Trial by fire: Chinese laser weapon reputedly in Russian service
China's battlefield lasers have arrived in Ukraine and may soon shape a drone-saturated future war over Taiwan.
Last month, The War Zone (TWZ) reported that Russia has reportedly deployed a Chinese laser weapon system to counter Ukrainian drones, according to pro-Russian Telegram sources.
A video posted this May shows a system resembling China's Shen Nung 3000/5000 anti-drone laser, previously supplied to Iran.
The footage depicts Russian troops operating the system from a vehicle, followed by its deployment and engagement of aerial targets, including drones visibly catching fire midair.
The Nomad special forces unit is reportedly utilizing the system, with Russian analysts deeming it a significant advancement over previous counter-drone technologies.
While the exact specifications remain unclear, experts suggest that the system is a variant of the Low-Altitude Laser Defending System (LASS) manufactured by China's Academy of Engineering Physics.
The incident underscores deepening military cooperation between Russia, China and Iran, raising concerns over China's expanding arms exports amid ongoing conflicts. China has denied direct involvement and claims neutrality.
The video's emergence comes amid broader developments in laser air defense technology, including Israel's Iron Beam system, deployed against Hezbollah drones.
The effectiveness of laser-based weapons remains debated due to environmental limitations and operational challenges, but their increasing field use signals ongoing adaptation in modern warfare.
Looking at the promise of laser weapons, Ian Boyd mentions in a March 2024 article for The Conversation that laser weapons promise speed-of-light engagement, precision targeting, and an 'infinite magazine' as long as power is available.
Boyd highlights their advantages, including low cost per shot, minimal logistical footprint, and adaptability across land, sea, air, and space platforms. However, he also points out their drawbacks, such as high power demands, cooling requirements and environmental limitations, including fog, rain and smoke.
Those advantages could have been decisive in US operations against Houthi rebels in the Red Sea. Lara Seligman and Matt Berg note in a December 2023 Politico article that the US has used multi-million, hard-to-replace interceptor missiles to intercept Houthi suicide drones that cost US$20,000 at most.
In that situation, they point out that the cost-benefit analysis favors the Houthis, with high interceptor missile costs, long missile production times and limited ship magazines all working against the US.
Further, laser weapons might have mitigated some of the damage in Ukraine's recent audacious drone swarm attack on Russian airfields and bombers.
While Russia deployed countermeasures, such as blast walls, decoys, air defense systems and improvised defenses, including placing tires on bomber wings to confuse image-matching systems, these have yielded mixed results at best.
Building hardened aircraft shelters (HAS) may not have been an option for Russia, given the size of its bomber aircraft, and that doing so could spark a nuclear miscalculation between the US and Russia.
While Russia has suspended its participation in the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START 3), it still complies with its terms in practice by keeping its bombers out in the open, allowing for US satellite and inspection-based verification.
While US airbases in the Pacific lack hardening, the US hardening its airbases could be interpreted by Russia or China as preparation for nuclear war or a more aggressive nuclear posture, with negative implications for strategic stability.
Lessons learned from the Russia-Ukraine War could inform China's doctrine in deploying laser weapons during a Taiwan Strait conflict.
Highlighting the possibility of drone swarms being used against China, US Indo-Pacific Command (USINDOPACOM) commander Admiral Samuel Paparo said in a July 2024 Washington Post interview that he intends to turn the Taiwan Strait into an unmanned 'hellscape' to deter a Chinese invasion of Taiwan.
'I want to turn the Taiwan Strait into an unmanned hellscape using a number of classified capabilities,' he said. 'So that I can make their lives utterly miserable for a month, which buys me the time for the rest of everything.'
According to USNI News in January 2025, the US Department of Defense's (DOD) Replicator initiative is advancing toward its August 2025 milestone, aiming to deploy lethal swarms of unmanned vehicles linked by integrated software.
The report states that the first tranche of the Replicator initiative, initially launched in 2023, focuses on surface and subsurface drones and loitering munitions to deter a potential Chinese invasion of Taiwan. It says that the second tranche, announced in 2024, prioritizes counter-drone capabilities.
As to how the US could use Replicator drone swarms to defeat a Chinese invasion of Taiwan, Stacie Pettyjohn and other writers mention in a June 2024 Center for a New American Security (CNAS) report that swarms of low-cost, long-range suicide drones can overwhelm Chinese naval forces and disrupt amphibious landings.
Pettyjohn and others say that these autonomous systems when paired with advanced surveillance drones, would rapidly close kill chains by identifying targets and guiding precision strikes. They add that pre-positioned drones in Taiwan could accelerate early response, while layered counter-drone defenses would blunt China's swarms.
A January 2025 Defense News report stated that while the Replicator initiative has received bipartisan support, concerns persist over funding, scalability, and long-term viability. The report states that industry leaders argue that without increased investment, Replicator will fall short of its goal to field thousands of autonomous systems rapidly.
While Defense News notes that congressional aides expect modifications rather than cancellation, the program's trajectory hinges on changes in leadership at the US DOD. It mentions that analysts warn that without sustained momentum, Replicator may struggle to deliver the transformative impact envisioned at its launch.
China is taking the threat seriously. Defense One reported in May 2025 that aside from the Shen Nung 3000/5000 anti-drone laser, China Aerospace Science and Industry Corporation (CASIC) has developed the LW-30 and LW-60, which offer vehicle-mounted interception with AI-driven automation.
Additionally, Defense One reports that China has developed a breakthrough cooling system, which enables continuous laser operation by eliminating heat buildup—a longstanding challenge to the effectiveness of laser weapons.
The report states that these advancements underscore China's commitment to reducing its reliance on costly missile interceptors while enhancing precision and operational efficiency.
By testing its lasers in foreign wars, China is quietly mastering the weapons it may one day unleash in the Taiwan Strait.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Asia Times
an hour ago
- Asia Times
Trump's Golden Dome will make US – and world
President Donald Trump's idea of a 'Golden Dome' missile defense system carries a range of potential strategic dangers for the United States. Golden Dome is meant to protect the US from ballistic, cruise and hypersonic missiles, and missiles launched from space. Trump has called for the missile defense to be fully operational before the end of his term in three years. Trump's goals for Golden Dome are likely beyond reach. A wide range of studies makes clear that even defenses far more limited than what Trump envisions would be far more expensive and less effective than Trump expects, especially against enemy missiles equipped with modern countermeasures. Countermeasures include multiple warheads per missile, decoy warheads and warheads that can maneuver or are difficult to track, among others. Regardless of Golden Dome's feasibility, there is a long history of scholarship about strategic missile defenses, and the weight of evidence points to the defenses making their host country less safe from nuclear attack. I'm a national security and foreign policy professor at Harvard University, where I lead 'Managing the Atom,' the university's main research group on nuclear weapons and nuclear energy policies. For decades, I've been participating in dialogues with Russian and Chinese nuclear experts – and their fears about US missile defenses have been a consistent theme throughout. Russian President Vladimir Putin and Chinese leader Xi Jinping have already warned that Golden Dome is destabilizing. Along with US offensive capabilities, Golden Dome poses a threat of 'directly undermining global strategic stability, spurring an arms race and increasing conflict potential both among nuclear-weapon states and in the international arena as a whole,' a joint statement from China and Russia said. While that is a propaganda statement, it reflects real concerns broadly held in both countries. Golden Dome explained. Experience going back half a century makes clear that if the administration pursues Golden Dome, it is likely to provoke even larger arms buildups, derail already-dim prospects for any negotiated nuclear arms restraint, and perhaps even increase the chances of nuclear war. My first book, 35 years ago, made the case that it would be in the US national security interest to remain within the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, which strictly limited US and Soviet – and later Russian – missile defenses. The United States and the Soviet Union negotiated the ABM Treaty as part of SALT I, the first agreements limiting the nuclear arms race. It was approved in the Senate 98-2. The ABM Treaty experience is instructive for the implications of Golden Dome today. Why did the two countries agree to limit defenses? First and foremost, because they understood that unless each side's defenses were limited, they would not be able to stop an offensive nuclear arms race. If each side wants to maintain the ability to retaliate if the other attacks – 'don't nuke me, or I'll nuke you' – then an obvious answer to one side building up more defenses is for the other to build up more nuclear warheads. For example, in the 1960s and 1970s, the Soviets installed 100 interceptors to defend Moscow – so the United States targeted still more warheads on Moscow to overwhelm the defense. Had it ever come to a nuclear war, Moscow would have been even more thoroughly obliterated than if there had been no defense at all. Both sides came to realize that unlimited missile defenses would just mean more offense on both sides, leaving both less secure than before. In addition, nations viewed an adversary's shield as going hand in hand with a nuclear sword. A nuclear first strike might destroy a major part of a country's nuclear forces. Missile defenses would inevitably be more effective against the reduced, disorganized retaliation that they knew would be coming than they would be against a massive, well-planned surprise attack. That potential advantage to whoever struck first could make nuclear crises even more dangerous. Unfortunately, President George W Bush pulled the United States out of the ABM Treaty in 2002, seeking to free US development of defenses against potential missile attacks from small states such as North Korea. But even now, decades later, the US has fewer missile interceptors deployed (44) than the treaty permitted (100). The US pullout did not lead to an immediate arms buildup or the end of nuclear arms control. But Putin has complained bitterly about US missile defenses and the US refusal to accept any limitation at all on them. He views the US stance as an effort to achieve military superiority by negating Russia's nuclear deterrent. Russia is investing heavily in new types of strategic nuclear weapons intended to avoid US missile defenses, from an intercontinental nuclear torpedo to a missile that can go around the world and attack from the south, while US defenses are mainly pointed north toward Russia. Russia maintains a large force of nuclear weapons like this mobile intercontinental ballistic missile. Photo: Russian Defense Ministry Press Service via APPEAR / The Conversation Similarly, much of China's nuclear buildup appears to be driven by wanting a reliable nuclear deterrent in the face of the United States' capability to strike its nuclear forces and use missile defenses to mop up the remainder. Indeed, China was so angered by South Korea's deployment of US-provided regional defenses – which they saw as aiding the US ability to intercept their missiles – that they imposed stiff sanctions on South Korea. Now, Trump wants to go much further, with a defense 'forever ending the missile threat to the American homeland,' with a success rate 'very close to 100%.' I believe that this effort is highly likely to lead to still larger nuclear buildups in Russia and China. The Putin-Xi joint statement pledges to 'counter' defenses 'aimed at achieving military superiority.' Given the ease of developing countermeasures that are extraordinarily difficult for defenses to overcome, odds are the resulting offense-defense competition will leave the United States worse off than before – and a good bit poorer. Putin and Xi made clear that they are particularly concerned about the thousands of space-based interceptors Trump envisions. These interceptors are designed to hit missiles while their rockets are still burning during launch. Most countries are likely to oppose the idea of deploying huge numbers of weapons in space – and these interceptors would be both expensive and vulnerable. China and Russia could focus on further developing anti-satellite weapons to blow a hole in the defense, increasing the risk of space war. Already, there is a real danger that the whole effort of negotiated limits to temper nuclear arms racing may be coming to an end. The last remaining treaty limiting US and Russian nuclear forces, the New START Treaty, expires in February 2026. China's rapid nuclear buildup is making many defense officials and experts in Washington call for a US buildup in response. Intense hostility all around means that for now, neither Russia nor China is even willing to sit down to discuss nuclear restraints, in treaty form or otherwise. In my view, adding Golden Dome to this combustible mix would likely end any prospect of avoiding a future of unrestrained and unpredictable nuclear arms competition. But paths away from these dangers are available. It would be quite plausible to design defenses that would provide some protection against attacks from a handful of missiles from North Korea or others that would not seriously threaten Russian or Chinese deterrent forces – and design restraints that would allow all parties to plan their offensive forces knowing what missile defenses they would be facing in the years to come. I believe that Trump should temper his Golden Dome ambitions to achieve his other dream – of negotiating a deal to reduce nuclear dangers. Matthew Bunn is professor of the practice of energy, national security and foreign policy, Harvard Kennedy School This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article. Thanks
HKFP
2 hours ago
- HKFP
‘Freer country': Gay Chinese couple fulfil wedding dream in Thailand
When Wang Zengyi, 41, and Song Jihan, 29, first met at a friend's dinner party in China, it was love at first sight. 'I thought he was handsome and pure,' says Wang. 'Our love has deepened over time.' Nearly three years later, the gay Chinese couple are getting married in Thailand, which became Asia's largest nation to legalise same-sex marriage earlier this year -– including for foreign couples. They are among the first Chinese LGBTQ pairs to tie the knot in the Southeast Asian country as it celebrates its first Pride since the law's passage. 'Thailand is a freer country,' said Wang after they signed their marriage certificate at a Bangkok registry office. 'It's also more inclusive to our community.' He believes they are the first gay Chinese couple to host a full wedding ceremony in Thailand, but that 'gradually' more will follow in their footsteps. 'I think we are unique so far… but I hope we can have a positive influence.' Embed from Getty Images They enlisted the help of an agent and a consultant to organise the wedding and paperwork to finally make their dream come true. Bureaucratic hurdles Chinese authorities decriminalised homosexuality in 1997, but same-sex marriage is not legal and social stigma is widespread. Despite a period of relative relaxation in the 2000s to mid-2010s, rights groups say recent years have seen a crackdown on the community's spaces and freedom of expression. Real estate agent Owen Zhu has a property business in Thailand that also helps gay Chinese couples come to Thailand to get married. Zhu, 40, said that the biggest difficulties couples like Wang and Song face are linked to paperwork, as well as prejudice. It is difficult for Chinese LGBTQ individuals to obtain the certificate of single status required by Thailand proving that they are not married, he told AFP. China also does not recognise same-sex marriages registered abroad. Embed from Getty Images But Zhu believes that despite China's bureaucratic hurdles, there will be a rise in the number of Chinese couples looking to wed and even live long-term in Thailand. 'There is large market demand from many Chinese same-sex couples,' he says. 'Thailand is a particularly tempting place, allowing freedom to do things not possible in China, like holding hands or kissing in public with a partner. In China, they may not dare do such things.' Zhu says the simple act of signing a marriage document is deeply meaningful for his clients. 'Though this piece of paper might not be recognised in China, in their hearts, they see it as recognition and acceptance from the world,' he says. Love ballads, vows More than 30 countries have legalised marriage for all since the Netherlands became the first to allow same-sex unions in 2001. Thailand was the third place in Asia after Taiwan and Nepal. The kingdom ranks high on recent indexes measuring public attitudes towards LGBTQ people, but matching legal structures were absent before it passed the same-sex marriage bill in a historic parliamentary vote last June. Thousands of couples across the kingdom tied the knot in a mass wedding the day same-sex unions became legal in January this year. Embed from Getty Images Chris Yan, a legal consultant who helped Wang and Song navigate Thai administration to formalise their partnership, says the process for foreigners to register their marriage in Thailand is fairly smooth as long as they can provide the necessary documents. 'I believe it is more advanced than many other countries, since the cost in Thailand is quite low,' he says. 'They can stay in the country for longer and processing the documents is quicker.' Surrounded by dozens of close friends and their ring-bearing small fluffy dog, Wang and Song sing love ballads to each other on a sandy Pattaya beach before tearfully reading their wedding vows. Embed from Getty Images They will return home to China after their honeymoon, but hope to eventually retire in Thailand. Life is short, is the message they have for other couples like them. Wang said: 'Be with the one you want to be with.' Original reporting on HKFP is backed by our monthly contributors. Almost 1,000 monthly donors make HKFP possible. Each contributes an average of HK$200/month to support our award-winning original reporting, keeping the city's only independent English-language outlet free-to-access for all. Three reasons to join us: 🔎 Transparent & efficient: As a non-profit, we are externally audited each year, publishing our income/outgoings annually, as the city's most transparent news outlet. 🔒 Accurate & accountable: Our reporting is governed by a comprehensive Ethics Code. We are 100% independent, and not answerable to any tycoon, mainland owners or shareholders. Check out our latest Annual Report, and help support press freedom.
Asia Times
21 hours ago
- Asia Times
Xi calls Trump's bluff and wins, time and time again
China's Xi Jinping and US President Donald Trump spoke over the phone Thursday (June 5), the first known formal contact of the Trump 2.0 era. Though signs of détente were few, the fact that the leaders of the world's two biggest economies are speaking at all marks progress. Essentially, the two presidents talked about talking more down the line to lower the temperature on tariffs and access to rare earth minerals. The exchange fueled hope on Wall Street that a trade war truce might be in the cards. 'The US and China appear to have stepped back from their latest brink,' says analyst Bill Bishop, who writes the Sinocism newsletter. 'Trump and Xi finally had their call, the Geneva 'truce' may be back on track, and to listen to Trump, the [China] halt in exports of rare earth magnets may be ending.' Trump told reporters that the 'very good' call 'straightened out any complexity, it's very complex stuff. I think we're in very good shape with China and the trade deal.' Yet the 'grand bargain' global markets hoped Trump would strike with China still risks becoming more like a grand flop. The Chinese side, for example, seems far less impressed by the Thursday call, which officials suggested was perfunctory and vague. As Cornell University economist Eswar Prasad puts it, the 'asymmetry' in Beijing's and Washington's reporting of the call suggests that Xi held to a tough line and Trump 'didn't get much acquiescence' to his demands. Odds are good that Xi will continue to drag things out, believing time is on China's side. By appearing above the fray, Xi continues to outmaneuver Trump, who often seems to be negotiating with himself. China is also having some success positioning itself as the adult in the room as Trump lurches from one trade stance to another, hour by hour. 'The overall objectives of the trade aggression, other than the display of raw power, are as muddled as ever,' says Arthur Kroeber, an analyst at Gavekal Research. Kroeber adds that 'fresh hostilities between the US and China show that the many questions left hanging after the Geneva ceasefire in mid-May still have no satisfactory answers. It's not clear whether US trade policy is being run by Trump, his trade negotiators or his national security team.' So far, Xi has taken a go-slow approach to trade deal negotiations. Efforts by US Treasury Scott Bessent and Trade Representative Jamieson Greer to convince markets that a pact was in the works, imminent even, haven't been reciprocated from the Chinese side. China has reason to tread carefully. On April 10, Trump hiked China tariffs to a cartoonishly high 145%. Such a levy is 'effectively an embargo,' notes University of Michigan economist Justin Wolfers. It's also an action likely to turn off the other side, squandering any remaining goodwill between governments. By the time Trump backed down, cutting the tax to 30% on May 12, it was too late. This likely explains why Team Xi came forward with zero concessions in the days that followed what Trump World called a 'truce' between the two biggest economies. On May 30, Trump declared that Beijing had 'totally violated its agreement with us.' But then on June 4, Trump made it clear Xi's inscrutability is keeping him up at night. In a thirsty 2:17 a.m. social media rant, Trump declared: 'I like President XI of China, always have, and always will, but he is VERY TOUGH, AND EXTREMELY HARD TO MAKE A DEAL WITH!!!.' Gita Gopinath, the International Monetary Fund's (IMF) first deputy managing director, warns that the shock from Trump's trade war is worse than Covid-19. 'This time the challenge is going to be greater for them compared to the pandemic,' Gopinath tells the Financial Times. 'During Covid, central banks were moving in the same direction… easing monetary policy very quickly.' At this point, she adds, monetary authorities are 'steering through the fog' without coordination or a shared crisis playbook. The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) thinks global growth will now slow to 2.9% in 2025 from 3.3% in 2024, the weakest pace of expansion since the pandemic. It sees US growth slowing to 1.6% from an earlier forecast of 2.8%. 'Weakened economic prospects will be felt around the world, with almost no exception,' says OECD chief economist Alvaro Pereira. 'Lower growth and less trade will hit incomes and slow job growth.' In a report on Tuesday, OECD said that 'agreements to ease trade tensions and lower tariffs and other trade barriers will be instrumental to revive growth and investment and avoid rising prices. This is by far the most important policy priority.' On the US economy, OECD Secretary General Mathias Cormann told reporters that 'the main headwinds are lower export growth as a result of retaliatory measures from trading partners, the impact of high policy uncertainty, and a marked slowdown in net immigration.' Yet the uncertainty factor is just as bad as Trump's tariffs themselves. Particularly as one US court reverses Trump's taxes on the grounds that he lacks the authority to impose them and another keeps them in place. 'I'm operating under the assumption that some major elements of Trump's tariff policies will remain intact in one form or another,' says Stephen Roach, economist at Yale University. 'Hopefully, they won't be as severe as threatened earlier, but they will nonetheless impose meaningful taxes on most US imports, with an especially steep penalty on those coming from China.' Roach adds that 'I still suspect that tariffs surviving the current legal skirmishes are likely to be onerous enough to have negative impacts on global trade, with especially adverse implications for the US and China.' Trouble is, Roach says, 'in this climate, companies have no idea how to scale and source inputs for their multinational production platforms. The planning exercise has become an oxymoron, with serious consequences for the real economy.' The bottom line, Roach notes, is that a 'protracted period of policy uncertainty essentially freezes business decision-making on capital spending and hiring, with negative repercussions for income generation and consumer demand; consumer purchasing power should be further constrained by tariff-related price shocks. Uncertainty remains the enemy of decision making.' As Xi slow-walks Trump's desire for a big, splashy trade deal, the odds of this fragile truce holding are dwindling even after Thursday's call. For one thing, headlines about Trump's having caved on tariffs as Wall Street stocks plunged are grating on the president and his inner circle. So is the #TACO narrative — the idea that Trump Always Chickens Out on import taxes. Beijing 'successfully called Trump's bluff,' notes Mark Williams, economist at Capital Economics. Eurasia Group founder Ian Bremmer notes that Trump's talk of a 'total reset' with China is really his 'biggest climbdown to date.' Since the 1980s, Trump observers have known that nothing angers him more than being perceived as the 'loser' in any negotiation. This partly explains why he signed — and loudly touted — a trade agreement with the UK, an economy with which Washington has a trade surplus. It betrayed a desperation to highlight a trade deal of any kind, no matter how minor. Japan is proving to be in no hurry to negotiate a bilateral pact, just six years after the last one with Trump 1.0. Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba has made it clear Tokyo will negotiate at its own pace — not in haste. Over in Seoul, South Korea's new president, Lee Jae-myung, says he has no intention of rushing to the negotiating table. He's far more liberal than his predecessor Yoon Suk Yeol. Pundits call him Korea's answer to US Senator Bernie Sanders. As such, Lee is unlikely to make quick concessions at the expense of workers' rights in a nation where labor unions wield real power. At the same time, Xi's strategy of playing the long game and not flinching is offering the rest of Asia a playbook for fending off Trump's negotiating team. His tactical retreat sends a message that plunging markets will change Trump's mind in an instant. First, it was swooning stocks that had Trump delaying his 'reciprocal' tariffs. Then, the chaotic surge in US Treasury yields forced Trump to step back from the brink once again. Yet tensions are almost certain to flare up anew once Trump realizes that Beijing isn't coming forward with the concessions Trump thinks he deserves for cutting his China tariff by 79%. From Beijing's perspective, Trump backed off because he'd overreacted in the first place. As JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon puts it, the tariffs were 'too large, too big and too aggressive' for the US economy's own good. Trouble is, Trump has a 40-plus-year track record of arguing that tariffs are the answer to virtually every economic problem imaginable. Trump's most consistent economic view through the decades is that Asia is exploiting the US and only import taxes can save the day. He's called tariffs 'beautiful' and claimed they will 'supercharge' the US economy. Yet as economists know, sizable tariffs can also be stagflationary. Team Xi appears to be following a blueprint provided by former Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe. In 2018 and 2019, Abe slow-walked negotiations with Trump 1.0. No doubt, Team Xi is busily strategizing on their own Abe-like dodge, minus the aggressive flattery. Xi's Communist Party, of course, does not have to contest mid-term elections 18 months from now. And Xi knows it. As such, Beijing is in no hurry to sign a 'Phase Two' trade agreement with a US leader sure to demand a 'Phase Three' round of talks a year from now. At the same time, US officials are learning that Trump's chaotic Phase One process prompted China to pivot to other markets. Today, China's top trading partner is the 10 Association of Southeast Asian Nations, followed by the European Union. Also, China is actively growing its market share among the BRICS – Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa – and the Global South. Xi's 'Made in China 2025' strategy has been quietly making the nation more self-sufficient. All of which means Trump's hopes of pulling off a massive, world-changing trade deal are slipping away, even after his declaration after Thursday's call that such a deal is on the horizon. And if he's wondering who's to blame, all Trump needs to do is look in the mirror. Follow William Pesek on X at @WilliamPesek
