In an unsurprising twist in the grand drama of geopolitics, one of Donald Trump’s most esteemed choices for the Pentagon has taken a moment from his busy schedule to announce that selling submarines to Australia under the Aukus agreement is akin to inviting a bear to a picnic—difficult and likely dangerous for the bear’s, or in this case, the sailors’ well-being.
Elbridge Colby, a man whose name seems too fanciful for a serious role in defense, has previously expressed an eyebrow-raising disdain for the Aukus arrangement. This week, he decided to double down, warning that selling submarines to Australia might leave U.S. sailors in a vulnerable position. Apparently, timing and placement of submarines are far more critical than anyone might have imagined. Maybe we should send them a schedule ahead of time?
During a recent Senate hearing, he was quick to reaffirm that Australia is a “core ally” of the U.S., even mentioning that they’ve been with us for some of our more questionable military escapades. Quite the badge of honor, isn’t it? Colby deemed it a “great idea” for Australia to acquire attack submarines. A potential “great idea” that comes with the dramatic flair of impending doom. What a combo!
Colby proceeded to warn about a looming threat of conflict, specifically around the so-called ‘first island chain’—which sounds like the title of a really intense board game rather than a geopolitical zone. “Our attack submarines are absolutely essential,” he stated as if they’re the only item on the checklist for world peace. Who needs diplomatic negotiations when you can have metaphorical super-soldiers lurking beneath the waves?
In a moment of classic understatement, Colby noted that without a significant buildup of submarines, supplying Australia could become a Herculean task. Who knew that providing allies with the modern equivalent of aquatic vehicles could come with such complications? Imagine the logistical nightmare of a game of musical chairs where you could potentially sink your own ships!
But fear not! America is gearing up to send anywhere from three to five Virginia-class submarines—known in the industry as SSNs (Serious Submarine Needs)—with the first expected to arrive around 2032. Because nothing says “timely defense” like a decade-long wait. Meanwhile, Congress has decided that the U.S. must maintain its undersea capabilities. Yet reports show the fleet’s numbers are about as impressive as a diet soda at a barbecue.
In the grand finale of fiscal hilarity, Australia has paid the U.S. $500 million, with a total of $3 billion earmarked for America’s shipbuilding industry as part of this very serious agreement. One only hopes that these funds are funneled into something more productive than a third-round napkin sketch of a submarine. Meanwhile, experts grimly note the U.S. Navy’s current submarine production is about as rapid as a turtle in a marathon. The cherry on top? Humorless bureaucrats propose that rather than allowing Australia to buy submarines, they could just park U.S. subs down under instead—a real game-changer in maritime hospitality!
