1.2 The True Aim of AUKUS
Realpolitik shares with Game theory, and more broadly, Economics, the fundamental assumption that a party, an agent, operates in its own self-interest; we might even highlight that this is true of all organisms in some sense, that very process of survival. A Realpolitik view of the world implies realism and pragmatism, with a focus extensively on the realm of the possible with little regard for moral and ethics viewing these as unnecessary abstractions and distractions from the core framework of self-interested potential. Realpolitik in brief is a kind of a political philosophy that has long been criticised as heartless, an almost inhumane view of the world. I believe such arguments are misplaced, despite their best intentions (and certainly, the idyllic world we would live in if Realpolitik had little utility). Approaching the world with a Realpolitik framework lends itself the advantage of true exploration; stripping back the assumptions of morality and human presumption, and simply extending the observable space all the way to the edges of what might actually be achieved. Without presumption or pretenses of what ‘might’ or ‘should’; by not regulating the possible with brittle sentiment; we can see fully and completely.
Realpolitik by no means precludes the possibility of decisions, of action, bound by assumed morality or accepted ethics; but it assumes that such things are derivative, not foundational. Realpolitik does not prevent a selfless act, but would construe it as an indirect act of self-interest; and likewise mutual benefit as an ancillary or tangential result that benefits the acting party in the short or long term, directly or indirectly. Being the tallest tree is the goal, but it is obvious such a tree may prefer to be amongst other trees, not a sole pillar in a desert.
AUKUS is a trilateral arrangement between Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States of America. One, the former colonizer and head of state; the other current suzerain (”owner”). Australia finds itself in an unusual part of the world as an Anglosphere nation with Commonwealth heritage; a prosperous off-shoot in many ways from Great Britain, and in stark contrast to its Asian neighbourhood, a group of relatively new nations, the majority of which were previously subject to British and European colonialism. However, thanks to sustained and modern forms of exploitation and resource and wealth extraction, many Asian nations are finding serious economic success; and Asia certainly appears to be the economic hub of the future thanks largely to China, Japan and South Korea. It should be no surprise then that Australia, given its geographic importance, is being re-appraised by both the US and the UK, as they both desperately attempt to shore up what economic and political potential remains, despite squandering such obvious leads and positions of success.
AUKUS is driven by the US as it simultaneously retreats from the role of “World Police” but is not an acquiescence to its position of global hegemony, merely a shift in the paradigm. It recgonises that cementing global reach must be increasingly less expansively militaristic and more political and economic. America is structurally challenged, and without dramatically re-shaping the economy, it will simply grind to a halt; it’s already on the precipice of a criminogenic empire, led by a profligate autocrat who is allowing the state to be looted to the last dollar. AUKUS, and other recent American policies, have all been about reshaping its economic and political levers – if there’s one thing America understands, it is business. By continuing to maintain its position as a massive economic magnet it can sustain for some time yet economic control which gives it real pull technically and technologically and thus slowing its decline, but never averting it. America is a failing state, but what many critics fail to admire, is that, it can spend a lot longer in the process of failure before any real collapse. Likewise, what is not considered beyond the inevitable presumption are alternative mechanisms to avert collapse – nothing rallies a nation like an external enemy and a patriotic sentiment.
America is a Realpolitik nation and always has been; its activity and actions have always served its own interests first and foremost. From the United Nations to the “Global Rules Based Order” to its persistent disregard for the international systems it established and expects others to adhere to; it permits itself special status, and to their credit, have long been able to bankroll such exemptions with its immense military power. America has always cast itself as the land of freedom, the champion of peace and prosperity; and any criticism should not deny that plenty of good has followed America; Realpolitik does not exclude mutual or tangential benefit – but what it does highlight with exceptional clarity is the why and how, and that is, American power. A nation is just like an organism, survival is in its interest, and America is a predatory and dangerous organism that wants to make sure it alone occupies the apex. When considering the good America has done, one must never exclude the counterfactual, or the many – there is no reason things could not be different, the world we are in is the one that has been carefully crafted by choice; it could be much worse, and, it could certainly be much better.
So where does that bring us to on AUKUS?
Well. First and foremost AUKUS is an economic agreement; huge amounts of economic resources are being extracted from Australia and flowing to the US and the UK to prop up the stagnant and dysfunctional economics, in particular, their military industry, to help ensure that both nations can retain serious military advantage and leverage in the decades to come. The involvement of the UK should be construed as an American design. The UK nuclear arsenal is subject to significant management by the US; the US has a conventional presence on UK territory; and the UK is friendly “Five Eyes” Anglosphere nation with land mass and resources on the other side of the Atlantic. Maintaining control of the UK, is maintaining a foothold in Europe, one the US desperately needs given the extent to which it has voluntarily dispossessed itself of NATO.
Australia equally fits this bill. Marine rotations in Darwin. Pine Gap Defence Facility^. Space Telescopes and Submarine Communication Networks and JORN. B-2 visits and soon-to-be nuclear submarine base, in Perth. America has immense conventional presence across Australia, and this presence is only expanding. By ensuring the ADF mirrors the American forces, it ensure that Australian facilities neatly provide for an American presence, small or large.
^ “Australia is not only a beneficiary of the US policy of extended nuclear deterrence, it is an active supporter of it...”
AUKUS is a particularly crucial step in this, because the Anglosphere is the last bastion of legitimate, potential allies – and the UK as the second largest of these is in desperate need of support too. Australia, unlike Guam, is a far more secure foothold into Asia, particularly for strategic staging. It is a much larger land-mass, much further away from China – not immune to kinetic strikes, but the risk level is significantly lower. Its large continental land mass means supplies shipped in across the Indian or Pacific ocean are basically guaranteed to arrive, as no nation could feasibly police so much blue water and interdict successfully that much commercial shipping; least of all without creating enemies of a few dozen other nations.
Unfortunately, access for conventional forces, and economic exploitation are merely secondary goals of AUKUS for America. Its true aim, is nuclear proliferation.
Not proliferation of nuclear-propulsion. Proliferation of the American nuclear umbrella. The sublime goal of America is the staging, basing and operationlisation of the American nuclear arsenal from the continent of Australia. By entrenching Australia under the nuclear umbrella, it permanently binds Australia to America’s future. America already bases weapons abroad as a part of NATO, and there is no reason to assume it will not stage weapons out of Australia either.
Firstly, B-2 Spirit bombers are already regularly hosted by Australia. B-52s have routinely participated in exercises historically too. Australia, despite being a signatory for nuclear non-proliferation, simply chooses to operate on a “don’t ask, don’t tell policy”.
Secondly, whilst some might claim that that rotational nuclear-submarines at Perth are only attack class (SSN); most people have failed to acknowledge that America has already committed to arming these submarines with tactical nuclear weapons. There’s also nothing stopping America adding SSBNs to the roster later down the road.
In both cases, the pretense is already there, and America will, in a “time of crisis” push the envelope and allow further normalisation of the presence of nuclear-capable (and nuclear-armed) assets on Australian territory.
Of course, what choice does Australia have? Well, like New Zealand historically did, it could just say no. But Australia being entirely subservient to US interests has chosen alignment under the US nuclear umbrella, entirely without the consent of its citizens and only with the meekest acknowledgement^ by the Australian Government. American nuclear weapons make Australia not just a significant target for conventional attack, but bring it into the realm of nuclear victim too. This is doubly convenient for America, for it might in future conflict incite lower-level nuclear exchange from forward positions such as Guam, Diego Garcia and Australia, whilst ensuring the homeland remains free from radioactive craters in return.
^ “For Australia, the best protection against the increasing risk of nuclear escalation remains United States’ extended nuclear deterrence...”
Australia’s position is worsened by its lack of capacity to seriously monitor, track and engage ballistic missiles in self-defence; let alone modern cruise missiles, sea-launched strikes or a variety of hypersonic weapons including hypersonic glide-vehicles (HGVs). There are some niche arguments that might be had with respect to this, but the practical resolution does not change. Australia is terribly positioned to enter into a nuclear-umbrella arrangement, because it will have no control over nuclear exchange and even less opportunity to defend itself. It has placed all of its trust in America. Truly the worst decision possible.
Some might argue that such a position is necessary in a dangerous world. If such a position was necessary, why would Australia not just acquire its own, sovereign, nuclear weapons. Make no mistake, nuclear proliferation is coming. Russia and America have violated a lot of sovereignty of late; a stark reminder of the reality of might and Realpolitik potential. Any nation interested in long-term survival needs to recgonise where the status quo sits:
Russia’s invasion of Ukraine; America’s sustained assault on Iran; both demonstrate the freedom which nuclear-armed states have in military operations against non-nuclear armed states. Note, it is important that a nuclear-armed state possesses serious conventional capability too.
North Korea continues to demonstrate the legitimacy of a nuclear deterrence model; simply possessing them and being clear about your red line has kept the hermit kingdom alive.
Fracas between Indian and Pakistan in 2025 highlighted that even rapid conventional escalation between nuclear states presents no real risk of ascending to nuclear exchange; if anything, conventional interchange under the shadow of nuclear weapons ensures reasonable (and even unreasonable) heads identify an amicable resolution rapidly.
In my view, what most theorists miss about the nuclear deterrence model is that the most critical element of have nuclear weapons is not using them. If Russia uses nuclear weapons on Ukraine, the only honest and real response, is nuclear disarmament of Russia, by force if necessary, no matter the cost. Nuclear weapons exist to prevent the end of the state; any nation will therefore, logically, not risk the end of an adversary, nuclear-armed, state. Thus, any use beyond that (i.e. never) implies a breakdown of trust that is unrecoverable. I suspect many may speculate to say that “tactical” nuclear weapons used on Ukraine would not result in a major NATO response; be that as it may, it does not mean that is the correct response. NATO has already failed to resist Russian aggression twice in Ukraine (2014, 2022), and there is only more horror in store for Europe for failing to acknowledge the terrifying necessity of facing that threat.
It is likely we will see genuine nuclear proliferation in the future, no thanks to America, also. Deals with Saudi Arabia act as a precursor, and both Japan and South Korea are prime candidates for their own weapons; or at least nuclear-sharing agreements with the US. Japan’s militaristic jingoism and South Korea’s pursuit of nuclear-propulsion are strong signals in either case. Scandinavian countries have mulled over a joint arrangement or pan-European access; and Berlin is sponsoring German access through the UK.
What should never be ignored, least of all for the Australian people, is the true aim of AUKUS. Australia has never volunteered, and the Australian people were never questioned on their desire, to be under the US nuclear umbrella. These developments under AUKUS are an inflection point from which Australia may never escape; and can have deleterious consequences in the future as the US spirals into further deranged and unstable adventures. Thucydides trap was doing the rounds quite heavily a few years ago, and it might just be correct, not because it is, but because the US will be searching for convenient excuses in the not too distant future. Such convenient excuses will inevitably rope Australia in, and future global conflagration might have far more catastrophic consequences if Australia is substantively and in-effect, a nuclear state, thanks to American presence. Australia has abandoned any sovereignty in the matter and that is a failure of Government that should not be tolerated.
This is where Realpolitik leads us on AUKUS and its true aims; the subtlety couched and the obvious that is not stated. Such a framework facilitates a more rigorous review of the landscape from boundary to boundary, permits no assumptions and investigates with dispassionate intensity all that might be before us. We might ultimately draw conclusions that will not come to pass; but that does not mean we have drawn false conclusions. The premises presented here are entirely feasible, irrespective of their moral colour. Of course, we must always update our premises, and re-evaluate a changing world, but, I think we may yet see more confirmation to come of such a thesis. Denying the simple reality of American encroachment and control vis a vis AUKUS is simply dishonest. Arguments in favour of that such a course of action is correct are horrifically dishonest, and other choices exist for Australia. We can be absolutely certain that other choices exists; and that does not mean denying any real uncertainty or the precarious nation of international affairs, but embracing an authentic desire to solve the problem and implementing genuine solutions. This will not be possible as long as AUKUS exists. This will not be possible until we acknowledge our subservient dynamic with America.