Senior US Army leaders have highlighted the importance of having more land-based troops and assets in the Indo-Pacific should a conflict erupt in the region. In fact, this would likely be as important as Navy and Air Force resources in the region.
During the Association of the United States Army’s annual meeting this week, General Ron Clark (Commander of the US Army Pacific) explained that “the tyranny of distance” would be a major factor during such a conflict.
That might sound a little strange on the surface (no pun intended). The Pacific is an enormous ocean, so logically, emphasis should be placed on naval and associated air assets.
But that is not necessarily the case. In fact, islands, regional allies, and other land-based assets, like missile systems, could be just as important. Arguably more in some circumstances.
Gen. Clark’s comments are essentially saying that, should such a conflict erupt, the US would be at a major disadvantage from the outset. China would be conducting such a war effectively in its backyard, with supply chains much closer to home.
Air, land, and sea forces as one
The US, on the other hand, would need to project and supply its power thousands of miles away. Ships and aircraft need fuel and ammunition, maintenance, and other logistical support.
That would not be an easy task over such distances. Chinese assets, on the other hand, would benefit from support and a supply chain very close to potential hotspots like Taiwan.
So, what can be done about it? Well, various island chains are conveniently placed in the region and could be put to use to even the odds. Allied nations like Japan and the Philippines also happen to be dotted around the Indo-Pacific. This is called the “Island Chain Strategy.”
These islands and allied nations could be used to seed mobile missile launchers, radar systems, and air defenses on friendly soil. Such assets, it is argued, could be used for critical things like anti-ship warfare, air defense, and long-range strikes.
They could also be used as vital hubs and caches to support US asset logistics. Mobile missile systems in particular would be of great importance, since they are harder to locate and neutralize by the enemy.
Interestingly, this is not just theoretical either. The US has already tested this back in May 2026 in the Philippines when they test-fired a Tomahawk missile from one of its stationed Typhon systems.
Eroding China’s “home” advantage
All of this ultimately comes down to deterrence. Or, in other words, make any action by China so potentially dangerous that they’d think twice about doing so.
Take Taiwan, for example. If the US can position sufficient military assets in nearby allied territories, it could significantly increase the potential costs of a Chinese invasion, despite China’s geographical advantage.
Sounds good in theory, but there would also be a catch. Land-based assets, even if located on island chains, are not invulnerable. China, for its part, has substantial ballistic and cruise missile stockpiles of its own that can threaten these bases in kind.
What’s more, the problem they are trying to solve is also hampered by the same “tyranny of distance” in not being immune to the need for supply and support. But, that said, what is clear is that land-based forces and weapons systems can help balance the odds for naval and air assets hundreds or even thousands of miles away.
To this end, the “clear” boundaries between the different services are increasingly becoming blurred.