Latest news with #deterrence
CNA
a day ago
- Politics
- CNA
Commentary: Southeast Asia can help manage growing risks of conflict in Taiwan Strait
WASHINGTON: America's recent military strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities have sparked debate about implications for the Taiwan Strait. If America's use of force compels Iran to abandon its nuclear ambitions, this will serve as a reminder of the power of America's punch, potentially reinforcing deterrence against any Chinese attempt to seize Taiwan by force. Conversely, if America becomes embroiled in another military quagmire in the Middle East, Beijing could judge that it has a clearer path to seizing Taiwan. This could cause China's leaders to become more aggressive in pursuing their goal of unifying both sides of the Taiwan Strait. Even before America's Jun 21 military strikes on Iran, US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth was warning that war in the Taiwan Strait ' could be imminent '. Hegseth's remarks marked a return to the on-again, off-again warnings about the Taiwan conflict by senior American defence officials. A similar pattern emerged at the beginning of the Biden administration. At that time, four-star generals and admirals appeared to be competing for dates to own in the prediction market. As the US seeks to reinforce its deterrent posture in the strait, Southeast Asian countries have a role to play by steering the discourse in various ways, including getting the US to keep its military forces focused on the region despite pressing priorities elsewhere. Hegseth's back-to-the-future warning about the risk of conflict in the Taiwan Strait raises several key questions for the region: Have security conditions in the Taiwan Strait recently changed? Why did Hegseth feel compelled to warn of an imminent risk of conflict? And how should Southeast Asian countries interpret Hegseth's comments and respond to them? CHINA'S INCREASED MILITARY PRESENCE The scale, sophistication and frequency of China's military drills surrounding Taiwan have grown considerably in recent years. China now maintains a persistent military presence in areas where it previously did not operate. Last month, Beijing for the first time launched both of its aircraft carriers – the Shandong and Liaoning – simultaneously in the Pacific. China has a third aircraft carrier presently undergoing sea trials. China is also expanding its inventory of missile systems capable of striking Taiwan, as well as American forces that could be called upon to aid Taiwan in the event of an attack. Taken together, China's military capacity to intimidate as well as seize Taiwan is significant and growing. Beijing has paired its growing military capabilities with a strategic messaging campaign to degrade confidence among the Taiwanese people in both America's reliability as a security guarantor and in Taiwan's capacity to sustain the status quo. Although there are a variety of factors impacting public opinion trends in Taiwan, the net effect is that there is an observable decline in public confidence in America's reliability as a security partner. There is also diminishing public confidence in Taiwan's capacity to sustain the status quo. As The Economist recently reported, 'More than 80 per cent of Taiwanese want to keep the 'status quo', but only about 20 per cent think that is possible in the long run.' AMERICA'S MOTIVATIONS Based on past government experience and ongoing exchanges with currently serving officials, a few factors may have motivated Hegseth's warning. First, Hegseth's job, as he defined it, is to 're-establish deterrence'. Part of this effort requires orienting the US military to focus on the most urgent threats. Hegseth and his policy team may be using the warning of imminent conflict in the Taiwan Strait to concentrate the Department of Defense on this strategic challenge. While Hegseth and his staff may have strategic intent to prioritise Asia, the decision is not theirs alone to make. US President Donald Trump, ultimately, is the decision-maker on force posture questions. Second, Hegseth may be seeking to dial up pressure on Taiwan to increase its defence spending. From President Trump down through the military chain of command, US officials have been consistently urging Taiwan to commit more resources to national defence. Currently, Taiwan spends 2.5 per cent of its gross domestic product on defence, with plans to raise that figure to more than 3 per cent. Trump has called for the figure to be raised to as high as 10 per cent – a level far higher than the 5 per cent that the US has called on its allies to spend. Third, Hegseth may be signalling to Beijing that Washington remains laser-focused on deterring Chinese military adventurism. Indeed, he returned repeatedly to the Trump administration's focus on deterring Chinese military aggression during his remarks at the Shangri-La Dialogue in early June. Lastly, Hegseth may be trying to set expectations for America's allies and partners to contribute more to deterring China from employing force to advance Beijing's strategic objectives. By ratcheting up a sense of urgency, he may be trying to impress upon America's allies that the time is now to do more to dissuade China from the use of coercion and force on its neighbours. SOUTHEAST ASIA CAN LEAD DISCOURSE ON TAIWAN Even though there is little in terms of tangible military contributions that Southeast Asian countries realistically could be expected to bring to bear in a cross-strait contingency, Southeast Asian leaders nevertheless could help spur progress in regional thinking on the Taiwan question by driving discourse around a few critical themes. First, leaders and experts in the region can help newly arrived officials in Washington evaluate the signals China is sending. The advances in China's military capabilities are significant, but they do not necessarily predicate that Beijing has decided to employ force to seize Taiwan. Indeed, an overly narrow focus on the military dimension of cross-strait tensions risks obscuring Beijing's campaign of coercion without violence. Second, regional leaders can encourage America's leaders to match their words with deeds. If Asia is the priority theatre and Taiwan is the central security challenge within it, as American security officials have declared, then the US should deploy more military capabilities into the region, rather than diverting assets to other theatres. The strategic reality of deepening US involvement in Middle East conflicts will militate against attempts to elevate focus on Asia. No amount of eloquence about America's prioritisation of Asia will hold any deterrent value if the US becomes bogged down in another Middle East quagmire. Ultimately, there is a real risk of conflict in the Taiwan Strait, but there is no visible evidence of imminent risk. The more the region pools strength and speaks with one voice about the importance of upholding peace and stability in the Taiwan Strait, the more manageable the risks may be.
Wall Street Journal
a day ago
- Politics
- Wall Street Journal
Trump and the Loyal Opposition
CBS News, when it's not fighting off nuisance suits from Donald Trump, has enlisted usefully in the drone wars, warning on Sunday night that U.S. bases could be attacked the way Ukraine recently attacked parked Russian bombers. But let's face it, a serious U.S. rival won't provoke a confrontation just to blow up a few U.S. planes sitting on the tarmac. 'Decapitation strike' is the fear now dominating congressional hearings and Pentagon planning: blinding our satellites, using space-based hypersonic weapons. The goal would be to render the U.S leaderless while neutralizing a key tenet of deterrence. The U.S., after all, needs to be able to know who hit it to deter such an attack.
Wall Street Journal
2 days ago
- Politics
- Wall Street Journal
For Iran's Nuclear Program, a Month Is Longer Than It Sounds
The furious debate over whether U.S. strikes obliterated Iran's nuclear program or only delayed its progress toward being able to build a nuclear weapon by a few months skips over a key component in the equation: Iran's political calculation. If Iran were to make the decision to build a nuclear weapon, it would be betting that it can complete the job and establish deterrence before the U.S. and Israel intervene—through military action, economic pressure or diplomacy—to stop it.
Telegraph
6 days ago
- Politics
- Telegraph
New tactical nuclear bombers for the RAF will close a vital deterrence gap
The Prime Minister has announced at the Nato summit that the UK will acquire a squadron of F-35A jets for the RAF which will be able to carry US B61 nuclear gravity bombs. Given that we already have submarines carrying Trident ballistic missiles each with multiple nuclear warheads – which are far more dangerous – why are we doing this? The answer is that we need a full spectrum of possible responses to deter our enemies – to convince them not to do certain things. Vladimir Putin might decide to risk using tactical nukes on the battlefield in Ukraine or in a future attack on other nations, destroying opposing forces and gaining a big military advantage. He might calculate that Britain would be reluctant to make a strategic Trident strike and unleash armageddon in that situation. However, Putin having escalated to the use of tactical nukes, the UK might well feel able to respond using its new tactical option. Fundamentally, when Putin looked west in February 2022, he saw no conventional or nuclear deterrence to prevent his attacks into Ukraine. This has been exacerbated by President Trump's apparent ambivalence towards Nato and his ambiguity over supporting a Nato country if invaded by Russia. Intentionally or not, this has emboldened Russia. In parallel, some home truths from the US to Nato countries have forced us to take responsibility for the defence of Europe. We are all now pledged to spend 3.5 per cent of GDP on defence which should easily be enough to see off the Russian bear with or without Uncle Sam. The new British tactical option will come as part of this. The F-35A jet is quite different from the F-35Bs that we already have. The Bs have vertical-thrust equipment, meaning they can make short ski-jump takeoffs and vertical landings, and thus can operate from our aircraft carriers if required. The F-35A has no vertical thrust and thus can only operate from a runway ashore, but it can carry more fuel and so deliver weapons to longer ranges. In this case, however, it is not being chosen primarily for these capabilities but for the fact that it is certified to carry the B61 nuclear bomb and the F-35B is not. This is the only part of the package that one might criticise: a free-falling bomb like the B61 must be dropped from almost directly above its target, meaning that the carrying jet might have to penetrate deeply into an enemy air defence envelope. Using B61s from US inventory also means US control over the weapons use. A nuclear-tipped missile like the supersonic French ASMP provides independence and greater deterrence, but at greater cost. Nonetheless, as the British military moves away from traditional heavy metal to autonomous drones, AI and cyber warfare, this restoration of tactical nuclear capabilities is by far and away the most significant piece of hard military power that the UK could acquire, and will have more resonance in the Kremlin than any amount of new tanks and attack helicopters. Putin's failure in the tactical nuclear arms contest is that he has cried nuclear wolf so often, nobody believes he would actually strike. Now the Prime Minister has made the bold move to purchase these jets, he must make it absolutely clear to Putin that we will use them if the situation calls for it. He must not hide behind some clever political ambiguity, which the generals who make the decisions on either side may not interpret correctly. Tyrants like Putin respect strength and exploit weakness. Tactical nuclear weapons shout 'strength' like nothing else on the planet and will restore the nuclear equilibrium, so helping to guarantee peace between the East and the West for another 85 years.
Wall Street Journal
25-06-2025
- Politics
- Wall Street Journal
U.K. Shifts Nuclear Doctrine With Purchase of U.S. Jets
LONDON—In a return to Cold War nuclear policy, Britain will acquire a squadron of U.S. jets capable of carrying atomic bombs as it looks to beef up deterrence in Europe in light of a growing Russian threat. The U.K. government said it would purchase 12 F-35A jets, which can carry conventional weapons as well as U.S.-made tactical nuclear bombs. The purchase could allow the U.K. to launch nuclear weapons from the air for the first time since the late 1990s. Currently, Britain's nuclear weapons are carried solely on its four Vanguard submarines.
