The news that the US Department of Defence is conducting a review of AUKUS has prompted a feverish debate much of which is missing the key points.

The central theme is “Will the United States abandon AUKUS?”  That is not the issue. The United States can stick to the AUKUS deal, comply with the letter of the deal, AND not transfer any submarines to Australia.

That is because it has always been part of the deal, and part of the US legislation, that the transfer of submarines to Australia is highly conditional. The conditions are set out in the US legislation, the relevant portion of which is set out below:

Not later than 270  days prior to the transfer of a vessel authorized under subsection (a), the President shall submit to the appropriate congressional committees and leadership a certification that--

                    (A) the transfer of such vessels--

                          (i) will not degrade the United States undersea capabilities;

                          (ii) is consistent with United States foreign policy and national security interests; and

     (iii) is in furtherance of the AUKUS partnership;

                    (B) the United States is making sufficient submarine production and maintenance investments to meet the combination of United States military requirements and the requirements under subparagraph (A);

                    (C) the Government of Australia has provided the appropriate funds and support for the additional capacity required to meet the requirements identified in  this section; and

                    (D) the Government Australia has the capability to host and fully operate the vessels authorized to be transferred.

The plan is for the first Virginia to be transferred in 2032 so this decision is due to be taken in 2031. The President at that time (who should not be Donald Trump) will have to take into account the circumstances of the time including the needs of the US Navy, the rate of production of new submarines in the US, the competitive threat from the Chinese navy among other factors.

Right now, the US Navy is about 20 submarines short of what it says it needs and the US industry is building about half as many as they need to replace the submarines that are retiring and build up to their desired number.

So given these submarines are the most valuable, and survivable, elements in the US Navy it is very difficult to see how a US President could sign such a certificate today.

Elbridge Colby, who is the Deputy Secretary of Defence conducting the review, has made this point himself prior to assuming office - when the US is short of this vital strategic asset why would it (how could it) part with three and up to five of them to Australia.

Both sides of politics have been denying reality on this score and ducking the real issue.

Unless you believe the United States will deprive its own Navy of 3 and possibly 5 of its single most valuable strategic assets at a time of intensifying rivalry with China then the odds are that we will get no Virginias at all.

So what is our Plan B? No answer is the stern reply from Canberra who insist that there is no Plan B. Well if Plan A fails and we have no Plan B then we have nothing.

If we wait until 2031 hoping that a miracle will happen and the US will release the submarines, then we will have no alternatives in place. A Plan B could be the acquisition of submarines from another country, it could be the acquisition of long range strike capabilities instead of submarines. But putting this in place will take time and that is running out.

Time to wake up

Two months ago I gave speech at the National Press Club which sets out more of the facts and figures around this issue - almost all of which are being ignored and talked over and around by those in the reality denial game. The complete speech is on my website

and the security conference which was held the day before is on my podcast series Defending Democracy and my YouTube channel.