Latest news with #NautilusInstitute
News.com.au
06-07-2025
- Politics
- News.com.au
Nuclear nightmare that is lurking on Australia's doorstep
Is Australia sleeping on a nuclear nightmare? That's what our leading North Korean experts claim. With all eyes on the Middle East's boiling tensions, there's been a blind spot: the nuclear threat looming much closer to home. North Korea is arming up. Thanks to its new deal with Russia, the rogue state is rapidly modernising its nuclear arsenal. Kim Jong-un now has the power to blow up half the planet. And not so long back, he painted a nuclear target on Australia's back. But is such an attack likely? Even possible? Or just more propaganda? However credible his threat, the Supreme Leader has been knocking back US President Donald Trump's invitation to discuss denuclearisation. And the strikes on Iran haven't helped. It's fuelling fears Australia could be dragged into war with one of the world's largest armies. 'Most likely war' Professor Peter Hayes, the founder of the international Nautilus Institute for Security and Sustainability, believes North Korea is the gravest military threat facing Australia. 'It's the most likely war prospect Australia faces,' Professor Hayes tells 'This is not hypothetical, this is here and now and it's our most dangerous regional military contingency.' 'I don't think we really have any realistic or plausible plans to deal with it.' Professor Hayes has travelled to North Korea seven times to help bring security to the region. While North Korea has missiles that could reach Australia, Professor Hayes says its unlikely to waste its weapons on us when there's limited benefit. Instead, the risk lies with an implosion of inter-Korean tensions. 'All it would take is an incident like a hostage or assassination attempt and they're off to the races,' says Professor Hayes. In such a case, our proximity would mean we're the first one to get the call. 'As part of the UN Command, Australia would be called upon almost certainly from day one to support the efforts.' Australia would be obligated to send air and sea support, pulling us into striking distance of Kim's formidable arsenal of mass destruction. And havoc would be wrought back home. 'One of the first targets of the North would be the South Korean oil refineries where Australia imports about one third of its refined product.' 'This would drive prices extremely high and cut off our supply. We'd feel it very quickly.' 'Korea is much more important than is generally understood by the Australian public and policymakers.' Go the distance Time and again, we've underestimated North Korea. We thought they'd never survive global sanctions. We thought they'd never acquire a nuclear arsenal. And now, we think they don't know how to use it. 'It's one thing having missiles that go up and down, but that's completely different to having deliverables over intercontinental range,' says Professor Hayes. But thanks to an old friend, they may have recently found the missing pieces. In exchange for providing troops in Russia's war against Ukraine, North Korea is believed to be seeking Russian missile and space technology. Professor Hayes says Pyongyang's newly strengthened ties with Moscow are helping 'fill in the blanks' of their capabilities – including warhead delivery. 'If the Russians were helping them address that problem, that would be extremely valuable,' he says. 'However it would also be extremely provocative to do that with regard to Washington and Tokyo and Beijing.' 'None of them would look kindly on Russia doing that, and so for that reason, I think they probably aren't.' 'Legitimate target' Professor Clive Williams is a former Australian Army Military Intelligence officer who now directs Canberra's Terrorism Research Centre. Professor Williams, an expert on North Korea who travelled to the secretive state in 2015, agrees it's unlikely we'll see a scenario where North Korea would bomb Australia directly. But there's at least one reason they would want to. 'The regime has always felt threatened by the US,' Professor Clive tells 'While a direct missile strike on Australian soil is unlikely, North Korea may see US strategic military facilities in Australia such as Pine Gap as a legitimate target.' Pine Gap, a US-Australian defence facility located near Alice Springs, is a critical factor in US wars. Professor Clive believes the recent strikes on Iran's nuclear program would embolden the Kim regime to cling to its nuclear arsenal. 'The bombing of Iran would have underlined to Kim the need for nuclear weapons as a deterrent.' Despite speculation the regime would be starved into submission without access to international trading, North Korea is stronger than ever. It's estimated to now have around 50 nuclear warheads and enough fissile material for as many as 90. This includes new solid-fuel intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBM). If launched with nuclear warheads, these could cause widespread destruction. The Hwasong-15, North Korea's furthest-reaching ICBM, could travel about 13,000km, putting most of the world within range. Including all of Australia. They have also tested hypersonic missiles, which can fly at several times the speed of sound and at low altitude to escape radar detection. As well as others launched from submarines. That's not to mention boasting the world's fourth-largest military, with nearly 1.3 million. Lastly, this army is becoming more mobile. 'They're more mobile, survivable, and capable,' says Professor Clive. 'We've always underestimated their capacity to innovate under sanctions, especially in areas like nuclear technology.' 'It just goes to show what can be done if a nation's resources are focused on a perceived threat.' Chequered history Australia and North Korea share a hostile history. We're still officially at war with the rogue state, despite most of the fighting ending with the signing of an armistice back in July 1953. And in 2017, things looked like they could fire up again. At the time, the regime threatened nuclear retaliation after we announced North Korea would be subject to further Australian sanctions. North Korea's state-run KCNA news agency quoted a foreign ministry spokesman at the time with the following thinly-veiled threat. 'If Australia persists in following the US moves to isolate and stifle the DPRK and remains a shock brigade of the US master, this will be a suicidal act of coming within the range of the nuclear strike of the strategic force of the DPRK. However likely such an attack is, there's no reason to think we're no longer a target. Prospect of peace Despite the alarming prospect of war, there's still hope for peace. While Australia has the power to play a key role in the latter outcome, Professor Hayes claims we're not doing enough for diplomacy. 'If you're pitch perfect with perfect timing, you can move the world. That's what middle powers should be doing,' he says. 'We don't seem to want to do that very much, at least not in relation to Korea.' 'This is perhaps the saddest aspect of Australian policy.' Professor Clive believes reunification is in fact in the North's sights. 'The North seems to believe it will eventually reintegrate with the South,' he says. 'But only on the North's terms,' says Professor Clive. Whatever outcome the future holds, Australia will be heavily impacted.
7NEWS
06-07-2025
- Business
- 7NEWS
Where does Australia stand if WWIII begins?
In the event of a third global conflict, experts warn Australia would not be able to remain neutral. We would be automatically drawn into war by virtue of our strengthening military ties with America, two defence experts say. International security expert Dr Thomas Wilkins at the University of Sydney and Senior Research Associate at Nautilus Institute Richard Tanter agree that Australia's close strategic and technological bond with the US has effectively removed the option of neutrality from the table. 'If a third world war occurred, it would be reasonable to assume Canberra would live up to its presumed obligations under the ANZUS Treaty alliance and go to war with America,' Wilkins said. Australian involvement is no longer a question of if, but 'automatically' so, Tanter said. The experts also noted Australia hosts a series of major US military and intelligence bases, including Pine Gap joint defence station outside Alice Springs and the Tindal Air Base within the Northern Territory. 'The US has so many bases here — command and intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance — they would be used on the first day of the war unless there was a very active Australian government move to deny use of these facilities, which won't happen,' Tanter said. Pine Gap's function goes beyond conventional military action, he said. 'Pine Gap is involved in nuclear command, control and communications, and warning.' 'In that sense, we are highly involved in the nuclear policy of the United States.' Hosting B-52 Bombers raises risk profile Australia has just signed an agreement to host US nuclear-capable B-52 bombers at the RAAF Tindal air base, further inserting Australia into US strategic thinking. While the aircraft won't deploy nuclear weapons while based here, Tanter warned that this action was a shift in Australia's role. 'This is a step from communications and control to deployment,' he said. 'Refuelling tankers will be based here, and Australian fighter jets will be providing escort cover.' 'We are part of the deployment system.' 'You don't necessarily need to have the bomb here to be in the nuclear command structure.' Strategic target in world war Inclusion of Australia within US military bases also makes it a potential target in a global war. 'China will understandably interpret Australia's deepening defence ties with the US as a threat to its own interests, will not approve of this position, and seek to consistently denounce it as destabilising,' Wilkins said. On the other hand, Tanter said we are not likely to face a threat from Iran. 'China has the missile capability and numbers to realistically target Pine Gap, and Australian governments have acknowledged this risk since the Cold War,' he said. 'However, despite having political tensions with Australia, Iran lacks both the long-range missile technology and the resources to reach targets 10,000km away, like Australia.' 'It does not possess intercontinental ballistic missiles, so a direct attack is highly unlikely under current circumstances.' Lessons from history Wilkins made comparisons with Australia's position during World War II. 'Australia put its faith in a weakening 'great power ally' to defend it (the UK), whilst not doing nearly enough to prepare its national military capabilities should this strategy fail, as it did with the fall of Singapore in February 1942,' he said. He warned that Australia is not prepared to face a third global war. 'The lack of psychological and material preparation for a major conflict in Australia at the present time ensures that war will be more costly to the nation than otherwise, again mirroring the experience of the Allies in the first part of the Pacific War.' Conscription technically possible Tanter believes that conscription could be reinstated in the event of a large war, although politically it is impossible. 'It's just a matter of decision and law,' he said. 'But the way the conscription worked back in the Vietnam War, it was highly unpopular, and conscripts were not particularly suited for most combat opportunities.' Room for independent policy shrinking Australia has some room for independent decision-making in conflicts involving the US, but this would come at significant political cost. 'In the event of a US-China war, Australia could act independently, but probably only at the cost of the alliance,' Tanter said. Australia has already locked itself into a subordinate role, he said. 'We've chosen to be technologically tied to the Americans, which restricts our options.' Moral questions remain Australia's alliances raise tough moral questions as tensions escalate. Tanter was critical of the Australian role in global conflicts and the broader narrative about defending a 'rules-based order'. 'There are no clean hands here,' he said, referencing recent conflicts such as the war in Gaza. 'The US and Israel are engaged in what I regard as ethnic cleansing or genocide.' 'In those circumstances, I think we need to have a policy like the Whitlam government had in 1973 — that we don't take sides.' As tensions rise globally, Australia's path may already be set — not by choice, but by alliance.
