Australia May Never Get AUKUS Nuclear Attack Submarines

Imagine a scenario in which Australia finds itself in a military standoff with China but does not have the nuclear-powered submarines it was promised under the AUKUS pact.

In such a scenario, Chinese warships would be threatening critical sea lanes around Australia, regional allies would be scrambling to respond in a timely fashion but would likely fail, and Australia, lacking its promised undersea warfighting capabilities, would be left in an untenable strategic situation. Such a scenario might have sounded far-fetched when AUKUS was first announced with great fanfare on 15 September 2021.

The AUKUS Submarine Problem 

Today, however, such a strategic nightmare is not only plausible – it is dangerously likely.

And this is not just a cautionary tale dealing with AUKUS and Australia. If the United States fails to deliver the promised submarines to Australia, what might that say about Washington’s security commitments to other American allies?

Canada, for example, faces its own set of challenges as it seeks to shore up its security in the North Pacific, the Arctic, and the North Atlantic. While the Trudeau government has largely failed to revitalize Canada’s armed forces, there are promising signs that the next government will begin to get the country’s act together when it comes to national defense.

As this upgrading of defense capabilities unfolds, it is inevitable that Ottawa will rely on the United States to provide that access to advanced military systems – similar to the way that Australia is relying on the U.S. to provide Virginia-class submarines under the AUKUS agreement.

Should the U.S. not deliver the promised boats to Australia, Canada will have to rethink the extent to which it can rely on the U.S. to help rebuild its own military in the coming years.

For Australia, the collapse of the AUKUS submarine deal would not merely be a strategic challenge; it would be a strategic catastrophe. Canberra has already burned bridges with Paris by canceling a previous submarine contract with French shipyards – and doing so in a way that humiliated France. Should the U.S. fail to deliver, Australia will find itself with neither the submarines it needs nor an alternative supplier.

The lesson for Australia is perhaps obvious: dependence on American promises to deliver military goods can leave a country stranded when the political winds shift. The lesson for Canada should be no less obvious.

The grim strategic reality is that the United States Navy has its own pressing needs. With an aging submarine fleet and mounting concerns about naval competition and potential conflict with China, it is perfectly rational for the U.S. to privilege its own strategic interests over promises to an ally – even if those promises were initially made in good faith.

Every Virginia-class submarine delivered to Australia is one less U.S. naval asset available to deter or defeat China. In an era of “America First,” the Royal Australian Navy could easily find itself at the back of the queue when it comes to delivery of submarines from American shipyards.

And, although the details will inevitably differ,  the same could be true for Canada. Promises of advanced military technology from the U.S. being honored should not be taken for granted, especially in the current climate of economic friction between the two countries. With trade disputes simmering, the risk of a prolonged economic war is very real.

Such tensions could spill over into defense cooperation, with Washington using access to advanced military technology as leverage. And even if these economic tensions abate in the near future, the example of AUKUS should serve as a stark reminder to Ottawa: if geopolitical or economic priorities shift, promises to deliver always scarce weapons systems can be rendered moot overnight.

So, as Canada begins to revitalize its military in light of the evolving multipolar order, the lesson from AUKUS is clear: just as Australia might not receive its promised submarines if American priorities shift, Canada, too, cannot assume that advanced military technologies it will inevitably need from the U.S. will materialize as promised.

When push comes to shove, Washington will always prioritize its own military needs, leaving allies vulnerable and exposed. Canada’s vulnerability is further exacerbated by the United States’ own lagging naval and air acquisition programs, which provide powerful incentives for Washington to crowd out its allies when it comes to allocating always-scarce weapons systems. Ottawa must therefore avoid the strategic folly of assuming that American military generosity will always flow when needed.

The AUKUS submarine saga, then, offers a sobering lesson for Canada. Ottawa must not find itself in the same vulnerable position as Canberra – waiting in line for critical military assets while Washington prioritizes domestic needs.

If the U.S. Navy’s own demands take precedence over delivering Virginia-class submarines to Australia, why should Canada expect to receive advanced military systems that the Pentagon decides the U.S. desperately needs, even if an agreement to provide those systems has been signed?

For Canada, the path forward is obvious if somewhat daunting. It must invest in self-reliance, particularly in critical domains like the Arctic, the North Pacific and the North Atlantic. This means not only strengthening its domestic defense industry but also enhancing its defense-industrial partnerships with other allied countries, whether in Europe or the Indo-Pacific. Ottawa should be wary of putting all its defense eggs in the American basket, especially when that basket might not be as stable as once thought.

Ultimately, the AUKUS submarine saga is a litmus test for the durability of alliances in a world where national interests reign supreme. Suppose the United States is unwilling or unable to prioritize Australia’s needs. In that case, Canada should not expect preferential treatment when it comes to defending its own critical strategic geographies – especially in the currently fraught environment. Ottawa must wake up to the reality that defense deals with the United States are not sacred covenants.

Rather, they are transactional arrangements, subject to change based on shifting geopolitical priorities – especially if President Trump heralds a profound cultural shift to an “America first” strategic vision and posture.

Block IV Virginia-class Submarine.

What Happens if the AUKUS Submarines Never Sail? 

The hard truth is that in the anarchic world of international politics, nations must ultimately rely on their own capabilities to secure themselves and their interests. If AUKUS submarines never arrive in Australia, it will not just be a story of failed procurement but a cautionary tale about the dangers of over-reliance on a superpower that increasingly sees its own interests as paramount.

Like Australia, Canada must take heed or it too could be left adrift, unprepared for the stormy seas ahead.

About the Author: Dr. Andrew Latham 

Andrew Latham is a non-resident fellow at Defense Priorities and a professor of international relations and political theory at Macalester College in Saint Paul, MN. Andrew is now a Contributing Editor to 19FortyFive, where he writes a daily column. You can follow him on X: @aakatham.