Talk:AUKUS

.

Request for comment [delisted] on the way to organise the countries in International Responses

What's the best way to organise the countries in the International Responses section that has a NPOV and is not biased towards any country? AustraliaRodeo (talk) 21:16, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

AustraliaRodeo, Not sure what you mean? What's at dispute here? Generally, simply listing the countries alphabetically (or sometimes chronologically by date of feedback) does a fine job. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 23:33, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

CaptainEek That's what we had before but it was reverted, and then people tried putting in all sort of categories and orders including categorising the countries into "Colonial Countries". Which is why I opened the RfC to get comments on the best way to organise it that's not biased and has a NpoV. There's also a few people wanting European countries to have a huge section and ignoring all the other countries responses AustraliaRodeo (talk) 06:24, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

• Give prominence to China and France as the "most impacted nations". For other nations, put them in alphabetical order and under the "other" section without headers in the table of contents, though omit responses that provide minimal useful context; an example of this might be Portugal's, which just says that it supports France. Summoned by the bot, but note that I was previously involved in this article and had pre-existing opinions on this questions BilledMammal (talk) 23:38, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
• I explained above the logical organization I had developed which AustraliaRodeo immediately reverted alleging vandalism. Trigenibinion (talk) 23:43, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
• As is, members first, elevate China/France, the rest alphabetical. The other FVEY partners haven't said anything particularly of note to otherwise differentiate them — IVORK _Talk 01:38, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Yes that's the best way but now everything has been placed under other countries. 178.202.82.89 (talk) 07:57, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
• The Agreement hasn't had any impact on France or any of the other countries apart from a contract with France being cancelled, I wouldn't say there are any countries that have actually been impacted by it at the present. Though that might change in the future. AustraliaRodeo (talk) 06:21, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Text that is veering into forum conversation territory collapsed below. See WP:NOTFORUM
The cancellation fee that Australia had to pay to France was substantial, given the situation that we have a housing deficit, an aged care crisis and some such like. That's an impact on Australians. 2001:8003:A070:7F00:386E:A0A0:2C12:7FC1 (talk) 23:30, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

• Alpahbeticaly. But I am unsure why China is not there. The only nations that ae relevant for their own sections are Oz, the UK the USA and France.Slatersteven (talk) 09:07, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
• Members>China/France>Other Countries (Alphabetically) is the most rational way to order it. If for some reason another country becomes very impacted by this pact we can add them to the China/France bracket. BSMRD (talk) 14:24, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
• You cannot dissociate France from the EU. France is not fully sovereign and the EU will tend to protect its members. A consequence of the crisis may also be increased EU self-sufficiency. Trigenibinion (talk) 14:38, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
• You cannot dissociate France from NATO if a consequence of the crisis may be the weakening of NATO. That said, a Five Eyes bond is stronger than a NATO bond. Trigenibinion (talk) 14:38, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
• I'd be okay with Members>China/France>Other countries (alphabetically). Otherwise, purely alphabetically, or by date of response. There's more than one way to write this section. But it should not be France, France, and more France.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:07, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
• As it is now seems most logical. The members in their own top-level section. Then Responses: China & France with subheadings, then Others ordered alphabetically. Best reflects the scale of coverage these reactions have received in sources. the wub "?!" 17:51, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

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)

References

Expansion

There are citations that reference that other countries are interested in joining AUKUS and AUKUS members particularly the US are open to expanding the AUKUS agreement to include more countries. ChefBear01 (talk) 07:55, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

New Zealand

New Zealand could join Aukus pact, top diplomat suggests https://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/new-zealand-could-join-aukus-6122260

EU-Australia trade deal on brink: New Zealand open to join AUKUS pact in blow to Macron https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1511553/eu-news-Australia-trade-deal-aukus-defence-new-Zealand-uk-US ChefBear01 (talk) 22:56, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

New Zealand was asked and rejected it. Jacinda Ardern said at the time that a lot needs doing in the Pacific but "it cannot always be about the military".

AUKUS came in in an authoritarian way. Scott Morrison negotiated for 18 months behind the back of the Australian population. 2001:8003:A070:7F00:B548:4FD4:D27F:765D (talk) 05:29, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Text that is veering into forum conversation territory collapsed below. See WP:NOTFORUM

The NZ PM said at the time that a lot needs to be done in the Pacific, and it can't always be about the military. She sounded like they had had talks and she didn't think there was enough in it for them/the Pacific countries than more soldiers/costs. There is some doubt if AUKUS is even valid. It hasn't gone through the House of Reps or Senate as all treaties which are more than bi-lateral must. In Australia it was brought in an authoritarian fashion. The PM and only one or two confidantes knew; not the Parliament, the people or anyone. It is too big and costly to just let it come in secretly. I wonder when and where it will be challenged in court. 2001:8003:A070:7F00:386E:A0A0:2C12:7FC1 (talk) 23:39, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

The Express isn’t on the list of deprecated sources, but just my two cents that I would avoid using it as a source - many stories are sensationalist, clickbait nonsense. Mark83 (talk) 10:07, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Why no mentions of the fact that the sumbarine intitiative launched today is to target China

When you look at what Nick-D did to the part that I added earlier today, they are wrong bc the article actually makes no mention of the submarine pact, and I would hardly describe what I added as being irrelevant to the Nuclear Proliferation concerns considering that the submarines are going to be nuclear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by StrongALPHA (talk • contribs) 14:22, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

"Under the pact, the US and the UK will assist Australia in acquiring nuclear-powered submarines" second line of the lede. Slatersteven (talk) 14:28, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

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)