←CRITIAL
Asia

China Test-Fires Submarine-Launched Missile into Pacific Ocean

China's People's Liberation Army Navy test-fired a submarine-launched strategic missile carrying a dummy warhead into the Pacific Ocean on July 6, 2026, drawing criticism from Japan, Australia, New Zealand, and Taiwan. The test coincided with Australia signing a mutual defence treaty with Fiji.

6 July 2026 · 7 sources · 22 claims
Who covered this
—
Left
4
Center-left
1
Center
1
Center-right
—
Right

Bias ratings sourced from MBFC, Ad Fontes Media, AllSides. Ratings are cited, not the product's own verdict.

The report

China's People's Liberation Army Navy test-fired a submarine-launched strategic missile carrying a dummy warhead into the Pacific Ocean on July 6, 2026, at 12:01 pm. The missile accurately landed in a designated sea area, according to Chinese authorities.

Submarine-launched ballistic missiles comparison, including Chinese models JL-2 and CSS-NX-3 (file photo)
Submarine-launched ballistic missiles comparison, including Chinese models JL-2 and CSS-NX-3 (file photo) — MDA-file, Wikimedia Commons (Public domain)

China characterized the test as a routine arrangement of its annual military training, not directed at any specific country or target, and stated that it was in compliance with international law and practice. Chinese authorities said relevant countries were notified in advance of the missile test.

The launch occurred on the same day as Australia and Fiji signed the Ocean of Peace alliance, a mutual defence pact committing each country to come to the other's aid if attacked. The coincidence came during Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese's Pacific diplomatic tour, which was ongoing in Fiji at the time of the test.

Australia, New Zealand, and Japan were given only a short period of advance notice — hours before the launch — about the missile test. Japan was specifically informed 90 minutes before launch, while New Zealand criticized China for acting within hours of informing them.

Xinhua did not specify what type of missile China had launched, and China's defence ministry did not confirm whether an intercontinental ballistic missile was used.

The missile was fired into the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone, which was established by the 1986 Treaty of Rarotonga. China ratified the protocols in 1987, pledging not to test nuclear weapons within the zone.

Japan strongly urged China to reconsider the missile test after being notified, and expressed grave concern over China's increased military activity.

New Zealand Foreign Minister Winston Peters called the test "an unwelcome and concerning development" and criticized China for carrying out the test within hours of informing New Zealand.

Australia's Foreign Minister Penny Wong characterized the missile test as occurring "in the context of a rapid military build-up by China, which is lacking in the transparency and reassurance as to intent that the region expects," and said Australia regards the test as destabilising to the region. Australia's Acting Prime Minister Richard Marles said Australia is "very concerned about any actions which undermine the stability, the peace, and security of the Pacific."

A senior Taiwanese security official said Taiwan was tracking an upward trend in Chinese naval movements during the peak military exercise season, including joint drills with Russia.

State-controlled Global Times, cited by center-right outlets, said the missile was likely the JL-3 — China's most advanced submarine-launched missile, which debuted at a military parade in 2025 and could reach the continental United States from Chinese coastal waters according to a Pentagon report.

The South China Morning Post reported the test as China's first known submarine-based missile test since 1982, and the first known to have been fired from a nuclear-powered submarine.

BBC News reported that Australian officials stated they do not believe the missile test was a response to the new Australia-Fiji security agreement.

BBC News reported that Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese called the Australia-Fiji treaty "one of the most significant endeavours" Canberra had undertaken with any country, while Fijian Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka called it a "defining moment" and a "very significant elevation" of bilateral ties. Under the Ocean of Peace Alliance, Australia will spend more than $1 billion over a decade on measures against transnational crime, health, and infrastructure in Fiji.

BBC News also reported that Australia signed a comprehensive strategic pact with Vanuatu on the same trip, recognizing Australia as Vanuatu's primary policing partner and barring any foreign military base on the island.

Taiwan's presidential office and China offered contradictory characterizations of the test's intent. Taiwan's presidential office characterized the test as an attempt by China to intimidate the international community, while China characterized the test as routine and not directed at any specific country.

The purpose of the Australia-Fiji security pact was characterized differently by different actors. France 24 described the Ocean of Peace Alliance as intended to counter Chinese influence in the Pacific, while Fijian Prime Minister Rabuka stated it does not threaten Fiji's or Australia's relationship with China.

What the coverage shows

The 6 outlets behind this story

The Japan TimesCenter-left
Bias rated by MBFC
Owned by News2u Holdings (Japanese PR/communications group) since 2017.
The Straits TimesCenter-right
Bias rated by MBFC
Published by SPH Media Trust, a Singapore not-for-profit backed by government funding since the 2021 restructuring.
BBC NewsCenter-left
Bias rated by Ad Fontes Media
Publicly funded; governed by the BBC Royal Charter. Funded primarily through the UK television licence fee paid by UK households.
France 24Center
Bias rated by MBFC
South China Morning PostCenter-left
Bias rated by MBFC
Owned by Alibaba Group (Chinese e-commerce conglomerate) since 2016.
The GuardianCenter-left
Bias rated by AllSides
Owned by Scott Trust Limited, a not-for-profit trust established to preserve the Guardian's editorial independence in perpetuity. No commercial owner.

Bias ratings sourced from AllSides and Media Bias/Fact Check. Ownership shown where disclosed.