China’s threat of missile strikes backfires–sparks calls in Australia for nuclear weapons

<p>
<strong>China’s state media’s threat to subject Australia to a missile strike, should it support Taiwan, has had an unexpected fallout—it has triggered demands in Canberra for nuclear weapons.</strong></p>
<p>
Writing in the state-run tabloid Global Times— Hu Xijin —the editor-in-chief of the bullhorn of the Communist Party of China (CPC), threatened Australia by saying that China should consider attacking the continent with missiles, fired both independently and by its H6K strategic bomber.</p>
<p>
“Given that Australian hawks keep hyping or hinting that Australia will assist the US military and participate in war once a military conflict breaks out in the Taiwan Straits, and the Australian media outlets have been actively promoting the sentiment, I suggest China make a plan to impose retaliatory punishment against Australia once it militarily interferes in the cross-Straits situation,” writes Hu.</p>
<p>
<strong>Also Read: <a href="https://www.indianarrative.com/world-news/australia-embarks-on-defence-modernisation-plan-to-acquire-us-tanks-84803.html">Australia embarks on defence modernisation plan, to acquire US tanks</a></strong></p>
<p>
The bellicose insider of the CPC then details a plan of attack. “The plan [to attack Australia] should include long-range strikes on the military facilities and relevant key facilities on Australian soil if it really sends its troops to China’s offshore areas and combats against the PLA,” Hu writes. “If they [Australian hawks] are bold enough to coordinate with the US to militarily interfere in the Taiwan question and send troops to the Taiwan Straits to wage war with the PLA, they must know what disasters they would cause to their country.”</p>
<p>
Undeterred by the Chinese threat former Yale and Harvard academic, Anders Corr, in his riposte written in Epoch Times, says that given Hu’s threat “the United States and allies should immediately support Australia in obtaining an independent submarine-based nuclear deterrent, so that Australia can join countries such as the United States, France, Britain, and India as powerful global defenders of freedom and democracy. The independent strength of individual members of an alliance improves the overall strength of the alliance”.</p>
<p>
Corr is not the first one to call for an independent Australian nuclear deterrent, given the likely face-off with China in the Indo-Pacific region. "Far from being in a strategic backwater, Australia is very much now a state in the front line," said Malcolm Davis, a military planner as quoted earlier by Bangkok Post.</p>
<p>
Hugh White — a professor of strategic studies at the Australian National University is another heavyweight advocating Australian nukes.</p>
<p>
<strong>Also Read: <a href="https://www.indianarrative.com/latest-news/china-suspends-economic-dialogue-with-australia-86034.html">China suspends economic dialogue with Australia</a></strong></p>
<p>
In his book, "How to Defend Australia", he argues that developing nuclear weapons has become inevitable.</p>
<p>
"The strategic costs of forgoing nuclear weapons in the new Asia could be much greater than they have been until now," he says citing “big strategic shifts in Asia”.</p>
<p>
Corr, points to the urgency of acquiring Australian nukes. </p>
<p>
“Australia has a limited window of opportunity in which to go nuclear, after which China’s rising power and regional hegemony will make an independent nuclear Australia impossible. At that point, which could be as soon as 5 or 10 years, the window will close and China could more effectively use nuclear brinkmanship, control of Asian seas, check book diplomacy, and its economic trading power, to break Australia from its allies, and bring it under Beijing’s dominance,” he observes.</p>
<p>
NATO should welcome Australia into its alliance as a full member, before China has a chance to create a territorial dispute down under, and thereby make Australian accession more difficult. If Washington came under the influence of Beijing, the bilateral U.S.-Australia alliance would be useless to Australia’s defence, he says.</p>
<p>
Corr makes two additional points. First, NATO must change its strategic outlook by no longer narrowly focusing on the Atlantic. Instead, it should broaden its vision to include Asia. Second non-democracies such as Saudi Arabia and Vietnam should be included in the Indo-Pacific phalanx.</p>
<p>
“NATO should no longer be a purely Atlantic affair, given globalization and the rise of China. What matters today in choosing our closest allies is not geography, but shared values in support of democracy, as well as the inclusion of a broader diversity of allies, including countries like Saudi Arabia and Vietnam, that will strengthen the alliance in resisting Beijing’s growing preponderance of power.”  </p>