#Facing China’s challenge means spending more on defense, Joe

President Biden isn’t known for austerity, except when it comes to defense.

As part of his (welcome) emphasis on competition with China, Biden cajoled European countries at the G-7 summit into releasing a statement critical of Beijing. He also announced an ­infrastructure program meant to counter China’s Belt and Road Initiative.

That’s all good, as far as it goes, but a glaring omission from Biden’s campaign is a defense budget that reflects the seriousness of the growing challenge from Beijing.

Indeed, Biden justifies almost any increased US spending as designed to check China’s ambitions, at the same time he neglects what is most needful to keep China from dominating its region and waging war on our allies or America itself.

If we can deter China from taking Taiwan with subsidies for electric cars, Biden is inarguably the Churchill of his time. And if we can counter China’s defense buildup with more funding for ­affordable housing, Biden deserves to take his place beside Alfred ­George Kennan as a great strategic thinker.

Otherwise, his approach is lacking — and disturbingly so.

Biden’s infrastructure plan — a sprawling proposal that would spend $2.3 trillion on everything from roads and bridges to affordable housing to elder care — is about the “global competition with China,” he insists.

At a visit to Ford’s electric-vehicle center last month, Biden said of China, “They think they’re gonna win. Well, I got news for them, they will not win this race. We can’t let them.”

By Biden’s way of thinking, whatever progressives have wanted to do for years is suddenly a priority in the new Cold War with China. Adopting the latest party line, the left-wing “explainer” Web site Vox claimed, “improving domestic ­infrastructure and investing in new and emerging technologies, especially clean-energy technology, is the best way the US can challenge China for supremacy on the world stage.” The publication quoted a Democratic congressional aide, “The best way to enact a progressive agenda is to use China [as a] threat.”

There are indeed areas of ­advanced tech that we need to invest in, especially semiconductors and artificial intelligence (a $250 billion Senate bill passed last week is an imperfect step in this direction), but it isn’t true that we can simply windmill and universal pre-K our way to victory over China.

Make no mistake — Beijing is not so woolly-headed. Although you might miss it listening to Biden, there are threats from China that don’t involve infrastructure spending or clean-energy initiatives.

China has been growing its ­annual defense spending by more than 6 percent a year. Its navy has now surpassed that of the United States and is now technically the largest in the world. It is on pace to double its nuclear weapons over the next decade.

It has flown hundreds of sorties near Taiwan this year, including 25 on one day. A top US admiral warns that Beijing could invade Taiwan in the next six years.

Given all that, one might expect the openhanded Biden to invest substantially in a stronger, more advanced US military, but his profligacy doesn’t extend so far. His ­defense budget represents an ­increase of about 2 percent, which won’t even keep up with inflation.

This doesn’t come close to what we realistically need. Joint Chiefs Chairman Mark Milley said at a US Naval Institute event late last year, “We’re going to have to have a much larger fleet than we have ­today, if we’re serious about great-power competition and deterring great-power war.” He called for a 3 per­cent to 5 percent increase in the budget every year but didn’t think that was plausible because of fiscal constraints (little did he know the blowout to come in every other area of the budget).

We should be spending more on defense — and spending differently. With an eye to deterring conflict with China, we need to comprehensively recalibrate to focus on advanced technologies and weapons systems for the US Navy and Air Force, and in space. Hypersonics, directed energy and control of the electromagnetic spectrum should be particular priorities.

Biden has no excuse for not pursuing this. It isn’t as though he can say we can’t afford it.

Twitter: @RichLowry