The Aukus pact — a trilateral security agreement among Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States — was supposed to be a big deal. This deal will majorly upgrade Australia’s naval capabilities. That agreement, which has a jaw-dropping price tag of $368 billion, is heavily aimed at getting Australia up to speed with nuclear-powered submarines. The ramifications of this agreement go well beyond short-term military improvements. Australia is forging ahead with this promising effort. Serious issues over environmental hazards, national security and the future disposal of radioactive waste are still top-of-mind.
The Aukus agreement largely takes aim at this big commitment. That plan would create eight nuclear-powered submarines, requiring an estimated four tonnes of highly enriched uranium. This important decision raises some key questions about what lies ahead. This is especially true given how hazardous this material is and its potential use in nuclear weapons. Supporters argue the submarines will bolster Australia’s defense preparedness. Yet critics are cautioning that this new pact may unknowingly put Australia in harm’s way in what is quickly becoming the next theater of war in the Indo-Pacific.
A Lopsided Pact
The current Aukus partnership clearly is heavily in favor of the United States, leading to questions about whether it is sustainable or fair. Critics from both sides say the agreement will benefit the US military-industrial complex. At the same time, it imposes substantial costs on Australia with no assured benefits in return. The US and UK face similar challenges with low build rates. This creates a legitimate question about whether Australia will even get its new submarines at the originally anticipated time.
Compounding these worries is the potential for lasting geopolitical consequences. With the war in Ukraine causing ripple effects, geopolitical tensions are intensifying throughout the Indo-Pacific region. As a military ally, Australia would be a golden target for our adversaries. This agreement therefore has major geopolitical repercussions. They have a right to wonder if it is really in Australia’s national interest or simply brings it in line with US foreign policy goals.
“Australia shall indemnify … the United States and the United Kingdom against any liability, loss, costs, damage or injury … resulting from Nuclear Risks connected with the design, manufacture, assembly, transfer, or utilization of any Material or Equipment, including Naval Nuclear Propulsion Plants,” – [“Agreement among the Governments of Australia UK and US for cooperation related to naval nuclear propulsion v2.pdf” – source].
The Hazardous Legacy of Nuclear Waste
Not surprisingly, one of the foremost concerns with Aukus is the handling of high-level nuclear waste. The choice to go with highly enriched uranium is an enormous burden to put on our children and grandchildren. Even Australia’s future first nuclear-powered submarine is unlikely to be in commission by the early 2050s. Yet no long-term strategy has been set up to deal with the radioactive waste produced by these activities.
The highly enriched uranium that will fuel these submarines can be used to produce around 160 nuclear warheads. This particular issue raises proliferation risks with respect to the storage of such materials. The historical context adds to these concerns: both the UK and US have struggled with their own nuclear waste management. There are now 23 decommissioned nuclear submarines in the UK awaiting dismantling. At the same time, the US is managing over a hundred defunct sub reactors in an open-air graveyard, all with no permanent disposal path.
“Australia shall be responsible for the management, disposition, storage, and disposal of any spent nuclear fuel and radioactive waste … including radioactive waste generated through submarine operations, maintenance, decommissioning, and disposal,” – [“Agreement among the Governments of Australia UK and US for cooperation related to naval nuclear propulsion v2.pdf” – source].
Ian Lowe, an environmental scientist, emphasizes the gravity of the situation:
“You currently have radioactive waste from Lucas Heights, from Fishermans Bend, and from nuclear medicine and research all around Australia, just stored in cupboards and filing cabinets and temporary sheds,” – [Ian Lowe – source].
Australia’s previous approach to nuclear waste management has drawn legitimate fire for its short-sightedness and ineffectiveness. Past efforts to mine high-level waste storage facilities in Woomera, Muckaty Station, and Kimba were met with fierce opposition. These valiant efforts have faced enormous headwinds since their inception. The “decide and defend” approach to public engagement has been tried and failed, again and again with community concerns. It does not come close to appropriately tackling safety or environmental concerns.
“We are talking thousands and thousands of years: it is an invisible pervasive pollutant and contaminant and the only thing that gets rid of it is time. And with the whole Aukus deal, that’s what we’re running out of.” – [Ian Lowe – source].
The Need for Sustainable Solutions
Fortunately, there are international examples where more effective solutions have already been put into practice. Finland’s future facility for long-term high-level nuclear waste storage is a cool 450 meters underground. Nine years later, it still looms large as a potential model for best practices in protecting the public from hazardous materials.
Australia is still preparing to fulfil its nuclear submarine operating responsibilities under Aukus. As this preparation continues, the need for planning for high-level waste disposal becomes increasingly important. The federal planning timeline has to extend far well beyond usual political cycles. We need to be proactive about the issues that will impact the lives of our children and grandchildren.
Yet experts like Lowe stress that waiting until then may be too late:
“As the Government has said, the disposal of high-level radioactive waste won’t be required until the 2050s, when Australia’s first nuclear-powered submarine is expected to be decommissioned,” – [Australian Submarine Agency spokesperson – source].
Yet experts like Lowe stress that waiting until then may be too late:
“There are arguments about whether it’s 300,000 or 500,000 or 700,000 years, but we’re talking a period at least as long as humans have existed as an identifiably separate species. The time horizon for political decision makers is typically four or five years: the time horizon of what we’re talking about is four or five hundred thousand years, so there’s an obvious disconnect.” – [Ian Lowe – source].