Diplomacy & Crisis News

What You Need to Know: The USS Bismarck Sea was the last U.S. aircraft carrier lost in battle, sunk by a dual Japanese kamikaze attack during the Battle of Iwo Jima on February 21, 1945. The attacks caused extensive fires, fueled by damaged torpedoes and explosive ordnance, that spread uncontrollably across the ship.

-Ordered to abandon ship, surviving crew members leapt into the cold, rough waters, where they endured further loss due to Japanese strafing.

-Of the 923 sailors onboard, 318 perished. Survivors witnessed the historic raising of the American flag on Mount Suribachi, a symbolic event amidst the tragic loss.

The USS Bismarck Sea was the last American carrier ever sunk in battle. The year was 1945. Today, eighty years later, losing a carrier would be difficult for most Americans to fathom. Such a drastic military loss would exceed anything that has happened in the lifetimes of the vast majority of the population. Granted, carriers are bigger and more populated today than during World War II; the loss would be more significant. 

But the notion sticks: the life of a carrier today is incomprehensible and unacceptable, whereas, during World War II, the loss was not especially remarkable.

The American public’s tolerance for military loss has lowered significantly in the years since the USS Bismarck Sea sank during the Battle of Iwo Jima. That’s a good thing, I would argue. Americans are less willing to put their citizen's lives on the line. The results of that tolerance reduction on U.S. foreign policy have been detrimental, however; America seems to have developed a tendency of employing half-measures in foreign conflicts, as a method of preserving life, a noble intention, yet, arguably, a nation should either commit, or not commit, to foreign conflict. 

In America’s case, the half-measures tact has not produced desirable results. To be clear, in most instances, not committing likely would have been the prudent choice.

Today, an American supercarrier carries upwards of five thousand sailors. So, the sinking of a single carrier would possibly result in a pinpoint casualty event comparable to the entire Iraq War (4,431 KIA). The American public does not have the political will for such a loss.

The Bismarck Sea sank during a different time when the American public’s tolerance for loss was near peak. The Bismarck Sea sailed with 923 sailors. When she sank, after suffering a dual Japanese kamikaze attack, 318 sailors were lost. Here’s what happened.

On the night of February 21, 1945, while the Bismarck Sea was participating in the Battle of Iwo Jima, a Japanese aircraft, “crashed into the ship abeam of the after elevator.” The impact was significant. “The crash knocked four torpedoes on to the hangar deck, parted the elevator cables, and damaged the after-fire main.

The initial fire would likely have been manageable. But the glow of the fire, in the dark of night, attracted more Japanese kamikaze fighters. A second plane crashed into the Bismarck Sea “just forward of the elevator well, killing or mortally wounding the entire fire-fighting party.” The second kamikaze aircraft ignited another explosion, which “buckled bulkheads and collapsed the decks in the ammunition clipping rooms, adding fuel to the fire.” 

The fire spread. Aircraft and their fuel and their ordnance were consumed, only adding to the blaze. Ordnance began exploding. The captain ordered the sailors to abandon the ship. The entire surviving crew jumped into the water and watched as the Bismarck Sea exploded and burned for two hours before finally sinking.

“Rough seas, cold water, and Japanese strafing cost the lives of many members of the [Bismarck Sea’s] crew.” Three hundred and eighteen sailors were lost. The survivors were plucked from the water and transported just off the coast of Iwo Jima, where they were able to see the American flag raised on Mount Suribachi. 

Harrison Kass is a defense and national security writer with over 1,000 total pieces on issues involving global affairs. An attorney, pilot, guitarist, and minor pro hockey player, Harrison joined the U.S. Air Force as a Pilot Trainee but was medically discharged. Harrison holds a BA from Lake Forest College, a JD from the University of Oregon, and an MA from New York University. Harrison listens to Dokken.

Image Credit: Creative Commons and/or Shutterstock.

What You Need to Know: As Russia’s military gains ground, Ukraine is requesting Tomahawk cruise missiles to counter the Russian advance. The Tomahawk, with a range of 250-1,550 miles, could provide Ukraine with critical long-range strike capabilities.

-However, the weapon's full potential would depend on Western approval for strikes within Russian territory—a move that the U.S. and NATO are hesitant to endorse due to fears of nuclear escalation.

-Ukrainian President Zelensky also expressed frustration over media leaks regarding the Tomahawk request, highlighting Kyiv’s reliance on confidentiality to maintain strategic advantage in the conflict.

The conflict in Ukraine isn’t going very well for the Ukrainian military.

The Russian military has been achieving slow but gradual gains in certain parts of the contact line. Kyiv can’t match the level of attrition Moscow promotes with its human-wave attacks that average more than 1,000 casualties per day.

To counter the Russian momentum, Ukraine seeks further military assistance from the West. Specifically, it wants the powerful Tomahawk cruise missile.

The Tomahawk Land Attack Missile (TLAM) is a long range, all-weather cruise missile. As its full name suggests, the Tomahawk is used to take out ground targets. With a range of 250 to 1,550 miles (depending on the version), the Tomahawk is a powerful munition that could literally change the course of the war to Ukraine’s favor. The three most advanced versions of the Tomahawk (Block III, IV, and V) can penetrate Russia air defenses. Each of these versions of the Tomahawk brings different capabilities, including direct hit and cluster munitions.

The U.S. Navy and Royal Navy are the two main operators of the Tomahawk, launching the cruise missile from surface combatants and submarines.

However, the level of effectiveness of Ukrainian Tomahawks would hinge on whether the United States and NATO give Kyiv the green light to use Western weaponry against military targets within Russia. The Ukrainian military has plenty of weapon systems to attack targets inside occupied Ukrainian territory. So, the Tomahawk would only provide marginal gains to the Ukrainian forces. However, there are hundreds of military targets inside Russia and close to the border with Ukraine that are pivotal to the Russia invasion force and their destruction would seriously frustrate Russian offensive operations.

Currently, the U.S. and NATO decline to give such permission because of the fear of a nuclear escalation from Moscow—Russian President Vladimir Putin recently amended his country’s nuclear doctrine to perceive assistance by nuclear powers to third country to attack Russia as a nuclear threat.

For the Tomahawk to be as effective as possible, the White House would have to overcome its current reservations and give Ukraine the weapons to fight the war and win. As the conflict nears its three-year anniversary, it is paramount to end the bloodshed.

But there is another element of the discussions to give Ukraine Tomahawk cruise missiles or, indeed, other advanced weapon systems: confidentiality. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky was rather displeased when he was asked by journalists about the possibility of Ukraine receiving Tomahawks in future tranches of Western security assistance.

"You see what is happening in the media now. They said that Ukraine wants or wanted to get a lot of Tomahawk missiles and so on. But this was confidential information between Ukraine and the White House. How to understand these messages? It means that there is nothing confidential between the partners,” the Ukrainian President said.

One of Ukraine’s strongest weapons is secrecy. Kyiv has managed great tactical, operational, and even strategic results when it has maintained a veil of secrecy.

Stavros Atlamazoglou is a seasoned defense journalist specializing in special operations and a Hellenic Army veteran (national service with the 575th Marine Battalion and Army HQ). He holds a BA from the Johns Hopkins University and an MA from the Johns Hopkins’ School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS). His work has been featured in Business Insider, Sandboxx, and SOFREP.

Image Credit: Creative Commons and/or Shutterstock. 

What You Need to Know: In response to escalating tensions with Russia, the U.S. Air Force has deployed several B-52 Stratofortress bombers to Europe as part of a routine bomber task force rotation.

-The move underscores America’s commitment to NATO and sends a strategic message to Moscow. Recently, the B-52s also deployed to the Middle East amid Israeli-Iranian hostilities. Designed in the 1950s, the B-52 remains vital due to its 9,000-mile range and capacity to carry 70,000 lbs of munitions.

-The Air Force plans to keep the B-52 in service alongside the stealthier B-21 Raider, extending its role well into the 2050s.

-The U.S. Air Force is sending more strategic bombers to Europe as tensions with Russia continue to rise.

Several B-52 Stratofortress strategic bombers are heading to Europe as part of a bomber task force rotation.

The Air Force deployed several B-52 strategic bombers to Europe, thus sending a message to Russia that America was standing by its allies and partners.

To be sure, the Air Force only said that the strategic bombers were going to Europe to “train and operate alongside NATO Allies and partners for several weeks demonstrating the U.S. commitment to global security and stability.” But the message to the Kremlin is clear: the Air Force has a long arm and can reach out and touch Russia if necessary.

The deployment of the B-52s follows in the wake of another rotation of strategic bombers. A few days ago, the Air Force also deployed six B-52 bombers to the Middle East as Israel and Iran continue to exchange insults and missiles.

To be sure, deploying B-52 strategic bombers to Europe isn’t something new or uncommon. In May, the Air Force sent B-52s to the United Kingdom and Romania for several days as part of rotational deployments. And more recently, in September, the Air Force sent B-52s to Poland for a short show of force (Poland is one of NATO’s bulwarks against Russia).

One of the most important aircraft in the Air Force’s fleet, the B-52 is a long-range strategic bomber. The bomber can carry both conventional and nuclear munitions and specializes in strategic attack, close air support, air interdiction, offensive counter-air, and maritime operations. 

The latest version of the aircraft, the B-52H, can pack 70,000 lbs of munitions and can fly without air refueling for 9,000 miles. This combination of munition capacity and range/loiter time makes the B-52 a great option for commander. In terms of munitions, the B-52 bomber can pack a wide range of weapon systems, including laser-guided bombs, conventional bombs, air-launched cruise missiles, GPS-guide bombs, and even mines.

Despite its age (it was designed in the 1950s), the Air Force plans on keeping the B-52 on the active roster for many more years. Indeed, the Air Force envisions a future bomber fleets with two types of aircraft: the B-21 Raider stealth bomber and the B-52 Stratofortress. The B-21 Raider will be tasked with deep-penetration missions against the most difficult targets in non-permissive environments. And the B-52 Stratofortress will be responsible for all the other missions, as well as near-peer targets after the B-21 Raider and other stealth assets have neutralized their air defenses.

Currently, the Air Force has 55 B-52s in active service and another 15 in reserve. Through a series of structural and technological modernizations, the Air Force plans on operating the strategic bomber well into the 2050s, thus making it probably the only aircraft in history that will have flown for a century.

Stavros Atlamazoglou is a seasoned defense journalist specializing in special operations and a Hellenic Army veteran (national service with the 575th Marine Battalion and Army HQ). He holds a BA from the Johns Hopkins University and an MA from the Johns Hopkins’ School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS). His work has been featured in Business Insider, Sandboxx, and SOFREP.

Image Credit: Creative Commons and/or Shutterstock. 

Totally Obsolete?: The F-15 Eagle, a fourth-generation fighter first introduced in the 1970s, has been America’s premier air superiority jet, securing 34 of the USAF's 37 kills over the past four decades. With a speed of Mach 2.5, a range of up to 3,450 miles with external tanks, and versatile weaponry, the F-15 has shown resilience despite age.

-Originally meant for retirement, Congress now mandates its continued use through the F-15EX Eagle II, designed as a "fourth-generation plus" model to address cost concerns and capability gaps.

-Yet, critics argue it's time to transition fully to fifth-generation platforms like the F-22 and F-35.

For 40 years, the world’s premier fourth-generation supersonic air superiority fighter has been the F-15 Eagle. First having flown in 1972, the F-15 has seen multiple iterations of its model and serves in countless militaries around the world. The F-15 was designed to overcome what had become advanced Soviet air defenses. These birds had far greater maneuverability, speed, range, avionics, and weapons systems than what had preceded it in the third-generation warplane (think the F-4 Phantom). 

Over the last 40 years, of the United States Air Force’s 37 kills, the F-15 has been responsible for 34 of them. These planes, thanks to their electronic countermeasures, speed, and maneuverability, are extremely hard to kill—despite the fact that there are today far more advanced, fifth-generation warplanes flying the unfriendly skies. 

Originally produced by McDonnell-Douglas, the legendary warplane is today built by Boeing. Depending on the variant, two Pratt & Whitney F-100-PW-220 turbofan engines, producing a thrust of 23,450 pounds, or two Pratt & Whitney F100-PW-229 turbofan engines with afterburners, producing 29,000 pounds of thrust power these fighter jets. 

The F-15 can reach a speed of Mach 2.5 and has a range of 2,878 miles. This range can, of course, be drastically extended with the assistance of mid-air refueling tankers. An F-15 can be outfitted with three external tanks, meaning that its range can be boosted to 3,450 miles. These birds have a ceiling of 60,000 feet. 

In terms of armaments, the F-15 is truly lethal (there’s a reason these birds account for 34 out of 37 of the Air Force’s kills over the last 40 years). There is an internally mounted M61A1 20 mm six-barrel cannon. Four AIM-9 sidewinder missiles with an additional four AIM-120 AMRAAM’s can be placed on this fighter. The F-15 can even fire an anti-satellite weapon that will destroy targets in low-Earth orbit. 

These planes were supposed to be retired and replaced by the fifth-generation warplanes that have been flying for the last 30 years. Due to budgetary concerns and, in the case of the F-22A Raptor, manufacturing issues, the military has had to rely on the F-15 far longer than it had planned. Things have gotten so bad with replacing the F-15 with the costly and complex fifth-generation warplanes that Congress won’t let the Air Force retire its F-15 fleet as the USAF had originally planned.

What’s more, an entirely new variant of the F-15 has been ordered and built—the F-15EX Eagle II. This plane is considered a “fourth-generation plus” bird. Although less capable than the F-35 Lighting II or the F-22A Raptor, the US government has opted to build these systems. The F-15EX Eagle II is essentially a fast missiletruck. As for whether these birds can truly dance with a fifth-generation warplane, that is a matter up for intense debate among aviation circles. Oddly, the reason for Congress pushing for the creation of a new variant of the F-15 was to keep costs down while preventing critical strategic gaps from forming in tour Air Force. 

Yet, the F-15EX Eagle II is onerously expensive. And it is not as advanced as either the F-35 or F-22. 

Therefore, the F-15 is past its expiration date. 

The US should not be wasting anymore time or money on these birds. Instead, the military should be working hard to restore the F-22 production line while ensuring that the F-35 can fly safely and reliably. The F-15 has had a great run. But time is passing these birds down. They might be helpful in certain situations, but generally speaking, America must move on from them now. 

Brandon J. Weichert, a National Interest national security analyst, is a former Congressional staffer and geopolitical analyst who is a contributor at The Washington Times, the Asia Times, and The-Pipeline. He is the author of Winning Space: How America Remains a Superpower, Biohacked: China’s Race to Control Life, and The Shadow War: Iran’s Quest for Supremacy. His next book, A Disaster of Our Own Making: How the West Lost Ukraine, is due October 22 from Encounter Books. Weichert can be followed via Twitter @WeTheBrandon.

All images are Creative Commons or Shutterstock. 

From the Vault

Russia Freaked Out: Why the U.S. Navy 'Unretired' the Iowa-Class Battleships

Battleship vs. Battlecruiser: Iowa-Class vs. Russia's Kirov-Class (Who Wins?)

What You Need to Know: The SR-72, known as the "Son of Blackbird," is poised to succeed the SR-71 Blackbird, one of the fastest surveillance planes of the Cold War era. With hypersonic speeds, the SR-72 aims to penetrate near-peer rivals' defenses, such as China's advanced anti-access/area-denial (A2/AD) bubbles.

-Unlike stealth planes, the SR-72’s speed could outpace detection systems, delivering critical strikes and returning safely. Potential weaponization of the SR-72 would counteract Chinese advancements in radar and hypersonic weaponry, helping the U.S. maintain aerial superiority.

-If developed, this hypersonic aircraft would place America back at the forefront of military aviation technology.

America is likely building “The Son of Blackbird,” officially labeled the “SR-72.” For those who might not have been around at the time, the SR-71 “Blackbird” was the supersonic surveillance bird that broke almost every flying record known to Man in its service record. These UFO-looking planes were themselves the successor craft to another, legendary plane, the U-2.

The logic behind the SR-72 was that the US military needed to gain accurate surveillance of sensitive Soviet military installations. The U-2 was helpful. But, by the time the SR-71 had come online, the Soviets had perfected anti-aircraft weapons to such a point that the U-2 was at risk of being shot down.

Hence, Washington devised the SR-71 which could theoretically outfly any Soviet anti-aircraft system as well as most Soviet warplanes that might have been deployed to intercept the Blackbird. 

The SR-71, however, was retired. 

The Cold War came to an end and Washington no longer prioritized its mission the way it once did. With the rise of near-peer competitors in the 21st century, though, that’s changing. America needs to get its next-generation birds going—now. 

Yet, they should probably be much more than just surveillance birds. After all, drones and satellites can do those missions much more effectively and likely safer than can manned birds. 

Still, the notion of creating a next-generation hypersonic bird, like the SR-72, is the right path. And now that the Air Force is ruminating about the notion of making the proposed SR-72 weapons-capable, we have an entirely new dynamic being crafted.

Indeed, if these birds are given a full weapons package—and as long as those armaments do not negate the hypersonic capabilities of the SR-72—the Air Force would theoretically be able to penetrate whatever sophisticated anti-access/area-denial (A2/AD) defensive bubbles near-peer rivals, like China, may establish in contested regions. 

Chinese advances in stealth detection technology have reached such a point that the American commitment to stealth capabilities might end up being useless. New innovations like artificial intelligence (AI) or even the next-level quantum radar could theoretically make stealth planes completely visible to Chinese anti-aircraft systems long before those birds ever got within range of potential Chinese targets. 

But a truly hypersonic attack aircraft, like the proposed SR-72, might not need to rely upon stealth as much as other American planes do. They could simply outfly whatever systems a near-peer rival, like China, has crafted, deliver its payload, and continue to safety without ever having its proverbial hair mussed. Indeed, hypersonic weapons and aircraft are the wave of the future. 

Even the Chinese and Russians acknowledge this. The militaries of both of those near-peer rivals have already embraced hypersonic weapons and have leapfrogged the Americans in this key technological area.

A hypersonic, somewhat stealthy plane, like the SR-72 places the Americans back in the running. What’s more, the concept is really cool. It was already, somewhat, popularized by the 2022 hit film Top Gun: Maverick.In that film, Tom Cruise’s ace pilot takes an SR-72-like plane into combat with lethal results for America’s enemies. In fact, the mock-up made by the film’s producers (with the help of Lockheed engineers) was so realistic that China’s military re-tasked one of its surveillance satellites to monitor the fake bird, thinking it was real. 

Clearly, Beijing is wigged out by the prospects of a real-life SR-72—especially if it were designed to be a long-range strike aircraft. The Air Force should make that a reality. Even if it has to cut other programs, like the wasteful Next-Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) program. 

Brandon J. Weichert, a National Interest national security analyst, is a former Congressional staffer and geopolitical analyst who is a contributor at The Washington Times, the Asia Times, and The-Pipeline. He is the author of Winning Space: How America Remains a Superpower, Biohacked: China’s Race to Control Life, and The Shadow War: Iran’s Quest for Supremacy. His next book, A Disaster of Our Own Making: How the West Lost Ukraine, is due October 22 from Encounter Books. Weichert can be followed via Twitter @WeTheBrandon.

Image Credit: Creative Commons and/or Shutterstock are of SR-71. 

From the Vault

Russia Freaked Out: Why the U.S. Navy 'Unretired' the Iowa-Class Battleships

Battleship vs. Battlecruiser: Iowa-Class vs. Russia's Kirov-Class (Who Wins?)

What You Need to Know: The defection of Soviet pilot Viktor Belenko in 1976 revealed critical insights into the capabilities of the feared MiG-25 Foxbat, which he flew to Japan. The U.S. and Japanese engineers found the Foxbat’s performance vastly overestimated.

-Though fast, the MiG-25 was heavy, fuel-inefficient, and limited in altitude and airspeed without risking engine failure. Originally designed to intercept high-flying bombers, it was unfit for modern low-level strategies. Belenko’s defection influenced U.S. aircraft development, reinforcing the importance of the F-15 Eagle.

-The revelation of the MiG-25’s limitations downgraded its myth and led the Soviet Union to begin exporting the Foxbat.

As the war in Ukraine grinds on, it’s not without its share of drama. At the end of the summer in 2023, Ukrainian intelligence revealed that a Russian aviator piloting a Mi-8 had defected with his craft. Several months in the making, the escape culminated in a daring flight into Ukraine.

As the pilot described it: “I realized that I was near the border. I relayed my location. I said: ‘Let’s try it; I’m not far away.’ And, having made a final decision, I flew at an extremely low altitude in radio silence mode. No one understood what was going on with me at all.”

While this defection doesn’t carry as much weight  as the say, an Su-37 or MiG-25- the Mi-8 has been in service for five decades, and a single utility helicopter is unlikely to turn the tide of the war - it is still a remarkable feat for the Ukrainian intelligence service, the GUR. It also brings to mind other pilots’ defections, such as when Soviet Lieutenant Viktor Belenko flew his MiG-25 Foxbat to Japan. 

At the time of his defection, 1976, Belenko was stationed at Chuguyevka Air Base in the Soviet Far East as part of the Air Defense Forces, a branch separate from the Soviet Air Force and arguably more prestigious. At the time, conditions at the air base were dismal, with poor facilities and morale. Belenko attempted to raise the issues with superiors but was essentially laughed off. Compounding his problem, his wife had grown tired of life as a military spouse and filed for divorce. Disillusioned with the Soviet system, Belenko decided to defect. 

Upon making his decision, Belenkosimply had to wait until he was scheduled for a routine sortie out East with a full tank of gas. He thoughtfully brought along the training manual for the Foxbat, something that was strictly prohibited. As the flight concluded and his wingmen headed home, Belenko turned and headed for Japanese airspace while gradually descending. As he closed in on the islands, he entered a precipitous dive, building airspeed to escape his pursuing squadronmates.

Nearing the Japanese airspace, he began popping up to reveal his position on the radar and prevent the Japanese Self-Defense Forces (JSDF) from shooting him down. Cloudy weather and limitations of the F-4E Phantoms operated by the JSDF prevented them from locating Belenko to provide an escort. 

The same weather also worked against Belenko as he attempted to locate Chitose Air Base, the only airfield shown on his map of Hokkaido. Expecting to be escorted by JSDF fighters if he was unable to find it, he was dismayed to find himself alone.

Compounding his problems, the Foxbat guzzled fuel at an alarming rate, and he only had just enough to make the trip even with a full load. Lacking the proper navigational aids and frequencies, he eventually located the civilian Hakodate Airport.

As he lined his aircraft up for landing, Belenko faced one final challenge: a departing 727 jetliner. Quick reflexes prevented a tragic conclusion to the story however, he now found himself out of position to land and flying dangerously fast, particularly considering the 6,500-foot-long runway was too short for the Foxbat.

Despite deploying his drogue parachute and stamping on the brakes - hard enough to cause the nosewheel tire to explode - he ran nearly 800 feet off the runway. When the dust had settled and he shut the plan down, he had only 30 seconds of fuel remaining. 

Japanese and American engineers were quick to jump on the opportunity to examine the MiG-25.

While the Japanese government refused to allow anyone to fly the aircraft fearing reprisals from the Soviet Union, engineers were able to tear it apart and see just what they were facing. 

This opportunity proved crucial as the Foxbat had until now been the boogeyman of the skies.

First flying in 1964, it proceeded to set several speed and altitude records, some of which still stand today. U.S. and Western nations were highly concerned about its perceived abilities and feared it could even compete with the mythical SR-71 Blackbird

In response, the U.S. Air Force (USAF) radically revised its requirements for the F-X program currently in development. Initially conceived to counter the air-to-air imbalance over Vietnam in which fast, maneuverable MiG-21s had proven to match, and even the best American aircraft, the arrival of the Foxbat caused the USAF to greatly increase the capabilities required for the F-X program.

The resultant aircraft was the F-15 Eagle, one of the best air superiority fighters ever designed. Over its prestigious career, it has claimed 104 shootdowns with no Eagles lost in return. 

Belenko’s delivery of a MiG-25 to American specialists proved that the F-15 was, in fact, incredibly overengineered against its opponent. Lacking titanium, the Foxbat was a stainless steel construction, meaning it was very heavy. A fully fueled MiG-25 weighed 64,000 pounds, by contrast, the U.S. Navy’s F-18 only weighs 48,000 pounds in the same state.

Furthermore, its vaunted airspeed and altitude records were mostly flukes. Its true service ceiling was not 89,000 but 79,000 feet, and then for two minutes and without a full load of missiles. Its Mach 3.2 airspeed was actually only Mach 2.83, any higher, and the engines would come apart. 

To add insult to injury, tactics and strategy had already moved beyond the Foxbat’s capabilities. Initially conceived to shoot down American strategic bombers flying high toward their targets, the Foxbat was designed to counter a threat that no longer existed. By the early 1960s, American planners understood the dangers of Soviet surface-to-air systems and recognized the futility of flying bombers directly into Soviet territory. New doctrine dictated low-level ingress below radar coverage. The Foxbat’s highly inefficient engine and already short range made it impractical for this mission. Additionally, it lacked a look-down shoot-down radar capable of tracking targets flying low to the ground. 

Following the dissection of the MiG-25, American planners breathed a sigh of relief, realizing they were facing a paper tiger. Following 60 days of inspection, the aircraft was disassembled, boxed up, and shipped back to the Soviet Union, which billed Japan $10 million for damage to the aircraft. In return, Japan sent a bill of $40,000 for damage to the airfield and shipping fees.=

Lieutenant Belenko was granted asylum in the U.S. and, following an extensive debrief with the Air Force and CIA, went on to be a contractor and businessman. The defection of Belenko revealed the inadequacies of the MiG-25 to the West and removed the veil of secrecy surrounding the aircraft, allowing the Soviet Union to begin export. It saw combat in the Middle East during the Iran-Iraq war and Israeli conflicts with Syria and Lebanon.

Maya Carlin is an analyst with the Center for Security Policy and a former Anna Sobol Levy Fellow at IDC Herzliya in Israel. She has by-lines in many publications, including The National Interest, Jerusalem Post, and Times of Israel. You can follow her on Twitter: @MayaCarlin. 

All images are Creative Commons. 

What You Need to Know: The Soviet-era MiG-23 "Flogger," designed as an affordable, swing-wing alternative to the MiG-21, ultimately fell short of its intended role as a formidable air superiority fighter.

-Though technically advanced at its 1970 debut—with variable wing geometry, improved radar, and BVR capabilities—the MiG-23 suffered from reliability issues, short engine life, and limited combat success.

-It was often bested in combat by Western aircraft, most notably by Israeli and U.S. jets, which outmaneuvered and outperformed it in several conflicts. Despite its poor record, 5,000 Floggers were produced, and the fighter remains in limited use with countries like Syria and North Korea.

The MiG-23 is one awful fighter, and the U.S. Air Force thankfully has no fighter jet that can match its terrible history. Pity the poor MiG-23 "Flogger" jet fighter. Built to replace the older – as in 1955 vintage – MiG-21 Fishbed, and intended to contend with America's F-4 Phantom, the MiG-23 instead became the proverbial "redheaded stepchild" of Soviet-designed fighters.

Instead of living up to its NATO codename "Flogger" in actual aerial combat, the plane far more often ended up on the receiving end of the proverbial floggings.

On paper, the MiG-23 didn't seem like such a bad aircraft when it was developed. In fact, its variable “swing” wing geometry and advanced radar and fire control systems made it a fairly advanced aircraft when it was first introduced in 1970 and began entering operational service in 1971.

Of particular note to its pilots was a beyond-visual-range (BVR) intercept capability from more powerful onboard sensors. In addition, the fighter had robust landing gear that enabled it to operate from short, remote runways.  

However, the Soviets purposely designed the Flogger as a lower-cost export fighter and therefore didn't build into it the sort of effort and quality control that would be expected for a fighter jet intended primarily for defending the precious "Rodina” (Motherland) itself.

The Soviet arms industry certainly had no shortage of customers for the MiG-23, as it was purchased by not only every member nation of the Warsaw Pact but by a veritable laundry list of official Communist allies as well as ostensible Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) states around the globe.  This customer list included Algeria, Cuba, India, North Korea, and Syria.

The phrase "penny wise, pound foolish” comes to mind; the plane was reported to be difficult to fly and expensive to maintain, while its engines had a short service life. And then there was the warbird's combat record. As noted by Senior Editor Peter Suciu:

“There is no ambiguity here: the MiG-23 boasts a long, well-documented, and deeply embarrassing service record. The full extent of its failures is too great to recount in detail, but here are a few highlights. Over a dozen Syrian MiG-23 jet fighters were shot down by Israeli F-15s and F-16s throughout the Arab-Israeli Wars. Iraqi MiG-23 jet fighters also fared even more poorly against Iran during the Iran-Iraq War, reportedly suffering upwards of fifty losses against Iranian F-14s, F-5s, and F-4s. Libyan MiG-23s were routinely outperformed by Egyptian MiG-21 jet fighters during the Libyan-Egyptian War, and two of these fighters were destroyed by two U.S. F-14 Tomcats during the 1989 Tobruk skirmish.”

During Operation Desert Storm in 1991, one lucky Iraqi Air Force (IqAF) MiG-23 pilot managed at least a token bit of success when he damaged an F-111 Aardvark with an R-24T missile as the American fighter-bomber was on a bombing run.

The Aardvark still managed to return safely to base, and this partial victory was slim comfort for the IqAF in light of the seven Floggers they lost to F-15Cs in air-to-air combat.  

Despite these design flaws and a poor combat record alike, the MiG-23 has soldiered on.  The Russians built 5,000 Floggers of all types between 1967 and 1985, and the Russian Air Force kept them in service until 1999.

Meanwhile, it still remains in the aerial arsenals of Angola, Ethiopia, North Korea, and Syria.

Specifications (MiG-23MS)

Crew: One (Pilot)

Length: 54.7 feet (16.7 meters)

Wingspan: 45.6 feet (13.9 meters) fully spread; 25.26 feet (7.7 meters) fully swept

Height: 15.81 feet (4.82 meters) 

Empty weight: 10.2 tons 

Maximum takeoff weight: 17.8 tons

Armament: One twin-barreled 23mm GSh-23L cannon; six air-to-air missiles (mixture of infrared-homing close-range, AA-2 “Atoll” or AA-8 “Aphid”, and medium-range AA-7 “Apex” missiles)

Engine: One Tumansky R-29-300 turbojet of approx. 27,500 lbs (12,473 kg) thrust

Maximum speed: Approx. Mach 2.4 (1,553 mph/2,499 kph)

Wing sweep settings: 16, 45, and 72 degrees; adjustable in flight

Christian D. Orr is a former Air Force officer, Federal law enforcement officer, and private military contractor (with assignments worked in Iraq, the United Arab Emirates, Kosovo, Japan, Germany, and the Pentagon).  Chris holds a B.A. in International Relations from the University of Southern California (USC) and an M.A. in Intelligence Studies (concentration in Terrorism Studies) from American Military University (AMU).  He has also been published in The Daily Torch and The Journal of Intelligence and Cyber Security.

Image Credit: Creative Commons. 

With his triumph against Vice President Kamala Harris, Donald Trump is being likened to Grover Cleveland, the first Democrat elected after the Civil War who won non-consecutive terms in 1884 and 1892. But Trump’s election also bears comparison to another president—Ronald Reagan. When Reagan was elected in 1980 against Jimmy Carter, liberal elites were dumbfounded. Reagan entered Washington promising to overturn the bureaucracy and restore American greatness after the dolorous Carter-Mondale era. It was thunder on the right.

But there the similarities end. Trump has reinvented the conservative movement in his own strongman image by breaking with the verities of the Reagan era. The old Republican establishment is out. The young populists are in.

With JD Vance at his side, Trump will more than likely staff his administration with a new generation of conservatives intent on carrying out his mandate to topple the Deep State at home and retrench abroad. These are not the cautious technocrats of the Biden era. They have a vision and a plan. Writing in Foreign Affairs, for example, Sumantra Maitra calls for the creation of a “dormant NATO” in which America would “remove its ground forces from Europe in order to shift the burden of defending the continent away from Washington and toward the region’s own governments.” Elbridge Colby, a defense department official in Trump’s first term, is propounding a Trump doctrine--a shift from an emphasis on Europe to countering China’s quest for suzerainty over the South China Sea. Then there is William Ruger, Trump’s nominee for ambassador to Afghanistan, who avers that “voters were given a choice, made more stark by Harris-Cheney embrace, and they chose greater realism over left-right elite liberal internationalism.”

For Trump himself a second term represents an opportunity to enact his longstanding dream of upending America’s alliances. There will be few voices in the Senate to oppose him. Mitch McConnell is a spent force whom Trump, during one of his final rallies, ridiculed for dutifully supporting him. Mitt Romney is retiring.

Nor is this all. Trump’s hand is strengthened by the fact that he repudiated the party machine during the campaign. In running for reelection, scorned the seasoned party professionals who claimed that he should mute his strident statements and relied on outside PACs to mobilize his supporters. Elon Musk, who lavishly supported his run, will occupy a prominent role in his administration.

Disheartened Democrats are already debating the reasons for Harris’ loss. One explanation is that Trump didn’t win so much as Harris lost. Jonathan Chait declared that “The American public has not embraced Trump. The decisive bloc of voters always evinced deep misgivings about Trump’s character and rhetoric, even if they didn’t fully recall all his crimes and offenses (who could?). Trump didn’t win by making people love or even accept him. He won because the electorate rejected the Biden-Harris administration.”

But this risks underestimating the magnetic attraction that Trump seems to exert upon his followers and supporters. John F. Harris’ explanation in Politico may be more plausible: “For a significant portion of his supporters, he didn’t win in 2016 in spite of his notorious remark to Access Hollywood about grabbing women by their private parts, or in 2024 in spite of his election denialism. He won in some measure because of these things — and the indignation they inspired.”

Daniel McCarthy in the New York Times takes it one step further, elevating Trump’s election to “a public vote of no confidence in the leaders and institutions that have shaped American life since the end of the Cold War 35 years ago.”

But that is a purely negative verdict. The question for Trump, as McCarthy acknowledges, is whether he can deliver more than destruction in Washington. Speaking in West Palm Beach, Trump announced that he would usher in a new “golden age for America.” 

Jacob Heilbrunn is editor of The National Interest and is a nonresident senior fellow at the Atlantic Council’s Eurasia Center. He has written on both foreign and domestic issues for numerous publications, including The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, Financial Times, Foreign Affairs, Reuters, Washington Monthly, and The Weekly Standard. He has also written for German publications such as Cicero, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, and Der Tagesspiegel. In 2008, his book They Knew They Were Right: the Rise of the Neocons was published by Doubleday. It was named one of the one hundred notable books of the year by The New York Times. He is the author of America Last: The Right’s Century-Long Romance with Foreign Dictators.

Image Credit: Creative Commons. 

What You Need to Know: Iran’s recent direct missile barrage against Israel marks a shift from its usual proxy warfare, signaling Tehran's expanding missile capabilities. According to CSIS, Iran's arsenal includes thousands of ballistic and cruise missiles, with ranges that could easily reach Israel.

-Most troubling, however, is Iran’s advancing space program, potentially doubling as a front for ICBM development. With solid-fuel technology and missile expertise potentially bolstered by cooperation with Russia, Iran appears to be closing in on a viable ICBM and nuclear delivery capability.

-These advancements highlight an urgent threat for U.S. and Israeli defense officials as tensions in the Middle East persist.

Iran’s recent barrages targeting the Jewish state indicate that the regime is inching toward acquiring the technology needed to field an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM). In April, Tehran engaged in direct warfare with Israel for the first time when it launched more than 300 projectiles in an escalatory fashion. The Islamic Republic typically utilizes its region-wide proxy groups to launch similar attacks since it is positioned further from Israel. 

However, Tehran’s ability to carry out such a barrage is exemplary of its growing weapons arsenal.

According to a 2021 report published by the Missile Threat Project at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), Iran possesses thousands of ballistic and cruise missiles with a variety of capabilities and ranges. Tehran’s stockpile of cruise missiles is the most deadly, as they can fly at several times the speed of sound and can reach Israeli territory from Iran in under fifteen minutes. 

The most threatening missiles built by Iran are the Sekkil, Kheibar, and Haj Qasem models. The Sekkil is a medium-range weapon capable of carrying a payload of 700 kg and reaching targets up to 1,550 miles away. The Kheibar and Haj Qasem have ranges of 1,240 and 870 miles respectively.

While Tehran currently does not field an ICBM, a weapon that can reach targets of more than 3,400 miles, experts believe that its space program could quicken the development of these lethal missiles. Since space launch vehicles and carrier rockets are generally identical to the technology and components required to launch an ICBM, Tehran is potentially using its space program to get closer to fielding these missile types. 

According to the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, “Iran’s space program has long served as a cover for developing and testing components for an ICBM. With Iran sending missiles to Russia for use against Ukraine, Russia may well be reciprocating by supplying Iran with the tools and knowledge necessary to grow its space launch program. Paired with Iran’s recent acceleration in enriched uranium production, this space launch capability inches the country closer to fielding a nuclear weapon that can threaten the U.S. homeland.”

The turning point in Iran’s quest to acquire ICBM technology occurred in 2020 when the regime launched its first successful military satellite (Noor-1), carried by its domestically built Qased three-stage space launch vehicle. This notable launch displayed a solid-fuel capability that had the potential to elevate the country’s future missile designs.

Building up its weapons programs across the board is a top priority for the Islamic Republic as Iran is the largest proliferator in the region. Once Tehran achieves its nuclear breakout time, it will undoubtedly pour its resources into building a capable delivery system for the weapon- an ICBM. 

The ongoing war in the Middle East between Israel, Iran, and its proxy groups does not appear to be simmering down anytime soon. With this in mind, Iran’s efforts to build up its weapons programs should be a top concern to U.S. and Israeli officials alike.

Maya Carlin, National Security Writer with The National Interest, is an analyst with the Center for Security Policy and a former Anna Sobol Levy Fellow at IDC Herzliya in Israel. She has by-lines in many publications, including The National Interest, Jerusalem Post, and Times of Israel. You can follow her on Twitter: @MayaCarlin. 

 Image Credit: Creative Commons and/or Shutterstock.

Wage War: The USS North Carolina was America’s first “fast battleship,” designed for both speed and strength. Launched in 1937, she could reach 28 knots, allowing her to escort carriers while retaining battleship-level armor and firepower.

-Armed with nine 16-inch guns and substantial anti-aircraft defenses, she served extensively in the Pacific Theater, participating in major battles like Iwo Jima and Okinawa.

-After the war, plans to convert her for modern uses were scrapped, and she was eventually saved from demolition by James Craig’s fundraising efforts.

-Today, the USS North Carolina serves as a museum ship in Wilmington, preserving her legacy.

The battleship was the preeminent warship class of the early twentieth century. And typically, when people think of battleship attributes, firepower is front of mind. But one class of battleship wasn’t built so much with an emphasis on firepower, but with an emphasis on speed: the North Carolina class.

The USS North Carolina was the lead ship of the North Carolina class, which happened to be the U.S. Navy’s first-ever “fast battleship.” The term fast battleship is applied to a class of ships that was fast enough to perform tasks like escorting aircraft carriers, but did not make sacrifices to armor or armament (like a battlecruiser may have), and hence could engage with a battleship as a peer.

The North Carolina was laid down in 1937, before the Japanese had trained their eyes on Pearl Harbor. Commissioned in April 1941, while the United States was still at peace, the North Carolina would be hastened into action following the Japanese surprise attack.

The boat was fast, capable of reaching 28 knots. For propulsion, the North Carolina relied on eight Babcock & Wilcox boilers, which could generate 121,000 horsepower. Fully loaded, the vessel displaced over 45,000 tons. The North Carolina measured 728-feet long with a 108-foot beam and a thirty-two-foot draft.

And while the North Carolina was built for speed, she was still expected to hold her own with respect to firepower. Accordingly, she was outfitted with nine 16-inch Mark 6 guns; twenty 5-inch dual-purpose guns; sixteen anti-aircraft guns; and eighteen .50-caliber machine guns. To withstand an onslaught from rival battleships, the North Carolina was outfitted with armor measuring 16 inches thick along the gun turret and 12 inches thick along the belt.

The North Carolina spent the majority of World War II in the Pacific Theater. For much of the war, the North Carolina was used for her speed, to screen for aircraft carriers; as a carrier screen, the North Carolina saw action early, in the Battle of the Eastern Solomons, and later at the Gilberts, Marshalls, Mariana, and Palau Islands. The North Carolina also participated in the Battle of the Philippine Sea, the Battle of Iwo Jima, and the Battle of Okinawa.

During the war, the North Carolina was used extgensively. She was damaged, too, surviving a torpedo strike from a Japanese submarine, and surviving Typhoon Cobra, an epic storm that sank three American vessels and killed nearly 800 sailors.

After the war, the North Carolina was decommissioned. Originally, the Navy had hoped to convert the ship for other purposes; some hoped to make the North Carolina even faster, or to convert her into a helicopter carrier. Conversion projects were eventually abandoned, however. Yet, the North Carolina would remain in the navy’s registry for over a decade, before finally being struck in 1960.

The North Carolina was set to be scrapped. But a man from North Carolina, James Craig, initiated a campaign to postpone the scrapping, and then raise the quarter of a million dollars necessary to prepare the vessel for display as a museum ship. Thanks to Craig’s efforts, you can still visit the North Carolina today, in Wilmington, North Carolina.

Harrison Kass is a defense and national security writer with over 1,000 total pieces on issues involving global affairs. An attorney, pilot, guitarist, and minor pro hockey player, Harrison joined the US Air Force as a Pilot Trainee but was medically discharged. Harrison holds a BA from Lake Forest College, a JD from the University of Oregon, and an MA from New York University. Harrison listens to Dokken.

Image Credit: Creative Commons and/or Shutterstock.

What You Need to Know: According to Moscow, Ukraine’s intelligence service attempted to sabotage Russia’s only aircraft carrier, Admiral Kuznetsov, in March by recruiting a crewmember to set incendiary devices on board. However, the plot failed when the crewmember reported the attempt to Russia’s FSB, which then turned him into a double agent, gathering intelligence on Ukrainian operations.

-The incident underscores the symbolic importance of the dilapidated Kuznetsov for Russia despite its outdated status, prompting Ukraine’s focus on the carrier as a target.

-Russia later deployed the Kuznetsov's crew to the Ukraine front, though the ship itself remains in drydock, likely far from true operational capability.

Russia’s only aircraft carrier, the ancient Admiral Kuznetsov, has languished in port for years. But even before it was permanently consigned to floating in the safety of its homeport, the Admiral K was a global laughingstock; an awful sign to the world that Russia after the collapse of the Soviet Union and its defeat in the Cold War by the United States was no longer a great power. 

Despite the fact that the Admiral Kuznetsov is a perennial reminder of the bad old days in Russia’s recent history, Moscow keeps the boat afloat. Because of its symbolic importance, though, it recently became a target of Ukrainian intelligence.

According to the public arm of Russia’s shadowy intelligence service, the FSB, the Russian security services foiled a plot by Ukraine’s military intelligence service to attack the Admiral Kuznetsov while it was in port. The FSB Public Relations Center claimed that way back in March of this year, the Ukrainian intelligence service attempted to recruit a crewmember of the Admiral Kuznetsov.

Under “psychological pressure” and financial inducements, the lowly Admiral K crewmember was promised rapid exfiltration from Russia by Ukraine to Finland if that crewmember set off incendiary devices onboard the dilapidated Russian boat.

The crewmember apparently alerted the Russian security services as soon as that individual was contacted with the offer from Ukrainian intelligence. Again, according to Russian government sources, the FSB then turned the targeted Admiral Kuznetsov crewmember into a double agent, who pretended to work for the Ukrainian intelligence service while soaking up all the information on other Russian-based Ukrainian operatives and operations. 

Ultimately, this Admiral Kuznetsov crewmember working for the FSB supposedly gleaned from his Ukrainian handler that the “entire operation was personally supervised by the head of the Main Intelligence Directorate of the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine, Kyrylo Budanov.” 

Needless to say, the attack did not occur as Ukraine had planned. But this incident highlights two things: first, despite it being a global embarrassment, the Admiral Kuznetsov continues to be a symbol of Russian power projection, which is why the Ukrainians wasted so much precious time and resources trying to sabotage the glorified garbage scowl. 

Second, Ukraine continues to prove that it is both desperate to strike at Russian symbols of power and that, in its desperation, it is making major mistakes. Who knows what other, more important, intelligence the Russians were able to learn from this complex FSB operation. 

Anyway, the operation from the Ukrainian perspective was a failure.

Even though the crewmembers of the Admiral Kuznetsov apparently alerted the Russian security services as soon as he was contacted by the Ukrainian intelligence operative, Moscow still decided to send the crew of the ship to the frontlines in Ukraine shortly after that incident. The intelligence operation wrapped up around July of this year.

And the Admiral Kuznetsov has been removed from its port to a drydock facility. The Russian government insists the Admiral K will be restored to full operational capability and will be sent back to leech Mazut fuel across the world’s High Seas next year.

That is doubtful. What’s not doubted, though, is the special place that the Admiral K holds in the hearts of Russia’s leadership. That symbolic importance makes it a target even as it is kept far away from the world’s hotspots. It would seem this awful carrier brings out the worst in everyone. 

Eventually, Moscow will have to end this miserable ship’s existence.

Brandon J. Weichert, a National Interest national security analyst, is a former Congressional staffer and geopolitical analyst who is a contributor at The Washington Times, the Asia Times, and The-Pipeline. He is the author of Winning Space: How America Remains a Superpower, Biohacked: China’s Race to Control Life, and The Shadow War: Iran’s Quest for Supremacy. His next book, A Disaster of Our Own Making: How the West Lost Ukraine, is available for purchase wherever books are sold. Weichert can be followed via Twitter @WeTheBrandon.

Image Credit: Creative Commons and/or Shutterstock.

What You Need to Know: China’s quest to field a stealth fighter that rivals the U.S. F-35 faces setbacks due to material science challenges, particularly in developing advanced Radar Absorbent Material (RAM).

-As former U.S. Navy Operations Specialist Eric Wicklund explains, while replicating the F-35’s stealthy design may be possible, reproducing the F-35’s RAM capabilities remains elusive. Wicklund compares China’s situation to reverse-engineering Damascus steel without understanding the underlying process.

-This gap leaves Chinese stealth fighters less effective in evading radar. Meanwhile, the F-35’s advanced avionics, sensor fusion, and electronic warfare systems ensure it maintains an edge in situational awareness and networked capabilities.

Months back, Quora user Eric Wicklund, a former U.S. Navy Operations Specialist, explained why the Chinese cannot yet field a true competitor to the F-35. 

“Just producing a stealthy-looking shape is only one part of many different aspects of stealth,” Wicklund began. “Even internal structures, and how they’re configured, matter.” One respect where China is deficient, Wicklund argues, is in materials science, and this shortfall has impacted Beijing’s ability to develop effective Radar Absorbent Material (RAM), which can absorb or scatter up to 80% of incoming radar waves.

According to Wicklund, stealing a stealth shape from a computer is simple enough, but developing cutting-edge RAM is a more difficult task. “I could hand the Chinese a chunk of RAM,” Wicklund wrote, “they could analyze it, and realize it is genuine, but the problem is in reverse-engineering it. They know what it is, but wouldn’t know how to make it.”

Wicklund explained that giving American RAM technology to the Chinese would be like giving a Damascus steel blade to an Egyptian swordmaker. The Egyptian would recognize the superior quality of the blade but would not be able to reverse-engineer the thing. That’s the problem the Chinese are currently facing with RAM technology.

Wicklund equated China’s trouble with RAM to their recent troubles developing the WS-15 jet engine. For years, the Chinese struggled to create fan blades that could withstand the heat generated within a jet engine. Finally, China’s material science caught up to the task, and the WS-15 has since entered production. “RAM is going to be another difficult stepping stone, and until they master it, China’s stealth fighters will be outmatched by the F-35.” 

The U.S. is currently the only nation capable of developing and producing an aircraft as sophisticated as either the F-35 or the F-22.

Designed for air superiority and strike missions, the F-35 is also equipped to perform electronic warfare and ISR functions. The most notable features of the F-35 are the advanced avionics and sensor fusion, which grant the pilot an unmatched level of situational awareness.

Curiously, the F-35 was not designed to be as kinetically capable or as maneuverable as the F-22 fifth-generation fighter. While the F-35 can keep up with fourth-generation aircraft, the airframe was designed with stealth and sensor fusion as priorities, rather than maneuverability.

Key sensors aboard the F-35 include the Northrop Grumman AN/APG-81 active electronically scanned array radar; the BAE Systems AN/ASQ-239 Barracuda electronic warfare system; the Northrop Grumman/Raytheon AN/AAQ-37 Electro-optical Distributed Aperture System; Lockheed Martin’s AN/AAQ-40 Electro-Optical Targeting System; and the Northrop Grumman AN/ASQ-242 Communications, Navigation, and Identification suite.

The sum of all of the advanced systems is an aircraft with better situational awareness, better command-and-control capabilities, and better network-centric capabilities than any aircraft in production. 

Harrison Kass is a defense and national security writer with over 1,000 total pieces on issues involving global affairs. An attorney, pilot, guitarist, and minor pro hockey player, Harrison joined the US Air Force as a Pilot Trainee but was medically discharged. Harrison holds a BA from Lake Forest College, a JD from the University of Oregon, and an MA from New York University. Harrison listens to Dokken.

Image Credit: Creative Commons. 

What You Need to Know: Poland is rapidly strengthening its position as a major tank power within NATO, set to receive its first M1A2 Abrams SEP V3 MBTs and additional armored support by late 2024. This follows a $6 billion purchase agreement, with Abrams tanks currently en route and Polish soldiers trained for their maintenance.

-Concurrently, Poland is receiving K2 Black Panther MBTs and K9A1 howitzers from South Korea, marking a historic multi-billion dollar deal that includes potential for domestic production under license.

-These advanced tanks will fortify Poland’s defense posture, reinforcing NATO’s eastern front against growing threats from Russia.

NATO member Poland is on track to receive its first M1A2 Abrams with the SEP V3 update before the end of 2024, and ahead of schedule. Warsaw received approval to purchase 250 of the Abrams from the U.S. State Department in February 2022. Soon after the Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA) delivered the required certification notification to Congress, altering lawmakers of the terms of the $6 billion deal.

In addition to the main battle tanks (MBTs), Poland will receive 26 M88A2 Hercules Combat Recovery vehicles, 17 M1110 joint assault bridges, 250 counter IED systems, 276 M2 .50 caliber machine guns, and assorted other small arms and ordnance – as well as other equipment, spares, training, and logistics personnel services.

The M1A2 Abrams SEP V3 MBTs are now being "transported by sea" and "are anticipated to arrive in Poland within weeks, though GDLS has withheld specific delivery dates and the number of units being shipped, citing security considerations," Army Recognition reported.

The announcement that the tanks will arrive soon comes just weeks after the first 25 Polish soldiers completed their nine-week training in maintaining the M1A2 SEPV3 Abrams tank at the newly built Army Pre-position Stocks-2 (APS-2) facility in Powidz, Poland. It is located in Powidz about 250 miles from the Ukrainian border – is a state-of-the-art depot that includes 650,000 square feet of humidity-controlled warehouse space that can be used for storage and maintenance of a variety of armored vehicles.

The M1A2s are the only MBTs set to arrive in Poland in the coming weeks, as Defence 24 reported that a shipment of K2 Black Panther tanks, along with K9A1 self-propelled howitzers, was "spotted at the Masan port in South Korea."

Those armored vehicles are part of the 69 South Korean MBTs and 124 self-propelled guns that Warsaw purchased from Seoul in another multi-billion dollar deal.

"Poland is expected to have 84 K2GF tanks and 132 K9A1 howitzers," Defence 24 added, noting previously acquired vehicles.

"More #K2BlackPanther tanks for #Poland! Seven K2s of the 9th batch were spotted loading at Masan port on October 25th. With this, #HyundaiRotem has completed the delivery of 56 K2GFs a month ahead of schedule this year, with 96 more expected next year. #FastDelivery #K2GF," South Korean open-source military analyst Hwarang announced in a post on X, the social media platform formerly known as Twitter. The K2 MBTs could be seen being loaded on freighters bound for Poland.

Poland will continue to receive the U.S. and South Korean MBTs and other vehicles through next year and likely beyond, but Warsaw's dependence on Washington and Seoul could diminish as Poland and South Korea are set to sign a deal in the coming weeks that could see the Eastern Europe nation produce the K2 under license.

The K2 Black Panther MBT was developed utilizing indigenous technology, and the initial prototype was unveiled in 2007, while production commenced for the first 100 K2 tanks in 2014. It is considered one of the most advanced MBTs in the world, outclassing any tanks in service with North Korea or even China or Russia.

Though it was designed to counter North Korea, the K2 Black Panther might be enough to deter the "Russian bear" and protect NATO's eastern flank.

Peter Suciu is a Michigan-based writer. He has contributed to more than four dozen magazines, newspapers, and websites with over 3,200 published pieces over a twenty-year career in journalism. He regularly writes about military hardware, firearms history, cybersecurity, politics, and international affairs. Peter is also a Contributing Writer for Forbes and Clearance Jobs. You can follow him on Twitter: @PeterSuciu. You can email the author: Editor@nationalinterest.org.

Image Credit: Creative Commons and/or Shutterstock.

The Israeli Knesset’s recent decision to ban the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) from Israeli territory has been met with fierce backlash from Israel’s critics, with the United Nations suggesting the decision sets a “dangerous precedent.” However, the only “dangerous precedent” here is UNRWA’s use of the guise of “humanitarian assistance” to obscure material support for terrorism. 

Failing to hold UNRWA accountable for its actions, including its support for the brutal slaughter of Israeli civilians carried out by some UNRWA officials, puts global humanitarian aid at risk by calling into question the motives and operations of true aid organizations. Accordingly, the United States should follow Israel’s lead and defund the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA).

This August, nine UNRWA staffers were fired after an investigation by the UN’s internal inspector general (OIOS) discovered they had participated in the violent October 7 terrorist attack. On one hand, UNRWA should be commended for finally publicly admitting it employed terrorists responsible for the largest massacre of Jews since the Holocaust. But the kudos should end there. For the entirety of its existence, UNRWA has funded Palestinian terrorism in Gaza, the West Bank, and Jordan. UNRWA’s antisemitic curriculum has brainwashed generations of Palestinians, encouraged a perpetual Palestinian victimhood mentality, and manipulated the international community into funding its perverse ideology.

UNRWA’s announcement of its staffers’ involvement in terrorism should not have been surprising. For years, American officials and civil society organizations have sounded the alarm, attempting to raise awareness of the perpetually dysfunctional organization. Despite America’s $7.3 billion in taxpayer-funded contributions since the program was founded, these calls for oversight fell on deaf ears. It was only the Trump administration, led by U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, that decided to take seriously the antisemitic bias, radicalization, and terrorist support within UNRWA. After a significant and thoughtful review, the administration ultimately decided to withdraw all American taxpayer support.

As one could imagine, the decision to pull funding was met with swift condemnation. Disgraced former Commissioner General Pierre Krahenbuhl, who subsequently resigned from UNRWA amid allegations of misconduct, at the time warned the Middle East would explode, the schools would close, and the Palestinians would have nowhere to go. 

Of course, this did not happen. When President Trump suspended funding to UNRWA, neighboring countries stepped in to cover the cost. There was no explosion of violence, no mass canceling of schools or camps. Instead, there was, for the first time, responsible stewardship of U.S. taxpayer contributions to an endemically corrupt organization. Furthermore, the Trump administration’s review turned up damning information about the program’s work—from the storage of weapons in UNRWA facilities to the firing of rockets from UNRWA schools to the racist propaganda and glorification of “martyrdom” in UNRWA textbooks.

Despite this evidence, when President Biden took office, he irresponsibly moved to resume funding to UNRWA—contributing a total of nearly $1.2 billion over the last three years alone. There was no budget shortfall that necessitated this action, and certainly, with a national debt of $32 trillion at the time, we could have used it here at home. How much American taxpayer support did Biden inadvertently siphon over to Hamas through the decision to refund? How many Americans’ hard-earned cash was unwittingly used to construct terror tunnels and provide other in-kind contributions to a designated terrorist entity?

UNRWA’s involvement with Hamas is a deeply serious issue that cannot be papered over. If the UN is serious about its role as a global institution, it must take the following actions.

First, accountability requires taking responsibility, and that starts at the top. Phillippe Lazzarini, the Commissioner General of UNRWA, oversees an organization in which there are reports that up to 10 percent of his staff have links to militant organizations. Both he and his hiring managers should immediately tender their resignation. There is simply no latitude that should be granted for regularly employing terrorists.

Second, the allegations against UNRWA employees are not simply dismissible offenses—they include involvement in terrorist attacks that resulted in numerous cases of rape and the murder of over 1,200 civilians. No sane country would consider “firing” an appropriate punishment for actions that aided and contributed to the murder of its citizens. Israel deserves justice, and the nine individuals determined by the OIOS investigation should immediately be turned over to Israeli authorities to face a fair trial.

Third, the OIOS must also officially publish—at least to its contributing donors—the entire results of its investigation as well as its process, showing the evidence it has both for those supposedly exonerated as well as those it has found have credible proof of involvement. Unfortunately, when your agency funnels money to terrorist organizations and employs murderers and rapists, you have no reasonable expectation that people should just trust your process.

Finally, UNRWA should conduct an assessment of how much donor aid was siphoned off to support terror tunnels, which could be as high as $1 billion. These funds should be publicly calculated and returned to donor nations whose citizens do not want their hard-earned dollars to be spent on developing underground terrorist networks. If they do not, the United States should consider designating UNRWA as a sponsor of terrorism. Certainly, if any other individual, company, or state funneled $1 billion of in-kind contributions to a designated terrorist group, that would merit this distinction. After all, the now-defunct Holy Land Foundation, which funneled $12 million—just over 1 percent of the amount UNRWA allegedly funneled to Hamas—was subsequently labeled a foreign terrorist organization, with its leaders found guilty of providing material support to terrorist organizations.

Notably, none of these solutions addresses long-standing concerns about antisemitism and radicalism promoted by UNRWA. None of these solutions addresses UNRWA’s continuous and erroneous expansion of the definition of “refugee” in a manner inconsistent with that defined for any other refugee population, thereby directly imperiling peace between Israelis and Palestinians. But should the UN want to be taken seriously in any other context and if they want to ensure nefarious actors do not use “humanitarian aid” as a screen for terrorism, they have a narrowing window to demonstrate long overdue improvements in accountability and transparency. In the meantime, the U.S. government cannot fund UNRWA. As the last decades of UNRWA’s history have shown us, UNRWA will never hold itself accountable. 

Carrie Filipetti is a former Deputy Assistant Secretary of State and former Senior Advisor to Ambassador Nikki Haley at the U.S. Mission to the UN.

Image: Chuck Kennedy / U.S. Department of State / Flickr.

As passions continue to rise in this country, it is interesting to compare our situation with that of the English Civil War (1639–1650), in which the number of dead and wounded, as a percentage of the population of the country, exceeded that of the First World War. This is astonishing when one thinks that this was “brother against brother” and “hand-to-hand” combat. Optically, it is not unlike the “Battle of the Capitol” on January 6, but much, much deadlier. Such fratricidal hatred could only arise when rival parties felt that their core identities were deeply challenged: how did this happen?

The simplistic view of the English Civil War was that it was a confrontation between a would-be autocrat, Charles I, and his Parliament over who should govern the country. The “Whig Interpretation of History” is that Parliament’s final victory represents “Progress” with a capital “P,” in that an elected body (Parliament) triumphed over a politically inept King who believed that his personal rule was ordained by God. Defeated in a succession of conflicts stretching over almost a decade, Charles paid the “ultimate price” on January 30, 1649, when he was decapitated outside the banquet hall of his Whitehall palace.

Unfortunately for poor Charles, who was not actually a bad man, especially when one considers that the men of Parliament also believed themselves to be “on a mission from God,” so on what basis did their certainty trump his certainty? Furthermore, the MPs had previously sworn allegiance to the King, who they were now executing—clearly, they were not oath-keepers—and doesn’t God rather prefer that you stick to your vows, or does even He now think that that is hopelessly old-fashioned? And it gets still worse: Charles’s truly tyrannical successor as head of state, Oliver Cromwell, once he decided to kill the King, cut Parliament down to a sliver—known to history as the “Rump Parliament”—a “killer caucus” which could not pretend that they were the majority, moral or otherwise.

In the denouement of the confrontation between the King (“Chief Executive”) and Parliament (the legislature), Charles had his finest hour, calmly and courageously questioning by what authority the soon-to-be regicides were acting, claiming that as God’s representative sent to rule England in His stead, he could not legitimately be placed on trial, and stating that the purge had removed any plausible claim that the “Rumpers” represented either God or the people.

On the day of his execution, Charles asked for two shirts to avoid trembling from the cold and being suspected of fear. At the very end, whatever his flaws, he exited bravely: one lifts one’s hat, as they lifted his head: Bravo Charles.

If all parties were claiming that God was on their side, perhaps the English Civil War is better understood not as the first modern “Revolution” (as the Whigs would have it) but as one of Europe’s “Wars of Religion”—in which different religious factions, ranging from pale Anglicans to Catholics, to Calvinist Puritans, to apocalyptic millenarians, jockeyed for power at the Palace, at Parliament, and in the various churches. Mirroring our own situation today, each of these fractions and splinters was isolated and self-amplifying within their own “bubbles,” and some of them sought aggressively to “weaponize” whatever levers of power they could grasp. 

Now, religious fractions in this country, and in particular the offspring of the Evangelical churches known as “Christian Nationalists,” are working to seize control of both the legislature and the judiciary, in the belief that white, native-born, and mostly Protestant people should maintain the dominant role in our social, cultural, and political institutions. In a period of chaos, these people seek to assert their core identities and traditions, steer the country towards something that is in keeping with their own beliefs and values, and ensure that privileges go to the “rightful” recipients themselves. This requires defining and preserving distinctions between “us” and “them,” the setting of strong boundaries to disenfranchise the “other” and deny them equal rights. Whatever economic, geographic, or ethnic issues may also be involved, “core identities” are in origin closely tied to religion, to the belief that “our God” is the “true God” and that He authorizes us to treat others as badly as we choose.

To make the case that the English Civil War was a War of Religion and to begin sketching some parallels between seventeenth-century England and contemporary America, it is first necessary to give the briefest of histories of the run-up to their Civil War. Roughly one hundred years earlier, Henry VIII, who was as spendthrift as his father had been miserly, decided that by breaking with Rome and seizing the wealth of the Catholic Church, essentially privatizing it, he could launch a vast and hitherto unimaginable asset strip.

Despite careening the Crown into multiple bankruptcies, Henry would undoubtedly have described himself as “highly successful” in business. Henry had scant respect, or at best, idiosyncratic and intermittent respect, for the human, cultural and intellectual capital that the Church had built up over its millennium in England—he was “the only one that mattered”—so he ignored the fact that the Church wasn’t just the religious backbone of the country, but also provided a vast array of services, from education, to “scrivening” (writing contracts and accounts), to keeping records and documenting history, to caring for the poor, the sick, and the elderly. In modern terms, this would be similar to having the majority of banks, law firms, accountancies, colleges, schools, hospitals, and “social services” all rolled into one giant institution, which was then seized and demolished by a self-appointed “administrator” with no clear concept of alternative structures.

There is a parallel to our situation: for decades already, large groups of modern Americans—not just in the Rust Belt—have had a similar sense of being neglected or even abandoned by the state, which seemed mostly to serve the interests of an ever-smaller elite, allowing a chasm to widen between a tiny layer of the extremely rich and the rest of the population. Ironically, the right-wing and “oligarchic” media have successfully portrayed the normal, necessary institutions of the state—the Department of Justice and FBI, the IRS, and the CIA—as organs of a “deep state” that maintains the power and position of an anti-Christian, “Liberal” middle class, and works against the interests of the “common man.” According to this trope, the deep state is intent on “weaponizing” investigative and policing capabilities against the working class. It should, therefore, either be demolished or delivered into the hands of a “ruler” who will know how to rein it in. Somehow, a significant segment of America does not see the possibility of “mere anarchy” being “loosed upon the world.”

With the Reformation now underway on the European continent, Henry entered into shifting alliances with other “Protestant” countries in an effort to forestall intervention into England’s affairs by other Catholic powers. These relationships provided a cross-fertilization regarding the theological concepts and religious practices being debated in these allied churches: “free will” versus “predestination,” of “grace” versus “acts,” and God “choosing His people” versus “loving all mankind,” to name only a few salient themes.

Most of these debates dog us to this day: do we have “free will” so that our personal decisions define the arc of our lives, or are our actions somehow predetermined, and our responsibility diminished or even eliminated? Do we have to earn illumination and redemption by our acts? Will a select few be “raptured” and the majority consigned to Hell? Do we earn our place in heaven by a lifetime of careful accumulation of moral, intellectual, and even financial capital, or is God prepared to be indulgent towards the gentle slacker and even towards the angry misfit, who never really gets much done? What was at stake in the disputes was not just the intellectual substance of belief but how these beliefs should be collectively expressed in day-to-day practice, and these differences coalesced into rival churches and then into increasingly violent antagonisms between them.

The material, visual, and musical practices of the Catholic Church, with its elaborate ceremonies and vestments, its architecture and decoration, the invocation of Saints and use of their relics, as well as its hierarchical organization and structure of authority, were now reviled by the more radical Protestant churches as “Popery,” “idolatry” and “superstition.” In England, bishops, priests, monks, and nuns were either pensioned off, co-opted into the new Anglican structure, or eliminated (often with great cruelty), and churches in the more vigorously Protestant areas were stripped of all ornament—paintings, statues, altarpieces—with extraordinary thoroughness.

Henry, his daughter Elizabeth I, and her successor James I nonetheless had a keen appreciation for the role of “image” and majestic grandeur in securing the acquiescence and support of their subjects. James I, the father of our unhappy Charles I, was from Scotland, which had been at war with England numerous times. Much of its population had migrated into the Protestant denomination known as Presbyterianism—the important organizational aspect of which was that churches (the “kirks”) elected officials (the “Presbyters”) rather than having a Bishop imposed on them by an external higher authority, whether in Rome or London. Although James was an intelligent and politically tactful man and had been educated by Presbyterians, he nonetheless believed, like Elizabeth, in episcopacy (a church hierarchy appointed by the Crown)—and famously remarked, “No bishops, no king.”

James has two conspicuous claims to fame: he assembled a group of scholars to produce the King James Version of the Bible (the favorite of many, to this day, even those who have clearly not read it), and he was the principal target of the “Gunpowder Plot,” when Guy Fawkes & Friends attempted to blow up the entire Parliament at its 1605 state opening. 

This brings us to Charles. Influenced by the Catholicism of his French queen and by William Laud, Archbishop of Canterbury, Charles believed that his own preferred denomination, a bishop-heavy High Church Anglicanism, mediated a sacramental grace that reconciled man to God and that the Church’s rituals and ceremonies brought a sustaining, saving faith. Armed with this belief, at once well-intentioned and self-serving, he set out in 1638 to create greater uniformity in both theology and the practice of religion across his three separate realms—England, Scotland, and Ireland. 

Lacking his father’s tact and acute political sense, he was surprised when this initiative was met with angry resistance. The first attempt to have Laud’s new (Anglican) Book of Common Prayer read in the (Presbyterian) St. Giles’s Cathedral in Edinburgh caused a riot when a woman named Jenny Geddes threw a stool at Archbishop Spottiswoode. When neither side backed down, this escalated into a succession of wars collectively known as the “English Civil War.” The King needed money from Parliament, which demanded political concessions in turn, leading to another irreconcilable standoff and civil war. But to get to full-fledged war, each of the sides—each of the factions—had to decide that their rivals were, in fact, enemies, challenging or denying the “foundations of their being” and that their opponents, therefore, deserved death.

Puritans maintained that the Catholic Church (and its pale copy, the Anglican Church) was the “Whore of Babylon,” working her wiles to achieve dominance at whatever price. Citing the Book of Revelation, Puritans branded the Pope and his bishops collectively as “the Antichrist,” who must be destroyed with fire and sword. Anything that resembled “Popery” must be annihilated—and this eventually included Archbishop Laud himself, who the Puritan-dominated Parliament succeeded in executing in January 1645. So much for Common Prayer.

Like our own Congress, which has become more and more dysfunctional with the growth of an initially small but intransigent, extremist minority opposed to all compromise, the rise of the Puritan faction in Parliament to a dominant position took place in stages, beginning with appeals to “constitutionalism” and the need to define the appropriate purviews of monarch and Parliament. The Puritans denied that they were conducting a “holy war” against “Popery,” reluctantly accepting that fighting to assert one’s religious beliefs had never been legitimate, going back to the origins of the faith. Christ Himself acknowledged and accepted Pontius Pilate’s right, even duty, to enforce the laws of the state he governed, that is, to arrest and execute Him. 

In the Gospels, Christ was subjected to temptation twice: once in the desert by the Devil, who offered Him all earthly power if He would bow down to him, but also by St. Peter, who was aghast when Christ told him of His imminent crucifixion, and remonstrated with Him to fight fire with divine fire, in order to save Himself. Christ’s response was the same in both instances—“Get thee behind me, Satan!” in order to make plain to both that “My Kingdom is not of this world.” His example was followed for centuries by Christian martyrs, who practiced non-resistance to persecution and even execution by their states. Fighting for one’s religion was, therefore, not only a repudiation of the ancient martyrs but also exactly what Puritans were accusing the Catholic Church of doing: corrupting Christ’s message by forcing its faith on others through violence. 

Tim Alberta’s book, The Kingdom, the Power, and the Glory, chronicles the transition that many members of the Evangelical churches in this country have made towards a gross, blasphemous distortion of Christ’s message: “my Kingdom” has become “USA! USA!”, very much “of this world.” Evidently, Trump’s careful reading of his “favorite book” did not embrace the Old Testament since he would then have had to consider whether the golden image of himself at the CPAC conference, like the Golden Calf erected while Moses climbed Mt. Sinai, might leave his people wandering in the desert for forty years, unable to enter the Promised Land.

The same failure to distinguish between temporal power and the spiritual, the urge to combine or conflate the two, emerged as the Puritan MPs wrestled with seemingly incompatible imperatives: Parliament should act only upon and for the law. Yet, the Whore of Babylon must be brought low. The answer: first, bring the law into conformity with their religious beliefs, and then enforce the (new) law so that the state would indeed promote or prosecute (the mot juste) their beliefs, but do so “legally.” The concept that Parliament should mirror the balance of power between different factions and that it should provide a forum in which each faction could represent its interests—in other words, the rough prototype of our own American system—began to slip. Within a decade, the Puritan faction achieved control by working with and for a genuine tyrant, Oliver Cromwell, and together, they made a travesty of the whole idea of Parliament.

This parallels once again our own experience: as cited by Heather Cox Richardson, an article in Slate by Mark J. Stern noted that when Mitch McConnell (R-KY) was Senate majority leader, he “realized you don’t need to win elections to enact Republican policy. You don’t need to change hearts and minds. You don’t need to push ballot initiatives or win over the views of the people. All you have to do is stack the courts. You only need 51 votes in the Senate to stack the courts with far-right partisan activists…[a]nd they will enact Republican policies under the guise of judicial review, policies that could never pass through the democratic process. And those policies will be bulletproof, because they will be called ‘law.’”

As Americans, we have enjoyed our liberty, however imperfect and unevenly offered, for the “pursuit of happiness.” In principle, we have a neutral state, separated from any particular church, which is meant to protect the rights of its citizens to conduct their lives as they see fit, in accordance with their own beliefs, tastes, and choices. In practice, however, a significant portion of the electorate is bitterly opposed to giving fully equal rights to ethnic, gender, or religious minorities.

Like the British Isles in the seventeenth century, many conservative Christians in America today are primarily concerned with living out their faith as individuals. Still, we are also paralleling early modern England with the emergence of semi-religious fragments with a powerful urge for self-assertion. The Christian Nationalist movement insists that our Constitution is founded on biblical principles (selectively chosen and painted red, white, and blue) and that America’s future success depends on a return to these beliefs. Christian Nationalism makes few calls for piety, kindness, tolerance, or high moral standards but rather exhorts its members to fight the secularists, “deviants,” and infidels who are “perverting” America. With an irrational fear or antipathy towards immigrants, it claims divine sanction for ethnocentrism and nativism, promoting white supremacy, racial subordination, and narrow “traditional” gender roles. It is symptomatic of their radical evolution away from truly Christian principles that Mike Pence, once considered pious and God-fearing amongst Evangelicals, came close to suffering Archbishop Laud’s fate.

Like the Puritans in their pre-purge Parliament, Christian Nationalists and their less rabid allies have achieved enough electoral success to produce a dysfunctional Congress. However, this assertion of their own interests at the cost of acknowledging the interests of all others runs much deeper.

The packing of the judiciary means that if our would-be “autocrat for a day” returns to power, he will have much-improved chances, compared to his first term in office, of achieving “success” when his Executive Orders are challenged in the courts. Slanted policies that are at odds with the majority opinion will have a far greater chance of standing. More immediately, and a grave threat, is that the Supreme Court has worked to delay cogent, serious indictments of the former President, deliberately facilitating his return to power.

Incontrovertible evidence of egregious wrongdoing, crimes that threaten the foundations of our existing Constitutional order, are grotesquely misrepresented as “weaponization of the justice system.” Truth, always elusive in its pure form, is nonetheless allied in its practical day-to-day approximations with “fact.” How is this country to deal with a growing acceptance that “alternative facts” are somehow “real,” and not simply falsehoods, lies, and nonsense? The ridiculous conspiracy theories of groups like “Q-Anon” in the political sphere are mirrored in the scientific realm by groups of “Anti-Vaxxers,” the “Flat Earth Society,” etc. One sometimes wonders, do these groups have reciprocal memberships?

It is a truism of the intelligence community that you can’t have a good policy—or strategy—or tactics—that are based on false information. Yet, so much of the current discourse is built on the deliberate and knowing acceptance of falsehood.

The parallels between our situation and that of seventeenth-century England abound—and so do the contrasts and ironies. Charles was devoutly religious and believed that he was God’s representative on earth. Still, he came to be reviled by some as an Antichrist and was judicially murdered by an “empowered” Puritan splinter of Parliament.

Trump, on the other hand, has no discernable religious belief or even curiosity. Despite his reliance on the support of Evangelical Christians, he does not appear to have felt it necessary to “learn a bit of their language,” his attempts to appear religious are always comically inept and betray a profound, even bottomless, ignorance. This has not stopped some of his followers from now insisting that he was sent by God to lead them in battle. As vain as he is ignorant, the apotheosis of a Dunning-Kruger “over-reacher,” Trump seems to believe them, even referring to himself as “the Chosen One.”

In the English Civil War, it was Parliament that objected, at first on a constitutionalist basis, to a King who was exceeding his powers and prerogatives. Still, as the conflict evolved, a fanatical faction within Parliament, claiming their own religious superiority, succeeded in seizing control, executing the King, and steering the country into a dictatorship. We are now confronted with the fact that half of our Congress refuses to address unambiguous evidence of wrongdoing, is unable to find any excess as “beyond the pale,” and is unwilling to check the rise to power of a desperate criminal/autocrat—his acolytes and adherents, who in 2016 were perhaps shuffling about half-heartedly, have now become so terrorized that they are actively working to subvert the Constitution, permitting any tactic of prevarication, obstruction, resistance, or denial of simple, obvious facts. 

In so doing, they are helping him to achieve dominance over their own institution: in contrast to seventeenth-century England, this time, the autocrat “wins” against the legislature. Worse still, Project 2025 is a blueprint for rejecting a state apparatus built on neutral, objective expertise—a triumph of our educational, scientific, and technological achievements over the last three centuries—in favor of subservience and loyalty to an individual who believes injections of cleaning fluid could cure COVID-19. One wonders, is there any other head of state in the entire world capable of such buffoonery?

The majority of Americans see Christian Nationalists and “ultra-conservatives” who do not endorse a pluralistic democratic system that welcomes people of all religions as a threat. Although we support an elected legislature in principle, how many of us are ready and willing in practice to take action on behalf of beleaguered, divided, gridlocked Congress? In particular, to work to convince our opponents that we are not, in fact, enemies and that the protection of the civil rights of all of us through a functional Congress that is as technocratic, meritocratic, and bipartisan as possible is not only our common salvation but also the precise intention of our Founders?

With or without Mitch McConnell, the willingness of half of our legislature to accept absurdities and non-truths, whether from politicians, extremist media, Q-Anon, random conspiracists, or even the Flat Earth Society, means that increasingly, our epistemic foundations are just “turtles all the way down.” We are right to be worried that, with such hands grasping at the tiller, the ship could eventually fall off the edge of the world.

Adam Dixon has extensive experience in Central Europe and the Former Soviet Union as a consultant, businessman, and entrepreneur, working mostly in aviation and telecommunications. He is currently working on a range of innovative military technologies, including a platform for the removal of landmines. Mr. Dixon studied at Harvard (BA 1983), Oxford (M.Phil 1988), and Leningrad State University (1986).

Image: Wikimedia Commons / Public Domain.

What You Need to Know: During WWII, five bombers stood out for their strategic impact: the American B-29 Superfortress, famed for firebombing Tokyo and delivering atomic bombs that ended the war; Britain’s Avro Lancaster, known for its heavy payload and effectiveness in decimating Nazi Germany’s infrastructure; Japan’s Mitsubishi G4M "Betty," a versatile medium and torpedo bomber with notable strikes on the British Navy; Nazi Germany’s prolific Junkers Ju 88, which saw heavy action in the Battle of Britain; and Italy’s Savoia-Marchetti SM.79, an effective Mediterranean torpedo bomber that proved formidable against Allied ships. Each left an indelible mark on WWII aerial warfare.

These admittedly highly subjective five Best Lists are virtually guaranteed to generate controversy, as no matter how much you justify your opinions with solid objective facts, some military history buff out is still going to feel miffed because their favorite warplane/warship/firearm/tank/helicopter/whatever was omitted from the list. 

That said, “Once more unto the breach, dear comrades,” as I opine on the five Best Bombers of World War II. To be more specific and help narrow things down further, I’m going to focus specifically on multi-engine bombers, as single-engine bombers such as dive bombers merit their own separate, standalone article shortly.  

Might as well start at the end, i.e. the bomber that brought WWII to an end! The b-29 did so, of course, via the atomic bombs "Little Boy" and "Fat Man" dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki by B-29s "Enola Gay" and "Bockscar" on August 6 and August 9, 1945, respectively, thereby goading Imperial Japan into surrendering and thus finally ending the Second World War. 

But even before the A-bombs, the “Superfort” was already making history by inflicting sheer destruction upon the heart of industrial Japan by more conventional bombing raids (masterminded by the late great U.S. Air Force (USAF) and U.S. Army Air Force (USAAF) Gen. Curtis E. LeMay). For example, during Operation Meetinghouse on March ninth through the tenth 1945, 324 B-29s firebombed Tokyo in what would become the most destructive air raid in history, yes, that’s right, an even higher death toll than either of the A-bomb raids. 

It ended with at least 90,000 persons killed, one million left homeless, and 267,171 buildings destroyed. 

Arguably the most revered bomber in the prestigious history of Great Britain’s Royal Air Force (RAF), the BAE Systems info page goes so far as to call the warbird “The most iconic heavy bomber of World War II.” She made her maiden flight on January 9, 1941 and was officially introduced into operational service with the RAF in February 1942. 

The Lancaster carried out the lion’s share of the British portion of the Combined Bomber Offensive (CBO) that ended up laying waste to the cities of Nazi Germany. She carried a much heavier bomb load than the B-17 Flying Fortress or the B-24 Liberator while operating at similar speeds and a slightly longer range.  

Bearing in mind former U.S. Secretary of Defense, and former U.S. Marine Corps Commandant, Jim Mattis’s sobering reminder that, “The enemy gets a vote,” it must be remembered that although the Axis eventually lost WWII, they still produced their fair share of top-notch bombers. 

Accordingly, one can make a reasonable case for the twin-engine “Betty” as Japan’s best of the bunch. Used as both a higher-altitude medium bomber and as a torpedo bomber, it was in the latter role that the so-called Hamaki performed best, sinking the pride of Britain’s Royal Navy, i.e. the battleship HMS Prince of Wales and the battlecruiser HMS Repulse with four torpedo hits apiece, in exchange for the loss of only two Hamakis and one Mitsubishi G3M Type 96. 

Sir Winston Churchill said of this event, “In all the war, I never received a more direct shock.” 

Tough choice between the Ju 88 and the Heinkel He 111 as to which was the Third Reich’s best bomber; however, going by the saying that, “Quantity has a quality all its own,” the nod would have to go to the Junkers warbird. 

The twin-engine Ju 88 ended up as the second-most produced bomber of all time, with 15,183 airframes built; these numbers were only exceeded by America’s Consolidated B-24 Liberator four-engine heavy bomber, with 18, 482 specimens made. 

This Luftwaffe bomber made her maiden flight on December 21, 1936 and officially entered into operational service with the Vaterland in 1939, which was perfect timing for the commencement of WWII. The Ju 88 did indeed manage to participate in the first official battle of the Second World War, that being the September 1939 blitzkrieg invasion of Poland, though they made a negligible impact on that particular mission. 

The ‘88s made a much bigger contribution during the Battle of France (May-June 1940). 

Of course, it was during the Battle of Britain that the Ju 88 garnered its biggest claim to fame. That fame, however, came at a terrible price: between July and October 1940, 303 of the ‘88s went down in flames, thus constituting a 15.3 percent chunk of the 1,977 total Luftwaffe aircraft losses for the ill-fated campaign. 

The quality of Italian fighting machines tends to get overlooked, as Benito Mussolini’s Fascist Italy was the first Axis power to capitulate, which in turn led to the prevailing popular misconception that Italian troops were cowards. 

So then, it’s not surprising that the three-engine Sparviero, though arguably the most famous Italian airplane in WWII on the one hand, is the least well-known warbird on this list comparatively speaking, which is a damn shame, as it was an excellent medium bomber and torpedo bomber. Making her maiden flight on September 28, 1934, she was well-liked by its crews, who nicknamed her il gobbo maledetto due to the distinctive dorsal "hump" of the fuselage. 

As noted by Aaron Spray of Simple Flying, “Commando Supremo claims it is considered one of the most lethal Italian aircraft of the war and successfully damaged and sunk dozens of Allied ships in the Mediterranean Sea and was one of the finest land-based torpedo bombers of the war…While U-boats inflicted the greater damage to the Royal Navy, SM.79s are credited with sinking the destroyers HMS Fearless, HMS Bedouin, and HMAS Nestor, an Australian destroyer. They also damaged Royal Navy cruisers and the aircraft carrier HMS Indomitable in July 1943, just before Italy exited the war.”  

Christian D. Orr is a Senior Defense Editor for National Security Journal (NSJ). He is a former Air Force Security Forces officer, Federal law enforcement officer, and private military contractor (with assignments worked in Iraq, the United Arab Emirates, Kosovo, Japan, Germany, and the Pentagon). Chris holds a B.A. in International Relations from the University of Southern California (USC) and an M.A. in Intelligence Studies (concentration in Terrorism Studies) from American Military University (AMU). He has also been published in The Daily Torch , The Journal of Intelligence and Cyber Security, and Simple Flying. Last but not least, he is a Companion of the Order of the Naval Order of the United States (NOUS). 

Image Credit: Creative Commons and/or Shutterstock.

What You Need to Know: The top five WWII aircraft carriers—chosen for their strategic impact and bravery—include the iconic USS Enterprise (CV-6) for its extensive combat achievements and resilience, and the British HMS Ark Royal (91), instrumental in key victories like the sinking of the Bismarck.

-Japan’s Hiryu represented the fierce capability of the Imperial Japanese Navy, notably at Midway. “Taffy 3,” an entire task unit of six escort carriers, triumphed against all odds at Leyte Gulf. Lastly, HMS Illustrious stood out for its versatility and long service across both Mediterranean and Pacific theaters.

-Each demonstrated exceptional resolve in one of history’s most intense conflicts.

Five Best Lists are virtually guaranteed to generate controversy, as 

(1) they’re admittedly highly subjective, though I always do my damnedest to back my expressed opinions with solid objective facts.

(2) someone’s always guaranteed to get butthurt because their favorite plane/gun/ship/tank/whatever was omitted from the list. 

That said, “Once more unto the breach, dear comrades,” as I open on what Yours Truly considers to be the Aircraft Carriers of World War II.  

Might as well start with the most successful warship of the bunch; the “Big E,” AKA “The Grey Ghost,” not to be confused with either the British ocean liner Queen Mary’s WWII troopship alter ego or American Civil War raider John S. Mosby, not to mention the warship that inspired the nickname of a certain starship from a rather popular sci-fi franchise.  

Allow me to quote my colleague, Harrison Kass, “When the Japanese finally capitulated, after the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the Enterprise’s guns/planes had shot down 911 enemy aircraft, sunk seventy-one ships, and damaged and destroyed 192 more...The Enterprise was even the first American ship to sink a full-sized Japanese warship in the Pacific Theater, the submarine I-70. In total, The Enterprise finished the war with twenty battle stars, more than any other warship during the war.” 

As for that “Grey Ghost” nickname, that was inspired by the fact that she was erroneously declared sunk by Hideki Tojo’s propaganda machine on three separate occasions. 

Pretty hard to argue with that body of work, eh?  

Arguably the most revered aircraft carrier in the prestigious history of Great Britain’s Royal Navy, because the RN still commemorates her loss every year. As with the USS Enterprise, Ark Royal had a fictitious pop culture icon nexus, as she was the vessel that James Bond served on, long before he embarked on his, rather paradoxical-sounding, career as “The World’s Most Famous Secret Agent.” 

Making history right off the bat as Britain’s first purpose-built fleet carrier, she had a short lifespan of just under three years from her December 1938 commissioning to her November 1941 sinking by the Kriegsmarine’s U-81. 

Yet in that short time, she accomplished a lot, especially her participation in the sinking of the feared German battleship Bismarck. Ark Royal also played an indirect role in the destruction of the pocket battleship Graf Spee, joined in the first U-boat kill of the war, and proved essential in protecting supply convoys to Malta. 

Lest anyone accuse me of being either too America-centric, or too Western-centric, rest assured that I never forget former U.S. Secretary of Defense (and former U.S. Marine Corps Commandant) Jim Mattis’s sobering reminder that, “The enemy gets a vote.” 

Although the Axis eventually lost WWII, they still produced their fair share of successful carriers. At least the IJN did, anyway, the Nazi German Kriegsmarine’s lone flattop, the Graf Zeppelin, had a pretty inauspicious career.

Accordingly, one can make a reasonable case for the “Flying Dragon.” Even before Imperial Japan officially entered WWII, Hiryu’s crew was “bloodied” in combat, as her aircraft participated in the September 1940 invasion of French Indochina. Then of course came the vessel’s role in WWII proper as a key participant in the Pearl Harbor raid, followed shortly thereafter by Wake Island, and the conquest of the Dutch East Indies. 

Last but not least, there’s the Battle of Midway. Surviving the initial onslaught that annihilated her fellow IJN carriers Akagi, Kaga, and Soryu, coincidentally herself a “Dragon” ship, as in “Blue Dragon”, the Hiryu got in a few final licks before herself being finally sunk by USN Douglas Dauntless dive bombers; her dive bombers and torpedo bombers severely damaged the USS Yorktown, setting the stage for the “Fighting Lady” to be finished off by the IJN submarine I-168. 

I’m going employ some outside-the-box thinking here by giving one of my Top five awards to an entire group of “flattops” instead of an individual carrier; this group merits its place on this list by punching far above its weight and winning against impossible odds: the six itty-bitty escort carriers (CVEs, AKA “baby flattops” or “jeep carriers”) of Task Unit 77.4.3, better known as "Taffy III": USS Fanshaw Bay, St. Lo, White Plains, Kalinin Bay, Kitkun Bay, and Gambier Bay. It was during the Battle of Samar phase of the Battle of Leyte Gulf on October 25, 1944 that Taffy III, under the command of Rear Admiral Clifton “Ziggy” Sprague, cemented its place in history.  

These six “jeep carriers,” along with three destroyers (DDs), four tiny destroyers escorts (DEs), and 322 aircraft, miraculously prevailed over seemingly hopeless odds facing Force A of IJN Vice Admiral Takeo Kurita’s 2nd Fleet consisting of four battleships – including the Yamato, THE most powerful battleship ever built: six heavy cruisers, two light cruisers, and eleven destroyers.

In exchange for the loss of St. Lo and Gambier Bay along with two DDs, one DE, and twenty-three planes, the outmanned and outgunned American force sank three heavy cruisers, damaged two battleships, three more heavy cruisers, and one destroyer, and inflicted 2,700 Japanese casualties.  

Many thanks to my colleague Peter Suciu for the inspiration here. 

For the sheer breadth of her career, Illustrious is the most impressive of the bunch, as she served in the Mediterranean and the Pacific Theatres of WWII. In the former, she participated in the Battle of Taranto in late 1940, wherein her aircraft sank an Italian battleship and badly damaged two others. In the latter, she launched strikes against the Japanese-occupied Dutch East Indies in 1944 and later participated in the Battle of Okinawa. 

Christian D. Orr is a Senior Defense Editor for National Security Journal (NSJ). He is a former Air Force Security Forces officer, Federal law enforcement officer, and private military contractor (with assignments worked in Iraq, the United Arab Emirates, Kosovo, Japan, Germany, and the Pentagon). Chris holds a B.A. in International Relations from the University of Southern California (USC) and an M.A. in Intelligence Studies (concentration in Terrorism Studies) from American Military University (AMU). He has also been published in The Daily Torch , The Journal of Intelligence and Cyber Security, and Simple Flying. Last but not least, he is a Companion of the Order of the Naval Order of the United States (NOUS). 

Image Credit: Creative Commons and/or Shutterstock

The decision to have the seventh Nimitz-class nuclear-powered aircraft carrier for the late Senator John C. Stennis of Mississippi continues to be controversial. The same certainly can't be said of the U.S. Navy's Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyer named to honor Medal of Honor winner John Basilone.

The sea service accepted delivery of the warship on July 8, and this coming Saturday USS John Basilone (DDG-122) will be officially commissioned at a ceremony in New York City.

"The ship honors United States Marine Corps Gunnery Sergeant John Basilone, who received the Medal of Honor for his heroism during the Battle of Guadalcanal in 1942. He was killed in action during the February 1945 invasion of Iwo Jima and was posthumously awarded the Navy Cross. Basilone is the only enlisted Marine to be honored with both the Navy Cross and the Medal of Honor," the U.S. Navy explained.

The Flight IIA Arleigh Burke-class destroyer will serve in a multi-mission surface combatant capacity – able to conduct Anti-Air Warfare (AAW), Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW), and Anti-Surface Warfare (ASuW). In March, the future USS John Basilone transited the Kennebec River from the Bath Iron Works facility to the Atlantic Ocean and completed four days of at-sea trails.

DDG-122 will be the second warship named to honor Basilone, following the Gearing-class destroyer USS Basilone (DD-824), which was commissioned in 1949 and served with the U.S. Navy until it was decommissioned in 1977­earning three battle stars for service during the Vietnam War.

Although the future USS John Basilone hasn't officially been commissioned, photos shared by General Dynamics Bath Iron Works and posted on X last week showed the warship flying a battle flag as the warship departed Maine.

The flag features the official unit crest, which is noted for including crossed Browning M1917 water-cooled machine guns over a blue diamond – to denote that Basilone served as a machine gunner with the 1st Marine Division. During the Battle of Guadalcanal, he led two machine gun sections of the 1st Battalion, 7th Marines, 1st Marine Division, and employed the M1917 against a charge of Japanese forces.

His actions, which were depicted in the hit HBO series The Pacific, earned him the Medal of Honor. As noted in the mini-series, Basilone had returned home to a hero's welcome. Instead of receiving the award from President Franklin D. Roosevelt at the White House – he opted instead to receive it at a small ceremony with his men, stating that only part of this media belongs to me… pieces of it belong to the boys who are still on Guadalcanal."

As Military.com reported, Basilone was offered a commission, but declined, and then requested to return to combat. He was killed in action on February 19, 1945, leading an assault on Iwo Jima. In addition to the Medal of Honor, Gunnery Sergeant John Basilone was posthumously awarded the Navy Cross­becoming the only enlisted Marine to earn both medals.

Peter Suciu is a Michigan-based writer. He has contributed to more than four dozen magazines, newspapers, and websites with over 3,200 published pieces over a twenty-year career in journalism. He regularly writes about military hardware, firearms history, cybersecurity, politics, and international affairs. Peter is also a Contributing Writer for Forbes and Clearance Jobs. You can follow him on Twitter: @PeterSuciu. You can email the author: Editor@nationalinterest.org.

Image Credit: Creative Commons and/or Shutterstock.