Latest news with #PeterHegseth
Forbes
2 days ago
- Business
- Forbes
An Arms Race With China Won't Make Us Safer
WASHINGTON, DC - MARCH 21: U.S. Secretary of Defense Peter Hegseth listens as U.S. President Donald ... More Trump delivers remarks in the Oval Office of the White House on March 21, 2025 in Washington, DC. Trump announced the Next Generation of Air Dominance (NGDA) program, the F-47, the sixth-generation high-tech Air Force fighter to succeed the F-22 Raptor. (Photo by) Fretting about – and exaggerating – the military threat posed by China is a cottage industry in official Washington. Whether it is performing mathematical contortions to explain how a country that spends two and one-half times less than the United States is in fact surging ahead, or bad mouthing America's manufacturing and science prowess relative to China, the message is the same – the United States needs to spend more and do more if it is to match China militarily in the years to come. But in reality, '[a] Meanwhile, a recent piece in the Wall Street Journal offered a bracing look at the relative economic prowess of the two superpowers, suggesting that Beijing has the lead – or soon will – in shipbuilding, basic manufacturing, industrial robots, and essential raw materials. The conclusion: 'If the U.S. faced a major conflict, it would need to reorient industries and workers, as it did in the two world wars of the 20th century.' But security isn't all about production capacity. For example, it doesn't mean much when it comes to reducing the risk of a nuclear conflict. The United States has an estimated stockpile of 3,700 nuclear warheads, versus 680 possessed by China. It's true that China has been building up its nuclear arsenal in recent years, but building more nuclear weapons in response would be a dangerous misuse of scarce funds. A 2022 study led by climate scientists at Rutgers University found that even a modest nuclear exchange, involving as few as 100 nuclear weapons, could so damage the planet's ability to grow food that it could result in over 5 billion casualties over time. The key to human survival is not piling up nuclear weapons, it is finding diplomatic means to prevent such a world-ending conflict from ever coming about. Given this stark reality, the Pentagon's quest to build a new generation of nuclear weapons is misguided. As for waging a conventional arms race with China, at immense cost, the question is, for what purpose? A U.S.-China war over Taiwan would be a disaster for all concerned, even if it did not escalate to the nuclear level. There would be heavy losses on each side, and a huge blow to the global economy in general and Taiwan's economy in particular. And there is no guarantee that a war between two nuclear-armed powers would not escalate into a full-blown nuclear confrontation. Washington needs to spend less time preparing for a war over Taiwan, and more time figuring out how to prevent one. That means coming to a common understanding with China on the potential future status of Taiwan and how that might be achieved. Just such an understanding undergirds the 'one China policy' that has kept the peace in the Taiwan strait for five decades. If there are concerns about China's relative production capacity, the answer is to invest in the overall strength of the U.S. economy, not to waste talent and resources on a narrowly focused arms race that will further drain talent and funds that are needed to address existential challenges like climate change and potential pandemics. Dealing with the non-traditional global threats cited above will require cooperation with China, not confrontation. Washington and Beijing don't need to be the closest of friends, but they do need to come to an understanding on how to protect their respective populations from the most urgent threats we face, threats that cannot be solved by building more nuclear weapons, or aircraft carriers, or robotic weapons. We need a fresh approach to relations with China, not a policy that harkens back to the Cold War, much less World War II. There's too much riding on the outcome to be bound by outdated notions that will only make war more likely.
Al Jazeera
3 days ago
- Business
- Al Jazeera
US urges Australia to increase defence spending to 3.5% of GDP
United States Defense Secretary Peter Hegseth has called on Australia to increase its military spending to 3.5 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) 'as soon as possible'. Responding on Monday, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said the government will decide on Australia's defence capability needs before announcing spending. 'What you should do in defence is decide what you need, your capability, and then provide for it,' Albanese told reporters. 'That's what my government is doing. Investing to our capability and investing in our relationships.' Albanese added that his government is already increasing defence spending by about 10 billion Australian dollars ($6.5bn). 'We're continuing to lift up,' he said, citing his government's goal to increase spending to 2.3 percent of GDP by 2033. However, the government is facing other demands on its budget. Albanese was speaking from a farm in the state of South Australia, which is experiencing a significant drought. Meanwhile, Australia's treasurer said the country is facing a bill of billions due to recent floods in New South Wales and Cyclone Alfred. Public broadcaster ABC reported that increasing military spending to 3.5 percent of GDP would cost 100 billion Australian dollars ($65bn) annually, 40 billion Australian dollars ($25bn) more than it spends currently. Matt Grudnoff, a senior economist with The Australia Institute, said 'Australia already spends more than it should' on defence. 'Were Australia to increase its defence spending to 2.3% of GDP, we would be the ninth biggest spender on defence and the military,' Grudnoff said. 'Australia would be devoting more of its economy to defence than France and Taiwan, and on a par with the United Kingdom,' he added. Worldwide military spending increased by 9.4 percent in 2024, the sharpest rise since the end of the Cold War, in part driven by increased spending by European countries, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI). The Australian government has already committed to spending hundreds of billions of dollars on US-manufactured nuclear submarines under its AUKUS agreement with the US and the UK in the coming decades. It estimates that the programme could cost up to 368 billion Australian dollars ($238bn). Hegseth and Australian Defence Minister Richard Marles discussed security issues, including accelerating US defence capabilities in Australia and advancing industrial base cooperation during a meeting on Friday, a Pentagon statement said on Sunday. Australia's role in manufacturing weapons components has come under increasing scrutiny amid Israel's war on the Gaza Strip, with protests outside Australian weapons factories and at Australian ports, as well as legal challenges. Hegseth's call for Australia to increase its military spending comes after the US Secretary of State Marco Rubio told the Shangri-La Dialogue on Saturday that 'the threat China poses is real, and it could be imminent'. 'There's no reason to sugar-coat it,' the Pentagon chief added. The US continues to warn of the threat that China poses to Taiwan, which Beijing considers part of Chinese territory. China's Defence Minister Dong Jun skipped the conference, which is considered to be the region's top security event. The Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs responded by saying: 'The US should not entertain illusions about using the question over Taiwan as a bargaining chip to contain China, nor should it play with fire.' Asked about Hegseth's remarks, Albanese said Australia will 'determine our defence policy'. 'Our position with regard to Taiwan is very clear, [and] has been for a long period of time, which is a bipartisan position to support the status quo,' he said.
ABC News
3 days ago
- Business
- ABC News
US demands Australia lifts defence spending by $40b a year 'as soon as possible'
The United States has demanded Australia lift its defence spending to almost $100 billion a year "as soon as possible", saying Australia must do more to support the US in the Indo-Pacific. US Defense Secretary Peter Hegseth conveyed that to Defence Minister Richard Marles on the sidelines of the Shangri-la Dialogue in Singapore, where the pair met amid increasing US tension with China. Over the weekend China accused the US administration of making "groundless accusations" that China's army was rehearsing an invasion of Taiwan. The US demand comes as President Donald Trump says he will increase economic punishments on Australia by doubling the tariffs on steel and aluminium, which the prime minister described as "inappropriate" and "economic self-harm". Defence spending currently sits at about 2 per cent of GDP, and an immediate lift in ambition to 3.5 per cent would amount to about $40 billion extra a year — about as much as the Commonwealth's annual aged care spending. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said the country would not be dictated to on defence spending, noting that it was already due to increase from 2 to 2.33 per cent of Australia's GDP over the next eight years. "What we'll do is we'll determine our defence policy, and we've invested just across the forwards, an additional $10 billion in defence," Mr Albanese said on Sunday. But Mr Hegseth warned Australia must lift spending faster with a "real and potentially imminent" threat from China. The United States spends almost $US1 trillion ($1.5 trillion) a year on defence, 3.4 per cent of its GDP and more than the next nine highest-spending countries combined. The Coalition promised an extra $21 billion over five years on defence above current levels at the federal election, with an "aspiration" to reach 3.5 per cent of GDP being spent on defence over time. Shadow Finance Minister James Paterson told Nine spending should be lifted further. "We live in the most dangerous and precarious times since the end of World War II. And right now, we're not spending enough to defend ourselves," Senator Paterson said. On Friday, Defence Minister Richard Marles indicated he was open to an increase in defence spending, acknowledging the demand by Mr Hegseth. "I wouldn't put a number on it, the need to increase defence spending is something that he definitely raised," Mr Marles said on Friday. "You have seen the Americans in the way in which they have engaged with all of their friends and allies asking them to do more and we can completely understand why America would do that. "What I made clear is that this is a conversation that we are very willing to have, and it is one that we are having." The Australian Strategic Policy Institute warned last week Australia had underinvested in defence and risked a "brittle and hollowed defence force", which Mr Albanese criticised as a "predictable" report from the think tank. Mr Albanese is expected to meet with Mr Trump during his visit to Canada this month for the G7 leaders summit.
AU Financial Review
4 days ago
- Politics
- AU Financial Review
China slams Hegseth's claims of ‘imminent' Taiwan invasion
The Chinese government has hit back at US warnings about an 'imminent' attack on Taiwan, accusing Washington of a 'Cold War mentality' over the self-governed island that Beijing one day wants to 'reunify' with the mainland. In an article on Sunday in the English-language Global Times, considered a mouthpiece for the administration of President Xi Jinping, the foreign ministry said US Defence Secretary Peter Hegseth's comments that China's army was 'rehearsing for the real deal' – an invasion of Taiwan – 'ignored the calls of regional countries for peace and development'.
News.com.au
03-05-2025
- Politics
- News.com.au
China's new missile could destory US fleet in 20 minutes
The sight of a Chinese bomber carrying a heavy new type of hypersonic missile has heightened fears that it has found a way to counter America's most potent weapon – its 80,000-tonne nuclear-powered aircraft carriers. The Trump administration's controversial Secretary of Defence Peter Hegseth has told US media that the United States Navy and Marine Corps 'loses to China in every war game'. In particular, the Pentagon Chief says China's new arsenal of guided hypersonic missiles 'can take out 10 aircraft carriers in the first 20 minutes of the conflict'. 'So far, our whole power projection platform is the aircraft carrier and the ability to project power that way strategically around the globe,' he added. It's just the latest high-level expression of fear since China unveiled its intentions to build a vast array of relatively cheap, ultra-long-range, ultra-fast missiles capable of bypassing all known defences in the early 2000s. According to the US Defence Department's most recent report on Chinese military power, Beijing has 'dramatically advanced its development of conventional and nuclear-armed hypersonic missile technologies' over the past 20 years. Among them is the YJ-21 hypersonic missile specifically designed to target aircraft carriers. But the missiles have implications reaching far beyond the pride of the US Navy. Australia's own warships, especially helicopter-carrying troopships, are far more vulnerable. And most of the northern bases housing Australia's small fleet of expensive, not-yet fully operational F-35 Stealth Fighters can be hit with little more than a minute's notice. The Pentagon admits it does not know how many such weapons the Chinese have. But Hegseth's dire prediction reveals a deep-set concern that they can defeat the existing interceptor missiles, guns and decoys intended to defend surface ships from attack. US aircraft carriers are massive ships. The USS Gerald R. Ford is 337m long and 77m wide. It weighs about 100,000 tonnes and carries about 75 combat aircraft. The $A20 billion ship carries a crew of some 4500. And it's the most modern of the US fleet of 11 similar nuclear-powered aircraft carriers. 'If we get into a war with China, we should expect to lose some carriers,' says Center for a New American Security think-tank analyst and former US Navy Captain Thomas Shugart. 'The question is: Are the objectives we're trying to fulfil going to be worth it in the view of the American public and its political leadership.' Price of war Modern aircraft carriers are built to be hard targets. On one level, they're simply huge. But the harsh lessons of World War II have taught the world's navies just how vulnerable these ships can be. 'The Navy has put great effort into carrier survivability with extensive compartmentalization, systems duplication, and damage control,' says Center for Strategic and International Studies. 'Armoring, voids, watertight fittings, fixed damage control systems, [and] damage control training all add to the survivability of carriers, as does significant redundancy in propulsion and power generation.' However, Japanese kamikaze attacks in the dying days of World War II showed that sinking such ships wasn't necessary. Wrecking their flight decks was sufficient for a 'mission kill' – making the ships useless. 'China has a deep magazine of long-range weapons and a located carrier would be very difficult to defend and keep operating,' Cancian told Popular Mechanics. If just one carrier was sunk, the loss of its 5500 sailors would exceed US losses in the Afghanistan and Iraq wars. And a 2023 CSIS war game predicted defending Taiwan from China's Chairman Xi Jinping would likely involve losing two carriers. Communist Beijing has openly stated it intends to seize control of Taiwan, by force if necessary. Spikes jut from the beaches of Taiwan's Kinmen island. Picture: Sam Yeh/AFP It has hinted it plans to have its military ready to achieve the task by 2027. 'If the US decides it cannot risk its carriers in areas these weapons can reach, it's effectively denied the ability to enter into or operate there, a strategy known as 'Anti-Access/Area Denial,' Cancian explains. That risk extends to bases these weapons can reach. And that includes the US Marine presence in Darwin. 'Integrated air and missile defence (IAMD), without which our northern bases are exposed to attack, should be made a top priority,' Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI) analyst Dr Malcolm Davis argues in a new assessment of national defences ahead of the federal election. 'This area has been underinvested in by the current government despite advice in the 2023 DSR urging the government to fast-track the acquisition of effective IAMD capability. The 2024 NDS and IIP did announce significantly increased investment into the ADF's northern base infrastructure to prepare it to support high-intensity military operations, which is important but less effective if the bases can't be defended.' Two people ride a motorcycle as a Taiwanese Air Force Mirage 2000 fighter jet approaches for landing at an air force base in Hsinchu. Picture: Yasuyoshi Chiba/ Secret weapons Chinese state-controlled media has this month released footage of one of its H-6K bombers carrying what appears to be an operational version of a new ballistic missile. The KD-21 ALBM (air-launched ballistic missile) was first spotted at an airshow in 2022. But this is the first time it has been seen attached to a frontline squadron aircraft. The footage shows a bomber carrying a pair of the 'carrier-killer' weapons during a recent military exercise. Its exact characteristics and purpose are unknown. But analysts point to similarities with Russia's Kinzhal AS-24 weapon that has been deployed against Ukraine. The Kinzhal appears to be a relatively simple ballistic missile that soars high above the atmosphere before plunging on its target at hypersonic speeds. But the predictability of its flight path makes it possible to intercept with modern defences. What concerns US analysts about the new Chinese weapon is its believed ability to 'skip' along the Earth's atmosphere-space boundary, making it much harder to see and track. Whatever the case, the new weapon significantly improves the reach of China's bomber force. It can fly at speeds greater than five times the speed of sound (6174km/h) to reach targets up to 1000km distant. And the H-6K bomber can carry it up to 6000km before launching it – even without in-flight refuelling. But the KD-21 is just one of several missiles being deployed by Chinese bombers. Another, the KF-21, is much larger and is believed to carry a hypersonic glide vehicle. These are designed to reach immense speeds before dipping below the horizon and weaving through the sky, making its final approach much more difficult to intercept. Similar, but bigger, missiles are being built for China's land-based missile force. Combined, these weapons put every major US military facility, from Alaska to Guam and Darwin, well within Chinese first-strike range. And nuclear-powered aircraft carriers – while capable of moving significant distances at high speeds – can now be readily tracked by swarms of small spy satellites. 'Quite frankly, the carrier has been under threat from one weapons system or another for generations,' Shugart concludes. 'The difference, I think, is that the level of risk has certainly gone up.' Jamie Seidel is a freelance writer | @
