this post was submitted on 12 Jun 2025
66 points (100.0% liked)

News

30170 readers
3769 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

This post uses a gift link which may have a view count limit. If it runs out, there is an archived copy of the article

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] tal@lemmy.today 4 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (2 children)

The review to determine whether the US should scrap the project is being led by Elbridge Colby, a top defence department official who previously expressed scepticism about Aukus, according to six people familiar with the matter.

Eh. Looking back, it sounds like his take is fairly nuanced. From what he's said in the past, it sounds like he's said that he doesn't think that entering the arrangement was actually worthwhile for the US, but that he's also hesitant to withdraw from an agreement once entered into.

https://thenightly.com.au/politics/world/elbridge-colby-man-vying-to-be-donald-trumps-next-security-adviser-questions-viability-of-aukus-c-15058991

It sounds like his argument is that the main risk of a military conflict with China over Taiwan, where these would play a role, is relatively near-term. Australia hasn't stated that it would defend Taiwan, and AUKUS won't result in an aggregate increase in submarines across the US and Australia for some time, which means that it would reduce the number of submarines available to fight China.

Assuming that all that is accurate, that seems to be a fair take to me. My guess is that what he's actually after, given his phrasing, is not trying to trying to end AUKUS, but to get Australia to also commit to defending Taiwan as a condition for it.

Speaking in London on Monday, Mr Colby said that US shipbuilding could not keep pace with the target of delivering Australia subs by 2032 and questioned why the US was giving away its most lethal assets to a country that was not even guaranteeing it would use them in the event of a conflict over Taiwan.

“If I were king for a day on the subject I would say ‘Look, you all know what my concerns are, let’s see if we can work through these together’.

I've no idea whether that's something that would be totally unacceptable to Australia or not.

At one point, the US did try to put together an analog to NATO in the Pacific, SEATO. It didn't really go anywhere. But conditions have also changed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southeast_Asia_Treaty_Organization

Australia was a member. Taiwan was not. But the US might be aiming to build a new Pacific alliance today.

[–] ohulancutash@feddit.uk 2 points 2 days ago

No-one is going to want to commit nuclear attack submarines to a future hypothetical. It’s insane.

[–] TrippaSnippa@aussie.zone 2 points 2 days ago

I've no idea whether that's something that would be totally unacceptable to Australia or not.

China is our largest trading partner and our government has made a significant effort to rebuild relations with China since the previous government trashed the relationship. I don't have a source handy, but I recall seeing a poll that found that at least a plurality of Australians would not support joining a hypothetical war against China over Taiwan, and I think that was before Trump took over again. Australian public opinion of the US is in freefall like in so many other countries, so I can't imagine support for going to war with China would have increased in the last 5 months.