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

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)

What gives, hombres?

Can someone please explain how North Korea has a nuclear submarine, while the Land of Oz has to wait for years? Jack Upland (talk) 03:39, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Possible AI generated text

Hi - I've added the AI generated template here, specifically regarding the edits by Ritwik Deuba; other edits by this user have shown indications of possible LLM use in the past, as do these. Thus they need review for accuracy, sourcing issues, possible NPOV/editorializing issues, and the like. In some cases they appear to be reusing some of this content across several articles. Gnomingstuff (talk) 17:01, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

@Gnomingstuff: I have removed the edit by Ritwik Deuba as it was not relevant to the Australia subsection in "Comments and responses from participating countries" and the content was of no value to other sections. Do you have any concerns with removing the AI generated template? Melbguy05 (talk) 12:37, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

I've removed the Template:AI-generated since the edits in question have been removed. Melbguy05 (talk) 11:22, 22 June 2026 (UTC)