40,000 troops, 19 nations: The China threat unites US allies
The biennial exercise, called Talisman Sabre, is meant to send a message to China: The U.S. and its partners are ready to respond together to aggression from Beijing, which has been increasingly asserting itself in what it regards as its sphere of influence in the Asia-Pacific region.
'Our resolve to train, and will to prepare and will to fight, that's not made up," said Lt. Gen. J.B. Vowell, the deputy commanding general of U.S. Army Pacific, after he watched munitions hit a simulated enemy on a hillside in the training zone.
This year's Talisman Sabre is the 11th and largest iteration of the exercise, officials said. Some 40,000 personnel from 19 nations are involved. The exercise, which includes Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, India and several European countries, has become a cornerstone of U.S. efforts to deter Beijing from launching a military strike on Taiwan, the self-governing island it claims as its own.
Beijing often sends spy ships to observe the exercise, and Australian officials said they expected China to monitor the drills again.
'The fact that we have 19 nations participating this year in Exercise Talisman Sabre tells you that we're all in search of a common goal, which is stability, a free and open Indo-Pacific and adherence to international law," said Vice Admiral Justin Jones, chief of joint operations for Australia's military.
Dignitaries watch a live-fire demonstration at a training area in northern Australia.
Beijing, which has invested heavily in its military in recent years, has conducted increasingly assertive maneuvers this year, including live-fire navy drills near Australia and sending ships near far-flung Japanese islands. Chinese forces also routinely operate around Taiwan and in the disputed South China Sea.
The U.S. has responded to Beijing's buildup by dispersing its forces more widely and making its units more agile. Meanwhile, multinational exercises are growing in scale, scope and complexity, as countries in the region realize that they could easily be drawn into a conflict.
'Everyone is seeing the aggressive activities that China is doing," said Lt. Gen. Matthew McFarlane, who commands the U.S. Army's I Corps. 'That's why they're more interested in what they need to do to protect their sovereign interests."
During the exercise, the U.S. and its allies plan to fire key land-based missile systems that will be crucial if Washington wants to control important sea lanes around Taiwan in a conflict. That includes the Typhon missile system, which would be the first time it has been fired west of the international date line.
Drones are also being tested on both land and sea, taking a cue from how important they have become on the battlefields of Ukraine. Amphibious landings and air and sea maneuvers are planned. And for the first time, the exercise will include an activity in Papua New Guinea, a large island nation north of Australia which signed a security deal with the U.S. in 2023.
Australia, which has been boosting its long-range strike capabilities, will further test its ability to operate out of the strategic north of the country, where the U.S. has been investing in air bases and logistics that could provide rear support in a conflict.
'The battlefield of tomorrow is unlikely to be the battlefield of the past," said Maj. Gen. E. Darrin Cox, who leads the Army's 18th Theater Medical Command in the Pacific, which is working with the Australians to coordinate medical support during the exercise. 'We need to be thinking about our allies and partners, and how we can best partner with each other."
China frequently denounces joint drills as provocative, and says they disrupt peace and stability in the region.
The exercise gives the U.S. an opportunity to present a united military front when political tensions have surfaced between Washington and its allies, as the Trump administration pushes other countries to increase military spending. The U.S. is reviewing a plan to sell Australia nuclear-powered submarines, and Australia's prime minister is visiting China this week in an effort to thaw ties.
There has also been debate about whether important allies such as Australia and Japan would join the U.S. if Washington decided to defend Taiwan against China. 'We don't engage in hypotheticals," Australia's defense industry minister, Pat Conroy, said in a television interview over the weekend when asked about the topic.
At the training area in northern Australia, Monday's drill featured U.S. F-35 jets, Australian and U.S. artillery, South Korean self-propelled howitzers and tanks, and a Japanese surface-to-air missile system.
The maneuvers also involved truck-based rocket launchers called the High Mobility Artillery Rocket System, or Himars, from the U.S., Singapore and Australia, which all fired together for the first time.
The vehicle's ease of maneuver and ability to hide has been crucial in helping Ukraine defend against Russia, and the U.S. and its allies could use the system to hit Chinese targets from islands. The U.S. plans to do more drills with the Himars, including deploying them at very rapid notice across Australia.
'The Pacific isn't just blue bits with navies," said Mick Ryan, a senior fellow for military studies at the Lowy Institute think tank and a retired Australian Army major general. 'Armies that can fire long-range missiles at ships also have a say."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
Sweden, Norway, Denmark give $500 mln to NATO project to send US weapons to Ukraine
Sweden, Norway and Denmark will contribute around $500 million to a NATO-led initiative to supply Ukraine with U.S. weapons, including Patriot missiles , to ensure it can continue to defend itself against Russia, the three countries said on Tuesday. U.S. President Donald Trump said last month the United States would supply weapons to Ukraine, paid for by European allies, but did not indicate how this would be done. Productivity Tool Zero to Hero in Microsoft Excel: Complete Excel guide By Metla Sudha Sekhar View Program Finance Introduction to Technical Analysis & Candlestick Theory By Dinesh Nagpal View Program Finance Financial Literacy i e Lets Crack the Billionaire Code By CA Rahul Gupta View Program Digital Marketing Digital Marketing Masterclass by Neil Patel By Neil Patel View Program Finance Technical Analysis Demystified- A Complete Guide to Trading By Kunal Patel View Program Productivity Tool Excel Essentials to Expert: Your Complete Guide By Study at home View Program Artificial Intelligence AI For Business Professionals Batch 2 By Ansh Mehra View Program "We want to ensure that Ukraine quickly receives the equipment it needs, while strengthening NATO cooperation on Ukraine's defence and securing peace on Ukrainian terms," Norwegian Defence Minister Tore O. Sandvik said in a statement. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like 15 most beautiful women in the world Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelenskiy said the measure created a new foundation for long-term security across Europe. "This will be felt. And it will serve as a strong example for other NATO countries to strengthen the security ties between America and Europe and to ensure protection from Russian strikes," he wrote on X. Live Events "Russia will never turn Europe into a continent of war, and it is precisely through our joint efforts that we are ensuring peace will prevail," he added. Danish Defence Minister Troels Lund Poulsen said the money would be available immediately and that Denmark would be willing to consider additional funding later. "Speed is absolutely critical," he said in a statement. Denmark's share is around $90 million while Norway said it will contribute around 1.5 billion Norwegian crowns ($146 million). Sweden said it was contributing $275 million to the package, which includes Patriot missiles and other air defence equipment, as well as anti-tank munitions. "Continued supply of this kind of American defence materiel, which Europe can't deliver in sufficient quantity, is decisive for Ukraine's defence capability," Swedish Deputy Prime Minister Ebba Busch told reporters. NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte said the alliance was grateful to the three Nordic countries for their fast action to fund the package. NATO has said it will coordinate the NATO Prioritised Ukraine Requirements List (PURL) initiative, which is funded by European members of the alliance and Canada and will be divided into packages worth about $500 million. The Netherlands on Monday was the first country to announce its participation, with 500 million euros.
Indian Express
2 hours ago
- Indian Express
Was Hiroshima a show of strength meant to shape future order?
Every year on August 6, people across the world remember Hiroshima. Ceremonies are held and flowers are laid. The day passes with speeches, moments of silence, and renewed calls for a world without nuclear weapons. But beneath these rituals lies a deeper discomfort that many prefer not to talk about. Hiroshima was not only a tragedy. It was also a turning point. It showed what power looks like when it is stripped of all limits. The bombing of Hiroshima, followed by Nagasaki three days later, ended the Second World War. But it also marked the start of a new way of thinking about war, peace, and the use of force. Since that week in August 1945, the world has not been the same. Many say the nuclear age brought stability. Others believe it created a world living on the edge. Eighty years have passed. But the questions that the bombings raised have not disappeared. Were they necessary to end the war? Was it a military decision or a political one? What did Hiroshima and Nagasaki really mean for the future of international politics? These are not just moral questions. They are political ones. Much has been written about whether the bombings were necessary. At the time, American leaders said they were needed to force Japan to surrender. Without them, they argued, the war would have dragged on. A land invasion of Japan would have cost thousands of lives. The bomb, they said, saved more lives than it took. But others have questioned this view. Some Japanese cities had already been destroyed by firebombing. Japan's military position was weak. Its navy and air force had been largely wiped out. And some in Japan's leadership were already discussing ways to end the war. So why was the bomb used? One reason lies outside the battlefield. In 1945, the United States was already thinking ahead to the post-war world. The Soviet Union was both an ally and a rival. Dropping the bomb showed not just Japan, but the world, what the United States was capable of. It was a show of strength meant to shape the future order. Power was not only used to end the war. It was used to define who would lead in the years that followed. From the realist perspective in international relations, war is not only about defeating the enemy. It is also a way to send signals of strength. This idea forms the basis of deterrence. Critics argue that the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty has allowed a small group of countries to decide who can possess the bomb and who cannot. This unequal treatment prompted many to call the current arrangement 'nuclear apartheid'. Constructivism tells us that power in international politics does not operate only through weapons, armies, and threats. It also works through ideas – how states understand themselves and others, and what they believe to be right or necessary. From a realist perspective, war is not only about defeating the enemy. It is also a way to send signals of strength. This idea forms the basis of deterrence. The logic is straightforward. If you have the power to destroy your enemy, they will hesitate to attack. If both sides could destroy each other, neither would risk starting a war. This logic of mutual destruction held for a time. But this kind of peace was built on fear. It depended on leaders always acting rationally. It left little room for error. This thinking shaped the Cold War, drove the nuclear arms race, and continues to influence how countries think about nuclear weapons today. But deterrence comes at a cost. It relies on the threat of mass destruction. It demands that states be willing to kill millions to avoid war. Some realists accept this as necessary. Others see it as morally bankrupt. Yet it still defines the logic of nuclear policy. In the decades after Hiroshima, the nuclear order took shape. The United States, Soviet Union, Britain, France, and China became the five officially recognised nuclear powers. Others like India, Pakistan, and North Korea built their arsenals outside this system. Israel is widely believed to have nuclear weapons, though it has never officially confirmed this. Liberal thinkers argue that rules, institutions, and cooperation can limit the use of force. In the post-war years, efforts were made to build such a system. The United Nations was established, and treaties like the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) were introduced to regulate nuclear weapons. Signed in 1968, the NPT sought to manage the growing divide between the nuclear and non-nuclear states. Under the treaty, countries that already had nuclear weapons were expected to disarm gradually. In return, others would refrain from developing them. The treaty also promised access to peaceful nuclear technology. But critics argue that the NPT has preserved the status quo. It has allowed a small group of countries to decide who can possess the bomb and who cannot. These arrangements, though, have helped prevent the usage of nuclear weapons again. But the system is full of contradictions. The promise of disarmament was never fully kept. The nuclear powers did not make serious efforts to disarm. Instead, they upgraded their arsenals with more precise warheads, faster missiles, and better control systems. At the same time, countries without nuclear weapons were expected to follow rules made by those who already have them. If they resisted, they faced diplomatic pressure, sanctions, or even threats of war. Some were accused of violating the rules even when no evidence existed. The system was never based on fairness. This unequal treatment is why many call the current arrangement 'nuclear apartheid'. It requires the world to accept an unequal system, where a few countries are allowed to have nuclear weapons, while others are not. Powerful states claim their weapons are safe because they are in 'responsible hands'. But what makes one country more responsible than another? Who decides that? For many in the Global South, these are not new questions. They have watched Western powers expand and modernise their arsenals while warning others not to build theirs. They have seen how treaties are used to restrict some, while others operate with few constraints. The message is clear – the rules are not the same for everyone. Understanding Hiroshima requires more than looking at military strategy. It also requires asking how identity and perception shape the choices states make. This is where constructivist thinking becomes useful. Constructivism tells us that power in international politics does not operate only through weapons, armies, and threats. It also works through ideas – how states understand themselves, how they view others, and what they believe to be right or necessary. This perspective helps us ask a deeper question: why was it possible to bomb Hiroshima? One reason may be that in American wartime propaganda, Japan was often portrayed as alien, cruel, and even less than human. Within such a framing, the bombing could be presented as a necessary act. Scholars have pointed out that this way of thinking drew on older colonial ideas, where the East was imagined as fundamentally different and dangerous – a mindset shaped by what Edward Said called 'Orientalism'. Why was the same decision not made about the other enemy, Germany? We cannot be sure of the answer. But the question itself tells us something important. In international politics, decisions are not made in a vacuum. They are filtered through narratives of civilisation and of 'us' and 'them'. Constructivist thinking helps us see that war is not only a clash of interests. It is also a clash of identities. Who is seen as threatening? Who is seen as civilised? Who is seen as worthy of protection, and whose suffering can be more easily ignored? These ideas influence not just military choices but also how events are remembered later. This is why memory itself becomes political. In Japan, Hiroshima is remembered as an act of cruelty and trauma. In many parts of the world, it is seen as the tragic cost of ending the war. In US policy circles, it is often defended as a strategic necessity. The same event carries different meanings in different places because memory is shaped by identity, power, and politics. Even eight decades later, Hiroshima is not just about the past. It continues to shape how we think about the future – about war, peace, and power. The world is more connected now. But it is also more divided. The world today feels increasingly unstable. Old rivalries are resurfacing. New technologies are making weapons faster, more precise, and harder to defend against. Some countries have openly threatened to use tactical nuclear weapons in regional conflicts. The idea that nuclear weapons must never be used again – the so-called norm of non-use – is under growing strain. Hiroshima was meant to stand as a permanent warning. But the question now is whether that warning still matters. The strategic community often talks about how the world avoided nuclear war during the Cold War. But avoiding disaster is not the same as building peace. The fact that nuclear bombs have not been used again does not mean the world is safe. It only means we have been lucky. We are often told that nuclear weapons have kept the peace. But this peace is built on fear, not trust. And peace built on fear is always fragile. Lasting peace cannot be negotiated by force; it has to be built on trust and a commitment to shared security. We cannot undo what happened in August 1945. But we can choose how to remember it. Not as a triumph of science or strategy, but as a reminder of how easy it is to cross a line – and how hard it is to come back once we do. In many parts of the world, the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki is seen as the tragic cost of ending the war. However, in US policy circles, it is often defended as a strategic necessity. Comment. Liberal thinkers argue that rules, institutions, and cooperation can limit the use of force. Discuss the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) from the perspective of Liberal Institutionalism. Constructivism argues that power in international politics also works through ideas – how states understand themselves, how they view others, and what they believe to be right or necessary. How do you think constructivist thinking explains the bombing of Hiroshima? Do you think that the bombing of Hiroshima also marked the start of a new way of thinking about war, peace, and the use of force? (The author is a Professor at MMAJ Academy of International Studies, Jamia Millia Islamia, New Delhi.) Share your thoughts and ideas on UPSC Special articles with Subscribe to our UPSC newsletter and stay updated with the news cues from the past week. Stay updated with the latest UPSC articles by joining our Telegram channel – IndianExpress UPSC Hub, and follow us on Instagram and X.
Time of India
2 hours ago
- Time of India
Elon Musk's politics hit Tesla sales in Europe's biggest car markets
Tesla's new car registrations in Britain and Germany, Europe's biggest auto markets, more than halved in July from a year earlier, as CEO Elon Musk's political views deter buyers and the company grapples with regulatory challenges. Competition has also increased and sales of EVs made by China's BYD rose nearly five-fold in Germany and over four-fold in Britain in July, official industry data showed on Tuesday. Data last week showed a revamp of Tesla's signature Model Y had failed to reverse a fall in sales in major European markets. A Reuters report on Monday found enthusiasm for the brand has plunged since Musk endorsed Donald Trump in the run-up to his re-election last year. Tesla's July registrations - a proxy for sales - dropped by nearly 60% to 987 units in Britain and by over 55% to 1,110 in Germany, official industry data showed on Tuesday, taking the brand's decline in the month to 45% in 10 European markets that together accounted for over 80% of Tesla's first-half sales in the European Union, the UK and the European Free Trade Association. "That markets shrug at poor sales numbers suggests the company's fortunes rest on their ability to bring forward workable self-driving vehicles", said Ben Nelmes, founder of EV data analysis firm New AutoMotive. Since last year, Musk has shifted Tesla's focus to developing self-driving technology from new, affordable models for human drivers. Overall, the total number of newly registered cars in Germany rose by 11.1% to 264,802 vehicles, with sales of electric vehicles up 58% in July to 48,614 units, the German road traffic agency KBA said. The agency also said the sales volumes of Chinese electric vehicle manufacturer BYD jumped almost fivefold in July to 1,126 units and more than fivefold to 7,449 units since the beginning of the year. New car registrations in Britain fell about 5% year-on-year in July to 140,154 units, with growth in battery electric vehicle sales moderating to 9.1% in the month, figures from industry body Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders showed. BYD sales in the country were up over 300% to 3,184 cars sold in the month. Battery electric vehicles are now projected to account for 23.8% of new registrations in 2025, slightly up from the society's previous forecast of 23.5%. "July's dip shows yet again the new car market's sensitivity to external factors, and the pressing need for consumer certainty," SMMT chief executive Mike Hawes said in a statement. The new electric car grant offers financial help to encourage people to buy BEVs. However, it's still unclear which models will be eligible, so some buyers are waiting, the SMMT said.
