keep Saddam Hussein from getting the fuel for a bomb, the Iraqis 'reacted by building a huge, secret program' that went undetected until after the Gulf War in 1991, Samore said. That was such an embarrassment to American intelligence agencies that more than a decade later they wildly overestimated his ability to do it again, contributing to the second failure – and leading the US into the Iraq War. But Samore added: 'I can't think of a case where air power alone was sufficient to end a program.' That is an important consideration for Trump. He must decide in the next few days whether Israel's attacks on Iran's Natanz enrichment facility, and its bombing of workshops where new centrifuges are made and laboratories where weapons research may have been taking place, are sufficient to set back the Iranian program. In short, he must decide whether it is worth the huge risk of direct US involvement for whatever gain would come from destroying Fordow with American pilots, American warplanes and American weapons. But he also doesn't want to be accused of missing the chance to set the Iranians back by years. 'If this war ends and this Fordow is left intact, then it wouldn't take long to get this going again,' said Samore, now a professor at Brandeis University. Trump has not weighed these questions in public, and it is always hard to know how he is assessing the evidence. He bristled the other day when a reporter noted to him that his own director of national intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, had testified in Congress just a few months ago that Iran had made no decision to produce a bomb. Loading Trump insisted that there wasn't much time left – though he cited no evidence to contradict his own intelligence chief. 'Don't forget, we haven't been fighting,' Trump said on Wednesday in the Oval Office. 'We add a certain amount of genius to everything, but we haven't been fighting at all. Israel's done a very good job today.' Then, muddying the waters anew, he turned to his signature phrase: 'But we'll see what happens.'
