10 hours ago
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.
