Latest news with #WorldWarI
The Sun
a day ago
- Politics
- The Sun
‘Golden Dome' is pure fantasy
MUTZIG, FRANCE: First stop on my annual visit to France's mighty Maginot Line forts is this lovely Alsatian town. Mutzig was built by the Germans 1893-1916 to defend against enemy approaches to the important city of Strasbourg. It was – and remains – the largest modern fortress in Europe. The vast fortress, which covers over 800 acres, was never attacked during World War I by the Germans or French. But as Europe's first important fortress made of concrete and fully electrified, it was eagerly studied by French engineers and served as a template for the Maginot Line forts two decades later. Both world wars showed the vulnerability of fixed fortifications. An enemy will always find a way round them or discover a fatal weakness. In regard to the 322km-long Maginot Line, the forts did not fail. They held out to the bitter end. The reason for France's stunning defeat in 1940 was the failure of its field army and its blockheaded generals. Interestingly, a French parliamentary deputy with the effervescent name of Perrier precisely predicted where the Germans would break through the Ardennes Forest in 1940. Though vulnerable, the fixed defences of the Maginot Line were hugely popular in France and wildly overestimated because they involved huge construction projects for many of the villages and factories along France's eastern border with Germany. Just as New Deal make-work projects boosted the United States during the Great Depression. We see a similar mania in the response to President Donald Trump's plan to create a national 'Golden Dome' defensive shield to protect the nation from assorted nuclear threats. In many ways, it's a re-run of President Ronald Reagan's Star Wars missile shield, which never got off the ground but was extremely popular among the public. Frederick the Great of Prussia noted, 'he who defends everything, defends nothing,' As true today as it was in the 18th century. A national missile defence system to cover the entire nation would be impossibly expensive for a nation already deeply mired in debt. The always powerful military-industrial complex will see Trump's Golden Dome fantasy as a second Christmas though the basic technology has yet to be proven. One wonders if the proponents of this defensive system have noticed that Russia has developed ballistic missiles that can alter course, change altitudes and switch targets? Or that China has ICBMs aboard freighters in the Pacific. What about evolving electronic countermeasures that can fry enemy communications and guidance systems? It would be far more prudent for the US to pursue disarmament talks and effective inspection regimes with its rivals than pie in the sky defensive systems that will certainly enrich military companies but fail to protect North America. What's more, having even a partial anti-missile system will likely make the US more aggressive and prone to wars. Better to spend the trillions on curing cancer or blindness than on space wizardry. Alas, we have a view of what awaits us. Lately, Trump banned people from 12 mostly Muslims nations and imposed restrictions on seven nations. Good work Mr President. You and your New York City construction buddies have now made enemies of a quarter of the world's population.
The Sun
a day ago
- Politics
- The Sun
Lessons from Maginot line and Trump's missile shield plan
MUTZIG, FRANCE: First stop on my annual visit to France's mighty Maginot Line forts is this lovely Alsatian town. Mutzig was built by the Germans 1893-1916 to defend against enemy approaches to the important city of Strasbourg. It was – and remains – the largest modern fortress in Europe. The vast fortress, which covers over 800 acres, was never attacked during World War I by the Germans or French. But as Europe's first important fortress made of concrete and fully electrified, it was eagerly studied by French engineers and served as a template for the Maginot Line forts two decades later. Both world wars showed the vulnerability of fixed fortifications. An enemy will always find a way round them or discover a fatal weakness. In regard to the 322km-long Maginot Line, the forts did not fail. They held out to the bitter end. The reason for France's stunning defeat in 1940 was the failure of its field army and its blockheaded generals. Interestingly, a French parliamentary deputy with the effervescent name of Perrier precisely predicted where the Germans would break through the Ardennes Forest in 1940. Though vulnerable, the fixed defences of the Maginot Line were hugely popular in France and wildly overestimated because they involved huge construction projects for many of the villages and factories along France's eastern border with Germany. Just as New Deal make-work projects boosted the United States during the Great Depression. We see a similar mania in the response to President Donald Trump's plan to create a national 'Golden Dome' defensive shield to protect the nation from assorted nuclear threats. In many ways, it's a re-run of President Ronald Reagan's Star Wars missile shield, which never got off the ground but was extremely popular among the public. Frederick the Great of Prussia noted, 'he who defends everything, defends nothing,' As true today as it was in the 18th century. A national missile defence system to cover the entire nation would be impossibly expensive for a nation already deeply mired in debt. The always powerful military-industrial complex will see Trump's Golden Dome fantasy as a second Christmas though the basic technology has yet to be proven. One wonders if the proponents of this defensive system have noticed that Russia has developed ballistic missiles that can alter course, change altitudes and switch targets? Or that China has ICBMs aboard freighters in the Pacific. What about evolving electronic countermeasures that can fry enemy communications and guidance systems? It would be far more prudent for the US to pursue disarmament talks and effective inspection regimes with its rivals than pie in the sky defensive systems that will certainly enrich military companies but fail to protect North America. What's more, having even a partial anti-missile system will likely make the US more aggressive and prone to wars. Better to spend the trillions on curing cancer or blindness than on space wizardry. Alas, we have a view of what awaits us. Lately, Trump banned people from 12 mostly Muslims nations and imposed restrictions on seven nations. Good work Mr President. You and your New York City construction buddies have now made enemies of a quarter of the world's population. The writer is a syndicated columnist. Comments: letters@
News.com.au
a day ago
- Business
- News.com.au
The rage of war has placed these military metals in high demand
Metals used in munitions and military technology are in the spotlight as war rages in the Middle East and Ukraine Tungsten, tin, antimony, rare earths and beryllium among the key commodities to follow These ASX stocks are moving to stake out a position in critical minerals markets The rise of fresh tensions in the Middle East has put the spotlight on the minerals needed for military operations. The wars in Ukraine and Gaza continue to rage, and even escalate, while the outbreak of hostilities between Israel and Iran is leading to fears of a much larger regional, or even global, conflict. While the first few days of the conflict have boosted the price of oil, it's also a sad fact that military operations are metals intensive. Even without an additional conflict, US President Donald Trump's 'Big Beautiful Bill' will see the country's defence spending hit US$1 trillion next year for the first time. In a recent presentation in Toronto, Hallgarten + Company analyst Christopher Ecclestone noted that most of the combatants in World War I and, to a lesser extent, World War II, had all the metals and minerals they needed domestically – which is not the case today. He also pointed out that war materials are exceedingly high-tech, both in composition and metal inputs, adding that rare earths 'weren't a thing' in WWII. While loads of different metals, including aluminium and titanium, are needed for defence applications, Ecclestone listed the 'headline' military metals as tungsten, antimony, rare earths, tin and beryllium. While there aren't any options on the ASX for beryllium, we have a look at some of the juniors with near-term production potential in the other four metals. Tungsten Vancouver-based investment firm Mission Critical Metals, of which Ecclestone is also CEO, describes tungsten as the key military metal, due to its use in making bulletproof vehicles, armoured tanks, armour-piercing rounds, high-speed cutting tools, and rocket and aircraft parts. Mission says that given the turnaround in the tungsten price is relatively recent, the space is yet to attract many new players. Outside of the ASX's two listed tungsten producers, Almonty Industries (ASX:AII) and EQ Resources (ASX:EQR), there are a couple of other hopefuls. Tungsten Mining (ASX:TGN) is considering an early production pathway for its Hatches Creek project in the Northern Territory. Last month, the company reported a maiden inferred resource of 12 million tonnes at 0.17% tungsten trioxide, which will feed into a scoping study. Preliminary metallurgical studies have successfully produced a tungsten concentrate grading at 50% tungsten trioxide. Meanwhile, Rumble Resources (ASX:RTR) discovered a tungsten sweetener at its Western Queen gold project in Western Australia last year. High-grade tungsten mineralisation remains open in all directions with a maiden resource to be reported in the September quarter. The company will then complete metallurgical testwork to determine the quantum of the tungsten revenue stream and incorporate it into the Western Queen South mining schedule. Antimony Antimony is used in military applications including fighter jets, military primers, night vision goggles, lasers, military detonators and military smoke agents. There's been an explosion of ASX companies seeking exposure to antimony due to a price surge driven by shortages. Larvotto Resources (ASX:LRV) is one of the more advanced companies globally, with its Hillgrove project in New South Wales due to start production next year. Nearby, Trigg Minerals' (ASX:TMG) Achilles project contains the Wild Cattle Creek deposit, with a resource of 1.52Mt at 1.97% antimony containing 29,902 tonnes of antimony, which the company says makes it Australia's highest grade primary antimony resource. Trigg also recently boosted it antimony portfolio with the addition of the Antimony Canyon project in Utah, which has a non-JORC resource of 12.7Mt at 0.79% antimony for 100,300t of contained antimony. Felix Gold (ASX:FXG) could be in production the soonest from its Treasure Island project in Alaska. The company is working towards small-scale antimony production by the end of this year from the Scrafford deposit, which previously produced up to 58% antimony. Also in Alaska, Nova Minerals (ASX:NVA) has applied to the US Department of Defense (DoD) for funding to potentially fast track antimony production from its Stibium deposit. Larvotto and Trigg have also reported tungsten resources, while Resolution's new project also has tungsten potential. Rare Earths Rare earths are essential to the defence sector, making the development of new supply chains a matter of national security for countries including the US. Neodymium and praseodymium permanent magnets are used in F-35 fighter jets and unmanned aerial vehicles, while lanthanum is used in night vision goggles and terbium is used in naval sonar systems. Shares in Dateline Resources (ASX:DTR) have exploded recently after Trump tweeted his support for the Colosseum rare earths project in California. Last week, Dateline confirmed further public support from members of the Trump Administration, including Secretary of the Interior Doug Burgum. Locksley Resources (ASX:LKY) is a more recent entrant to the space, but its Mojave project in California sits right next to the US' only operating rare earths mine, MP Materials' Mountain Pass, and is also prospective for antimony. This week, Locksley Resources launched strategic collaboration initiatives, targeting engagement with US agencies, national laboratories, US universities and downstream technology partners. In Australia, Victory Metals (ASX:VTM) recently received a letter of interest from the Export-Import Bank of the United States for up to US$190 million in project financing for the development of the North Stanmore heavy rare earths project in WA. The project is set to produce both heavy and light rare earths, as well as gallium and scandium as by-products. VHM (ASX:VHM) is targeting rare earths and mineral sands production from its Goschen project in Victoria in late 2026 after receiving a mining license for the project recently. The company is working towards a final investment decision in the December half. Tin According to the DoD, tin is used in many defence applications, such as soldering to enable electrical connections in semiconductors, high-end capacitors, and other electronic components in nearly all military hardware. There's not a lot of tin exposure on the ASX outside of long-time producer Metals X (ASX:MLX). Metals X-backed Elementos (ASX:ELT) could be next in line after releasing a definitive feasibility study for its Oropesa project in Spain in April. The company is now working on permitting and financing ahead of a making a final investment decision. Stellar Resources (ASX:SRZ) says its Heemskirk tin project in Tasmania has the potential to be a global top 10 producer. A prefeasibility study is due in the second half of this year, with the company expected to move straight into a DFS. Sky Metals (ASX:SKY) holds the advanced Tallebung project in NSW, a historical tin producer. The company is advancing a bulk sample metallurgical program to optimise the process flowsheet and produce marketable tin concentrates ahead of offtake marketing. Earlier stage explorers include Brazilian focused Australian Mines (ASX:AUZ) and Perpetual Resources (ASX:PEC), who are trying to find new deposit in a waning tin power which almost 40 years ago supplied 22% of the world's primary tin.
The Age
a day ago
- Politics
- The Age
Albanese is pulling away from the US – and Australians seem to love it
That's why the sooner the institutional perception of not just Trump, but the United States, adjusts itself, the better off Australia will be. The America that Australia regarded as its great friend and protector is not what it used to be, and it is not going to come back. Americans knew that Trump oversaw a deadly, failed insurrection to overturn the result of the 2020 election that he lost, but still elected him last November. He won 31 states to Kamala Harris' 19. This suggests Albanese needs to confront some big issues within the American relationship. How willing is he to spend some of his political capital to deal with them? It's four years since the AUKUS pact was announced jointly by Boris Johnson, Joe Biden and Scott Morrison – none of whose careers came to a happy end – as a way of getting the old Anglosphere gang back together to stave off the strategic rise of China. What amounts to Labor's original sin in opposition of endorsing AUKUS sight unseen is a mistake from which it will have to find a way to either extricate itself or initiate a renegotiation. AUKUS is crushingly expensive, with unreasonably long timelines, and is almost certainly undeliverable. And it did not countenance a reborn and rampant Trump. Loading There are signs that the government is at least trying to moderate its reliance on this ill-begotten agreement. It's slowly, slowly edging towards a strategic position that is less dependent on the US. When Albanese talks about 'an Australian way' of doing things and highlights his deeper engagement with Indonesia and Papua New Guinea, our two northern neighbours that stand between us and China, he's signalling a slow movement out of the American orbit, or at least some hedging of bets. At the same time, the government has worked hard to normalise its relationship with China. The Labor Party, before its embrace of AUKUS, had a long history of a more independent security stance, going back to the Fisher government establishing the Australian navy before World War I, and John Curtin bringing troops back from Europe to defend Australia after the fall of Singapore in World War II. Labor also controversially opposed our involvement in the wars in Vietnam and Iraq. Whether Albanese has the will and intestinal fortitude to continue to create a new path remains to be seen. But what is clear is that to some degree, he understands that his job for the next three years will be to try to ensure that neither China, our biggest trading partner and source of much of our prosperity, and the United States, our legacy security partner, do not individually paint a target on us to prove a point to each other. In other words, his main task will be to mostly play a dead bat and protect us from both of them. Albanese is right to leave open the possibility of being able to catch up with Trump next week on the sidelines of the NATO summit in the Netherlands. There are so many uncertainties about an Australian leader getting time with America's leader. That says much more about the latter than the former – and about Australia's future.
Sydney Morning Herald
a day ago
- Politics
- Sydney Morning Herald
Albanese is pulling away from the US – and Australians seem to love it
That's why the sooner the institutional perception of not just Trump, but the United States, adjusts itself, the better off Australia will be. The America that Australia regarded as its great friend and protector is not what it used to be, and it is not going to come back. Americans knew that Trump oversaw a deadly, failed insurrection to overturn the result of the 2020 election that he lost, but still elected him last November. He won 31 states to Kamala Harris' 19. This suggests Albanese needs to confront some big issues within the American relationship. How willing is he to spend some of his political capital to deal with them? It's four years since the AUKUS pact was announced jointly by Boris Johnson, Joe Biden and Scott Morrison – none of whose careers came to a happy end – as a way of getting the old Anglosphere gang back together to stave off the strategic rise of China. What amounts to Labor's original sin in opposition of endorsing AUKUS sight unseen is a mistake from which it will have to find a way to either extricate itself or initiate a renegotiation. AUKUS is crushingly expensive, with unreasonably long timelines, and is almost certainly undeliverable. And it did not countenance a reborn and rampant Trump. Loading There are signs that the government is at least trying to moderate its reliance on this ill-begotten agreement. It's slowly, slowly edging towards a strategic position that is less dependent on the US. When Albanese talks about 'an Australian way' of doing things and highlights his deeper engagement with Indonesia and Papua New Guinea, our two northern neighbours that stand between us and China, he's signalling a slow movement out of the American orbit, or at least some hedging of bets. At the same time, the government has worked hard to normalise its relationship with China. The Labor Party, before its embrace of AUKUS, had a long history of a more independent security stance, going back to the Fisher government establishing the Australian navy before World War I, and John Curtin bringing troops back from Europe to defend Australia after the fall of Singapore in World War II. Labor also controversially opposed our involvement in the wars in Vietnam and Iraq. Whether Albanese has the will and intestinal fortitude to continue to create a new path remains to be seen. But what is clear is that to some degree, he understands that his job for the next three years will be to try to ensure that neither China, our biggest trading partner and source of much of our prosperity, and the United States, our legacy security partner, do not individually paint a target on us to prove a point to each other. In other words, his main task will be to mostly play a dead bat and protect us from both of them. Albanese is right to leave open the possibility of being able to catch up with Trump next week on the sidelines of the NATO summit in the Netherlands. There are so many uncertainties about an Australian leader getting time with America's leader. That says much more about the latter than the former – and about Australia's future.
