The outlines of the Australia-U.K.-U.S. security partnership became clearer this week as the three countries unveiled plans to develop a new fleet of nuclear-powered attack submarines.

The ambitious project is designed to help check China’s growing power in the Indo-Pacific and has, as a result, triggered Beijing’s fury. The submarines are only part of a more wide-ranging security partnership, however, the other elements of which are potentially even more significant.

AUKUS was announced in 2021 as an “enhanced trilateral security partnership.” Its birth was controversial, starting with the renunciation of a deal with France to provide the next generation of Australian submarines. That project was behind schedule and Canberra jumped at the opportunity to acquire nuclear-powered subs, which travel farther, stay underwater longer and are quieter than the diesel model that Paris was building.

The initial announcement merely said the U.S. and Britain would provide technology to deploy the new submarines, without going into details. This week’s announcement filled in the gaps: AUKUS is now a multistage project.

In stage one, U.S. submarines will make regular port calls in Australia while Australian officers are trained on how to operate nuclear-powered boats. In stage two, around 2027, as many as five U.S. and British subs will be forward deployed to Western Australia. In stage three, in the early 2030s, Australia will buy three Virginia-class submarines and have the option to purchase two more.

Meanwhile, the three countries will develop a new submarine class that will be based on a British design, will use cutting-edge U.S. technology and will be built in Australia and Britain. One sub will be built every two years from the late 2030s to the late 2050s, eight of which will be constructed in Australia. The 20,000 jobs projected to be created in Australia are a sweetener for that country. The U.K. will take delivery of the first AUKUS submarine in the late 2030s and Australia will get its first in the early 2040s.

That simple framework is deceptive. Realizing the potential of AUKUS will not be easy. First, there is Australia’s capacity for such a huge project. It will require “a whole of nation” effort, said Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, who added that AUKUS “represents the biggest single investment in Australia’s defense capability in all of our history,” with the total cost reckoned to be at 368 billion Australian dollars ($245 billion) over the next three decades. This “astronomical, eye-watering” amount (in the words of one analyst) comes at a time when the country is already experiencing budget strains.

Simply put, the infrastructure for submarine construction and maintenance has to be built almost from scratch. Not only does Canberra need to develop and prepare the officers and engineers who will sail on the submarines, but they need to train workers to build them. They need to construct new ports and upgrade old ones. The influx of technologies and the training needed to run and maintain them is expected to provide a boost to the entire Australian economy, however.

Then there is China’s opposition. Beijing flatly rejects the AUKUS governments’ argument that the project targets no single country and is instead intended to promote regional security. A Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson warned that the initiative is “an outdated Cold War zero-sum mentality,” adding that “it will only exacerbate an arms race ... and hurt regional peace and stability.”

Divisions are sharpening in the region, but both sides are contributing to the tensions. China has been building up its military and making egregious territorial claims against its neighbors. In a speech to the National People’s Congress, Chinese President Xi Jinping promised to transform China's military into “a great wall of steel.” AUKUS is intended to deter China from moving that wall outward. The deal is unlikely to change attitudes in any country; thinking is too well entrenched.

China also complains that the transfer of nuclear-propulsion technology “poses a serious nuclear proliferation risk and violates the purpose and object of the nuclear nonproliferation treaty.” But nuclear-powered is not the same as nuclear armed, and the leaders of the three AUKUS partners — Albanese, U.S. President Joe Biden and British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak — remain “committed to set the highest nuclear nonproliferation standard.” They also promised to continue to consult with the International Atomic Energy Agency “to develop a nonproliferation approach that sets the strongest precedent for the acquisition of a nuclear-powered submarine capability.”

A third possible obstacle are U.S. rules that inhibit the transfer of advanced technologies. Remarkably for a deal that the U.S. has been instrumental in creating and argues is crucial to regional peace and stability, its own regulations have to be amended for it to proceed. Only last week, Australian and British officials complained about regulatory hurdles, and while U.S. officials acknowledge the issue, action has not yet been taken to fix the problem.

There is also concern whether any of the submarines can be built. The U.S. already has an ambitious program to grow its attack submarine fleet, and given the current backlog, a production increase is required — and there is a shortage of shipyard workers needed to build submarines. Two U.S. senators warned last year that AUKUS could stretch the U.S. submarine industrial base “to breaking point.”

It is a risk worth taking. The U.S., its allies and partners, need additional capabilities to maintain regional peace and stability. Bases and equipment need to be dispersed to ensure their survival in a crisis. Enhanced submarine capabilities — the ability to go on patrol for longer periods and to go farther from home bases — can provide a decisive advantage in a conflict.

It’s important too to remember that submarines are only one pillar of a more wide-ranging technology agreement. AUKUS partners will work together on artificial intelligence, robotics and quantum computing in the next stage of the agreement. Those subsequent developments have the potential to be even more important in shaping regional defenses.

AUKUS will tie the U.K. and the U.S. more deeply to the region. Both governments talk about making the Indo-Pacific a priority but commitments are the most convincing expressions of intent to both allies and adversaries. “The most significant multilateral defense partnership in generations,” in British Prime Minister Sunak words, is such a commitment.

One criticism of AUKUS deserves attention: the charge that it represents the reassertion of “the Anglosphere.” There is something anomalous about an alliance of just those three nations in this part of the world. They would do well to consider the addition of other partners, both to share the fruits of the deal, especially the technologies, and to soften its image. AUKUS can be a bulwark of regional security but it will be even more effective with additional partners, Japan among them.

The Japan Times Editorial Board