Sam Roggeveen

Certainly it's not optimal for Australia to have a submarine gap.

We're better off having submarines than not having submarines.

But if we have to have a submarine gap, that's not the end of the world.

I mean, I would personally support that, but I can see all sorts of political roadblocks.

One is that Richard Marles, the Deputy Prime Minister, a very powerful figure in the government, is clearly committed to this.

Another factor is that we have already invested something like $9 billion in this project.

There is also the other factor of the alliance with the United States.

So not just this government, but all governments in Australia fear getting the Americans offside.

So it's one thing to cancel a submarine deal with the French.

It's quite another.

to upset your main ally.

We do have a fear of abandonment in Australia that is somewhat overwrought and overstated, but nevertheless, it's real.

Well, the concern is about the rise of China, and that is an entirely legitimate concern.

What Australia wanted was a capability that would allow us to operate hand-in-glove alongside the US Pacific Fleet, far to Australia's north, off the Chinese coast,

in order to hem the Chinese Navy in along its coastline, if we ever had to, and even to fire missiles onto the Chinese mainland.

That seems to me to be a mistake.

Australia should have a much more defensive military strategy, which focuses on weapons that can be used closer to Australian shores.

Beijing's closer to Berlin than it is to Sydney.

We often forget that in Australia, but that distance, that vast distance that separates us should be used to our advantage.

Whereas AUKUS, I think the submarines are effectively an attempt to compress that distance rather than to exploit it.