China menace triggers call for missile defence shield

Australia must plan for a missile defence shield to counter China’s menace, says former national security adviser.

Chinese President Xi Jinping stands on a military jeep as he inspects troops of the People's Liberation Army during a military parade at the weekend. Picture: AP

A former national security adviser to two Coalition governments has warned that Australia must begin planning for a missile defence shield to counter China’s rapidly expanding ballistic nuclear and conventional missile program.

Andrew Shearer, who advised prime ministers John Howard and Tony Abbott, said while North Korea posed an imminent danger in the north Asian region, China’s rapidly growing intercontinental ballistic missile footprint potentially posed a significantly greater long-term menace to deployed forces and mainland defence ­facilities in northern Australia.

A key architect of Australia’s national security legislation under the Abbott government, Mr Shearer, now a Washington-based adviser on Asia-Pacific security for the US Centre for Strategic and International Studies, told The Australian that the government needed to begin planning for continental missile defence.

In an article in The Australian today — which is co-written by Thomas Mahnken, a former ­defence strategist for George W. Bush’s administration and now chief executive of the US Centre for Strategic and Budgetary ­Assessments — they argue that Australia needs to get over ideological “hang-ups” on missile ­defence capability.

While backing the Turnbull government’s plans for missile-­defence systems for deployed force protection, they argue that planning should begin for a longer-term continental missile shield for Australia — a position recently pushed by former Labor prime minister Kevin Rudd.

“Highly accurate cruise missiles and hypersonic anti-ship ­missiles are proliferating in the ­region and pose an increasing menace to deployed forces, such as Australia’s large amphibious ships,” the authors say.

“Australian military planners (also) need to grapple with the ­incipient threat posed to the mainland — particularly to defence ­facilities in northern Australia used by the ADF and rotating US forces — by China’s increasingly large and sophisticated long-range nuclear and conventional missile force.”

Mr Shearer and Dr Mahnken say the Pentagon’s most recent ­report to congress on China’s military power found that Beijing ­already possessed between 75 and 100 ICBMs, many with the range to strike northern Australia, and advanced designs able to deliver multiple warheads.

“As the range of Chinese and North Korean missiles grows and their arsenals expand, it will also be necessary to consider the need to protect Australia itself,” they say.

“Northern bases and the forces they host will be the first to come under threat, although over time the missile threat will likely extend to all of Australia.

“It is not too soon to begin thinking about the requirements of continental missile defence.”

The authors say Australia’s remote location “while still an advantage, no longer confers the level of safety … it once did”.

“In a world marked by growing missile arsenals, Australian security will increasingly depend upon active defences,” they say.

“Australia will need a layered series of defences to deal with ­increasingly sophisticated missile threats both to deployed forces and the Australian homeland.”

Australian Strategic Policy ­Institute executive director Peter Jennings, a former Defence ­Department official, agreed that China’s missile capability was a greater long-term concern than its naval might.

“(Mr Shearer and Dr Mahnken) are absolutely right about proliferation and the nature of the threat,” Mr Jennings told The Australian.

“The big story is less maritime development; it is far more about development in ballistic and cruise missiles. It makes it critical that if we deploy any forces into the Asia-Pacific we have the ­defence to protect them.

“What you do about the mainland … I don’t think it is feasible to deploy THAAD (US anti-ballistic Terminal High Altitude Area ­Defence) batteries around northern Australia or capital cities … that is not to say you might not want to ever do it. I could see a situation that if we have US marines operating out of Darwin … you might think about it there.”

Mr Jennings argued that what should be considered and hadn’t been tackled since the decommissioning of the F-111 — a tactical ­attack fighter and strategic bombing aircraft — was developing a missile strike capability for Australia to act as a deterrent.

“Something we haven’t tackled is the absence of you own strike capability,” Mr Jennings said.

He said consideration should be given to Australia acquiring its own cruise-missile capability, which would offer an offensive ­deterrent range of up to 1500km and which had been considered as a future capability for submarines in the 2009 defence white paper.

“It wouldn’t be hard to do for air warfare destroyers,” Mr Jennings said.

Mr Rudd last month broke with Labor Party policy and suggested that the North Korean threat ­warranted Australia planning for ballistic missile defence program.

Malcolm Turnbull said that the short-term priority was missile ­defence for force deployment but did not rule out mainland defence. The Prime Minister said THAAD was deemed inappropriate for Australia as it had a narrow target range of about 200km.

Mr Shearer, who is also the CD Kemp Fellow at the Institute of Public Affairs, said China had been expanding its nuclear and conventional missile arsenal to include 75-100 ICBMs that had the range to strike targets in Australia as well as the US.

The more advanced were solid-fuelled, carried multiple warheads and mounted on mobile ­launchers.

China’s DF-31A missiles had the potential to strike targets in northern Australia and further ­inland, as could its JL-2 submarine-launched ballistic missiles.

Just last week, at China’s Army Day military parade, a new ICBM variant was unveiled: the DF-31AG which boasted an even longer range, and could be mounted on all-terrain vehicles for ­greater mobility and ­survivability.

“Australians might ask why China could possibly want to threaten or attack Australia, a ­remote country that is a major trading partner with which it has no territorial or other serious ­dispute,” Mr Shearer and Dr Mahnken wrote.

“There are a number of such circumstances worth considering.

“First, China’s military build-up is aimed at least partially at undermining the confidence of America’s allies in its security guarantees.

“Second, Beijing’s missile ­arsenal could be used to coerce Australia in time of crisis, much as the Chinese government has ­increasingly sought to intimidate other regional states.

“Third, China’s missiles give it an expanding set of options to ­attack targets in the region, ­including those in Australia, in time of war.”