Think tank report says US military treats Guam as a ‘disposable asset’

By Jayvee Vallejera

The Pacific Center for Island Security has a sobering reality check for Guam and its role as the United States’ tip of the spear: when push comes to shove, Guam is a disposable asset and the island community remains vulnerable in case a shooting war breaks out in the region.

According to its Micronesia Security Outlook 2025, the United States’ insistence that Guam is a part of the U.S. homeland rings hollow when looking at the increasing threats the island faces, new national strategies that barely reference Guam, and constant changes in plans that the report says are a “master class in whiplash decision-making.”

“In the current environment, these plans assume a great risk for Guam and underscore our disposability,” states the report.

Kenneth Gofigan Kuper

The Guam section of the report was written by Kenneth Gofigan Kuper, associate professor at the University of Guam’s Micronesian Area Research Center, who said that “Guam is an important place to be used, but how our lives are impacted and protected is a lesser consideration.”

Kuper examined Guam’s role in the geopolitical environment of 2025, highlighting potential conflict with China over Taiwan and a brief reference to North Korean hostilities, as well as what it calls “alliance uncertainty,” when the United States is unable to count on its allies to join it in a war with China and is forced to fall back to Guam.

“It is a well-studied assumption that without South Korea and Japan, the U.S. would struggle—and possibly lose—in a military conflict with China,” states the report.

Against this backdrop, the Trump administration is asking its allies in the region to do more to advance U.S. strategy, increase their military spending and take a greater role in their own defense, instead of relying on the United States to keep the peace.

“In the U.S. president’s words, the U.S. has treaty commitments to defend these frontline countries, but they are not committed to defending the U.S.,” the report said, quoting a social media post that quotes Trump.

ADVERTISEMENT

That the Trump administration is pressuring regional allies to support U.S. warfighting planning is telling, the PCIS report said, noting that the U.S. is pushing for greater commitment and clarity because it currently lacks them.

This is where Guam comes into the picture. As a U.S. territory, it is a guaranteed asset for the U.S. military. The immediate availability of military bases and assets in Guam gives the United States’ warfighting capabilities a secure footing.

Still, the U.S. military is spending billions to build ports and airfields in Yap in the Federated States of Micronesia and on Tinian and Rota in the Northern Mariana Islands, calling it a “distributed and dispersed” operating model.

These developments revealed expectations of insecurity in Guam, the report said.

“Nothing in 2025’s collision of strategy, threats and budgets says ‘Guam is disposable’ like the simultaneous funding of ‘missile defense’ in Guam and ‘divert airfields’ in the region,” it said.

The report says several war-gaming scenarios have suggested that in high-intensity conflict, Guam’s facilities could be heavily degraded within the opening days of hostilities, forcing a rapid dispersal to alternate locations throughout the region.

“The development of alternative airfields all along the Marianas-Palau arc betrays the military’s expectation about the availability of key facilities in conflict. How the civilian population in Guam fares in this environment is not a part of the military plans,” it adds. 

The dispersal of assets is also about survivability during conflicts, creates more targets for the enemy and adds sites where the military could continue to operate, PCIS said.

“It is also a tacit admission that much of Guam may be destroyed in the case of a real conflict,” it adds.

The strategy is not without its flaws and the report details many of them, including China’s enhanced firepower and unmatched manpower. “The U.S. Air Force would only be able to generate less than one-fourth of the daily sorties of an adversary like China,” the report says.

Even the much-vaunted 360-degree anti-missile shield now being built in Guam is not a reliable tool for protecting the island, the report states, noting that the system’s viability remains in question. It will only be tested in an actual conflict.

The change in threats facing Guam also calls into question the system’s capabilities, the report said. At first, it was promoted as a means to deter small-scale, coercive attacks. Later, the focus shifted to a system that responds to “massive threats”’ and “fighting in a contested environment.”

“The missile defense project is arguably an example of a system that does not reflect real-world conditions,” the report says.

ADVERTISEMENT

The report also discussed the lack of transparency.

In 2023 and 2024, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s Lincoln Laboratory conducted a law-mandated assessment of the missile defense system. The report has not been made public.

“Not all technical questions about the system should be classified. The community deserves information and transparency on systems that may fundamentally restructure the island,” the PCIS report says.

The report also cited the lack of civilian defense planning: no bomb shelters and the air raid warning system is limited. The military considers the civilian defense aspect of combat preparation to be the local government's responsibility.

“This is evidence of another Department of War planning failure in Guam. It also underscores the blind spot of the military in prioritizing Guam’s community in a potential conflict it is preparing for,” the report says.

Subscribe to

our digital

monthly issue