Head for the basement, people! China has just tested an intercontinental ballistic missile with a dummy warhead! It splashed down somewhere into international waters in the Pacific, maybe somewhere near French Polynesia, perhaps near the Solomons. Winston Peters felt “deeply concerned”. Australia’s Defence Minister Richard Marles felt “very concerned.” PM Christopher Luxon said it was “unacceptable” that China should be testing nuclear weapons in the Pacific. (No prime ministerial concern has been forthcoming -see below- over US missile testing in the Pacific.)
A RNZ presenter tried to make a meal here and also here, out of the Chinese missile test coming hard on the heels of Australia and Fiji signing a new defence pact. The Australians begged to differ. As the ABC reported:
The test comes as Australia announces a new defence pact with Fiji, but [Defence Minister Richatrd] Marles says he does not think the two are related.
Overall, the expressions of concern /outrage about the Chinese missile test have been in striking contrast to the total non-reaction to the string of ICBM missile tests carried out annually by the US in the Pacific. For example: there was no political fuss or media flurry over these recent US contributions to the militarisation of the Pacific:
- November 5, 202: A Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missile carrying a dummy nuclear warhead splashed down in the Pacific after being launched from a US military base in California.
- March 3, 2026: Another Minuteman II intercontinental ballistic missile was fired by the USAF from Vandenberg Space Force base in California, and splashed down thousands of kilometres away adjacent to Kwajalein Atoll in the Marshall Islands The missile was carrying two test re-entry modules (called Glory Trip 255) which enable the same missile to detach multiple nuclear warheads when close to the target.
As the US Air Force explained here:
This test not only focused on the performance of the ICBM but also the performance of its multiple re-entry vehicles, which are primarily used to increase missile effectiveness and overcome enemy defenses. [My emphasis]
Meaning: this particular US test was about eroding and overcoming the balance of deterrence on which peaceful co-existence with China depends. That’s fine by us, apparently.
- May 20, 2026: Another Minuteman III intercontinental missile was fired by USAF Global Strike Command from the Vandenberg Space Force Base in California, and splashed down some 6,700 kilometres away, at the Ronald Reagan Ballistic Missile Defense Test Site in the Marshall Islands.
The last time I looked, the Marshall Islands were fully paid up members of the Pacific Islands Forum. You get the picture: American militarism = Good. Conversely, Chinese militarism = Bad was definitely the message being conveyed this week on RNZ by an Otago University “specialist in China’s foreign policy,” who told listeners that the “prime mover” of military tensions in the Pacific was certainly China. Bizarrely, associate professor Nicholas Khoo depicted these developments as China’s response to being criticised by Australia over Covid, which he said, had ”catalysed” the military chain reaction now going on. Really? These explanations felt more like news and information you can’t trust.
When the RNZ presenter suggested that perhaps Australia’s plan to acquire nuclear submarines under the AUKUS pact might be relevant to China’s strategic concerns, Khoo absurdly contrasted Australia’s military capabilities with those of China. “There’s no way they [Australia] can match China.”
To state the bleedingly obvious: Australia is obtaining those second hand nuclear submarines from the US on condition of serving as an American proxy within the AUKUS military alliance alongside the US and the United Kingdom. The AUKUS trio enjoys an overwhelming superiority over China’s military capabilities.
Same, Again
Despite the fuss about the alleged escalation, China has done this before, and quite recently. Two years ago, China carried out a widely reported ICBM test launch into the Pacific. The only difference being, that one was launched from a ground base, this latest one was launched from a submarine. Reportedly, China’s ICBM in 2024 splashed down in international waters near French Polynesia, without having any discernible impact on the Pacific way of life. Those two missile launches have been China’s only such gambits in the Pacific over the past 40 years. The US carries out several such tests in the Pacific, annually.
Who then is the real provocateur here? Australia has just signed a mutual defence pact with Fiji against “a common danger” which Australia has previously identified as China. Every two years, Australia, the US, New Zealand and a raft of other countries participate in the massive Talisman Sabre war drills, which – among other things – have involved invasion simulations carried out up island beaches. If we feel concerned about acts of military provocation in the Pacific, we should start by looking in the mirror.
None of this is intended to whitewash China. The one party regime in Beijing has an appalling human rights record. Even so, the New Zealand public is being scared witless into spending scarce billions of dollars on defence, despite the absence of any credible threat from China, or from anyone else. Essentially, we are being led by the nose into a re-run of the Cold War of the 1960s, with China subbed in for the old Soviet Union as the arch villain, both regionally and globally.
As mentioned, the West already enjoys an overwhelming military superiority over China in air, land and sea capabilities. China has three aircraft carriers, the US has eleven. China has about 14 nuclear-powered submarines, only six of which are nuclear capable. The US has 70 nuclear submarines etc, etc.
Moreover, while the US forces are battle-hardened after being perpetually at war for decades – in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq (twice) Afghanistan, Iran etc – China’s troops and generals have had no battleground experience whatsoever over the past 30 years. Also, a large number of PLA generals have recently been purged by Xi, leaving China’s armed forces with even less in the way of seasoned guidance at the top. Finally, China is also ringed by a large number of huge US military bases from Korea to Japan to the Philippines to Guam.
So yes, China is modernising its armed forces. Yet militarily, it is still a paper tiger. It can probably defend the homeland, but it has limited ability to project force overseas to achieve any expansionist goals, even if it had any on its mind.
Being here, legitimately
The key point is that China’s emergence as a genuine economic superpower means that it has a legitimate right to a military presence around the globe in order to protect those interests, just as the US has done for decades. We need to get over it. The Pacific is no longer an American lake.
Unfortunately, our defence establishment continues to regard America’s absolute dominance in the Pacific region as being the natural order of things. Therefore, it treats any intrusion by China as an intolerable provocation. This is a very dangerous mindset, and one that poses more of an immediate, existential threat to our survival than any gradual improvements in China’s military prowess.
This mindset has consequences. In order to combat China’s phantom threat to US dominance, we are being fed inflated views of China’s military build-up and its scary intentions, in order to justify the huge increases in our defence spending. This massive waste of taxpayer money will be highly lucrative for the military industrial complex that is driving our policy formation, in exactly the way that President Dwight Eisenhower (a former general) warned us all against, way back in 1961.
The Luxon government has our big Defence spend-up well under way, even though:
- there is no scenario in which New Zealand or the Pacific region are facing a credible external military threat for decades into the future
- The highly expensive gear we are lining up to buy (e.g. the new Mogami-class frigates) would be of no use for defending New Zealand, and would be of marginal use only, in any shooting war with China.
- Our supposed friends pose more a risk to us than China. Our participation in AUKUS – if that troubled pact ever gets off the ground – would put us in danger of being dragged into any war that the US launches against China, either intentionally or accidentally. Put it this way: would you feel more secure – or less secure – if New Zealand joined an AUKUS defence arrangement whereby Donald Trump would be our de facto commander in chief?
- Talking of whom…whatever untold billions we waste on procurements from US arms dealers, Washington will not provide us with a security umbrella in return. That version of America no longer exists. As Trump has made clear to all and sundry, the US no longer offers any security guarantees to its allies. Its approach is entirely transactional. Would defending New Zealand be of any benefit to America? Maybe. It would depend on how Trump was feeling on the day.
That being the world in which we now live…why do our politicians and generals continue to assume that the US would come to our assistance in any future time of need? There is no case for being inter-operable with an unreliable ally. Surely, we would be far better off engaging neutrally with China, than running around as if the sky is falling in every time that China make its presence felt in the Pacific.
Footnote One: The POV of the Chinese news agency Xinhua is that this latest test was just business as usual:
The test launch is a routine arrangement of the annual training of the PLA Navy, the navy said, adding that the Chinese side has already notified relevant countries in advance. The test launch complies with international law and international practice, and is not directed at any specific country or target, the navy said.
Footnote Two: This excellent article, written from a UK perspective, makes a sound case against any increase in defence spending:
Why is there no debate? Why should “defence” be awarded an almost religious invulnerability? At present, Parliament, broadcasters, print and social media, thinktanks and pundits all admit to only two points of view. One is that Britain should spend more on defence, the other is that it should spend far more….[Yet] There is no evidence that Russia has evil designs on British territory [or China on NZ territory] that require a massive deterrent force…. That one nation may have the capacity to “threaten” another far from its borders is not evidence that it intends to do so.