Diplomacy & Crisis News

Mark Episkopos

Security,

“A unique machine, a deadly aerial fist.”

Here's What You Need To Remember: As is typically the case with next-generation platforms, the VKS is not concerned with immediate value. Rather, they see the Su-57 as a long-term investment that will incrementally phase out older aircraft to become Russia’s staple air superiority platform over the coming decades. In the meantime, the Su-35S continues to occupy the upper echelons of Russian aerospace design as the VKS’ top air superiority fighter.

“A unique machine, a deadly aerial fist,” is how the official television channel of the Russian Ministry of Defense introduced the Su-35S superiority fighter earlier this week.

TV Zvezda’s three-minute clip of a recent Su-35S training sortie over Syria provides close-up shots of the fighter jet being prepped for flight, taking off, cruising over the Syrian coast, and firing flares. On their youtube account, they published slightly extended footage of the same exercise.

The first Su-35S fighters arrived at Russia’s Khmeimim Air Base in 2016, relatively late into the Syrian Civil War. They performed well in their role of covering for Russian ground-strike aircraft during bombing missions against Syrian opposition targets, but then again-- there were no immediate airspace threats facing Russia’s Syrian forces in early 2016. The Su-35S was therefore limited to an air deterrence role amid an ongoing diplomatic row between Moscow and Ankara that wound down only in the latter half of 2016.

Today, airpower continues to be the crucial military ingredient in the enforcement of Russian “de-escalation zones” strewn across the western parts of Syria, and in intermittent bombing runs against opposition stragglers and ISIS targets.

From the conflict’s earliest days through 2019, the Syrian venture continues to yield military value as a training and proving grounds for the next generation of Russian servicemen. As a Su-35S pilot told Zvezda, “here, we can realize the potential of the aircraft-- the tactical potential. For every pilot and co-pilot, this is a tremendous opportunity to hone their skills.” In a less covered but no less important development, it also provides Russian engineers with aircraft maintenance know-how after real, albeit low-intensity, combat missions.

Barring a brief and nondescript Su-57 outing, the Su-35S is among the most advanced Russian military aircraft to be deployed in Syria. As a deep modernization of the prolific Soviet-era Su-27 fighter, the Su-35S boasts updated avionics (onboard electronics), a new lightweight frame, and 3d thrust vectoring capability, and vastly more expanded armament suite. Notably, the latter includes Vympel R-77 air-to-air missiles that are meant to compete favorably with the US AIM-120 AMRAAM platform, and an air-launched anti-ship variant of Russia’s prolific Kalibr cruise missiles. 

The Su-35S was intended as an interim solution; as a modernized air superiority fighter to sustain the Russian Aerospace Forces (VKS) through the 2010’s until the Su-57 fifth-generation stealth fighter enters serial production. But the Su-35S was almost too successful for its own good, ticking so many performance and role versatility boxes that it seems to cannibalize its more expensive Su-57 successor. In the short term, it’s likely true that there will be a minimal operational difference between the latest Su-35S units and the first serially-produced Su-57’s. As it currently stands, there is even a chance that the two fighters may use the same AL-41F1 engine.

But as is typically the case with next-generation platforms, the VKS is not concerned with immediate value. Rather, they see the Su-57 as a long-term investment that will incrementally phase out older aircraft to become Russia’s staple air superiority platform over the coming decades. In the meantime, the Su-35S continues to occupy the upper echelons of Russian aerospace design as the VKS’ top air superiority fighter.

Mark Episkopos is a frequent contributor to The National Interest and a PhD student in History at American University. This first appeared last year.

Image: Wikimedia Commons.

Warfare History Network

History, Europe

Henry Shrapnel set his fertile mind to explosive shells and helped win the Battle of Waterloo.

Key Point: Henry Shrapnel’s name lives on in military nomenclature.

“And the rockets’ red glare, the bombs bursting in air …”

That, as most people know, is a line from the American national anthem, words by Francis Scott Key, to the tune of Anacreon in Heaven by John Stafford Smith.

The incident that precipitated the anthem took place during the bombardment of Fort McHenry by the British on September 14, 1814 during the War of 1812. Bursting, or exploding, bombs (shells) had been in use in one form or another for quite awhile. Some authorities credit the Venetians in 1376 as the originators. Others, such as W.H. Greener, in his book The Gun and Its Development, give the honor to the Dutch.

Basically, the exploding shell was a hollow cast-iron sphere filled with explosive, the filling hole being plugged by a fuse that was timed to detonate the gunpowder during the projectile’s travel. Its use was mainly confined to land operations, the shooting of any form of incendiary missile onboard ships being considered too dangerous. However, several tests were carried out by Deschiens in France and Sir Samuel Bentham who served with the Russian navy. The latter’s shells had considerable success against Turkish ships.

The French General Henri Paixhans also developed guns that gave the shell not only a high angle and muzzle velocity, but substantially increased the range. Additionally, tests had been carried out in England during the middle and late 1700s, but these had been delayed, to some extent, by premature exploding of the projectiles while still in the barrel.

It was around this time that a certain Lieutenant Henry Shrapnel was experimenting with his own exploding shells, and there is little doubt that it was the perfected variety of these that inspired Key to pen his immortal lines. The very first recorded tryout of his musketball-filled shells took place during the attack on Dutch Guyana. This resulted in the capture of Surinam (1804) and made an obscure artillery captain, one might say, into an overnight celebrity. He was promoted to lieutenant colonel and given the post of Assistant of Artillery. This enabled him to carry out tests of his various inventions and innovations at the iron foundry at Carron near Falkirk in Scotland.

Shrapnel Possessed an Imaginative Mind for Invention

Henry Shrapnel was the youngest of nine children born to Mr. and Mrs. Zachariah Shrapnel on June 3, 1761 at Midnay Manor House, Bradford-on-Avon, Wiltshire, England. Apparently his brothers died childless, so what little money existed passed on down to him. With this he was able, by living carefully, to have just enough to finance the numerous inventions that flowed from his fertile brain. Although his service life was spent in the army, it didn’t prevent him from submitting ideas to the navy. These included plans for improving the design and shape of certain warships and advocating replacing wooden vessels with iron-clads!

At age 18, Shrapnel entered the Royal Military Academy, Woolwich, known to generations of budding engineers and gunners as “The Shop.” Among its many graduates may be found the following who achieved fame in the British Army: General Charles “Chinese” Gordon, Field Marshal Herbert Lord Kitchener, General Alan Cunningham and Maj. Gen. Orde Wingate, all “Sappers,” as the Royal Engineers are known. Shrapnel was the odd man out—he was a gunner.

‘Grapeshot’ Cannon

Right from the start there seems no doubt that Lieutenant Henry Shrapnel fully embraced every aspect of the science of artillery. Although most cannon fired some form of exploding (or perhaps disintegrating would be a more correct description) antipersonnel shell, they lacked the range so crucial in most battles. Generally known as “canister” and “grape-shot,” their maximum range rarely exceeded 300 yards. Canister shot consisted of a thin, metal, cylindrical case the same size as the caliber of the gun. This was filled with metal balls of either iron or lead. (Cases have been recorded where even stone pebbles were used.) Fired directly against the opposing forces, there was no exploding device inside the case. Air pressure, combined with centrifugal force, caused the shell to break up, after leaving the cannon, and shower the enemy with its contents.

“Grapeshot,” on the other hand, generally fell into two categories: “Caffin’s” Grapeshot consisted of a number of iron balls placed in layers between thin circular iron plates. These were arranged in banks (generally three) and held together by an iron bolt that passed through the center of the plates.

Quilted grape (thought by many to be the earliest type), on the other hand, was shot arranged around a spindle that was bolted to an iron tampion, or round bottom plate. The whole assembly was placed inside a canvas bag which, in turn, was intertwined with a quilting line or cord. The top of the bag was then drawn together and tightly tied under the cap at the top of the spindle.

Both types resembled a bunch of grapes—hence the term “grapeshot.” When fired, the shot disintegrated, distributing the balls with quite a deadly effect. But, as previously stated, the range was very limited. By way of interest, grapeshot could only be fired from an iron cannon as it needed a hard parallel bore. Bronze guns, which fired solid shot, were taboo. Long-range solid shot was fine for punching holes in fortifications, but, otherwise, it merely cut a narrow path through attackers.

It was during his four-year tenure at Woolwich that Shrapnel began seriously experimenting with an effective long-range bursting shell that could be used against massed troops. At first, he tried to improve on ideas already in use (e.g., a hollow ball filled with explosive and relying on the shattering of the outer shell into jagged fragments), but none met his exacting requirements. Finally, he took a similar hollow sphere and only partly filled it with explosive. The rest of the space he filled with musket balls. He added a fuse to the filling hole.

Perplexing Problems for Improving Ammunition

Two main problems bedeviled him. First, the casing had to be strong enough to withstand the initial propellant, but weak enough to be shattered from the bursting charge. Second, he required a fuse that would explode the shell at the required time.

But even when Shrapnel had finally solved these problems (as with most inventors) he had considerable difficulty in selling his product to the authorities, in this case, “The Ordnance Board.” Finally, on his return to Britain in 1784, he was able to demonstrate his “Spherical Case Shot” to the War Office. Even so, it wasn’t until 1803, as a captain and company commander of the 1st Battalion of the Royal Artillery, that his invention was finally adopted and went on to be successfully used, as previously stated, in 1804.

The succeeding years were to prove how effective Henry Shrapnel’s device was. Reports came in from around the world, and British gunners testified to its terrible power. The Royal Navy was quick to realize the new weapon’s potent capabilities in sea battles, for instance, clearing the decks of enemy ships. It is reported that Admiral Sir Sydney Smith (famous for his defense of Acre against Napoleon in 1799) was so impressed that he ordered a large quantity of the bursting shells, paying for them out of his own pocket.

Napoleon Bonaparte’s troops had emerged mostly victorious from engagements with some of the world’s finest armies, but received a nasty setback when they encountered the new weapon for the first time. This occurred during the Peninsular War at the battle of Vimeiro on August 21, 1808. It is recorded that, when Napoleon heard of the British victory, he sent an order that a secret tour be made of the battlefield in case there were any unexploded cannon balls still lying about. He wanted his ordnance specialists to examine and determine how the shells worked. If this account is true, it would show the importance Napoleon, an artilleryman himself, placed on this new weapon.

Indeed, there are many military students who are of the opinion that Shrapnel’s murderous creation went a long way to being one of the decisive factors at Waterloo. General Sir George Wood, Wellington’s artillery commander, went so far as to state, “Without Shrapnel’s shells, the recovery of the farmhouse at La Haye Sainte, a key position in the battle, would not have been possible.”

An Unrewarded Genius

Yet, in spite of all this, fate and fortune in the main eluded Henry Shrapnel. Visitors to the United Kingdom will search in vain for any statue or monument. The principal reason, paradoxically, was the importance of his invention. For one thing, it was purposefully kept secret by order of the Duke of Wellington himself. Even while Shrapnel was alive, financial reimbursement was slow, although the government finally awarded him a pension of 1,200 pounds.

In the 1820 Royal Military Calendar, Shrapnel was accorded a mere eight lines, while numerous other minor martial men were given copious writeups. Probably the unkindest cut of all was when, nearing retirement as a major general on relatively modest means, he heard that his monarch, William IV, who had promised him a baronetcy, had died before conferring it! Shrapnel died aged 81 at Peartree House in Southampton in 1842. His wife of over 30 years buried him in the family vault in the chancel of the church at Bradford-on-Avon, Wiltshire.

Shrapnel’s son, Henry, Jr., made a collection of his father’s effects, which included drawings and letters of commendation from the Duke of Wellington and other dignitaries of the nation. Taking them with him, he emigrated to Canada where, to all intents and purposes, the artifacts have remained.

With the development of breech-loading field guns and howitzers and the perfection in rifled barrels (circa 1885), Henry Shrapnel’s hollow ball took on a new shape, i.e., cylindrical with a cone-shaped head. The latter consisted of a time-and-percussion fuse and was screwed to the hollow body. This contained the balls imbedded in resin. Beneath these was a steel diaphragm and the bursting charge. This was set off by a flash down the central tube coming from the time fuse which, in turn, drove the balls forward, forcing off the cone-shaped head.

Various methods were tried to ensure that the shell gripped the rifling. One of the earliest systems was Sir William George Armstrong’s (Engineer of Rifled Ordnance at Woolwich), by which the whole shell was coated with lead. Not only was this necessary to give the shell its spin, but also to guarantee complete sealing of the gases following the shell, thus giving maximum propulsion. Unfortunately, it was found that, owing to the heat generated during discharge, a great percentage of the lead tended to melt and fall away. After trying numerous other ideas, it was found that the copper driving or rotating band at the base of the shell proved the most effective.

Shrapnel’s Legacy

World War I proved to be the nemesis of the shrapnel shell. Once the opposing armies had dug in, the shower of balls that had been so effective against massed troops in the open were of little consequence against soldiers ensconced in fortified dugouts. Shrapnel shells were not even potent enough to destroy barbed- wire defenses, the destruction of which was so necessary before making an attack on the enemy’s position.

Shrapnel’s name lives on in military nomenclature, although, to most people, it refers to the jagged fragments of an exploded shell or grenade casing. (Technically speaking, these should be referred to as shards, splinters, or shell fragments.) My own mother could make this mistake. I can recall that while on a leave in London during World War II, and during a lull in the course of an air raid, I wished to leave the family shelter and bring back some refreshments. My mother cautioned me to put on my “tin hat” because she was sure she could still hear “shrapnel” from the antiaircraft shells hitting the ground!

This article first appeared on the Warfare History Network.

Image: Wikimedia Commons

Robert Farley

Technology, Europe

The USSR would build 10,645 Fishbeds between 1959 and 1985.

Here's What You Need To Remember: Few of the Fishbeds in service today bear much resemblance to the fighter that rolled off the line in 1959. They carry different, far more sophisticated weapons, including the R-60 AAM, the Magic 2 and the Python III. This makes them far more lethal than their older cousins. Moreover, upgrades to their electronics have improved their radar and communications equipment, and have made possible the delivery of precision-guided munitions.

Military aircraft can have notoriously short lifespans, especially during periods of technological ferment. The most elite aircraft of World War I could become obsolete in a matter of months. Things weren’t much different in World War II. And at the dawn of the jet age, entire fleets of aircraft became passé as technologies matured. The advanced fighters that fought in the skies over Korea became junk just a few years later.

But a few designs stand the test of the time. The B-52 Stratofortress first flew in 1952, yet remains in service today. New C-130s continue to roll off the production line, based on a design that became operational in 1954.

But those are bombers and transport aircraft; they don’t fight one another. Fighters face a special problem of longevity, because they must compete directly with newer models. Thus, very few fighters have had long lifespans, either in production or in service.

The MiG-21 “Fishbed” is an exception.

Origins

Initial suitability studies for the MiG-21 began in 1953. The success of the MiG-15 and MiG-17 suggested that Soviet aerospace engineers could compete with their Western counterparts, and with the MiG-19 the Soviets had their first supersonic fighter. However, technology changed so quickly in the first two decades of jet flight that the fighters that had dominated the Korean War were effectively obsolete by the mid-1950s. MiG-15s could cut apart a formation of B-29s, but couldn’t even catch modern American bombers. The Soviets intended the MiG-21 to change that, while also providing an effective air superiority option.

The MiG-21 (eventually dubbed “Fishbed” by NATO) would exceed Mach 2.0, with an internal cannon and the capacity to carry between two and six missiles (the Fishbed actually preceded the missiles into service). Like most fighters the MiG-21 would eventually serve in a ground attack role, in which it can carry a limited number of bombs and rockets. As with many of their fighters, the Soviets preferred to operate the MiG-21 from ground control, eliminating the need for bulky, sophisticated radar equipment.

Altogether, the USSR would build 10,645 Fishbeds between 1959 and 1985. India would construct another 657 under a licensing and technology transfer agreement with Moscow, while Czechoslovakia built 194 under license. Under complicated and somewhat dubious circumstances, the People’s Republic of China acquired sufficient aircraft and technical documents to reverse engineer the MiG-21 into the Chengdu J-7/F-7. China produced around 2,400 Fishbeds between 1966 and 2013. The combined numbers make the Fishbed by far the most produced supersonic aircraft in world history.

Longevity

With the MiG-21, engineers sorted through a set of basic problems that future research could not substantially improve upon. Modern fighters don’t fly much faster than the MiG-21, or maneuver much more capably. While they do carry more ordnance and have more sophisticated electronic equipment, many air forces can treat these as luxuries; they simply want a cheap, fast, easy-to-maintain aircraft that can patrol airspace and occasionally drop a few bombs. The Fishbed fits the bill.

To be sure, the Fishbed would not have been a particularly useful fighter in Western service. It has short legs, cannot carry a great deal of ordnance and lacks the space for sophisticated electronic equipment. The shape of its cockpit limits pilot awareness. However, it aptly fulfilled the Soviet need for a ground control intercept fighter that could fly and fight over the battlefields of Western Europe, as well as act in a limited interceptor role.

During the Cold War, the United States came into possession of a number of MiG-21 variants (eventually purchasing a squadron of J-7s from China). Generally speaking, American pilots spoke well of the plane, and it performed more than adequately in aggressor training situations. Indeed, highly trained American pilots probably pushed the MiG-21 farther than most Soviet pilots could have done.

The Fishbed at War

The MiG-21 never saw combat on the Central Front in a NATO-Warsaw Pact war, but it certainly has seen its share of action.

In Vietnam, pencil-thin MiG-21s found that they could take advantage of American rules of engagement by using their size and speed to cut through bomber packages before U.S. fighters could visually identify and target them. The size and maneuverability of the Fishbed also allowed them to evade early air-to-air missiles. After attacking, the MiGs would run for home.

One exception to this pattern came on January 2, 1967, when a group of F-4 Phantom IIs under the command of legendary pilot Robin Olds tricked North Vietnamese commanders into a disastrous engagement. The Phantoms shot down seven Fishbeds that day, including one flown by Nguyen Van Coc, who would survive the crash and accumulate nine kills over the rest of the war. This would mark Nguyen as the most successful Fishbed pilot of all time, although several other Vietnamese and several Syrian pilots would achieve ace distinction while flying the MiG-21.

The MiG-21 saw extensive service in wars across the Middle East. The fighter-bombers of the Israeli Defense Force devastated Egyptian and Syrian Fishbeds in the opening strikes of the Six-Day War. Fishbeds fought Israeli fighters in the War of Attrition, the Yom Kippur War and the Lebanon War, generally suffering badly at the hands of outstanding Israeli pilots. In one case, Israeli fighters ambushed and destroyed several MiG-21s flown by Soviet pilots.

The success of Western aircraft against the Fishbed in the Middle East, as well as in Angola, caused many to conclude that Soviet fighters were outclassed by their Western counterparts. However, pilot training issue make comparison difficult. The MiG-21 performed more than adequately in comparable pilot training contexts. For example, Indian MiG-21s flew in the 1965 Indo-Pakistani War, and achieved kills in the 1971 War and the Kargil War. Fishbeds also acquitted themselves well in air combat in the Iran-Iraq War.

Upgrades

The number of operational MiG-21s began declining in the late 1980s and 1990s, as more modern models replaced them in front-line service, and after the collapse of the Soviet Union led to the dramatic reduction of Russian strength. Soviet client states felt the pinch as well, and could no longer keep their aircraft in service. However, numerous air forces continue to use the MiG-21 and its Chinese variants.

The MiG-21 currently serves in eighteen air forces worldwide, including two members of NATO (Romania and Croatia). Fishbeds flew in about forty other air forces (counting is difficult because sometimes countries ceased to exist before the MiGs that served them) since 1960. The J/F-7 serves another thirteen countries, and has been retired by four. China, Russia, and Ukraine still carry out maintenance and update work on existing aircraft. The advent of 3D printing may make it even easier for current operators to keep their Fishbeds in service, as they can produce spares and upgrades in country.

Few of the Fishbeds in service today bear much resemblance to the fighter that rolled off the line in 1959. They carry different, far more sophisticated weapons, including the R-60 AAM, the Magic 2 and the Python III. This makes them far more lethal than their older cousins. Moreover, upgrades to their electronics have improved their radar and communications equipment, and have made possible the delivery of precision-guided munitions.

Will the MiG-21 (Or a Variant) Remain in Service in 2059?

China has ended production on the J-7, meaning that we have seen the last MiG-21 variant roll the assembly line. Croatia and Romania will dispose of their Fishbeds in the next five years. After a spate of accidents, India is finally retiring its MiG-21s (assuming it can ever actually acquire or produce a replacement). Chinese J-7s have been relegated to local defense and training duties.

This hardly means the end of the Fishbed, however. Many of the J-7 and F-7 models remain of fairly recent vintage, and can stay in service for quite some time. Bangladesh acquired the last dozen F-7s in 2013, and won’t need a replacement anytime soon. And plenty of air forces simply have no requirement for anything much more sophisticated or expensive than a Fishbed. There may never be a hundred-year fighter (although the B-52 may quite possibly reach that number before final retirement). The MiG-21 will easily reach sixty, however, and probably seventy without breaking a sweat. It remains one of the iconic fighters of the supersonic age.

Robert Farley, a frequent contributor to the National Interest, is author of The Battleship Book. This article first appeared last year.

Image: Reuters

Rachel Bucchino

Health, Americas

The coronavirus remains a pressing concern for voters heading into the election. To date, it has infected more than 7.3 million Americans and killed nearly 207,000 people.

Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan (R) announced Thursday that the state experienced a full day without any reported coronavirus deaths for the first time since March 28, while other states simultaneously approached their peaks in the number of cases or deaths relating to the deadly disease. 

“This encouraging milestone is a tribute to the incredibly heroic efforts of our doctors, nurses, and health care workers on the front lines, and the courage and perseverance Marylanders have demonstrated in response to this unprecedented challenge,” Hogan said in a statement. 

“As we continue on our road to recovery, it is absolutely critical for all of us to remain vigilant,” he added.

Maryland has 125,510 confirmed coronavirus cases, with 785 reported on the last day, bringing the testing positivity rate to 2.88 percent, according to state data. There have been 3,805 deaths and there are currently 331 people hospitalized for the virus.

While Maryland has experienced widespread success in combating the virus due to Hogan’s aggressive response to it, more than twenty states are seeing a rise in the number of confirmed cases or deaths caused by the infection, according to Johns Hopkins University coronavirus data.

During the month of September, North Dakota experienced nearly an 80 percent increase in the number of confirmed coronavirus cases. On August 31, the state reported under twelve thousand cases, but at the end of September, North Dakota reported more than twenty thousand—that’s a massive increase in just one month. Monthly deaths also rose, as May’s monthly figure doubled in September.

Wisconsin also hit some record-setting numbers, as 125,161 people tested positive, with 7,409 patients hospitalized and 1,348 fatalities, up twenty-one deaths from one day earlier.

The Tennessee Department of Health reported 197,432 coronavirus cases on Thursday, with 2,501 deaths, bringing the positivity rate to 7.31 percent. The department also reported that Tennessee—a state that doesn’t have a statewide mask mandate—experienced its deadliest month during September, as the state announced an average of twenty-three deaths per day and reported its second-highest day spike of fifty-seven deaths on Sept. 10.

Other states like Arkansas, Minnesota, Mississippi, Florida and South Dakota are also seeing surges in confirmed coronavirus cases and deaths as of Thursday.

Locals in these states say increases in hospitalizations, crowded hospital units and an increase in the number of positive tests have contributed to the spikes in overall deaths in each state.

A Wisconsin-based doctor studying the impact of the coronavirus credited the upswing in coronavirus cases and deaths due to the lack of medical resources in the state, compared to major cities that have a massive staff of nurses and doctors with stockpiles of medical equipment.

“But if you look at large cities in Texas such as Dallas, when they have a 20 percent positivity rate, their health care systems are significantly larger than ours. We’re not really designed for that here in Brown County,” Dr. Ashok Rai, president and CEO of Prevea Health, told a local network on Thursday.

Brown County has the third-highest number of confirmed coronavirus cases, according to the state’s data.

Public health experts in North Dakota point to the fact that the state has few coronavirus restrictions, including no limitations on travel, the scope of gatherings or the reopening of businesses. North Dakota residents blame the governor’s “lack of leadership” during the pandemic, as the state doesn’t have a statewide mask mandate.

The coronavirus still remains a pressing concern for voters heading into the election. To date, it has infected more than 7.3 million Americans and killed nearly 207,000 people. President Donald Trump’s response to the deadly infection has been a major weakness for him given that many Americans believe he downplayed the threat of the virus when it first struck the United States back in February and failed to implement a national response strategy to mitigate its spread.

Rachel Bucchino is a reporter at the National Interest. Her work has appeared in The Washington Post, U.S. News & World Report and The Hill. 

Image: Reuters

Warfare History Network

Security, Americas

Since the ship couldn’t be quickly salvaged, it was stripped for useful items.

Here's What You Need To Remember: In the aftermath of the attack frantic efforts were made to save survivors trapped below decks on the sunken and damaged ships. Hulls were cut open and divers darted beneath the waves in desperate attempts to save them.

During the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941 the primary target was Battleship Row. These capital ships had to suffice since the American carriers were away. Among the battleships lined up alongside Ford Island was the USS West Virginia, a twenty-year-old warship with a crew of over a thousand. During the battle the ship took seven torpedo hits along the port side along with two bomb strikes around its superstructure. The ship rapidly flooded, settling on the floor of the harbor with her superstructure above water.

In the aftermath of the attack frantic efforts were made to save survivors trapped below decks on the sunken and damaged ships. Hulls were cut open and divers darted beneath the waves in desperate attempts to save them. The minesweeper Tern lay alongside the “Weevee,” as the battleship was nicknamed, playing water over the fires burning aboard her. When the fires were extinguished at 2PM, the Tern moved over to the Arizona. Commander D. H. Clark, the Fleet Maintenance Officer, reported on December 9 that West Virginia was “doubtful,” estimating twelve to eighteen months for repairs if she could be saved at all.

Stripped for Useful Items

Since the ship couldn’t be quickly salvaged, it was stripped for useful items. Guards were posted on the ship starting on December 8 to protect against looting, theft or espionage. Sentry duty aboard the half-sunken wreck of their former home was a sad time for them. During the quiets times some sailors reported hearing tapping noises coming from below decks. They believed the noise came from trapped crew members signaling desperately for help. There were some 70 men missing from the ship’s complement. Their officers told them it was only the sound of wreckage and loose items floating in and around the ship, banging into the hull.

Not As Bad as First Suspected

Several 5-inch guns were removed and installed on other ships and shore batteries. Weeks later divers inspected her damage and learned it was not as bad as first suspected; the ship could be refloated and repaired sooner than expected. On December 23 inspectors went through the upper decks, finding burn damage and opened lockers as if someone looted the ship in the aftermath. Larger items such as the main guns, masts and stacks were removed, lightening the ship in preparation for refloating her.

Next began the process of sealing her hull. As diver’s inspected the ship, they found a previously unseen torpedo hit at her stern. The ship had suffered extensive damage; whole compartments were essentially open to the sea. Painstakingly, these holes were patched and covered in order to refloat the ship so permanent repairs could be made. Eventually, these efforts paid off and they were ready to return the battleship to life.

Disturbing Discoveries

Pumps began to slowly send water flowing out of the ship. Decomposed bodies were found and carefully placed into waiting body-bags. Valuables were collected and cataloged. If the owners could be identified the items were returned; the rest were auctioned for the crew’s emergency fund. On 17 May West Virginia was floating again after over five months. Work went on to prepare the ship for dry dock and finish cleaning out the flooded decks. Even a few .50-caliber machine guns were mounted in case of another Japanese air attack.

It was only on May 27 the most disturbing discoveries of the salvage operation were made. In the aft engine room, several bodies were found lying on steam pipes. They had evidently been able to survive a short time in an air pocket, suffocating when the oxygen finally ran out. Worse still was found in compartment A-111, a storeroom. When the door to this compartment was opened, only three feet of water was inside. On the shelves of the storeroom lay the bodies of three sailors, Louis Costin, 21, Clifford Olds, 20, and Ronald Endicott, 18. With them was a calendar with the dates December 7 to 23 marked off in red pencil. There were emergency rations and access to a fresh water tank in the compartment.

Each man had a watch, enabling them to mark the passage of time. The crew was horrified by the news, especially divers that had sounded the hull and listened for replies but heard nothing. The sentries who reported hearing banging below were angry, though whether anything could have been done at the time is debatable. The matter was a subject of quiet discussion among crew members for years after.

West Virginia was rebuilt and served out the war mainly as a fire support vessel for amphibious landings. She did serve at the Battle of Surigao Strait, the last big-gun ship battle. West Virginia was also present at the Japanese surrender in Tokyo Bay. Decommissioned after the war, she was sold for scrap in 1959.

Originally Published September 17, 2018.

This article originally appeared on the Warfare History Network.

Image: Wikipedia.

David Axe

Security,

NATO should be wary.

Here's What You Need To Remember: With its tenfold spending advantage, the U.S. Navy aims to maintain a fleet of around 50 attack submarines, roughly the same number the Russians possess. The cash-gap underscores the importance of submarines to Russian defense planning.

It’s no secret that the Russian navy is investing heavily in new classes of submarines, even while overall Russian military spending flatlines amid a wide economic crisis. But it’s less clear exactly what the Russians intend to do with potentially dozens of modern submarines in the event of war.

Western analysts should think creatively in order to suss out the Kremlin’s undersea intentions, Norman Polmar, a leading American naval analyst, wrote in Proceedings, the professional journal of the U.S. Naval Institute.

“Submarines appear to have a high priority in Russia’s current efforts to rebuild its armed forces,” Polmar wrote in the October 2019 edition of Proceedings. “How will the submarines most likely be employed? The answer must be determined by thinking outside the box.”

Where the Russian navy is all but abandoning the production of new aircraft carriers, cruisers and other “blue-water” surface warships, it has recommitted to sustaining a large fleet of big, long-range submarines.

“Although the navy is mainly made up of Soviet-era surface ships and submarines, an extensive modernization program is underway, focusing first on the submarine force,” the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency reported in 2017. “Progress in submarine modernization is underway.

As recently as 2017, the Russian fleet operated 61 submarines. “Historically the backbone of the Russian navy, 75 percent of the 61 operational submarines are over 20 years old and are slowly being replaced,” the DIA explained.

Three new classes account for the bulk of new production. The Borei- or Dolgorukiy-class, nuclear-powered ballistic-missile submarine, the Yasen-class, a nuclear-powered attack submarine and an improved version of the Kilo-class diesel-electric attack submarine.

“Russia will continue production of its fourth-generation Dolgorukiy-class submarines through 2020,” the DIA reported. “There are currently three in service, with an additional eight scheduled to enter service in the coming years.”

The first of up to 10 Yasens was delivered to the navy in 2014, “but the program has encountered delays,” the DIA noted. “The flagship of the class (hull one) required 16 years to complete; hull two should soon be completed after seven years.”

The improved Kilos, by contrast, have speeded through production “without significant delays,” according to the DIA. “The initial order of six was expanded to 12 in early 2016. The first three Kilos were delivered to the Black Sea Fleet in 2014 to 2015.”

Assuming budgets remain at their current level, in the 2020s the Russian submarine fleet could include the 11 Boreis, 10 Yasens and 12 improved Kilos plus a couple dozen older submarines including early-model Kilos, the one-off experimental diesel boat Petersburg plus upgraded Akula, Oscar and Sierra attack submarines, for a grand total of probably fewer than 50 vessels.

It costs Russia around a billion dollars to build a new nuclear submarine. An American sub, by contrast, costs around $2 billion. But the Russian military budget is around $70 billion annually. The U.S. defense budget tops out at around $700 billion.

With its tenfold spending advantage, the U.S. Navy aims to maintain a fleet of around 50 attack submarines, roughly the same number the Russians possess. The cash-gap underscores the importance of submarines to Russian defense planning.

But Western analysts risk understanding exactly why the Russian subs matter. After all, they’ve erred before, Polmar explained. “In the past, Western intelligence often got it wrong with respect to Soviet submarines,” he wrote.

The massive Soviet submarine force peaked at almost 400 units during the Cold War, and throughout those 45 years the West feared those undersea craft would be employed to sever the sea lines of communication connecting the United States and Western Europe.

Thus, as intelligence sources detected the Soviet Union producing hundreds of submarines—obviously to fight the “Third Battle of the Atlantic”—the U.S. Navy and other NATO navies responded with massive investments to protect the ocean convoys that would carry troops, weapons, bombs, bullets and fuel from North America to Western Europe.

Germany in 1939 had begun World War II with just 57 U-boats and had threatened to sever the oceanic ties to Britain; the Soviet order of battle—according to U.S. intelligence—could begin a war with hundreds of undersea craft.

But the Soviets never actually planned to carry out large-scale attacks on merchant shipping, Polmar explained. Instead, Soviet doctrine called for submarines to focus on nuclear deterrence and attacks on NATO submarines and aircraft carriers.

That mission-focus became evident in the late 1970s when new intelligence sources became available. The CIA in 1978 circulated a top-secret report, “The Role of Interdiction at Sea in Soviet Naval Strategy and Operations,” which revised downward the threat Soviet subs posed to NATO shipping.

“The number of merchant ships likely to be sunk over an extended period—four months—indicates that the Soviets have only a limited capability to impair the flow of shipping across the Atlantic, even if they were to reorder their priorities and allocate large forces to interdiction,” the CIA noted.

Also From TNI: History Shows Impeaching Trump Won’t Be Easy

Also From TNI: Will Trump Suffer Nixon’s Fate?

Also From TNI: Everything You Want to Know About Impeachment

The Russians are building submarines again. It’s important for Western experts to understand why. But if analysts misread Soviet intentions during the Cold War, they risk misreading Russian intentions now, Polmar warned. “The men and women who collect, analyze and provide that intelligence must be more efficient than those dedicated personnel who, in the Cold War, got it wrong with respect to the Soviet navy.”

David Axe serves as Defense Editor of the National Interest. He is the author of the graphic novels  War Fix, War Is Boring and Machete Squad. This article first appeared last year.

Image: Reuters.

Employees at the agency had criticized Pete Marocco for mismanagement.

Sebastien Roblin

History, Asia

Hastily designed to counter Nazis superfighters in the early 1940s, America’s first operational fighter jet would have an unexpected and long-lasting legacy.

Here's What You Need To Remember: The Shooting Star retained the straight wings and tail of World War II piston-engine fighters—design elements that impaired performance when approaching the speed of sound. Problems with the fuel pump on the XP-80 caused fatal accidents that killed Lockheed’s chief test pilot and later Richard Bong, the top-scoring U.S. ace of World War II.

On November 8, 1950, a flight of four straight-winged jets swooped down on an airfield at Sinuiju, North Korea—on the Korean side of the border with China. The F-80 Shooting Stars raked the airfield with their six nose-mounted .50 caliber machine guns as black bursts of antiaircraft fire tore the sky around them.

The Shooting Stars had arrived a few months earlier, in response to North Korea’s overwhelming invasion of its southern neighbor using Soviet-supplied tanks, artillery and aircraft. After a rough early period, a UN counterattack had turned the tables: these F-80s from the Fifty-First Fighter Wing were flying out of U.S.-occupied Pyongyang, striking the remaining North Korean forces near the border with China.

After completing their third pass, Maj. Evans Stephens and his wingman Lt. Russell Brown climbed to twenty thousand feet so they could cover their two wingmates. Suddenly, Brown spotted the silvery glint of around ten jet fighters streaking towards them from higher altitude across the Chinese border. He radioed the other element to abort their attack run—MiGs were coming!

What followed was, debatably, the first air battle between jet fighters in history—and the American pilots were flying the slower planes.

America’s Plan to Counter Nazi Jets

The United States’ first jet plane, the Bell P-59 Airacomet, first flew on October 1942. Though sixty armed production models were eventually built, the Airacomets were never deployed operationally because their early, unreliable turbojets gave them a maximum speed of only around 410 miles per hour—slower than the P-51 Mustang piston-engine fighter then in service. But in 1943 Allied intelligence indicated that Nazi Me-262 jets capable of 540 miles per hour would soon join the fray. Lockheed was asked to produce its own jet fighter using a more powerful British turbojet—in just six months.

Legendary aviation engineer Clarence “Kelly” Johnson, future designer of the SR-71 Blackbird spy plane, scratched out a clean design with elegant, almost art-deco lines and modern tricycle landing gear. A flyable prototype was designed and assembled in a mere 143 days under conditions of absolute secrecy—only a handful of the 130 personnel assigned to the project even knew they were building a jet plane!

The XP-80 prototype could exceed five hundred miles per hour—faster than any operational piston-engine fighter, and the de Havilland Goblin engine was eventually exchanged for a more powerful Allison J33 turbojet with two intakes just below the canopy.

However, the Shooting Star retained the straight wings and tail of World War II piston-engine fighters—design elements that impaired performance when approaching the speed of sound. Problems with the fuel pump on the XP-80 caused fatal accidents that killed Lockheed’s chief test pilot and later Richard Bong, the top-scoring U.S. ace of World War II.

As for the Nazi jets, though they were formidable adversaries, fuel shortages and deteriorating industrial base prevented them from having a large impact. While the UK managed to deploy some its own Meteor jets in response, they never encountered their German counterparts.

Just four preproduction YP-80As made it to Europe in 1945 before World War II ended. Two remained in England, where one suffered yet another fatal crash. The other two were deployed to Italy, where they flew a few missions before the end of the war but did not encounter enemy aircraft.

Lockheed nonetheless built more than 1,700 Shooting Stars in the years after World War II, redesignated F-80. A new F-80B model followed, which introduced an ejection seat, followed by the definitive F-80C, which added more powerful J33-A-35 engines boosting speed up to six hundred miles per hour and distinctive 260-gallon wingtip fuel tanks, extending range to 1,200 miles. Dozens were even transferred to the Navy and Marines, modified with arrestor hooks so aviators could practice jet-powered carrier landings. An RF-80 photo-recon model that had a camera in a translucent nose panel also saw widespread service.

America’s first operational jet fighter soon started setting records. In 1946 a Shooting Star made the first jet-powered coast-to-coast flight across the United States from Long Beach California to New York. The same year, an F-80 unit flew across the Atlantic. A specially modified P-80R “racer” even set a (brief) world airspeed record of 623 miles per hour.

Air War over Korea

The Shooting Star proved more than a match for the Yak-9 fighters and armored Il-10 Sturmovik attack planes operated by the North Korean People’s Air Force in the initial months of the Korean War—but the MiG-15 was another matter.

A sleeker, more modern design than the F-80, the Soviet jet had swept wings and was powered by a reverse-engineered and uprated VK-1 turbojet based on Rolls-Royce Nene engines that the British government had incredibly agreed to sell to the Soviet Union in 1946. Not only could the communist fighters easily outrun the Shooting Stars at 670 miles per hour, but they had heavier armament in the form of two twenty-three-millimeter cannons and a huge thirty-seven-millimeter gun.

The MiGs first saw action in the closing stages of the Chinese Civil War, and made their presence known in Korea on November 1, 1950 when they flew over from China to ambush a squadron of U.S. F-51 Mustangs, shooting down one. While Soviet instructors endeavored to train North Korean pilots, Russian World War II veterans ended up flying most of the jets’ early combat missions over Korea.

In the encounter with P-80s on November 8, only two of the Soviet fighters persisted on an intercept course. Stephens and Brown banked sharply to the left and maneuvered into a firing position on the approaching fighters. Though four of Brown’s six M3 machine guns had jammed, he managed to fire several short bursts at his chosen target. The MiG rolled over and dove—and Brown followed, hurtling towards the ground at six hundred miles per hour. Holding down the trigger, he raked the jet until he saw it burst into flames, then pulled back up at the last possible moment.

The American pilot had claimed the kill in the first duel of jet fighters.

However, Soviet records for November 8 tell a different story. MiG pilot Lt. Vladimir Kharitonov reported he was ambushed by an American jet—but that he successfully evaded in a dive while ditching his external fuel tanks. In fact, Russian histories claim the first jet-on-jet battle occurred on November 1, in which a MiG piloted by Lt. Semyon Khominich shot down the F-80 of Lt. Frank Van Sickle. However, U.S. records list Van Sickle as falling to ground fire. In any event, the day after Brown’s engagement, the MiG-15 of Capt. Mikhail Grachev was shot down by a U.S. Navy F9F Panther jet—a kill upon which both side’s records agree.

While credit for the first jet-on-jet kill may remain disputed, the fact that the MiG-15 could outrun, outmaneuver and outgun the F-80 is not. U.S. records show that a total of seventeen Shooting Stars were lost in air-to-air combat, while claiming six MiG-15s in return, in addition to eleven propeller planes. When a formation of huge B-29 bombers escorted by one hundred F-80s and F-84s was ambushed thirty MiGs on April 12, 1951, three B-29s went down in flames without a single attacking fighter lost.

The Air Force rushed to Korea a handful of its most advanced fighters, the F-86 Sabre, which could meet the MiG-15 on equal footing. These proceeded to rack up a favorable kill ratio in frequent air battles over “MiG Alley” near the Chinese border. The F-80s were reassigned to ground-attack duty, a role they were not especially well designed for, though they could carry eight five-inch rockets or two one-thousand-pound bombs underwing.

Over the course of the war, 113 Shooting Stars were lost to ground fire. For example, on November 22, 1952, Maj. Charles Loring’s aircraft was struck by Chinese antiaircraft guns while attacking an artillery position near Kunhwa that had pinned down UN troops. Ignoring his wingman’s radio messages to abort the mission, he deliberately plunged his stricken aircraft into a gun emplacement, a deed for which he was posthumously awarded the Medal of Honor.

Of the ten F-80 squadrons in Korea, all had transitioned to F-86 Sabre fighters or F-84 ground attack planes by 1953—except one squadron that even reverted to old Mustang fighters. As the Shooting Star was phased out of U.S. service, dozens were passed on to South American air forces such as that of Brazil, where they served into the sixties and seventies.

While the Shooting Star was too outdated to shine over Korea, it did spawn two successors. The more obscure was the F-94 Starfire, a two-seat radar-equipped night fighter that claimed six kills over Korea, including the first jet-on-jet engagement at night versus a MiG-15.

The other was the legendary T-33 two-seat trainer jet. More than 6,500 were built—and another 650 license-built in Canada—and these served the Air Forces of more than forty countries ranging as widely as Burma, France and Yugoslavia. Cuban T-33s even combated CIA-sponsored anti-Castro forces during the Bay of Pigs invasion in 1961, shooting down three B-26 bombers and sinking several ships.

In the second half of the twentieth century, thousands of fighter pilots across the world received their jet training in T-33s. Only in 2017 did Bolivia retire the last T-33s in military service, ending the type’s operational career.

Hastily designed to counter Nazis superfighters in the early 1940s, America’s first operational fighter jet would have an unexpected and long-lasting legacy.

Also From TNI: History Shows Impeaching Trump Won’t Be Easy

Also From TNI: Will Trump Suffer Nixon’s Fate?

Also From TNI: Everything You Want to Know About Impeachment

Sébastien Roblin holds a Master’s Degree in Conflict Resolution from Georgetown University and served as a university instructor for the Peace Corps in China. He has also worked in education, editing, and refugee resettlement in France and the United States. He currently writes on security and military history for War Is Boring. This first appeared in March 2018.

Image: Wikipedia.

Ted Galen Carpenter

Security, Asia

Ankara’s declaration especially creates the danger of a showdown between Turkey and Russia, since Moscow regards Armenia as a client, if not an outright protectorate.

This week, armed clashes erupted between the forces of Armenia and Azerbaijan, exacerbating already serious tensions in the Caucasus. The underlying reason for the latest incident is the long‐​standing struggle between the two countries for control of Ngorno‐​Karabakh. That ethnically Armenian region is legally part of Azerbaijan, but Armenia assumes responsibility for guaranteeing the minority enclave’s self‐​declared political independence. The inherently unstable arrangement has led to several previous outbreaks of violence over the past three decades, but the latest incident seems especially serious. Both countries have declared martial law and commenced full military mobilization. “We are a step away from a large‐​scale war,” warns Olesya Vartanyan of the International Crisis Group, an NGO focused on preventing and resolving deadly conflicts.

The default assumption of most Americans might be that this obscure dispute is a parochial spat that has little or no relevance to the interests of the United States, and normally that would be the case. However, fellow NATO member Turkey has injected itself into the conflict, declaring its “complete support” for Azerbaijan and placing total blame on Armenia for the fighting. Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan criticized Turkey for its “aggressive behavior” and demanded that the Turks stay out of the matter. Since Turkey is a much larger power than either Armenia or Azerbaijan, its direct involvement would signal a major expansion of the conflict.

Ankara’s declaration especially creates the danger of a showdown between Turkey and Russia, since Moscow regards Armenia as a client, if not an outright protectorate. The mere possibility of an armed confrontation between a NATO member and Russia is cause for alarm, since Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty considers an attack on any alliance member as an attack on all. A military incident between Turkey and Russia would require the United States to sort‐​out which party was guilty of aggression, and if it appeared that Moscow had initiated the clash, Washington would have an obligation to come to Turkey’s defense.

A responsible member of NATO would be cautious about putting its security partners in such a position. But Turkey, under the government of President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, is an increasingly volatile and irresponsible international actor. Thanks to Ankara’s recent behavior in the eastern Mediterranean, NATO’s old nightmare of a war between Greece and Turkey has resurfaced as a prominent worry for the Alliance. Erdogan’s regime also is engaging in high‐​profile meddling in Libya’s civil war—again adopting a stance that puts Turkish strategy in direct opposition to the faction that Russia is backing.

Both Ankara and Moscow can be faulted for their conduct in Libya, but Turkey is clearly the more disruptive player in the Caucasus. The Kremlin is urging both Armenia and Azerbaijan to de‐​escalate the fighting, and Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov is attempting to play the role of mediator. Erdogan’s government, on the other hand, appears determined to back Azerbaijan, even if that stance leads to an expanded and more deadly war.

The United States and other leading NATO powers need to send Erdogan a blunt message that they have no intention of allowing themselves to become entangled in a conflict with Russia over a chronic dispute between a Turkish client state and its long‐​time regional adversary. This latest problem also would be a good occasion to emphasize to Ankara that its disruptive behavior toward Greece, its ill‐​advised meddling in Libya, and now its destabilizing role in the Caucasus is making it difficult—if not impossible—to regard Turkey as a NATO member in good standing.

As I’ve written elsewhere, the entire rationale for the United States to continue its obligation to defend more than two‐​dozen NATO allies, including strategically irrelevant mini‐​states, makes less and less sense in the twenty‐​first century. But being obligated to defend an “ally” that seems determined to create more, rather than less, international turmoil is the essence of folly. Turkey’s disruptive behavior in the Caucasus is just the latest reason for U.S. leaders to downgrade America’s relationship with that country.

This article first appeared at the Cato Institute.

Image: Reuters.

 

The United States and European Union must base their Belarus policies on a clear-eyed assessment of the protest movement’s weaknesses and Moscow’s strengths.

The UN Secretary-General has called for parties in the Central African Republic (CAR) to prioritize national dialogue and consensus-building ahead of elections scheduled to begin in December. 

Michael Rubin

Diplomacy, Asia

Xi Jinping’s increasing aggressiveness underscores that decades of accommodating and appeasing Beijing were mistakes. Against this backdrop, Pompeo should visit Taiwan.

Too many secretaries of State see travel as a personal perk often distinct from the national security prerogatives of the nation they serve, and for too long the press has played along, allowing the nation’s top diplomat to use miles flown or countries visited as a metric for job effectiveness.

The Associated Press reported in 2012, for example, how “While historians will debate and eventually rate her tenure as America's top diplomat, Clinton is already assured of a place in the State Department record book. When her plane touched down at Andrews Air Force Base outside Washington early Tuesday morning, the former first lady completed an epic 13-day journey of 27,000 miles — about 2,000 miles more than the circumference of the Earth.” The wire service quoted one exuberant Clinton staffer describing “the France-Afghanistan-Japan-Mongolia-Vietnam-Laos-Cambodia-Egypt-Israel itinerary as ‘especially absurd, even for us.’” A Clinton aide’s email suggested that the secretary based her itineraries more on bolstering numbers of countries visited, visiting countries to which she had never traveled in her career, or becoming the first secretary to visit a state than any strategic reason. “With 7ish months left, plenty of time to run up the score on total countries. 110 is a reasonable goal.” Phillipe Reines, her assistant for strategic communications, emailed her. “Here are the 94 countries left to choose from (asterisks appear next to countries you visited prior to becoming SecState, but not since - so they would count).” Among those countries he listed were Belarus, Iran, and North Korea, considered possible destinations for all the wrong reasons.

John Kerry one-upped Clinton by becoming the first secretary of State to visit and tour Antarctica, never mind there were not foreign diplomats their to engage. While he did meet with American scientists there, he might have saved the American taxpayer several million dollars had he simply skyped with them from their home agency, just a couple miles from the State Department’s headquarters.

Mike Pompeo has been more responsible. He has not traveled as much as some of his predecessors (although more than Rex Tillerson), but every trip he has made has had a clear purpose to further Trump administration policy or promote clear American strategic interests. His trips to Greece and Cyprus, for example, have underscored the growing reorientation of the Eastern Mediterranean security structure. His recent visits to the Balkan and South America have encouraged state with new-found oil wealth to integrate their energy infrastructure to the advantage of regional democracies.

He could cap off his career, however, by becoming the first secretary of State to visit Taiwan.

The United States has not had formal relations with the Republic of China, based in Taiwan, since January 1, 1979, when the United States switched diplomatic recognition from Taipei to Beijing, ending a process begun by Secretary of State Henry Kissinger’s outreach to and cultivation of the Peoples Republic of China. This did not amount to complete abandonment: The same day Congress passed the Taiwan Relations Act “to promote the foreign policy of the United States by authorizing the continuation of commercial, cultural, and other relations between the people of the United States and the people on Taiwan.” In effect, this created shadow relations in which a newly-established American Institute in Taiwan would act as a de facto embassy while Taiwan would operate a Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office as its equivalent in Washington.

Nevertheless, over recent decades, the level of interaction U.S. officials and Taiwan has declined. George H.W. Bush sent the first cabinet-level official to Taiwan since the 1979 break in relations when U.S. Trade Representative Carla Hills visited the island in 1992. That broke the ice and, during the Clinton administration, a number of other senior officials visited Taiwan: Secretary of Transportation Federico Peña, Small Business Administration head Phil Lader, Secretary of Energy Bill Richardson, and Peña’s successor Rodney Slater. After Clinton left office, visits declined precipitously. George W. Bush sent no senior officials to Taiwan, and Barack Obama sent only Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Gina McCarthy. The most senior State Department official sent to America’s 11th largest trading partner was the special envoy for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Intersex individuals. Contrast that with the high profile visits paid to Cuba, and the diminishment of Taiwan in the strategic calculus was clear.

President Donald Trump has already begun to reverse this pattern. On February 28, 2018, Congress passed the “Taiwan Travel Act” which Trump signed into law just weeks later. Written into the law was “the Sense of Congress” that “It should be the policy of the United States to...allow officials at all levels of the United States Government, including Cabinet-level national security officials, general officers, and other executive branch officials, to travel to Taiwan to meet their Taiwanese counterparts.”

Despite the Act, Trump has only recently begun to send more senior officials to the island. On August 9-10, Alex Azar, secretary of Health and Human Services, visited Taiwan. This was followed the following month by Under Secretary of State for Economic Growth, Energy, and the

Environment Keith Krach, who represented the United States at a memorial service for former Taiwan President Lee Teng-hui. The State Department’s efforts to downplay his visit, however, undercut the symbolic importance of the trip. Likewise, while the White House applauded Taiwan and Somaliland’s decision to establish diplomatic relations, the State Department’s refusal to acknowledge or similarly affirm at best signaled hostility toward Taipei and at worse showed strategic confusion.

Xi Jinping’s increasing aggressiveness underscores that decades of accommodating and appeasing Beijing were mistakes. China has continued to flout international law in the South China and East China Seas. In recent months, China has revoked Hong Kong’s special status and accelerated genocide against its Uighur population. It covets Taiwan, a country (Beijing’s claims aside) that has historically seldom been under mainland China’s control.

Against this backdrop, Pompeo should visit Taiwan. He has already appeared alongside Taiwanese President Tsai Ing-wen, and so a visit would be the logical next step. Yes, Beijing will bluster: When U.S. carriers pass through the South China Sea or other officials visit Taiwan, China regularly ups its threatening rhetoric and scrambles its warplanes but when Washington affirms its commitment to freedom of the seas and freedom of American officials to visit wherever they need in fulfillment of their government functions, Beijing backs down. Pompeo may take the diplomatic standoff to a new level, but the presence of a U.S. carrier strike group near Taiwan during his visit would deter Beijing. Nor would Pompeo need to announce his visit in advance.

That so many U.S. officials are unwilling to play diplomatic hardball surely factors into the calculations of Xi and Russian President Vladimir Putin when they act provocatively or engage in their own regional salami-slicing. As Pompeo changes the conversation about China in Washington, he could do no better than lead by example and become the most senior official to visit Taipei since President Dwight D. Eisenhower visited Taipei 60 years ago. That, more than trying to set records for numbers of countries visited or taking his team on a junket to Antarctica is the way to return gravitas to America diplomacy.

Michael Rubin is a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI). You can follow him on Twitter: @mrubin1971.

Image: Reuters. 

Rachel Bucchino

economy, Americas

As coronavirus relief package negotiations between House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin remain at a halt, small business and major corporations continue to suffer, as federal government aid runs out, forcing them to furlough or layoff employees, or shut down completely.

Fewer Americans filed initial unemployment claims for the week ending Sept. 26, marking the drop the lowest level claims have been since the coronavirus pandemic tackled the economy in March.

The Labor Department reported on Thursday that 837,000 seasonally adjusted, initial claims for unemployment insurance were processed last week, a drop of 36,000 from a week earlier, stamping it as the fifth consecutive week that initial claims hovered under one million. The figure, however, still remains higher than pre-coronavirus periods. 

The unadjusted data also experienced a massive drop of 40,263, bringing the total to 786,942 for the last full week of September.

Continuing claims, the full pool of Americans on state unemployment insurance, reported more data to show a path towards economic recovery, as it declined to 11.8 million for the week ended Sept. 19.

Economists anticipated that initial claims would skid to 850,000 and for continuing claims to reach 12.2 million, according to a Bloomberg survey. 

While the plummets in unemployment claims indicate a slow path towards economic improvement after experiencing turmoil for the last six months, the department suggested that the numbers could be inaccurate considering California, the state with the most population, didn’t process claims because it’s applying fraud-prevention technology. Instead, the department cited claims from the week prior to filling the state’s reported gap.

In a separate report, the Commerce Department also released Thursday that personal income plunged 2.7 percent, or $543.5 billion, in August, posing a potential threat to future consumer spending. During the same month, consumer spending actually rose 1 percent. 

In the midst of the reports, many companies announced a swarm of massive layoffs this week. As coronavirus relief package negotiations between House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin remain at a halt, small business and major corporations continue to suffer, as federal government aid runs out, forcing them to furlough or layoff employees, or shut down completely. 

Disney announced 28,000 layoffs at its theme park division, 3,800 people at the insurance company Allstate and thousands of furloughs in the airline industry including at American Airlines and United Airlines. Other companies like Continental, a German tire company, plans to cut nearly 30,000 people worldwide and Marathon Petroleum ignited layoffs. 

While the department’s data provides hope to achieve a recovered economy, job losses are mounting, creating a deep strain on the labor market and eventually, consumer spending.  

Rachel Bucchino is a reporter at the National Interest. Her work has appeared in The Washington Post, U.S. News & World Report and The Hill.

Image: Reuters

Ethen Kim Lieser

Health,

Public-health initiatives like mask-wearing and social distancing that have been shown to successfully limit the spread of the novel coronavirus might also play an important role in suppressing the severity of the upcoming flu season, according to White House coronavirus advisor Dr. Anthony Fauci.

Public-health initiatives like mask-wearing and social distancing that have been shown to successfully limit the spread of the novel coronavirus might also play an important role in suppressing the severity of the upcoming flu season, according to White House coronavirus advisor Dr. Anthony Fauci.

“Steps to fight the flu and COVID-19 overlap greatly,” he said during a virtual briefing on Thursday. “We don’t want those two diseases together.”

Fauci warned that the nation’s health-care system might soon be confronted with a “diagnostic challenge” if there is, in fact, a devastating one-two punch of the seasonal flu plus the coronavirus.

“There’s considerable concern as we enter the fall and the winter months and into the flu season that we’ll have that dreaded overlap of two respiratory diseases, namely influenza and COVID-19,” said the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

In the United States, on average, between nine and forty-five million Americans catch the flu each year, which leads to anywhere between 12,000 to 61,000 deaths. According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, between October 2019 and April 2020, there were an estimated thirty-nine to fifty-six million influenza infections and 24,000 to 62,000 fatalities.

A 2017 collaborative study by the CDC and global health partners revealed that between 291,000 and 646,000 people worldwide die from influenza-related respiratory illnesses each year. These figures are considerably higher than the World Health Organization’s previous estimates of 250,000 to 500,000 deaths.

In what could be considered good news for the United States, a recent CDC study found that the flu season in the Southern Hemisphere between April and July was far less severe compared to previous years.

Data from Australia, Chile, and South Africa showed that only .06 percent of more than 83,000 collected samples came back positive for influenza—far lower than the roughly 14-percent rate in past years.

“They had a very, very light flu season,” Fauci said.

In preparation for the flu season, the four manufacturers of flu vaccines have already confirmed that they will ship roughly 200 million doses across the United States this year—which is 19 percent higher than last season.

The nation’s top infectious disease expert also noted that the United States has been the “most severely hit” by the novel coronavirus, with more than 7.2 million confirmed cases and at least 207,000 fatalities, according to the latest data from Johns Hopkins University.

“Truly a transforming pandemic of historic nature, and we’re not through with it yet,” Fauci said.

Now more than nine months into the pandemic, there are roughly 34.1 million cases of coronavirus worldwide, including nearly 1.02 million related deaths.

Ethen Kim Lieser is a Minneapolis-based Science and Tech Editor who has held posts at Google, The Korea Herald, Lincoln Journal Star, AsianWeek and Arirang TV. Follow or contact him on LinkedIn.

Image Credit: Anthony Fauci, MD, Director, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health, testifies during a U.S. Senate Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee Hearing to examine COVID-19, focusing on an update on the federal response at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C., U.S., September 23, 2020. Graeme Jennings/Pool via REUTERS

We must “commit” to building a more inclusive and sustainable world, the UN chief underscored in his annual report on the Work of the Organization, launched on Thursday.

From the Vatican to Brazil, foreign officials are getting tired of Pompeo dragging their governments into Trump’s reelection campaign.

Stephen Silver

Politics, Americas

Will this placate criticism or will it be too little, too late?

For the last several years, Google, along with Facebook, has been frequently criticized for collecting much of the advertising revenue that has traditionally gone to media outlets, therefore putting the survival of such outlets into question.

This week, Google has announced what it calls a big step in helping to reverse that trend.

Back in 2018, Google parent company Alphabet launched the Google News Initiative, which had the dual mandate, per CNBC, of helping publishers to earn money, and to “fight false news.” The former plan was to “offer publications another monetization model online called Subscribe with Google.” Google later announced initiatives that include emergency funding for local news outlets hurt by the coronavirus pandemic.

On Thursday, Google announced that it is making “a $1 billion investment in partnerships with news publishers and the future of news.”

In the announcement, which came in a blog post by Alphabet CEO Sundar Pichai, explained that Google “will pay publishers to create and curate high-quality content for a different kind of online news experience.”

It’s part of the introduction of a new product called Google News Showcase which, per Pichai, “features the editorial curation of award-winning newsrooms to give readers more insight on the stories that matter, and in the process, helps publishers develop deeper relationships with their audiences.”

The Showcase will be shown in panels on Google News, initially on Android, and eventually iOS and later Discover and Search. The company has reached agreement with nearly 200 publishers in Germany, Brazil, Argentina, Canada, the U.K. and Australia, although there has been no announcement of any such deal in the United States. Per CNN, Google has not yet said when they might launch such deals in America.

“This approach is distinct from our other news products because it leans on the editorial choices individual publishers make about which stories to show readers and how to present them. It will start rolling out today to readers in Brazil and Germany, and will expand to other countries in the coming months where local frameworks support these partnerships,” Pichai said.

There was some skepticism about the deal.

“This Google news is going to be a win for a handful of already leading publishers, and a finger in the eye of everyone else IMO,” Matthew Ingram, of the Columbia Journalism Review, tweeted in reaction to the news. A DigiDay overview, meanwhile, found publishers “wary” of the news.

“I imagine [Google] will retain the clause to prevent publishers from participating in collective agreements negotiated under the publisher’s right,” Angela Mills Wade, executive director of the European Publishers Council, told that publication. “Which is quite extraordinary, given that this is a right under the law. Meanwhile, it is very unclear how this affects publishers that do not participate.”

News reports this week stated that a Department of Justice antitrust suit against Google is likely imminent.

Stephen Silver, a technology writer for The National Interest, is a journalist, essayist and film critic, who is also a contributor to Philly Voice, Philadelphia Weekly, the Jewish Telegraphic Agency, Living Life Fearless, Backstage magazine, Broad Street Review and Splice Today. The co-founder of the Philadelphia Film Critics Circle, Stephen lives in suburban Philadelphia with his wife and two sons. Follow him on Twitter at @StephenSilver.

Image: Reuters

Ethen Kim Lieser

Technology, Asia

Here is what the reviews say about whether it is worth your money.

If you’ve long been a fan of Samsung’s lower-tier QLED HDTV models, perhaps it’s about time to jump in and see what the higher-end panels have to offer.

The highly regarded 65-inch Q80 Series should get you off and running, and it is currently retailing for $1,800 at Best Buy.

Surely not the cheapest option out there but know that compared to lesser QLED models, this set can handle those annoying glares and reflections slightly better and boasts improved wide-viewing angles. However, keep in mind that it is still lacking somewhat when placed side-by-side with the much-vaunted OLED panels.

The Q80 excels in providing outstanding overall image quality with plenty-deep black levels. The high light output—a major strength of QLED HDTVs—and the full-array local dimming also work wonderfully well, so you’ll surely enjoy the lively and accurate colors for big sporting events and family movie nights.

Samsung’s backlighting technology is able to precisely control the amount of lighting across every part of the picture, which helps provide incredible contrast—even in bright, sunlit rooms. Also, be prepared to be impressed by the set’s robust video processing capability, a welcome boon for both diehard gamers and lovers of action flicks.

Not to be outdone, you’ll also be blessed with a true 120Hz panel, which does improve the TV’s overall motion performance, and you can be rest assured that it fully supports much-coveted HDR content in HDR10+ and HLG formats.

Your immersive gaming experience will also be ramped up with Game Enhancer, as the panel has the ability to eliminate any chance of screen tearing and stuttering. The end result is noticeably smoother gameplay—no matter how graphics-intensive the games are. You can consider yourself good to go while waiting to get your hands on the next-generation consoles from PlayStation and Xbox.

For the Q80 and other QLED models, Samsung employs its own built-in digital assistant Bixby—but many users have shared their frustrations with this feature. Bixby, unfortunately, doesn’t come close to the skills of industry giants Google Assistant or Amazon Alexa, which can often be found on rivals from LG to Sony. Keep in mind that the 2019 and later versions, though, will be able to respond to voice commands issued via Alexa and Google Assistant smart speakers.

Another downside is its smart TV platform, which is powered by Tizen. First introduced in 2015 after years of development, the Tizen OS, much like Korean archrival LG’s webOS, has a pleasant stripped-down interface but it really lacks any real punch that is needed for today’s data-heavy streaming TV world. Yes, Tizen offers access to popular run-of-the-mill apps like Netflix, Amazon, and Hulu, but a platform like Android TV or Roku TV will surely give you much more bang for your buck.

Ethen Kim Lieser is a Minneapolis-based Science and Tech Editor who has held posts at Google, The Korea Herald, Lincoln Journal Star, AsianWeek and Arirang TV. Follow or contact him on LinkedIn.

Image: Samsung.

The president’s call for the white supremacist group to “stand back and stand by” comes as intelligence agencies have growing concerns about right-wing militias.

Unless countries act now, the COVID-19 pandemic could erase recent “fragile progress” towards gender equality, the UN Secretary-General warned on Thursday, urging governments to put women at the centre of recovery and response.