Large-scale war games: U.S. in first-ever Patriot surface-to-air missile firing on Australian soil
The ninth iteration of the biennial Talisman Sabre military exercise conducted by the U.S. and Australia got underway last month and will continue to August.
Talisman Sabre 21 consists of 17,000 troops from the U.S., its NATO allies Britain and Canada, host nation Australia, Japan, New Zealand and South Korea. The last four were formerly NATO Contact Countries and since 2012 have been members of the military bloc’s Partners Across the Globe. All but New Zealand recently participated for the first time in the U.S.-led Sea Breeze NATO exercise in the Black Sea. This year NATO members France and Germany and India and Indonesia have sent military observers for the extensive war games.
The U.S. has provided forward-deployed ships from the Expeditionary Strike Group 7, along with the 31st Marine Expeditionary Unit, which recently participated in an exercise to “evacuate casualties from a ground conflict” in Okinawa, Japan where it is based.
The commander of Expeditionary Strike Group 7 said, in what could only be an allusion to China: “Emerging events in the Indo-Pacific region underscore the importance of presence to ensure a rules-based international maritime order. Talisman Sabre 21 allows the U.S., alongside partners and allies, to further enhance our ability to respond to any contingency as part of a joint or combined effort in support of a free and open Indo-Pacific region.”
U.S., Canadian and British military personnel are in the South Pacific to guarantee “a free and open Indo-Pacific region.” Someone may want to remind U.S. Navy, which provided the quote, of Britain’s historic role in the Indian subcontinent, Sri Lanka, Singapore, Malaya/Malaysia, Hong Kong and elsewhere in the Asia-Pacific region and that of the U.S. in the Philippines and Indochina before casually employing terms like free and open in relation to the nature of their designs on the area.
Talisman Sabre exercises, led by the Australian Defence Force, have been held since 2005 and have included over 30,000 troops at times. They are the largest joint Australian-American military maneuvers.
A U.S. Navy report on the exercise addeds this to confirm its purpose: “Partner nations will train together to operate and sustain each other in a contested maritime environment, conducting integrated amphibious and air defense operations….”
The commodore of U.S. Amphibious Squadron 11 said the war games are designed to conduct “effective and intense training to ensure our forces are capable, interoperable, and deployable on short notice.” And as the navies of the U.S., Australia, Canada, Japan and South Korea “integrate throughout this exercise” they will “develop more innovative ways to fight…”
The U.S. Army website details that, in what it described as a historic first, U.S. troops based in Guam and Japan from the 38th Air Defense Artillery Brigade, 94th Army Air and Missile Defense Command successfully shot down drone targets with Patriot Advanced Capability-3 missiles. The joint U.S.-Australian engagement was the “first ever Patriot surface-to-air missile firing on Australian soil.“
Australia, Japan and South Korea represent (to date) the Asia-Pacific, or as the Pentagon now prefers it, the Indo-Pacific wing of the international interceptor missile system that is also based in the Middle East and, in the most advanced degree, in Europe.
Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) missiles are stationed in South Korea and Japan has sea-based (and was slated to have land-based) Standard Missile-3 IIAs.
In April Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison announced that his government will spend $747 million ($580 million American) to upgrade four military bases in the north of the country and to increase and expand war games with the U.S. of the sort currently underway. The funds used for the above purpose are part of military plans that envision the expenditure of $270 billion in the next ten years to improve what are described as long-range strike capabilities.
Australia is the southern tip of an arc of U.S. military alliances and bases that extends north to Guam and then to South Korea and Japan. One that is pitted against China.
Australia is not only integrated into US operational plans for war scenarios against China but its ongoing participation in the militarism of the US includes preparations to further engage in allied operations against the Russian Federation (RF):
– “Paul Dibb, the former head of two Australian spy organizations and a deputy defence minister, has just published [‘Why Russia is a threat to the international order’, Australian Strategic Policy Institute] a call for Australian troops to be ready to fight in Europe against [Russia]……. [There was a] leak last month of Australian cabinet plans for an Australian Army force to fight in eastern Ukraine, alongside Dutch and other NATO units….” (Australian Armchair General Weaponizes Himself in War Against Russia, John Helmer, 04/07/2016), etc…..
Importantly, Australia has also been working towards attaining nuclear device delivery potential (based on a similar agreement the US has with certain NATO members, having also procured military assets allowing delivery capabilities). Only the provision of these devices is required (for use in certain scenarios). ‘Fast acquisition’ is seen as preferable to domestic production (a largely prohibitive process). Reports refer to the potential storage of these devices in shared military facilities (Refer: Renewed push for Australia to build nuclear weapons, WSWS, 30 January 2018). China is not the only nation such weapons are being considered to be used against in certain scenarios:
– “In a recent essay, Dr Stephan Fruhling, the Associate Dean of the College of Asia and the Pacific at the ANU, contemplated the “unthinkable option”, and suggested that a nuclear-armed Australia is more likely than ever before…… If Australia chooses to remain under the US nuclear umbrella, Indonesia presents a unique case in which American and Australian interests may not intersect.” (Does Australia need a nuclear arsenal? And what would be the cost?, By Joey Watson [Australian] ABC News, 24/10/2018)
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks once again. Australia just participated for the first time in the U.S./Ukraine-led Sea Breeze NATO war games in the Black Sea off the coast of Russia. It was joined by fellow Asia-Pacific nations Japan, South Korea, New Zealand and Pakistan. Pakistan was included, I’m certain, on the prompting of its new strategic military/nuclear ally Turkey….Australia participated in NATO’s Operation Ocean Shield in the Arabian Sea and is a candidate for NATO’s Operation Sea Guardian in the Mediterranean….The term you’re alluding to is NATO’s nuclear burden sharing. Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Turkey (formerly Britain) host U.S. B61 nuclear bombs which are to be delivered ***by the host nation.*** What you indicate is being planned for Australia in that respect is also possible for Pakistan-Turkey, even for Ukraine.
LikeLiked by 1 person
p2. Australia has embraced the aggressive globally expanding militarism of the US-NATO-allied bloc (evident in its participation in successive US-led wars). Australian preparations for war against China involve key naval and aviation capabilities (that include the potential to use US cruise missiles). For example, the Mk-41 VLS is compatible with Mk-14 launch canisters. Australia also continues to play a key role in efforts to form anti-China CSPs and an ‘Asian NATO’ (based on the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue). As a US-coalition war against China is almost inevitable (US development of the offensive strike capabilities of Taiwan against strategic targets on the mainland logically in time to exceed limits of restraint), these coalition partners that are planning to participate in any US-led war should familiarise themselves with US simulations and studies that establish such a coalition would suffer profound losses and defeat in a war scenario. Despite such simulation results, it seems hubris exceeds reason (war preparations are ongoing). The format of such war preparations have been developed. For example:
– “The report [‘Australia-Japan-US Maritime Cooperation’ by the Centre for Strategic and International Studies] contains specific recommendations….. The report’s author, Andrew Shearer, is a senior figure in the Australian foreign policy and military establishment…. Shearer is also very well connected in Washington…… Shearer makes clear [the] main “hard security” objective is to prepare for war with China….. The Pentagon’s preoccupation with “freedom of navigation” and China’s A2/AD [Anti-Access, Area Denial] systems flows directly from its military strategy for war with China—Air Sea Battle. This is premised on being able to launch massive missile and air attacks on the Chinese mainland from warships and submarines in nearby waters, as well as from military bases in Japan and South Korea. Australia and Japan are central to Air Sea Battle and associated strategies, which include a naval blockade of China to strangle its economy…… ” (CSIS report argues for strong US-Japan-Australia alliance against China, By Peter Symonds, 9 April 2016).
LikeLiked by 1 person
p3. As US-allied (involving Australia) preparations for potential (arguably probable) situations of war involve likely concurrent conflicts (an active conflict in the Donbass with exercises simulation offensive operations against Crimea and an approaching war against China), it would be prudent for the Russian Federation and China to further develop coordinated responses (integrated operational plans if possible) for certain scenarios. Australia is integrated into US operational plans, is hosting US military architecture (including support of US nuclear capable aviation) and is engaged in forms of warfare against both China and Russia (the hybrid warfare domain progressing to more advanced [direct kinetic] stages of conflict. If direct kinetic stages of conflict develop, as China has stated Australia will be subject to targeting by its military and potentially its strategic forces, so may it be necessary for the Russian Federation to similarly respond through the targeting of Australian military and strategic targets.
Note: In addition to the development of cooperation between the RF and China, the further enhancement of strategic ties with the Republic of Indonesia (RI) may also be worth pursuing. In addition to being an appropriate response to hostile Australian actions, it would be mutually beneficial for the RF and RI. Both are experiencing security threats by common adversaries (Australia is currently replicating the E Timor partition format in resource rich W Papua). The US restriction of military technology to the calculated in preference to developing the qualitative capabilities of Australia is calculated. The RI will be seeking to upgrade its military, a process the RF and China can facilitate.
P.S. I apologise for the length of the comments above but believe the information posted may be of interest.
LikeLiked by 1 person
No need to apologize. Your insights and information are invaluable. Please keep us informed.
LikeLiked by 1 person