From Balikatan to Taiwan: Why Firepower Beats Perfection
Balikatan 2025—the largest Indo-Pacific exercise in years—sent a clear message: the United States is preparing for a major regional fight. With anti-ship missile strikes, island defense scenarios, and Japanese ground forces participating, it was the most complex iteration yet.
But exercises don't win wars. Firepower does.
The Pentagon must face a hard truth: victory in the next conflict won't come from flawless, gold-plated systems. It will come from what we can deploy quickly, at scale, and under fire.
Ukraine's Lesson: Volume and Speed Win
Ukraine is showing the world how high-intensity warfare works in the 21st century. Their battlefield success hasn't come from perfect weapons. It's come from fielding what's ready—drones, loitering munitions, commercial communications tools, and artillery.
Not because they're the best. Because they're available.
Quantity wins. Mass drone strikes and heavy artillery have been more decisive than boutique precision systems.
Speed wins more. The systems that arrived early—regardless of sophistication—changed the fight.
Iteration matters. Ukraine's ability to adapt and repurpose tech in real time has saved lives and shifted momentum.
While Western procurement measures in years, Ukraine adapts in weeks. That's the pace of modern war.
INDOPACOM's Edge Will Come Early—or Not at All
The Indo-Pacific is not Ukraine. Distances are longer. Logistics are harder. But the principle holds: the side that delivers effective firepower first will dominate the fight.
A Taiwan Strait war wouldn't be measured in months. It would be decided in days. The U.S. won't have time to surge exquisite assets across the Pacific—or build new ones mid-conflict.
Related Stories
5/8/2025
3/22/2025
If we're still waiting for 'perfect' systems to arrive, we'll lose the initiative. And possibly the war.
Balikatan 2025 rehearsed island defense, long-range fires, and distributed C2. But behind the scenarios is a sobering question: do we have enough munitions, drones, and comms gear to fight for real?
Buy What We Can Use Now
Defense acquisition must evolve—fast. It's not just about improving the process. It's about buying the right things, at the right speed, and in the right quantity.
Ukraine has repurposed commercial drones and Starlink terminals into ISR, targeting, and command tools. They didn't wait for five-year procurement cycles. They found what worked—and fielded it immediately.
INDOPACOM should do the same. Especially when the opening days of conflict may define the next decade of global stability.
Fix Procurement Before It's Too Late
To prepare for a potential fight in the Indo-Pacific, we need to prioritize three things in acquisition: speed, scalability, and survivability. Here's what that looks like:
1. Fund what's fieldable now. Buy off-the-shelf drones, comms, loitering munitions, and ISR tools that can deploy immediately.
2. Build surge capacity before a crisis. Ukraine ran out of munitions fast. We can't. Stockpile and pre-position across the Pacific now.
3. Cut procurement timelines in half. If it takes five years to field, it won't help in Taiwan. Fast-track authorities must become the norm.
4. Empower those at the front. In Ukraine, warfighters influenced what got procured. We should embed their feedback into acquisition decisions.
This isn't about throwing out the system—it's about adjusting it to meet the timeline of modern conflict.
Balikatan's Warning Shot
Exercises like Balikatan matter. They expose where we're falling short. And if we can't deliver munitions, drones, or comms gear quickly in peacetime, how will we do it under fire?
Ukraine is already showing the answer: get adaptable systems to the field, in volume, now.
The U.S. cannot afford to learn that lesson the hard way in INDOPACOM.
Perfection Is a Peacetime Luxury
The next war won't be won by the most beautiful system. It'll be won by the one that arrives first, hits hard, and keeps working.
We must shift from a procurement mindset built for long-term savings to one optimized for near-term victory.
As Balikatan winds down and strategic focus stays fixed on China, we should ask: are we building to win a contract—or to win a war?
In the Indo-Pacific, we may only get one chance to get it right.
From
Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Post
4 hours ago
- New York Post
Court throws out plea deal for 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, two other terrorists
A divided federal appeals court in Washington, D.C., on Friday tossed out an agreement that would have allowed 9/11 terror mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed to plead guilty in another failed effort to end a years-long legal saga surrounding the military prosecution of men held at Guantánamo Bay. The 2-1 D.C. Circuit appeals court decision upheld then-Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin's decision to undo the plea deal approved by military lawyers and senior Pentagon staff. The deal would have carried life without parole sentences for Mohammed and two co-defendants, potentially taking capital punishment off the table. Mohammed, a Pakistani national, is accused of spearheading the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center, Pentagon and another commercial jetliner that crashed in Pennsylvania. Austin said a decision on whether to take the death penalty off the table could only be made by the Secretary of Defense. 3 A federal appeals court tossed out an agreement that would have allowed Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, a Pakistani national accused of spearheading the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center, to plead guilty. AP However, legal concerns stemmed from whether the original plea deal was legally binding and whether Austin waited too long to get it dismissed. The court found Austin indisputably had legal authority to withdraw from the agreements because the promises made in the deal had not yet been fulfilled, and the government had no adequate alternative remedies. Since the appeals court put the agreement on hold, the defendants were not sentenced Friday as previously scheduled, marking a temporary victory for the Biden administration. 3 The court decision upheld then-Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin's decision to undo the plea deal approved by military lawyers and senior Pentagon staff. AP 3 A U.S. trooper exits a tent at Camp Justice, part of the U.S. military Guantanamo war crimes court at Guantanamo Bay on June 5, 2008. REUTERS Judges Patricia Millett and Neomi Rao, of the majority opinion, noted the government 'adequately explained that Secretary Austin delayed action to avoid an unlawful influence challenge, waiting to see what type of agreement, if any, would result from the negotiations and only then deciding whether intervention was necessary.' Citing previous unlawful influence allegations against various government officials, including the secretary of defense, Millett and Rao found Austin was 'reasonable' to withdraw from the agreements to avoid additional litigation. 'Having properly assumed the convening authority, the Secretary determined that the families and the American public deserve the opportunity to see military commission trials carried out,' the judges wrote. 'The Secretary acted within the bounds of his legal authority, and we decline to second-guess his judgment.' Judge Robert L. Wilkins, in dissent, argued that siding with the government would be an overreach. 'The Court's holding is stunning,' Wilkins wrote. 'Not only does the majority believe that Respondents [prosecutors who negotiated the plea deal] did not begin performance, but it holds that the government established a clear and indisputable right to a writ of mandamus or prohibition. 'It is impossible for me to conclude that the government has shown it is clearly and indisputably entitled to relief,' he continued. 'That demanding mandamus standard is even further out of the government's reach where the government cannot cite binding on-point precedent in support of its claims and we are constrained to reviewing for clear error both the Military Judge's finding that the PTAs encompassed the relevant promises and his application of the withdrawal regulation. But even on de novo review of those findings, the government has not met its burden.'
Business Insider
4 hours ago
- Business Insider
Elon Musk's Starlink faces fresh roadblock in South Africa amid tech sovereignty dispute
South Africa's heated political battle over foreign investment and digital sovereignty has intensified, with Julius Malema's party, Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF), declaring that Elon Musk's Starlink satellite service must 'never be allowed' to operate in the country South Africa is facing a heated political debate over foreign investment and digital sovereignty, centered on the Starlink satellite service. The Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) party opposed Starlink's entry, citing security threats and potential impacts on national ICT policies. Critics argue the policy changes are specifically designed to allow Starlink to bypass existing licensing requirements. In an address to Parliament during the Department of Communications and Digital Technologies' budget vote debate on Friday, EFF MP Sinawo Thambo, a member of the South Africa's fourth-largest political party, accused the government of trying to amend the country's ICT licensing regime solely to accommodate Starlink. He said, 'There's a security threat that it poses. It must never be allowed to operate in South Africa.' At the heart of the issue is a draft policy proposed by Communications Minister Solly Malatsi, which introduces Equity Equivalence Investment Programmes (EEIPs) in the ICT sector. This alternative approach would replace the current requirement for foreign companies to sell 30% equity to black South Africans, a model already used in sectors like manufacturing and automotive. Minister Malatsi insisted that the EEIPs are not designed specifically for Starlink but aim to unlock investment and modernize the ICT sector. However, EFF MP Sinawo Thambo dismissed the proposal, labeling it as a broader attempt to create a legal pathway for Starlink's entry into South Africa. 'In our view, this is all in service of allowing Starlink to operate in South Africa, and we must be clear that we will never allow Starlink, which has weaponised misinformation and captured the White House, to erode US and South African diplomatic relations in order to ease business access in South Africa,' he said. 'We view that as economic and diplomatic terrorism and … even if Starlink were to meet equity equivalence requirements, there's a security threat that it poses that [means it] must never be allowed to operate in South Africa, and we will never allow it to do so,' he added. The proposal has also drawn critics within the ruling party, ANC, including Parliamentary Communications Committee chair Khusela Diko, who also labelled the proposed policy as 'shortcut' designed specifically for Starlink. 'Many satellite operators have obtained their operating licences by complying with the laws as they currently stand,' she said, accusing Starlink of trying to bypass South Africa's transformation goals. A long-running feud with Elon Musk The Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) party's opposition to Starlink is rooted in a long-standing feud between its leader, Julius Malema, and Elon Musk. The two have repeatedly clashed on Musk's platform, X (formerly Twitter), with Musk accusing Malema of inciting white genocide and calling for him to be sanctioned and declared an international criminal. Malema responded by branding Musk a " typical racist" It's rather ironic that despite Starlink's widespread presence across the globe, it has yet to enter the South African market. Musk has previously criticised the country's Black Economic Empowerment (BEE) policies, stating that Starlink cannot launch there 'because I'm not black.' Meanwhile, regulatory expert Dominic Cull cautions that changes to licensing rules won't happen quickly. he said.
Yahoo
6 hours ago
- Yahoo
US demands clarity from allies on their role in potential war over Taiwan, FT reports
(Reuters) -The Pentagon is urging Japan and Australia to clarify what role they would play if the U.S. and China went to war over Taiwan, the Financial Times reported on Saturday. Elbridge Colby, the U.S. under-secretary of defense for policy, has been pushing the matter during recent talks with defense officials of both countries, the report said, citing people familiar with the discussions. According to the newspaper, the reported request caught both Tokyo and Canberra off guard, as the U.S. itself does not offer a blank cheque guarantee to defend Taiwan. Reuters could not verify the report. The U.S. department of defense did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The U.S is Taiwan's most important arms supplier, despite a lack of formal diplomatic ties. Taiwan has faced increased military pressure from China, including several rounds of war games, as Beijing seeks to assert its sovereignty claims over the island. Taiwan rejects China's assertion of sovereignty. Colby was deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development during President Donald Trump's first term. Colby is known for arguing that the U.S. military should prioritize competition with China and shift its focus from the Middle East and Europe.
