US Simulates Missile Strikes on Warships at China Choke Point
Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content.
The United States has conducted a simulated military operation using anti-ship weapons during a war game in the Philippines, as China expands its naval presence in nearby contested waters.
Newsweek has reached out to the Chinese Defense Ministry via email for comment.
Why It Matters
The Philippines—Washington's mutual defense treaty ally—is part of the First Island Chain, along with Japan and Taiwan, under the U.S. containment strategy, which seeks to restrict China's naval access to the wider Pacific Ocean by leveraging America-aligned territories.
According to a Pentagon assessment, the Chinese military has the largest navy in the world by hull count, with more than 370 ships and submarines in service. The Chinese navy has been operating around the Philippines, including deploying an aircraft carrier in late May.
During the ongoing Exercise KAMANDAG 9, the U.S. military deployed the Navy-Marine Expeditionary Ship Interdiction System (NMESIS) to the Philippines' Batanes Islands in the Luzon Strait—a key gateway for China to access the waters east of the First Island Chain.
What To Know
The U.S. Marine Corps said that it had strategically positioned the NMESIS—a ground-based launcher armed with two Naval Strike Missiles with a 115-mile range—on Sunday on one of the Batanes Islands for simulated maritime interdiction during KAMANDAG 9.
Maritime interdiction is defined by NATO as a naval operation intended to "delay, disrupt, or destroy" enemy forces or supplies en route to the battle area. The simulated operation was part of a rehearsal to secure and defend key maritime terrain, the U.S. Marine Corps stated.
Following insertion by a transport aircraft onto the island, the anti-ship weapon was remotely operated from the airfield into a concealed position to interdict maritime targets, the U.S. Marine Corps added, supporting the maintenance of open sea lines of communication.
Meanwhile, a "kill web" was formed to conduct maritime strikes, employing intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance assets to "find, fix, and track" targets. According to the U.S. Marine Corps, no live-fire was conducted during each fire support rehearsal.
The United States Marine Corps stages the Navy-Marine Expeditionary Ship Interdiction System to the Philippines' Batanes Islands as a part of Exercise KAMANDAG 9 on May 25, 2025.
The United States Marine Corps stages the Navy-Marine Expeditionary Ship Interdiction System to the Philippines' Batanes Islands as a part of Exercise KAMANDAG 9 on May 25, 2025.
Cpl. Malia Sparks/U.S. Marine Corps
This simulated Maritime Key Terrain Security Operation (MKTSO) was carried out by the Third Marine Littoral Regiment, a Hawaii-based U.S. Marine Corps unit that specializes in amphibious and littoral, or shoreline, warfare operations and deploys across the Indo-Pacific region.
In late April, the U.S. conducted another MKTSO using the NMESIS on Batan Island, simulating anti-ship strikes. The event coincided with the transit of a Chinese aircraft carrier through the Luzon Strait, moving between the Philippine Sea and the South China Sea.
What People Are Saying
The U.S. Third Marine Division said: "The synchronization of U.S.-Philippine forces during the KAMANDAG 9 MKTSO showcased the increased ability of the partnered militaries to coordinate complex, all-domain operations and further demonstrated the ironclad U.S.-Philippine alliance."
Lieutenant Colonel Patrick Schrafft, U.S. Third Marine Littoral Regiment's fire support coordinator, said: "The constructive kills executed during the KAMANDAG 9 MKTSO are yet another example of the [Third Marine Littoral Regiment]'s proven value proposition to the Combined and Joint Force."
What Happens Next
The U.S. is likely to continue its military exercises with the Philippines featuring anti-ship weapons to counter China's naval threat. It remains unclear whether the NMESIS will stay in the Southeast Asian nation after Exercise KAMANDAG 9 concludes on Friday.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Business Insider
3 minutes ago
- Business Insider
South Africa counters U.S. trade pressure with new trade deal with China
South Africa, long regarded as the continent's most advanced economy, is moving decisively to counter the fallout from Washington's latest tariff measures by turning to Beijing for new trade opportunities. South Africa is seeking new trade opportunities in China following recent US tariffs. A preliminary trade agreement with China focuses on the export of five types of stone fruit. This development signifies a strategic shift by South Africa to diversify its trade partnerships. The shift follows the United States' imposition of a 30% tariff on South African goods—a blow that has heightened the urgency for Pretoria to diversify its export destinations. Agriculture Minister, John Steenhuisen revealed this week that a new trade deal with China is close to completion, offering South Africa a valuable lifeline at a time of mounting trade tensions with its biggest Western partner. The agreement, which will initially cover the export of five varieties of stone fruit, is expected to open a lucrative channel into the Chinese market, one of the fastest-growing consumer bases in the world. The talks were facilitated during Steenhuisen's recent visit to Beijing alongside Deputy President Paul Mashatile. Speaking on his X page, Steenhuisen said, 'I can today share that after the last visit that I attended with the Deputy President in China, and our visit as the Agriculture Minister to the GACC, we were given the protocol for stone fruit.' He added that, 'The deal includes five types of stone fruit, which include plums, peaches, nectarines, apricots, and prunes—paving the way for stone fruit from South Africa to China.' By securing access to China's vast agricultural import market, the government aims not only to cushion the impact of US tariffs but also to strengthen South Africa's foothold in Asia's broader economic sphere. South Africa's pivot from the US amid Trump's tariff war This development marks a significant moment in South Africa's ongoing efforts to recalibrate its trade alliances, balancing long-standing relationships with the West against the rising economic pull of the East. For decades, Pretoria maintained strong commercial ties with the United States, leveraging preferential access through agreements such as AGOA to bolster its exports. However, President Donald Trump's decision to impose sweeping 30% tariffs on South African goods has accelerated the country's search for alternative markets, pushing it to engage more deeply with emerging economic powerhouses. South Africa's temperate climate and fertile valleys make it a major supplier of counter-seasonal fruit to the Northern Hemisphere. As the world's second-largest citrus exporter after Spain, South Africa also ships large volumes of apples, pears, grapes, and growing amounts of stonefruit, avocados, and blueberries. In 2024, fresh fruit exports rose 2.1% to 4.2mn tonnes, continuing a decade-long growth trend of 3.7% annually. By edging closer to a comprehensive trade agreement with China, South Africa is positioning itself to tap into one of the world's largest and fastest-growing consumer markets. The draft protocol, which initially covers the export of five varieties of stone fruit, could serve as a springboard for broader agricultural and industrial trade, potentially expanding into minerals, manufactured goods, and value-added products.
Yahoo
22 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Second senior Chinese diplomat detained for questioning, sources say
BEIJING (Reuters) -A deputy to a prominent Chinese diplomat being questioned by authorities was also detained, three people with knowledge of the matter said, a further sign of uncertainty in the top echelons of China's diplomacy. Sun Haiyan, a senior diplomat and former ambassador to Singapore, was detained in early August around the time Liu Jianchao, widely seen as a potential foreign minister candidate, was taken in for questioning, two of the people said. Sun, the first woman to serve as a deputy head of the Communist Party's International Department, was detained by Chinese authorities in connection with the questioning of Liu, the sources said. None of the sources knew the basis of the questioning of either diplomat. The sources requested anonymity because of the sensitivity of the matter. The detention of Liu, who leads the International Department, marked the highest-level disappearance of a diplomat since China ousted its former foreign minister and President Xi Jinping's protege, Qin Gang, in 2023, following an unexplained public absence. His detention followed a work trip to Singapore, South Africa and Algeria. His house was searched in early August. The disappearance of Sun alongside the highly visible Liu, adds to questions about China's foreign policy establishment at a time of rising tensions with Washington around trade and geopolitical influence. China's State Council Information Office, which handles media queries for the government, and the International Department did not immediately respond to Reuters requests for comment. Reuters could not verify if both Sun and Liu were still being detained. Neither could be reached for comment. Both their profiles remain on the International Department's website. Sun's last public appearance was on August 1, when she attended a reception hosted by Nepal's embassy in Beijing. Sun, 53, was stationed in Singapore between May 2022 and July 2023. When she left her post, she hosted a 500-person reception at a luxury Singapore hotel, according to Chinese news reports. She joined the International Department in 1997, where she served in a wide range of roles, including spokesperson and head of the bureau responsible for ties with Southeast Asian countries. She also served as a district Party Committee official in the city of Zibo, Shandong province, in 2008. Originally from Hebei province, Sun holds a doctorate in law from Peking University, having also studied at Japan's Kyushu University.
The Hill
32 minutes ago
- The Hill
Note to critics of the Trump tariffs: This is not the 1930s
You could practically hear the cheering on Thursday as critics of President Trump finally got what they've waited months for — some indication that tariffs might (finally!) drive prices higher. Yesterday's Producer Price Index report showed wholesale prices jumped 0.9 percent over the last month, the biggest gain since June 2022. It followed another benign Consumer Price Index report published earlier in the week, making it all the more surprising. But, more than three-quarters of the gain was driven by services price escalation; there was some rise in the cost of machinery and other end goods, but the impact from tariffs was inconclusive. Here's a fact: No one — not Fed Chairman Jay Powell, not Goldman Sachs' CEO David Solomon, not Paul Krugman, who predicted markets would collapse if Trump were elected in 2016, nor all the talking heads on Bloomberg and elsewhere who have blasted Trump's tariff regimen — has any idea how his upending of global trade terms will turn out. There has never been a country that dominated the global economy as the U.S. now does, nor has there ever been a president like Trump determined to take advantage of that clout. Many have compared his tariffs with the stiff duties imposed by the Smoot-Hawley Act of 1930, but there are huge differences between then and now, which may account for some of the unrelenting negativity about the president's program. Today, unlike then, the U.S. is the essential nation for producers of consumer goods. Americans spent $20 trillion last year, compared to $10 trillion by residents of the European Union and $8 trillion by Chinese citizens. Though the U.S. accounted for a larger share of global GDP in 1930 than it does today (35 percent vs. 26 percent), we were not the primary buyer of other countries' goods. In fact, in 1930, the U.S. enjoyed a trade surplus; last year, the U.S. had a net goods trade deficit of $1.2 trillion and an overall (including services) trade deficit of $918 billion — a record. Consequently, we have not seen countries retaliate against the tariffs imposed by the president as they did in the 1930s. The Smoot-Hawley tariffs averaged 59.1 percent on some 20,000 different categories of goods. In response, as the Foundation for Economic Education recalls, 'An outraged Canada slammed tariffs on goods that accounted for 30 per cent of American exports. France, Germany and the British Empire followed suit, either turning to alternative markets or developing substitute manufacturing that would replace goods previously acquired from America — or elsewhere, since many other countries were erecting wall-of-death tariffs.' This time, at least so far, there has been remarkably little of that retaliatory tit-for-tat. Some countries best positioned to punch back, like Canada, whose economy is inextricably integrated with that of its southern neighbor, have backed off threats to do so. Three-quarters of Canada's exports are to the U.S., and exports account for a hefty 34 percent of the country's GDP. A recent threat to slap U.S. tech companies with a heavy new tax vanished as Canadian officials tread carefully, hoping to eliminate the 35 percent tariff on Canadian imports not covered by the USMCA trade agreement, as well as a 50 percent tax on aluminum and steel imported from Canada. Otherwise, China is the most obvious hold-out to Trump's tariff regimen. Because of its grip on rare earths that are essential to U.S. manufacturers, and because it supplies a huge amount of cheap goods to American consumers, Beijing has serious leverage over the United States. Like Trump, they are willing to use it. Still, China's economy is struggling and President Xi Jinping must know that playing hardball with Trump will eventually be a losing game. 'Between 1929 and 1933,' the Foundation for Economic Education continues, 'U.S. imports collapsed by 66 per cent. Exports plummeted by 61 per cent. Total global trade fell by a similar amount.' Some consider the global depression responsible for much of the drop; others blame tariffs. Many economists and analysts today say that history should serve as a warning against the measures being enacted by Trump. The critics have relied too much on that historical comparison. In addition, political animus has driven liberal pundits to take (and promote) the darkest view imaginable about Trump's program. So far, most have been wrong. For months they predicted that tariffs placed on imports would drive inflation higher; they haven't. They predicted that the duties placed on imports would crush growth and lead to a recession. With consumer spending steadily advancing, according to credit card data, those dark days have yet to appear. Democrats are positively hoping for disaster. Trump ran on a platform of wrestling down Joe Biden's inflation; his adversaries are hoping he will fail, and they see tariffs as the likely agent of his failure. Bloomberg, MSNBC et the others have enthusiastically promoted the direst of predictions month after month, anticipating each new release of inflation data with the eagerness of kids waiting for Santa Claus. While glumly reporting month after month of weaker than expected inflation, the merchants of gloom inevitably add a '… yet.' They are positive that any minute now the tariff damage will blossom. They may be right; tariffs will almost surely boost prices, but the impact should be modest (after all, imports are only about 11 percent of our economy). At some point the pontificators will have to reassess their assumptions about how businesses and consumers will adapt to the higher duties. Many companies are scrambling to change their sourcing to avoid tariffs, and Americans are navigating around the price increases where possible. The end game for Trump is bringing more manufacturing to the U.S., beefing up industries essential to our security — like steel — and earning significant revenues as a valuable byproduct. How this all plays out is uncertain, but that Trump is committed to all three goals is not.
