Trajectory Daily Brief: 09 February 2026
New START expires as AI shrinks nuclear decision windows. Taiwan's defenses buy exactly the time America needs—if submarines aren't stuck in transit from Australia.
🎧 Listen to this article
Pacific | Indo-Pacific | HMAS Stirling Cannot Substitute for Guam in Taiwan Contingency Planning
Situation
HMAS Stirling in Western Australia sits 3,400 nautical miles from Taiwan—a distance that would remove submarines from active operations for weeks during transit alone. The facility lacks the infrastructure depth, prepositioning capacity, and operational tempo required to sustain high-intensity naval combat.
Current US Indo-Pacific strategy relies on Guam as the primary forward operating base for submarine and surface operations in a Taiwan crisis. No comparable alternative exists at equivalent strategic distance in the theater.
Context
The assumption that Australia could serve as a fallback headquarters reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of submarine warfare geometry. Attack submarines must cycle between patrol stations and replenishment; every additional thousand miles of transit effectively removes boats from the fight.
Guam’s value isn’t replaceable by goodwill alone. The island hosts specialized repair facilities, weapons storage, communications infrastructure, and decades of operational integration that cannot be replicated on accelerated timelines. Political alignment doesn’t overcome physical positioning.
Historical precedent matters: the US fought WWII in the Pacific from forward bases built over years, not from continental rear areas. Distance killed operational tempo then; precision weapons make it fatal now.
Trajectory
US planners face an uncomfortable reality: there is no Plan B for Guam in the Western Pacific. The closest viable alternatives require either diplomatic breakthroughs (Philippines, Vietnam) or infrastructure investments measured in decades, not years.
This creates a single point of failure in American deterrence architecture. If Beijing can credibly threaten to neutralize Guam in the campaign’s opening hours, the entire forward defense posture becomes contestable.
The submarine force—America’s most survivable strike asset—becomes strategically irrelevant if based 3,000+ miles from the fight. Geography is deciding strategy by default.
Global | Nuclear | Arms control collapse creates AI-accelerated decision timelines without verification safeguards
Situation
New START expired February 5, 2026, ending all formal limits on US-Russian strategic arsenals for the first time since 1972. The treaty’s collapse terminated data exchanges, inspection regimes, and satellite coordination that provided mutual transparency for five decades.
Nuclear-armed states are simultaneously integrating AI into early warning and command systems while losing the verification mechanisms that once allowed them to distinguish technical failures from actual attacks. Hypersonic weapons have compressed warning times from thirty minutes to potentially ten, while AI systems promise detection in seconds.
This combination—faster detection, faster weapons, zero transparency—reverses the temporal conditions that allowed human judgment to prevent false alarms in 1979, 1980, and 1983.
Context
The hidden risk is not the most discussed one. Regional proliferation (Iran triggering Saudi, Turkish, Egyptian programs) and accidental war (technical failures in complex systems) both represent catastrophic dangers that defense planners actively monitor and model.
AI-enabled first strikes operate differently. The integration of machine-speed decision-making into nuclear command creates a new category of risk: strategic instability driven by algorithmic compression of human judgment windows. When both sides deploy AI systems that can detect, assess, and recommend responses in seconds, the operational pressure becomes matching adversary speed rather than ensuring accuracy.
This transforms Stanislav Petrov’s 1983 choice—thirty minutes to distrust instruments and trust instincts—into an impossibility. The verification architecture that once provided redundant safety mechanisms and epistemic common ground between adversaries has been dismantled precisely when technological acceleration demands more context, not less.
Trajectory
The compounding effect matters most: AI acceleration plus verification collapse plus hypersonic compression creates conditions where normal accidents become normal. Complex, tightly coupled systems without redundant safety mechanisms will eventually produce catastrophic failures regardless of operator competence.
The truly hidden risk is that speed itself becomes the strategic objective. If adversary AI can identify optimal strike windows in seconds, matching that capability appears rational even as it eliminates the temporal space where human cognition operates.
Defense establishments are optimizing for the wrong variable—they’re solving for faster detection when the actual requirement is preserving decision time sufficient for human judgment under uncertainty.
Indian Ocean | Geopolitics | Trump’s opposition to Chagos handover tests institutional limits of presidential obstruction against allied treaties
Situation
The UK signed sovereignty over the Chagos Archipelago to Mauritius on May 22, 2025, with Diego Garcia base operations secured under British control for 99 years. Three days later, Secretary of State Marco Rubio welcomed the deal after interagency review. Then Trump called it “great stupidity.”
Trump cannot veto British legislation but possesses considerable indirect tools: Section 232 tariffs already imposed on UK steel and aluminum could expand; Treasury’s OFAC could target Mauritius’s offshore financial sector; the US could threaten reduced Diego Garcia operations hosting 2,500 personnel and strategic bombers.
The constraint is institutional. Every lever requires cooperation from Pentagon and State Department bureaucrats who understand Diego Garcia’s value depends on legal stability. Trump’s first term documented significant resistance to strategically incoherent orders.
Context
The 2019 ICJ advisory opinion (13-1) ruled Britain’s 1965 detachment of Chagos violated self-determination rights. The UN General Assembly reinforced this with 116 votes supporting decolonization. The UK-Mauritius agreement was designed to remedy this violation while preserving base operations.
UK-US relations have survived Suez, Iraq, and Trump’s first term because structural interests—Five Eyes intelligence, NATO interoperability, nuclear cooperation—transcend personalities. But Trump has demonstrated willingness to weaponize trade policy against allies over peripheral disputes. Chagos would not be peripheral.
The risk is not Suez-style rupture but what might be called the Okinawa pattern: quiet infrastructural decay, reduced cooperation, growing mutual suspicion without any single moment of fracture. Intelligence sharing continues but becomes guarded. Military exercises proceed with less enthusiasm. Neither side announces a break; both know something changed.
Trajectory
Trump blocking implementation would not destroy international law but confirm what many states already believe: Western powers invoke legal frameworks when convenient and discard them when costly. This matters because Chagos addresses decolonization—the area where international law has most successfully reshaped state behavior over 70 years.
The outcome reveals how little UK-US institutional architecture, international law norms, or Indian Ocean basing strategy can withstand a president who treats allies as adversaries and legal frameworks as suggestions. The question is not whether Trump’s tools are formidable—they are—but whether institutional actors will execute strategically incoherent orders.
The most likely scenario is not breaking but breaking badly: functional but diminished relationships carrying the injury forward indefinitely.
Indo-Pacific | Conflict | Taiwan’s asymmetric defense buys 10-14 days against invasion but matches minimum US response time
Situation
Taiwan’s asymmetric warfare strategy—mines, mobile anti-ship missiles, and coastal defense systems—can extend Chinese amphibious operations to 10-14 days according to current assessments. This represents a significant delay compared to uncontested landing scenarios.
US military intervention requires a minimum of 7-14 days to mobilize and deploy forces to the Taiwan Strait from existing Pacific positions. The overlap between Taiwan’s maximum resistance window and America’s minimum response time creates a critical convergence point.
Beijing’s operational planning increasingly focuses on this narrow interval, prioritizing decapitation strikes against Taiwan’s political and military leadership to collapse organized resistance before US forces can effectively intervene.
Context
Asymmetric defense has historically bought time for smaller powers facing larger adversaries—Finland in 1939, Israel in 1973—but success depends on external intervention arriving within the resistance window. Taiwan’s strategy assumes it must survive alone for approximately two weeks.
The US “minimum 7-14 days” figure reflects pre-positioning realities: carrier strike groups require repositioning, amphibious ready groups need mobilization, and air operations demand forward basing coordination. This is not a policy choice but a physical constraint of distance and logistics.
China’s focus on decapitation—targeting Presidential Office, Ministry of Defense, and command nodes in the war’s opening hours—represents rational optimization. If Taiwan’s command structure collapses in days 1-3, the 10-14 day defensive timeline becomes irrelevant regardless of hardware survivability.
Trajectory
The asymmetric strategy works only if Taiwan’s government remains functional throughout the critical window. This places extraordinary pressure on leadership continuity planning and protected command infrastructure—areas where Taiwan has historically underinvested compared to weapons systems.
US planners face an uncomfortable arithmetic: the intervention timeline cannot be meaningfully shortened without permanent forward deployment of amphibious forces in Taiwan’s waters, a peacetime posture Beijing would likely interpret as abandoning strategic ambiguity.
The real test is not whether Taiwan can delay an invasion for two weeks, but whether its political system can survive intact under intensive decapitation attempts for two weeks. Hardware resilience matters less than institutional resilience, and the latter is far harder to measure or guarantee.
Yesterday’s Assessments
- Can hmas stirling sustain US naval operations if China neutralizes guam in a Taiwan crisis?
- Why HMAS Stirling cannot yet replace Guam as America’s Pacific naval hub
Until tomorrow.
