US deploys ‘ship killer' missiles near Taiwan for first time
The US has deployed anti-ship missiles to the Luzon Strait, near Taiwan, for the first time as part of annual military drills designed to prevent naval invasions.
The Navy-Marine Expeditionary Ship Interdiction Systems (NMESIS) are being airlifted to 'multiple islands' in the Philippines' Batanes island chain, less than 120 miles from southern Taiwan, Naval News reported.
Described as 'ship killers', the NMESIS are ground-based missile launchers that are designed to strike against ships at distances of over 115 miles.
The US unit responsible for the missiles claimed that the systems were specifically requested by Manila amid rising tensions with China after drills last year.
The Balikatan exercises, which will run for three weeks, will include about 9,000 US soldiers and 5,000 Filipino troops. Several countries, including Britain, France and Australia, are expected to join as observers.
Along with the anti-ship missiles, the US will also showcase HIMARS rocket launchers and the G/ATOR radar system, which is able to detect drones, cruise missiles and rockets.
Lieut Gen James Glynn, who is directing the US side of the exercises, described the drills as 'full battle tests', which include preventing sea invasions, defending against missile threats and sinking a decommissioned Philippine vessel.
He added that the tests were intended to 'take into consideration all of the regional security challenges that we face today, beginning in the South China Sea'.
Tensions have been rising around the South China Sea as China increasingly asserts its dominance over disputed territory.
The 160-mile-wide Luzon Strait is a key part of the puzzle in connecting the South China Sea to the Pacific Ocean, and serves as a gateway for China's navy.
Pete Hegseth, the US defence secretary, travelled to Manila in March and pledged to work with allies to increase deterrence against China's aggression in the South China Sea.
The proximity of the Batanes islands to Taiwan also raises questions over the islands' role in the ongoing drills.
China has claimed Taiwan as its own sovereign territory, which the government in Taipei rejects. Beijing's rapidly growing navy has been increasing drills around Taiwan and practising landing heavy military equipment on shores nearby.
Maj Gen Francisco Lorenzo, the exercise director for the Philippines, said the drills would be likely to 'deter the conflict near Taiwan' but were mainly to serve as a deterrent against 'coercion or invasion to our country'.
Guo Jiakun, a spokesman for the Chinese foreign ministry, accused the Philippines of choosing to bring in 'strategic and tactical weapons to the detriment of regional strategic stability and regional economic prospects'.
He urged 'relevant sides' not to provoke the 'Taiwan question' and warned that 'those who play with fire will perish by it'.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NBC News
11 hours ago
- NBC News
Transgender troops face a deadline and a difficult decision: Stay or go?
WASHINGTON — As transgender service members face a deadline to leave the U.S. military, hundreds are taking the financial bonus to depart voluntarily. But others say they will stay and fight. For many, it is a wrenching decision to end a career they love, and leave units they have led or worked with for years. And they are angry they are being forced out by the Trump administration's renewed ban on transgender troops. Active duty service members had until Friday to identify themselves and begin to leave the military voluntarily, while the National Guard and Reserve have until July 7. Then the military will begin involuntary separations. Friday's deadline comes during Pride Month and as the Trump administration targets diversity, equity and inclusion efforts, saying it's aiming to scrub the military of "wokeness" and reestablishing a "warrior ethos." "They're tired of the rollercoaster. They just want to go," said one transgender service member, who plans to retire. "It's exhausting." For others, it's a call to arms. "I'm choosing to stay in and fight," a noncommissioned officer in the Air Force said. "My service is based on merit, and I've earned that merit." The troops, who mainly spoke on condition of anonymity because they fear reprisals, said being forced to decide is frustrating. They say it's a personal choice based on individual and family situations, including whether they would get an infusion of cash or possibly wind up owing the government money. "I'm very disappointed," a transgender Marine said. "I've outperformed, I have a spotless record. I'm at the top of every fitness report. I'm being pushed out while I know others are barely scraping by." Some transgender troops decide to leave based on finances Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has said this is President Donald Trump's directive and what America voted for. The Pentagon, he said, is "leaving wokeness & weakness behind" and that includes "no more dudes in dresses." Sen. Tammy Duckworth of Illinois, a veteran, and 22 other Democratic senators have written to Hegseth urging him to allow transgender troops to keep serving honorably. Already, more than 1,000 service members have voluntarily identified themselves as transgender and are slated to begin leaving, according to rough Defense Department estimates. Defense officials say there are about 4,240 active duty transgender troops but acknowledge the numbers are fuzzy. For many, the decision is financial. Those who voluntarily leave will get double the amount of separation pay they would normally receive and won't have to return bonuses or tuition costs. Those who refuse to go could be forced to repay reenlistment or other bonuses as high as $50,000. That was the tipping point for Roni Ferrell, an Army specialist at Joint Base Lewis-McChord near Tacoma, Washington. Ferrell, 28, lives on base with her wife and two children and had planned to stay in the Army for at least another decade. But she said she felt "backed into a corner" to sign the voluntary separation agreement, fearing she would have to repay an $18,500 reenlistment bonus. "My commander basically said it was my only option in order to make sure my kids are taken care of," Ferrell said. The Marine, who has served for more than 25 years, said she had planned to stay and fight, but changed her mind. Lawyers, she said, told her an involuntary separation would put a code in her record saying she was forced to leave "in the interests of national security." That designation, she said, could mean those involuntarily separated could lose their security clearances, hurting future job prospects. In a statement Friday, a defense official said the code "is not intended" to trigger clearance revocations and that gender dysphoria is not a security reporting requirement, according to the director of national intelligence. The official spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations. Cynthia Cheng-Wun Weaver, senior director of litigation for Human Rights Campaign, said it's important for troops to talk with judge advocates general in their services to ensure they understand the different procedures being implemented. Other transgender troops plan to stay despite the ban The Air Force service member and a transgender officer in the Army National Guard both said they plan to stay and fight. Lawsuits over the ban continue and could change or block the policy. For troops involved in the court battles as plaintiffs, leaving voluntarily now would likely hurt their standing in the case. For others, it's simply dedication to their career. "I've really embraced military culture, and it's embraced me," the Air Force member said. "It's not about money. It's the career that I love." The Guard soldier echoed that sentiment, saying he will stay on "because it is important to me to serve. Frankly, I'm good at it, I'm well trained so I want to continue." Others without bonuses to repay or who have been in the military only a short while and won't get much in separation bonus pay may opt to stay and see what happens. National Guard troops face a particular problem National Guard members who are heading to their monthly drill weekend or annual two-week drill in June could be required to go but serve as the gender they were assigned at birth. That means they would have to wear uniforms and haircuts of that gender, use that bathroom and be referred to as "sir" or "ma'am" based on that gender. For many, that could be close to impossible and create uncomfortable situations. "If I were to show up to drill this weekend, I'd be expected to use all female facilities, I would be expected to wear a woman's uniform," said the Army Guard officer, who transitioned to male about five years ago and says others in his unit know him as a man. "I don't look like a woman. I don't feel like a woman. It would be disruptive to good order and discipline for me to show up and to tell my soldiers, you have to call me 'ma'am' now." It's not clear if Guard units are handling it all the same way, and it could be up to individual states or commanders. Some may allow troops to postpone the drill or go on administrative leave. What happens next for transgender troops? The service members interviewed by The Associated Press said they don't know what will happen once the deadline passes to leave voluntarily. Some believe that unit commanders will quickly single people out and start involuntary separations. Others say the process is vague, may involve medical review boards and could take months. The defense official said Friday that as the Pentagon takes these steps, it "will treat our service members with dignity and respect." Under Hegseth's directive, military commanders will be told to identify troops with gender dysphoria — when a person's biological sex does not match their gender identity — and send them to get medical checks to force them out of the service, defense officials have said. The order relies on routine annual health checks — so it could be months before that evaluation is scheduled. "My real big sticking point is that this administration's whole push is to reform this country based around merit, and that gender, race, etc., should have no factor in hiring," the Air Force service member said. "If that's true, I'm solely being removed for my gender, and merit is no longer a factor."
BreakingNews.ie
13 hours ago
- BreakingNews.ie
Watchdog looking into possibility of aide deletions in Hegseth Signal probe
The Pentagon watchdog is looking into whether any of defence secretary Pete Hegseth's aides was asked to delete Signal messages that may have shared sensitive military information with a reporter, according to two people familiar with the investigation and documents reviewed by The Associated Press. The inspector general's request focuses on how information about the March 15 air strikes on Houthi targets in Yemen was shared on the messaging app. Advertisement It comes as Mr Hegseth is scheduled to testify before Congress next week for the first time since his confirmation hearing. He is likely to face questions under oath not only about his handling of sensitive information but also the wider turmoil at the Pentagon following the departures of several senior aides and an internal investigation over information leaks. Mr Hegseth already has faced questions over the installation of an unsecured internet line in his office that bypassed the Pentagon's security protocols and revelations that he shared details about the military strikes in multiple Signal chats. US President Donald Trump has given his backing to Pete Hegseth (Niall Carson/PA) One of the chats included his wife and brother while the other included President Donald Trump's top national security officials and inadvertently included The Atlantic's editor-in-chief Jeffrey Goldberg. Advertisement Neither the Pentagon nor the inspector general's office immediately responded to Friday requests for comment on the investigation. Besides finding out whether anyone was asked to delete Signal messages, the inspector general also is asking some past and current staffers who were with Mr Hegseth on the day of the strikes who posted the information and who had access to his phone, according to the two people familiar with the investigation and the documents reviewed by the AP. Democratic lawmakers and a small number of Republicans have said that the information Mr Hegseth posted to the Signal chats before the military jets had reached their targets could have put those pilots' lives at risk and that for any lower-ranking members of the military it would have led to their firing. Mr Hegseth has said none of the information was classified. Multiple current and former military officials have said there is no way details with that specificity, especially before a strike took place, would have been OK to share on an unsecured device. Advertisement 'I said repeatedly, nobody is texting war plans,' Mr Hegseth told Fox News Channel in April after reporting emerged about the chat that included his family members. 'I look at war plans every day. What was shared over Signal then and now, however you characterise it, was informal, unclassified co-ordinations, for media co-ordinations and other things. That's what I've said from the beginning.' Mr Trump has made clear that Mr Hegseth continues to have his support, saying during a Memorial Day speech at Arlington National Cemetery in Virginia that the defence secretary 'went through a lot' but 'he's doing really well'. Mr Hegseth has limited his public engagements with the press since the Signal controversy. He has yet to hold a Pentagon press briefing and his spokesman has briefed reporters there only once. Advertisement Signal is a publicly-available app that provides encrypted communications, but it can be hacked and is not approved for carrying classified information. On March 14, one day before the strikes against the Houthis, the defence department cautioned personnel about the vulnerability of the app.
Telegraph
14 hours ago
- Telegraph
First Sea Lord's ‘affair' exposed after husband filed complaint
The First Sea Lord's alleged affair with a female subordinate was exposed after her husband filed a complaint, The Telegraph can reveal. Last month, Sir Ben Key was forced to step back from all duties over allegations of misconduct, which are under investigation by the Ministry of Defence (MoD). It was alleged that, in breach of the Navy's service standards, the 59-year-old was having an affair with a junior ranking staff member. It is understood that the non-serving husband of the female member of staff reported his findings to the Ministry of Defence after he discovered the 'consensual' relationship between Sir Ben and his wife. He felt as though the head of the Navy should be held to the same standards as those below him as Sir Ben has regularly spoken out about poor behaviour of those under his command in the past. A source familiar with the events told The Telegraph: 'The husband was upset, because this is a man who prides himself on his Christian values and how he was raised by missionaries – but was doing this with someone else's wife.' 'Tried to go away quietly' Sir Ben, who is married with three children, had previously announced that he would retire as First Sea Lord this summer, despite being considered a frontrunner to become the next Chief of the Defence Staff. Earlier this week, The Telegraph reported that Air Marshal Sir Richard Knight, currently Chief of the Air Staff, will take over the post in the autumn when Admiral Sir Tony Radakin stands down. It is understood Sir Ben tried to go away 'quietly' when he learnt that his extra-marital affair had been discovered, but that the Chief of the Defence Staff insisted there would be an investigation before his official retirement in order not to be accused of a 'cover-up'. The source added that a number of female officers within the Navy felt they deserved a public apology from Sir Ben over what they deemed to be 'double standards'. 'The female naval workforce feel shockingly let down by his moral high stance and hypocrisy,' the source said. 'Judged for their professional conduct' Earlier this year, during a parliamentary defence select committee discussing women in the Armed Forces, Sir Ben expressed his disapproval of inappropriate relationships within the military. He said: 'We are absolutely determined to create a Royal Navy in which people are judged for their professional conduct, welcomed for the contribution that they make, and accepted for who they are. 'Behaviours that run counter to that will not be accepted, and particularly those around unwelcome sexual behaviours. 'We have removed people from the service, including those who have commanded, where we have discovered that their behaviours were not appropriate, or we have removed people from positions of responsibility before situations have got out of hand.' As a serving member of the military, Sir Ben will probably have fallen foul of the Navy's 'service test', which prohibits relationships between commanders and their subordinates. The military also does not allow behaviour that could harm another serving member's marriage.
