Author	: Bill Kochman
Publish	: Apr. 25, 2026
Update	: Apr. 25, 2026
Parts	: 04

Synopsis:



Continuing our discussion from part one, there is one final point that is worth mentioning with regard to a potential, near-future military clash between China and the USA and its various Indo-Pacific allies, and it comes down to America's long-held official policy referred to in military circles as "strategic ambiguity". According to the long-standing policy, the USA officially supports Taiwan's self-defense capability. However, it does NOT explicitly pledge direct American combat involvement, despite certain statements from the White House indicating a commitment to defend Taiwan against the Chinese. However, the truth of the matter is that based on the 1979 Taiwan Relations Act -- which replaced the 1955-1979 Mutual Defense Treaty -- the United States is NOT legally committed to using force to protect Taiwan against Chinese aggression. However, it is required to provide defense arms and maintain the capacity to resist any force that would jeopardize the security of Taiwan, namely mainland China. That is a legal fact if we simply go by the treaty itself.

However, complicating the situation even further is the fact that the second Trump administration -- and particularly the Secretary of War, Peter Hegseth -- has made some unambiguous statements which certainly seem to say that the USA will go to war against China if the need arises. For example, while addressing a high-level Asian defence summit in June 2025, Mr. Hegseth stated the following:

----- Begin Quote -----

"Let me be clear: any attempt by Communist China to conquer Taiwan by force would result in devastating consequences for the Indo-Pacific and the world. There's no reason to sugarcoat it. The threat China poses is real. And it could be imminent. We hope not but certainly could be."

"We do not seek to dominate or strangle China, to encircle or provoke. We do not seek regime change… but we must ensure that China cannot dominate us or our allies and partners," he said, adding "we will not be pushed out of this critical region".

----- End Quote -----

Honestly-speaking, my friends, how else can we interpret Mr. Hegseth's words other than to think that he is saying that if push comes to shove, the United States will not hesitate to resort to war in order to protect itself and its allies in the Indo-Pacific region. This perspective of course also includes protecting our island of Guam, as I explained in the first part of this series, and likewise explain in the article entitled "Secretary of Defense, Pete Hegseth, on Guam", which you will find listed at the end of this series.

Before returning to our discussion regarding Guam, and the planned EIAMD missile shield system, let me take a few more minutes to explain to you the various US-aligned alliances which exist in our region of the world. Let me begin this portion of our discussion by sharing a few excerpts from an April 2026 Washington Times article with the headline "Japan Accelerates Military Upgrades, Embraces Arms Exports, Leans in on Indo-Pacific Partnerships":

----- Begin Quote -----

"The geographically sprawling, culturally diverse Indo-Pacific lacks a NATO-style security architecture. What exists are nonbinding agreements.

The Quad unites Australia, India, Japan and the U.S. in a security dialogue. The U.S. and Britain aim to offer Australia nuclear submarines under AUKUS. The Indo-Pacific Four, or IP4, Japan, New Zealand and South Korea, enables dialogue with NATO.

As the global security environment deteriorates, new ideas appear.

'An Asian equivalent to NATO isn't going to work,' Pacific Forum CEO David Santoro wrote Monday on X. 'But I will say this: people who make that case are no longer laughed out of the room.'

In democratic East Asia, Japan, the biggest economy and most powerful naval force, could lead. One issue: bloody baggage from World War II."

----- End Quote -----

Please note that while it is not specifically mentioned in the previous TWT excerpts, in the case of South Korea, it is bound by the 1953 Mutual Defense Treaty, and is involved in trilateral security coordination with both Japan and the USA.

As the aforementioned TWT article also explains, Japan's new Prime Minister -- Sanae Takaichi -- is an absolute war hawk. Not too long ago, she visited the White House, and it became readily apparent that she is quite taken by President Trump, and she seems to think very much like him insofar as China is concerned. In fact, this powerful woman is in the process of breaking Japan out of its former pacifistic mode, which has endured since the Japanese defeat at the end of World War II. This major policy shift has obviously delighted Japan's close allies in the Indo-Pacific region. PM Takaichi has no problem with throwing barbs at China. For example, this past November -- 2025 -- Takaichi declared that an attack on Taiwan would present an existential threat to Japan. Furthermore, Takaichi stated that such an attack would trigger the activation of Japan's Self-Defense Forces.

More recently, just a few days ago, Japanese troops joined multinational combat drills in the Philippines for the first time in the annual Philippine-U.S. drills known as Balikatan, meaning "Shoulder to Shoulder". Other participants included troops from Australia, Canada, France and New Zealand. Some 17,000 troops were involved in the military exercises.

Such statements and decisive actions have obviously upset and infuriated China. But that is not all. Two days ago, Japan's National Security Council and Cabinet also lifted what had been long-established limits on arms exports. Furthermore, five days ago as of the time of this writing, Japan likewise signed a deal with Australia whereby Japan will provide them with eleven stealth frigates. This is in fact the largest arms deal in Japan's postwar history. Clearly, Japan's main goal with these recent moves is to strengthen its regional security ties, which again, is raising the ire of China. As Prime Minister Takaichi stated "No country can now safeguard its own peace and security alone, making it necessary to have partners that support each other in areas including defense equipment."

To heat up the friction between China and Japan even more, the aforementioned Japanese troops who participated in the drills were transported to the Philippines on the Japanese destroyer JS Ikazuchi, which just so happened to pass through the Taiwan Strait. China was of course outraged and described the transit as "a deliberate provocation." It should be pointed out that while the Taiwan Strait is indeed an international waterway, China condemns its use by warships. Not too long ago, the USA also sent a destroyer through the strait as well, as I recall.

In addition to diplomatic rhetoric, China also responded to the Japanese destroyer's transit with trade embargoes, as well as renewed claims to Japan's southern Ryukyu Islands. However, Prime Ministry Takaichi was not to be frightened or outdone by China. Thus, what she in fact did was to dispatch her Defense Minister, Shinjiro Koizumi, to Yonaguni, in order to inspect defenses there. As I recently mentioned to a personal friend, the Japanese have been building up their military presence on Yonaguni, which is a part of the Ryukyu Islands, and which is located about 68 miles to the northeast of Taiwan. In fact, on clear days, Taiwan can be seen from Yonaguni Island. So Japan is clearly testing Xi Jinping's patience.

So as you can obviously see, under Japan's new Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi's leadership, Japan is currently similar to a military giant that is now majorly stirring itself from its lethargy and long sleep, and China isn't pleased in the least. Regarding the regional alliances which I mentioned earlier, as the Washington Times article mentioned, due to a variety of reasons, the region of the Indo-Pacific -- where Guam is also located -- is not able to form one solid alliance similar to NATO. Thus we see that smaller regional alliances are being formed instead, all of which are aligned with the USA. Upon querying Google's AI, it offered similar results. Consider the following information:

----- Begin Quote -----

The Indo-Pacific lacks a formal NATO-style security architecture, relying instead on a "hub-and-spokes" system of US-led bilateral alliances, minilateral groupings (e.g., Quad, AUKUS), and nonbinding agreements. While this reflects regional resistance to rigid, cold-war style blocs, the architecture is shifting toward a modular, networked approach to manage rising security threats from China, though it remains less institutionalized than NATO.

Key Features of the Indo-Pacific Security Landscape:

• Networked/Modular Security: Instead of one large pact, the region uses overlapping, and sometimes informal, minilateral agreements to promote security cooperation.

• Key Alliances: The U.S. maintains core bilateral treaties with Japan, South Korea, Australia, the Philippines, and Thailand, often called the "hub-and-spokes" system.

• Alternative Architectures: Discussions often mention utilizing the United Nations Command (UNC) (17-nation presence) or expanding cooperation via the Indo-Pacific-4 (Japan, South Korea, Australia, New Zealand) with NATO.

• Challenges to Formal Pact: Sovereignty concerns, deep economic ties with China, and diverse threat perceptions among nations prevent a single, binding security treaty, say Indo-Pacific Studies Center and MERICS.

• Role of Informal Groups: Arrangements like The Quad (US-Japan-Australia-India) and AUKUS (US-UK-Australia) serve to align interests and build deterrence without formal NATO-style commitments.

----- End Quote -----

Returning to the island of Guam, the next uncomfortable truth is that I personally am not convinced that the planned EIAMD missile shield -- comprised of the Aegis Guam System, THAAD (Terminal High Altitude Area Defense), Patriot batteries, and the LTAMDS radar -- is really about protecting the civilian population of Guam. While the EIAMD missile shield is really designed to protect Guam against both ballistic, cruise, and hypersonic threats, the question in my mind is exactly which parts of Guam is it designed to protect? If you think that it is designed to protect civilian areas, you may possibly be in for a shock, a major disappointment and a very rude awakening. What if the real purpose of the EIAMD missile shield is only to protect the US military's assets on Guam and not the actual civilian population? Do I know this for a fact? No, of course not. However, there is a clear reason why I have considered this possibility regardless of how wild or remote it may seem.

It may interest you to know that within the US military, there exists a rather sickening policy or doctrine which is known as "Acceptable Collateral Damage". In other words, the American military determines what it considers to be acceptable loss when engaging in some particularly dangerous military action. US soldiers already know that upon enlisting and engaging in any combat situation, they risk losing their own lives. Thus, this doctrine specifically refers to incidental death, injury, or property damage which is caused to civilians or to civilian objects during a particular attack against what qualifies as a legitimate military target, which is not considered to be too excessive in proportion to the anticipated military advantage. This in fact includes the unintentional loss of civilian life.

In short, my friends, if the military advantage is deemed to be greater than the estimated loss -- including the loss of civilian lives -- then the U.S. military will in fact move forward with whatever the planned action happens to be. Now please note that I am referring to offensive actions against another country. But here is the thing. If the United States attacks a foreign country and does not completely neutralize that nation's ability to fight back, then that nation could retaliate in a very deadly way. If that were to be the case, then when it comes to the Indo-Pacific theater, and to the United States maintaining control and dominance over this region, the civilian population of Guam could potentially be viewed as Acceptable Collateral Damage. As you can no doubt imagine, I find that very unsettling.

This can be looked at from two different perspectives. The U.S. military on Guam could determine that a certain level of civilian casualties on Guam would be allowable Acceptable Collateral Damage if the military action results in soundly defeating a foreign aggressor such as China or North Korea. In contrast, the Chinese or the North Koreans could likewise determine that a certain percentage of civilian casualties on Guam would be Acceptable Collateral Damage if the attack results in the total defeat of the U.S. military on Guam. So regardless of how you choose to look at it, we civilians on the island of Guam could be viewed as low-level pawns in this ugly game of war. The civilian population of Guam would be caught in the middle of a major Indo-Pacific war, but not by our own choice.

If you doubt that this is so, consider a point I have made before. First of all, as I mentioned to you in part one of this series, it is rather common knowledge -- at least here on Guam -- that both the People's Republic of China as well as North Korea have a lot of their missiles pointed directly at Guam. In short, we have a very huge target on our backs on their war strategy maps. However, the ONLY reason why we have missiles pointed at us is because of the heavy American military presence here, and the fact that we are a staging area for any military operations which might occur in the Indo-Pacific region.

Now, let's assume that Xi Jinping makes his grab for Taiwan a lot sooner that US military chiefs had anticipated. Let's also assume that part of the Chinese assault against Taiwan includes taking out Guam first so that Guam-based forces are unable to defend Taiwan. As I explain in the article called "Secretary of Defense, Pete Hegseth, on Guam", that IS what U.S. military leaders do in fact expect to happen. Andersen Air Force Base will be a primary target once the shooting war begin, as will other areas of Guam. Well, as I mentioned in part one, as was recently learned during the Iran War, no missile shield is completely impenetrable, even when a nation relied upon a multi-layered defense strategy. What does this mean? It actually means that some missiles will break through the shield -- whether it is Israel's Iron Dome or America's Golden Dome -- and some people will die. That is the bottom line.

Now, of course, the American military ALREADY knows this. So in the case of Guam, the question is, exactly what are they actually doing about it? What are they doing to prepare for those missiles which do manage to penetrate the planned 360° EIAMD missile shield? Are you ready for the shocking answer?

Well, if the information I have read is correct -- I have no reason to doubt it -- ABSOLUTELY NOTHING! A number of months ago -- I can't remember exactly how long ago now, or even in which publication I saw it -- I recall reading a news report which stated that insofar as designated, public, underground bomb shelters on Guam are concerned, the U.S. government and the U.S. military's position is that building, funding, and maintaining reliable civilian bomb shelters on Guam is the primary responsibility of the Department of Homeland Defense and the local government, which we refer to here as GovGuam. Apparently, they are referring to GHS/OCD, or Guam Homeland Security and the Office of Civil Defense.

My friends, this is NOT just hyperbole on my part in order to make some kind of wild, attention-grabbing, sensationalistic statement. In fact, as I researched deeper into this topic in order to discover exactly where I had read the aforementioned information, I found an article in the May 17, 2024 edition of the Pacific Island Times headlined "A Target Without Bomb Shelters: Guam Official Says, ‘Resilience Is Our Armor’". In the article, when questioned concerning this sensitive issue, U.S. Navy Rear Admiral Gregory Huffman -- who is the former commander of the Joint Task Force Micronesia -- confirmed that underground bomb shelter planning is under local jurisdiction when he plainly made the following shocking statements:

----- Begin Quote -----

"I would really actually defer more toward the government of Guam and the homeland defense folks there in terms of the sheltering aspect.

When it comes to shelters and those types of things, that's really more on the Department of Homeland Defense and the local municipality."

----- End Quote -----

My friends, can the awful truth be any more clear than that? What they are really doing is passing the buck to our local government! However, as anyone who has lived on Guam for any appreciable amount of time is already fully aware, some of our GovGuam agencies have a long history of being both ineffective and very incompetent. This isn't an exaggeration by any means. For example, we have all experienced decades of power outages, unstable power fluctuations, water outages, Internet outages, etc. These are of course not daily occurrences, but they do occur quite frequently. Furthermore, GovGuam has an extremely poor track record when it comes to the issue of long-term maintenance, which has already resulted in a lot of federal and local money being wasted needlessly. This too is a fact of life on Guam which is well-known amongst anyone who lives here.

Yet despite these very obvious and ongoing flaws in our local government, the American government and the American military expect Guam Homeland Security and the Office of Civil Defense to build designated, public, underground bomb shelters for the entire population of Guam? My friends, not in your life!

Let me interject a small note of explanation here, because it seems to me that there is a small degree of confusion. When Rear Admiral Gregory Huffman -- who has since been replaced by U.S. Navy Rear Admiral Joshua Lasky -- employs the phrase "Department of Homeland Defense", I am not certain if he is referring to the Department of Homeland Security -- DHS -- or to the actual Department of Defense -- DoD -- which was once again recently restored to its original name of the Department of War by the Trump administration.

To be clear, there is a distinct difference between the two. The Department of Homeland Security is civilian based and was created following the 9/11/2001 attacks for the very specific purposes of preventing domestic attacks, managing disasters, and securing America's national borders. This it accomplishes through the Transportation Security Administration, the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and US Border Patrol. In other words, its primary mission is protecting the internal security of the United States.

In contrast to the above, the Department of Defense -- a.k.a. the Department of War -- is military-based, and is comprised of the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines. Its primary mission is for the most part external in nature and concerns national defense and military actions which occur abroad, and not in the U.S. homeland.

To continue then, my friends, it gets even worse than that. Not only do Uncle Sam and the US military pass the buck to our local government on Guam, but then GHS/OCD turns around and passes the buck to regular civilians. On their website, Guam Homeland Security and the Office of Civil Defense very clearly state that in the case of individual property owners, it's their responsibility to, as they phrase it, create their own "shelter-in-place" options. This includes using existing reinforced concrete buildings. Furthermore, for individual property owners who want to construct their own underground bomb shelter, Guam Homeland Security and the Office of Civil Defense reminds them that they are responsible for obtaining all of the proper, legal, and zoning approvals from the Department of Public Works. Likewise, they are required to follow all established safety regulations.

In short, my friends, both GHS and OCD appear to completely wash their hands of the situation, and dump it on property owners. Again, they are just passing the buck, which, sadly, is a very common practice within Government of Guam agencies. Whenever mistakes are made or things go wrong, it is easier to blame someone else, instead of owning up to the mistake, and taking responsibility for the situation. I've seen this happen so many times during the many years that I have lived here.

But what about individual Guamanians who don't own their own property, such as us poor renters, for example? Exactly what are they -- meaning you and I -- supposed to do in the event that war comes to our island in the near future? All I can really say is "Forget it buddy! You might as well keel over and die!" Why do I say this? Because due to the absence of real, designated, public, underground bomb shelters on Guam, the recommendation of GHS/OCD is that both individuals and families identify a "shelter-in-place" location -- meaning a small, interior room with few windows in a reinforced cinder block house -- rather than an underground bunker, which we don't have anyway.

WHAT???!!! When I read that statement from GHS/OCD, my jaw dropped! What kind of ridiculous, fantasy world are those leaders living in? As I have mentioned to my readers before, anyone who has seen photos of bombed out buildings in war zones such as Israel, the Gaza Strip, Lebanon, Iran, Ukraine or any other place where war has ravaged a local population, knows that our cinder block homes are NOT going to protect us from anything, should the bombs begin to fall. In fact, our homes could quickly become our very tombs during such a catastrophic event. They may provide us with a minimal level of protection, but considering what kinds of missiles that China or North Korea would probably drop on us, our chances of survival would more than likely be low, in my view.

Now, again, if you doubt that this is so, and if you think that I am just exaggerating in order to shock you, then I suggest that you take a good look at the two horrific photos below which show Gaza City after it has been majorly bombed by Israel. Please notice that those are NOT cheap, wooden structures. If you look closely, you will see that they do in fact seem to be constructed of concrete and cinder blocks which is EXACTLY what we have here all over Guam. In fact, it is EXACTLY what my apartment is made out of. And yet, our leaders here on Guam insist that we will be safe in them. So can you see the lies, the deception, the gaslighting and the psychological manipulation that is going on? We are NOT safe from Chinese or North Korean missiles!





Now, if you find the previous information unsettling, and if it makes your blood boil, then consider the fact that while Guam has no concrete evacuation plans, no contingency plans whatsoever should an attack from an external enemy such as China or North Korea occur, and absolutely no designated, public, underground bomb shelter infrastructure whatsoever, the modern nations of Taiwan and Japan have established all of those things. They are more prepared than we are here on the U.S. territory of Guam, and that is both a shame and an embarrassment!

In other words, my friends, those two countries care more about their civilian populations than the U.S. government and the government of Guam care about us! That is simply an undeniable fact. After all, if they truly DID care about us Guamanians, they would actually do something to demonstrate it. They would put actual feet to their words, instead of just offering their empty, meaningless platitudes which are specifically designed for public consumption, and nothing more.

If you are wondering what kind of sickening platitudes I am referring to, consider that in the aforementioned May 2024 Pacific Island Times article, Guam's current Governor Lou Leon Guerrero's special assistant for homeland security, who is temporarily leading the Office of Civil Defense -- Esther Aguigui -- stated the following:

----- Begin Quote -----

"In lieu of traditional bomb shelters, our strategic approach on Guam is to leverage the robust network of concrete structures that dot our island. While designated bomb shelters may not exist, we stand fortified by our majority of concrete buildings." Aguigui also added that "resilience is our armor, and vigilance our watchword."

----- End Quote -----

"In lieu of traditional bomb shelters"? Why so? After all, it is NOT a physical impossibility. All one has to do is to look at the many high-rise tourist hotels which dot our island. Better yet, visit a construction site where a new hotel is in the process of being built. One thing you will notice is that they dig deep into the limestone substrate of our island in order to ensure that every building is setting on a solid foundation. Wouldn't underground bomb shelters which are built into that limestone rock offer us similar protection if they are built deep enough, as long as they are protected from Guam's water lens?

Or perhaps our local government officials will tell us that there is simply not enough money to build such underground bomb shelters. This is the very same excuse that is used to explain why despite being buffeted decade after decade by powerful typhoons, Guam is STILL lacking a full underground power grid. Yet the government of Guam receives literally millions of dollars from the federal government every single year. Why is it that there is never a problem, and there are always sufficient funds, whenever the Guam legislature and different GovGuam agencies want to give themselves a hefty pay raise, even if they are crappy at their job, or not even actually qualified for the position for which they were even hired? These are strange goings on, my friends!

For my readers who may not be aware, here on Guam, the very infectious "disease" of nepotism is called "pari, pari" or "pare, pare". In other words it is the Guamanian cultural practice of using close connections to gain favors or some level of influence in jobs. As they say, "It is not what you know, but who you know."

Resilience and vigilance? Really? How exactly are those two things going to physically help us or protect us should the bombs and missiles begin to fall upon us? Yes, it is indeed true that we Guamanians are resilient. We certainly know how to endure each and every typhoon season. However, enduring a strong typhoon is NOT the same as having a powerful missile drop directly on your house! There is simply no comparison between the two. Furthermore, how in the world can we even be vigilant when one never knows when a bomb might drop from the sky? One minute you could be here, and the next you are completely gone and erased from existence!

Thus, regarding Aguigui's false claim of being "fortified by our majority of concrete buildings", I again suggest that she take a good hard look at bombed out places such as Gaza City. Thus, as far as I'm concerned, such misguided words of safety are both empty and meaningless. They offer the people of Guam absolutely no real protection whatsoever. In fact, as I noted earlier, they actually amount to pure gaslighting and psychological manipulation, because they attempt to lull us into a false sense of security, as if the potential danger does not even exist. Furthermore, upon further reflection, these kinds of pronouncements are in fact words which really admit utter failure to adequately prepare for potential war with China, and failure by our government leaders to protect us. Such words actually say, "Protect yourselves, because we are not going to do it for you."

Please go to part three for the continuation of this series.

⇒ Go To The Next Part . . .

---

---

Please avail yourself of other areas of the Bill's Bible Basics website. There are many treasures for you to discover.