Talk:AUKUS

.

Remove subsection on US deployment in Australia

The AUKUS pact is for sharing information on science, technology and industry. The pact didn't announce that the size and type of US military based in Australia would be increased or that the UK military would be based in Australia. The pact was announced on the 15 September US time. Separately, the annual Joint Statement Australia-U.S. Ministerial Consultations (AUSMIN) was held the following day on the 16th in which it was announced the size of the US military based in Australia would be increased. The meeting endorsed recommendations made in May 2021 to increase the size but did not release any details with US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin saying "we will continue to explore" and "which I won’t go into today". The answer by Austin that AUKUS does not have specific reciprocal requirements such as Australia hosting intermediate range missiles mentioned in the subsection, and cited by The Guardian, is relevant and can be retained elsewhere in the article. AUSMIN endorsed increasing logistics and sustainment capabilities of U.S. subsurface vessels in Australia which is relevant. Increasing the size of the US deployment can be mentioned in the following articles: Australia–United States relations, Australian Defence Force, Marine Rotational Force – Darwin, Royal Australian Navy and Royal Australian Air Force.--Melbguy05 (talk) 08:05, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Removed subsection keeping intermediate range missiles moved to Long-range guided missiles subsection.--Melbguy05 (talk) 14:29, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

"The AUKUS pact is for sharing information on science, technology and industry", yes, but that is really only the umbrella. It wouldn't take 18 months of secret negotiations to get that done, or would it? It is my belief that the pact would contain a rubber clause under which more US troops can be stationed here, at our costs, of course. We are now contributing to the war effort with participation in the hyperspeed weaponry. I am convinced anything will follow that serves the goal to 'combat China's increasing influence' (terminology of an ABC TV reporter). 2001:8003:A070:7F00:80D4:69B9:131D:5E09 (talk) 06:01, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

More than two years later we can say that we observed the US troops stationed here increase in number. But we could not say that whether that comes through AUKUS or through other contracts. Australians were surprised by that announcement in September 2021 so democracy was violated. 2001:8003:A070:7F00:859A:5FC1:EEA0:E454 (talk) 00:46, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

References

Expansion

There are citations that reference that other countries are interested in joining AUKUS and AUKUS members particularly the US are open to expanding the AUKUS agreement to include more countries. ChefBear01 (talk) 07:55, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

New Zealand

New Zealand could join Aukus pact, top diplomat suggests https://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/new-zealand-could-join-aukus-6122260

EU-Australia trade deal on brink: New Zealand open to join AUKUS pact in blow to Macron https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1511553/eu-news-Australia-trade-deal-aukus-defence-new-Zealand-uk-US ChefBear01 (talk) 22:56, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

New Zealand was asked and rejected it. Jacinda Ardern said at the time that a lot needs doing in the Pacific but "it cannot always be about the military".

AUKUS came in in an authoritarian way. Scott Morrison negotiated for 18 months behind the back of the Australian population. 2001:8003:A070:7F00:B548:4FD4:D27F:765D (talk) 05:29, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Text that is veering into forum conversation territory collapsed below. See WP:NOTFORUM

The NZ PM said at the time that a lot needs to be done in the Pacific, and it can't always be about the military. She sounded like they had had talks and she didn't think there was enough in it for them/the Pacific countries than more soldiers/costs. There is some doubt if AUKUS is even valid. It hasn't gone through the House of Reps or Senate as all treaties which are more than bi-lateral must. In Australia it was brought in an authoritarian fashion. The PM and only one or two confidantes knew; not the Parliament, the people or anyone. It is too big and costly to just let it come in secretly. I wonder when and where it will be challenged in court. 2001:8003:A070:7F00:386E:A0A0:2C12:7FC1 (talk) 23:39, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

The Express isn’t on the list of deprecated sources, but just my two cents that I would avoid using it as a source - many stories are sensationalist, clickbait nonsense. Mark83 (talk) 10:07, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Why no mentions of the fact that the sumbarine intitiative launched today is to target China

When you look at what Nick-D did to the part that I added earlier today, they are wrong bc the article actually makes no mention of the submarine pact, and I would hardly describe what I added as being irrelevant to the Nuclear Proliferation concerns considering that the submarines are going to be nuclear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by StrongALPHA (talk • contribs) 14:22, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

"Under the pact, the US and the UK will assist Australia in acquiring nuclear-powered submarines" second line of the lede. Slatersteven (talk) 14:28, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Adding enlargement section

I think it would be a good idea to add a section that covers the potential enlargement of AUKUS. US Defence Secretary Blinken has already stated that the 'door is open' to other countries joining. There are plenty of articles linking Canada, Japan, New Zealand and South Korea in particular.

• "'Door is open' for New Zealand to join AUKUS, Blinken says". Politico. 27 July 2023. Retrieved 1 November 2023.
• "Japan and South Korea should be invited to join Aukus, UK parliamentary committee says". The Guardian. 30 August 2023. Retrieved 1 November 2023.
• "Is 'AUKUS Plus' a Viable Option?". The Diplomat. 26 January 2022. Retrieved 1 November 2023.
• "AUKUS sub deal is one pillar of regional security". The Japan Times. 17 March 2023. Retrieved 1 November 2023.
• "Canada hopes to join Aukus defence pact, says report". The Guardian. 8 May 2023. Retrieved 1 November 2023.
• "Blinken says door open for New Zealand to engage on AUKUS". Reuters. 27 June 2023. Retrieved 1 November 2023.

StevoLaker (talk) 16:54, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Critical UK comments

I've removed the reference to opposition from Jeremy Corbyn and "Labour members". Corbyn is not notable as he was only an MP at the time and was no longer leader of the Opposition. I don't think a former LOTO was notable, as he was never a government minister. That contrasts with someone like Keating who was a former Australian Prime Minister.

As for the Labour "members", this was misleading and also non-notable. It could be read as meaning Labour MPs, but it was just Labour Party conference delegates, who had no power to set policy - and as noted above their party was only in Opposition. Maybe it could be re-added if there were supportive comments from the Opposition frontbench, e.g. "X supported the AUKUS announce, despite a vote from party members at conference [citation] that disapproved of the project". Otherwise it's not particularly relevant. John Smith's (talk) 19:14, 4 October 2024 (UTC)