Diplomacy & Crisis News

Patrick M. Cronin, Audrey Kurth Cronin

Security, Americas

The Trump administration’s woeful response to many threats, but especially the coronavirus pandemic, demonstrates that dealing with tomorrow’s bioterror threat must be a national security priority.

Despite creating the U.S. Space Force and Operation Warp Speed, the Trump administration failed to back U.S. expertise, so millions of Americans suffered as a result of the administration’s shortcomings. President-elect Joe Biden can reverse this with a bold new initiative to build U.S. know-how and skills for the twenty-first century. As John F. Kennedy mobilized all Americans for the space age, Joe Biden can call on all of us to create a knowledge society. 

America’s Pandemic Response—Not the Coronavirus—Is Key 

The groundwork has been laid. The key is that America’s response to the pandemic must be larger than this particular scourge.

Biden’s campaign elevated science to combat the global pandemic overwhelming the country. His first post-election act established a Covid-19 Advisory Board to contain America’s worst health crisis and humanitarian disaster. Appointing a trio of renowned co-chairs and diverse experts, the president-elect signaled that the day when people’s lives are secondary to personal ego and political gain will soon end.

Even great experts cannot make the coronavirus vanish overnight. Beyond therapeutics and vaccines, the logistics of inoculating a large population, many of whom could fall prey to anti-vaxxer misinformation, remains a challenge. Rallying former presidents to demonstrate that the vaccine is safe will help fill the vacuum of scientific leadership under outgoing President Donald Trump. But inoculating the public against anti-science attitudes is even more important than delivering the shots. 

Science Can Cure U.S. National Security Policy 

Science and knowledge can also help cure the maladies afflicting U.S. foreign and defense policy.

Beyond America’s shores, it now looks like an ignorant superpower, which is a perception that must be changed. Some of America’s closest allies think it unexceptional because of the mishandling of the coronavirus crisis. After combating the virus, a presidency dedicated to knowledge can move on to other policy priorities, including climate change, major-power competition, and combating tomorrow’s terrorism. By stating his intention to rejoin the Paris agreement on climate change and the World Health Organization, Biden declares U.S. support for both science and international engagement. Globalism is not an unalloyed good, but in an age of global problems, the United States ignores the world at its peril.

Re-engaging with allies and international institutions will allow America to regain its stature in the world. By working with other democracies, Biden can ensure that America’s values are baked into emerging standards and the regulatory scaffolding around privacy and data collection. Digital technology should advance freedom of thought rather than suffocate it by enabling the rise of oppressive surveillance states.

Resurgent great-power competition gravitates around technology. Biden’s advisers understand that the U.S.-China relationship is too crucial for America to allow it to fail. Thus, it must wage “competition without catastrophe.” Yet, Biden must not concede technological dominance to Beijing, which seeks to lead on 5G telecommunications, artificial intelligence, quantum computing, and other high-tech frontiers. Fortunately, outstanding bipartisan studies and proposed legislation offer blueprints, including the National Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence; the Endless Frontier Act to enhance basic research and technology; and the Cyberspace Solarium Commission. The Biden administration can stabilize relations with China while competing in science and technology (S&T).  

S&T will also play a prominent role in U.S. defense modernization by building a small, smart, and affordable force. The Biden administration’s defense team needs to wisely adopt fourth industrial revolution advancements in autonomy, artificial intelligence, and nanotechnology into the nation’s arsenal. The U.S. military force structure must graduate from and transform our expensive and exquisite twentieth-century systems. 

Yet the same technology promising unprecedented breakthroughs poses untold future threats in the hands of irresponsible humans. For example, rapid progress in bioengineering, including CRISPR technology for editing genomes, could yield unintended consequences if unmoored from ethical constraints. America’s woeful response to the pandemic demonstrates that dealing with tomorrow’s bioterror threat must be a national security priority. 

S&T Can Unlock Political Gridlock

Despite Biden’s desire to heal the “soul of the nation,” his goodwill will not expunge U.S. political polarization. Faced with a surging pandemic, a K-shaped economic recession and recovery, a ramshackle infrastructure, a rival like China bent on technological hegemony, and an underperforming education system, Biden can inspire all Americans to respond to the challenge by learning new skills. Broader S&T literacy—covering everything from education to research and development to economic and military modernization—can improve bipartisanship.

To thrive, Americans must replace extreme arguments with pragmatism. The same rifts regarding anti-coronavirus mask-wearing hamper climate change discourse. Climate alarmists who push a green new deal and climate deniers who peddle dangerous myths will not hear each other. Biden can assemble a new political coalition, finding common ground with enough Republicans to invest in science and new technologies to lower emissions and drive a modern economy. 

 Scientific Literary is Necessary but Insufficient 

As First Lady, Dr. Jill Biden will bring personal experience as a professor of English and writing.  She can boost badly needed science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education at all levels, with an equal push to study human behavior, regional studies, civics, and ethics. The academy needs better linkages between the sciences and the humanities. Not every American needs to learn how to code or evaluate drug trials, but America does need to rebuild a literate, educated citizenry that can recognize expertise and objective facts. 

Congress should get involved.  Just as the 1958 National Defense Education Act catalyzed a generation capable of putting a man on the moon, a similar act is required today. A Knowledge Society National Security Act could open opportunities for all Americans to learn the hard and soft skills critical to confronting human problems, ranging from disease and global warming to countering disinformation and the malign uses of emerging technologies. 

Building Back Better with Knowledge

In his inaugural address on January 20, Biden might echo sentiments of Kennedy, who sixty years ago advocated civility and summoned Americans to reach for a New Frontier. “Let both sides seek to invoke the wonders of science instead of its terrors,” he said. “Together let us explore the stars, conquer the deserts, eradicate disease, tap the ocean depths, and encourage the arts and commerce.”

In a similar vein, Biden can bridge our fractured polity and inspire all Americans to stretch toward the future. Francis Bacon is credited with the phrase “knowledge is power” (scientia potentia est). For Biden, power is knowledge, and presidential power can propel a dynamic new American knowledge society.

Dr. Patrick M. Cronin is the Asia-Pacific Security Chair at Hudson Institute.

Dr. Audrey Kurth Cronin is Professor of International Security and founding director of the Center for Security, Innovation, and New Technology at American University's School of International Service; her book, Power to the People: How Open Technological Innovation is Arming Tomorrow’s Terrorists earned the 2019/2020 Neave Book Prize.

Image: Reuters

Peter Suciu

History, Americas

It was a tank that could do some hard-hitting and wouldn't need to run from a fight.

Here's What You Need To Remember: In the late 1940s and early 1950s, there was fear in Washington over the Soviet Union's superiority in armored warfare. The Chrysler M103 was certainly not an ideal weapon - but it helped to alleviate those fears.

When the tank was originally conceived during the First World War by the "Landship Committee," the concept was to have a lumbering vehicle that would be truly massive in size. That proved to be impractical—but as tank development continued tanks of different sizes were devised. This included light tanks able to scout and exploit breakthroughs, while a medium tank would offer firepower and mobility.

The bulk of most tanks used during the Second World War fell into the medium tank category, but Germany and the Soviet Union also fielded "heavy tanks," which could dominate the battlefield, taking out bunkers and fortifications while being able to stand up to the smaller tanks that attempted to stop them. The United States lacked such a tank, and during the war its M4 Sherman medium tank, while more than adequate when it entered service in 1942, couldn't stand up to the more powerful German tanks such as the Tiger.

Even the M26 Pershing wasn't heavy enough to withstand the Tiger and Panther. The development of a new heavy tank began for the next war even as the conflict in Europe was winding down.

This was because there was a real concern that the Soviet heavy tanks would be just as hard to stop as anything the German's had, maybe even more so. The IS-3 and IS-4—which the Soviets built due to Premier Josef Stalin's obsession for heavy tanks and thus named for him—worried American planners. These were heavy in every sense of the word, with strong front armor and a 122mm gun.

To address the threat from those Soviet behemoths came the T43E1, which was developed out of a series of prototypes built in 1953-54 at Chrysler's Newark, Delaware tank plant. Production ramped up even as the Korean War ended.

A total of three hundred tanks were produced and these were designed as "Tank, Combat, Full Tracked, 120mm, M103" – but known simply as the M103. It is notable too that no nickname was ever assigned to the tank.

As its official name implied, however, it had a powerful 120mm M58 main gun, which was fitted in the M89 turret mount. The tank was as well armored as it was armed, with upwards of five inches of hull armor at the front. It weighed 62 tons, and had a crew of five. It was a tank that could do some hard-hitting and wouldn't need to run from a fight.

Yet, like most heavy tanks, the size meant some compromises. The M103 had a maximum speed of just 21mph and only a range of 80 miles. It could pack a punch but it wouldn't exactly get into or out of a fight quickly, and that fight couldn't be all that far away.

Because the M103 was rushed into service it didn't entirely meet the needs of the U.S. Army, which operated eighty of the original T43E1 models – of which seventy-four were converted to the M103 standard. Instead, while it was the Army that had sought the tank, the U.S. Marines operated 220 of the T43E1s, with 219 converted to M103A1 of which 154 were further rebuilt as the M103A2. The former upgrade included a new Stereoscopic T42 sight, M14 ballistic computer and new turret electric amplidyne system traverse with a turret basket. The M103A2 upgrade, which took place in 1964, added a new 750 hp diesel engine that provided better range a top speed. The M24 Coincidence Rangefinder also replaced the older rangefinder.

The M103 served with the USMC until 1972 and reportedly none ever left American soil. It was replaced by the M60, and thus ended the American experiment to develop a true heavy tank.

As a footnote, only twenty-five of the original three hundred M103 tanks are preserved in museums around the world, including one at the Tank Museum in Bovington in the UK.

Peter Suciu is a Michigan-based writer who has contributed to more than four dozen magazines, newspapers and website. He is the author of several books on military headgear including A Gallery of Military Headdress, which is available on Amazon.com.

This article first appeared in 2020.

Image: Wikimedia Commons.

More From The National Interest: 

Russia Has Missing Nuclear Weapons Sitting on the Ocean Floor 

How China Could Sink a U.S. Navy Aircraft Carrier 

Where World War III Could Start This Year

Peter Suciu

Security, World

The company was founded in 1526—just over thirty years since Columbus “discovered” America.

Here's What You Need To Remember: At nearly five hundred, the company is certainly the oldest modern arms manufacturer in the world - and still as good as ever.

There is no denying that Italians are often called lovers, not fighters, and have a reputation for taking long vacations and not working much. However, the folks at Fabbricad’Armi Pietro Beretta would have reason to dispute that fact. The company was founded in 1526—just over thirty years since Columbus “discovered” America—making it among the oldest companies in continuous operation, the oldest family-owned business and certainly one of the oldest firearms makers in the world.

While the company has been known for centuries for its finely made firearms including hunting rifles and shotguns, it has had long ties to the militaries of the world. According to the company, it first made cannon barrels for the Venetian fleet, which were used in the Battle of Lepanto in 1571 and Beretta has supplied weapons for every major European war since the middle of the seventeenth century.

During World War I, the Beretta Model 1918 was one of the first submachine guns—and it is still debated whether it was fielded before the German MP18. During the fascist era, it produced weapons for the Royal Italian Army, including the Modello 38 (Model 38), an innovative submachine gun. Instead of having a fire-selector, it featured two triggers—one for semi-automatic and the other for full-automatic fire. That weapon, which was chambered for the 9x19-millimeter Parabellum round, was also used by German Waffen-SS as well as by the Romanian Army and saw postwar use in the Algerian War and the Congo Crisis.

The 9-millimeter Beretta 92 pistol had the unique distinction of being the handgun that replaced the venerable Colt M1911 .45 pistol. It was selected as the service handgun for the U.S. military under the designation of “M9 Pistol.” The Italian firearms maker provided the first 450,000 pistols in January 1945 after a contentious competition that had dragged on for the better part of a decade.

However, since its introduction, the Beretta has been seen to have several disadvantages including the size and weight, while its exposed locking block, which can fail and needs replacing every five thousand rounds, has also been seen as a serious issue. For those and other reasons in the mid-2010s, the Army began to seek a replacement, even as Beretta unveiled its newly redesigned M9A3.

Beretta claimed that the new pistol solved many of the problems with the older models. “The M9A3 Beretta looks like a futuristic, high tech version of its Reagan-era ancestor—which of course it is. The A3 is finished in a three-tone black, coyote, and flat dark earth scheme, unlike the flat black of the M9, a bit of marketing that reflects the type of environment U.S. forces have been fighting in for the last seventeen years,” according to Kyle Mizokami.

The A3 has “harder lines” than the original Beretta, along with a flattened mainspring housing that eliminated the bulge along the backstrap, creating a more angular grip reminiscent of the M1911A1. However, that wasn't enough to keep the U.S. Army interested but the M9A3 is available on the civilian market. 

While Beretta’s day with the U.S. military may be coming to an end, this company has seen the unification of Italy, the rise and fall of Benito Mussolini, endured countless wars and even Italian socialism. Beretta will likely be around when today’s firearms are thus dead and buried.

Peter Suciu is a Michigan-based writer who has contributed to more than four dozen magazines, newspapers and websites. He is the author of several books on military headgear including A Gallery of Military Headdress, which is available on Amazon.com. This article first appeared earlier this year.

Image: Wikimedia Commons.

Peter Suciu

History, Asia

In the 1930s as Japan became more nationalist and more imperialist the bushido – "the way of the warrior" – was revived and Japan's military moved away from European style sabers for ceremony to a sword that resembled the samurai katana.

Here's What You Need To Remember: The decision was more cultural than tactical - but the swords did serve a military purpose, and sometimes a gruesome one.

It is a scene from World War II movies and comic books; seeming fanatical Japanese soldiers charging out of the jungle wielding a "samurai" sword, swinging widely and yelling "banzai." It isn't actually Hollywood or comic book fiction, however.

The "banzai" war cry began as a generic cheer uttered by soldiers and civilians alike, as the word literally means "ten thousand years." It had long been used in Japan to indicate joy or a wish for long life and during the war was used in celebration. Often the soldiers yelled "Tenno Heika Banzai," which roughly translated to "long live the Emperor." The war cry took up new meaning as the tide turned against the Japanese forces, which made the so-called "banzai charges" – the last-ditch attacks, which may have almost seemed futile in retrospect.

And during those charges, it was common for an NCO or officer to draw his curved sword and lead the attack. While thousands of these swords were certainly captured in the field, untold thousands more were surrendered to the Allies at the end of the war and given to U.S. and other Allied soldiers, including those who had been prisoners of the Japanese. The Japanese swords were among the most common "war trophy" from the Pacific campaigns of the Second World War, and even today these are misidentified as "samurai swords."

The swords may have the appearance, as well as many of the features, as the famed katana swords that were carried by the samurai, but apart from some few "ancestral blades" that were refitted with new hardware, the swords were in no way linked to the samurai class of earlier historic periods of Japan. The samurai, which had been part of the powerful military caste in Japan for centuries, rose to power in the 12th century. However, the Meiji Restoration of 1868 led to the abolition of the feudal system. While they were relieved of their traditional privileges, many samurai did enter the elite ranks of politics and industry in Japan.

In the 1930s as Japan became more nationalist and more imperialist the bushido – "the way of the warrior" – was revived and Japan's military moved away from European style sabers for ceremony to a sword that resembled the samurai katana.

The Imperial Japanese Army's "shin gunton" – meaning new pattern – replaced the western style "kyu gunto." The quality of the blades varied greatly. Some reused old blades, and this was common of higher-ranked officers whose ancestors may have been members of the samurai class, while some officers of means (who weren't of the old guard) opted for hand-made swords that were made by such famous smiths as the Yasukuni Shrine, the Gassan School and Ichihara Nagamitsu among others.

For the vast majority of officers and almost all NCOs the blades were machine-made and produced before the war in Germany and even in the UK. While officer's swords typically featured a traditional rayskin and a wooden base with a cloth wrapping, the NCO swords' handles were cast brass or aluminum. As the war progressed the quality of the swords suffered. The late war swords featured simpler mounts and nearly all were machine-made. Even the officer's handles featured simple wooden hilts.

While most of the swords lacked the craftsmanship of the earlier katanas, the swords still proved quite deadly. In 1937 during Japan's campaign in China, two officers – Tsuyoshi Noda and Toshiaki Mukai – reportedly took part in a gruesome contest to see who could kill 100 enemy soldiers with their swords. It has been questioned if such a contest took part, but both men were tried and executed as war criminals.

After the war, Japanese soldiers were required to surrender all arms, which included swords. There were many special ceremonies where the swords were surrendered and these were held in Japan as well as in many previously occupied areas. It has been reported that many of the soldiers who had taken their family blades to war would eventually have the swords returned. Over the years this has created some controversy as those blades were considered family heirlooms and have become especially valuable. The debate as to whether those should have been consider legitimate war trophies or priceless art objects continues to this day.

Peter Suciu is a Michigan-based writer who has contributed to more than four dozen magazines, newspapers and websites. He is the author of several books on military headgear including A Gallery of Military Headdress, which is available on Amazon.com. This article first appeared in 2020.

Image: Wikimedia Commons.

More From The National Interest: 

Russia Has Missing Nuclear Weapons Sitting on the Ocean Floor 

How China Could Sink a U.S. Navy Aircraft Carrier 

Where World War III Could Start This Year

A gaggle of progressive groups are trying to line up candidates for top foreign-policy roles in the incoming administration.

Peter Suciu

Security, Americas

When it comes to military hardware rarely does a "one-size fits all approach" work, especially across services, but the F-35 could truly be the exception to the rule.

Here's What You Need To Remember: The F-35 isn't exactly purpose-built; it's been designed as a multi-role fighter. This could be a problem - it's usually better to have multiple single-purpose jets than one that can fill all roles less well. However, the F-35 is such an excellent plane that it might not matter.

When is a new plane actually three planes? Answer: when it is the F-35 Lightning II, a fifth-generation fighter that combines advanced stealth with fighter speed and agility. Three variants of the F-35 will be produced and these are meant to replace the United States Air Force's A-10 and F-16, the United States Navy's F/A-18, and the United States Marines Corps F/A-18 and AV-8B Harrier.

The single-engine, single-seat plane is unique in that it can also operate as a conventional-takeoff-and-landing (CTOL) variant for the USAF while the Navy version will operate from an aircraft carrier (CV). The United States Marine Corps, along with the UK's Royal Air Force and Royal Navy, will utilize an F-35 that can operate as a short-takeoff/vertical landing (STOVL) fighter.

The aircraft was developed, produced and supported by an international team at prime contractor Lockheed Martin, with support from principal partners including Northrop Grumman, Pratt & Whitney and BAE Systems.

The F-35, which was born out of the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program, addresses key issues facing the United States military along with those of its allied fighter fleets, which have gotten both smaller and older. The USAF has fewer fighters than it did during the Cold War, while on average many of its current fighter aircraft are twenty-five-years-old.

As a fifth-generation fighter, the F-35 provides advanced stealth along with improved agility and maneuverability, plus better sensor and information fusion, network-enabled operations and advanced sustainment. This makes the F-35 among the world's most advanced multi-role fighters flying today. It has a range of 1,200 nautical miles, and can reach speeds of upwards of Mach 1.6 (1,200 mph). It is powered by F135-PW-100 engines that provide 40,000lb. of maximum propulsion.

The stealth, multirole fighter's armament includes a 25mm GAU-22/A 4-barrel rotary cannon with 180 rounds of ammunition. There are four internal and six external stations on the wings. It can carry a variety of air-to-air missiles, air-to-surface missiles, anti-ship missiles and bombs. In a "stealth mode" it can infiltrate enemy territory and carry 5,700 pounds of internal ordnance, and in its "beast mode" it can carry up to 22,000 pounds of combined internal and external weapons.

The F-35 features advanced electronic warfare (EW) capabilities that allow the pilots to locate and track enemy forces. In addition, the pilots can jam radars and disrupt threats, while the advanced avionics give the pilot real-time access to battlespace information that includes 360-degree coverage of the tactical environment. In addition, data collected by the fighter's sensors will be shared with commanders at sea, in the air or on the ground. This provides real-time data on the combat situation, which makes the F-35 a true force multiplier during collation operations.

When it comes to military hardware rarely does a "one-size fits all approach" work, especially across services, but the F-35 could truly be the exception to the rule.

Peter Suciu is a Michigan-based writer who has contributed to more than four dozen magazines, newspapers and website. He is the author of several books on military headgear including A Gallery of Military Headdress, which is available on Amazon.com. This article first appeared in early 2020.

Image: Wikimedia Commons.

More From The National Interest: 

Russia Has Missing Nuclear Weapons Sitting on the Ocean Floor 

How China Could Sink a U.S. Navy Aircraft Carrier 

Where World War III Could Start This Year

Peter Suciu

Security, Eurasia

More hype from Moscow? Or the real deal?

Here's What You Need to Know: The Avangard is still just one component of Russia’s large arsenal of such weapons.

Exactly how serious a threat Russia's Avangard hypersonic intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) is to the United States isn't entirely clear. The ICBM is reported to have both hypersonic speed and an ability to fly a “maneuvering” flight path through the atmosphere. Such a combination would make it considerably difficult to counter. 

It can reportedly cruise at twenty-seven times the speed of sound and its ability to maneuver could make it almost impossible to correctly predict its trajectory, which provides the ICBM with the ability to protect itself from air and ballistic missile defenses that try to impede its path.  

“The United States has practically no chances to resist the Avangard, since, in the event of large-scale hostilities, Russia will attack a potential enemy with all available weapons,” Maj. Gen. Vladimir Popov, honored military pilot of the Russian Federation and candidate of technical sciences, was quoted by the Eurasian Times earlier this month.

“In this case, the defensive complexes will not be able to identify all targets,” Popov added. “Among the attackers, there will be false missiles without charges as well as electronic interference due to electronic warfare. Among the many attacking missiles, some will still reach their destination.”

The news outlet, which suggested that Beijing has praised the fact that Russia’s nuclear-tipped hypersonic ICBMs, could “devastate” U.S. defenses, also noted that the United States and Russian Federation remain very much in parity, while other nations cannot yet catch up.

The Avangard is still just one component of Russia’s large arsenal of such weapons, which include 528 land- and submarine-based ICBMs, plus nuclear weapons on bombers. America’s missile defenses have only focused on intercepting a handful of ICBMs launched by a small power like North Korea. 

“The air and missile defense system of the United States is very strong,” Popov added. “It cannot be written off and underestimated; we are talking about a deeply echeloned engineering network. It is thought out and protects the most important regions of the country.”

U.S. Response 

The development of such weapons may not give America's adversaries a significant advantage, however. Should U.S. nuclear launchers, ICBMs or even land-launched, nuclear-armed strategic bombers be rendered ineffective or destroyed, the United States still has available options with which to retaliate; including measures via the U.S. Navy’s nuclear-armed ballistic missile submarines.   

In addition, the United States is continuing to develop weapons that could be seen as a deterrent against the use of the Avangard and other ICBMs. Earlier this month, the U.S. Air Force announced that it had awarded Northrup Grumman a $13.3 billion Engineering and Manufacturing Development contract for the Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD) intercontinental ballistic missile program.

Moreover, in June, President Donald Trump addressed the fact that the United States military has its own hypersonic missile.

“We are building new ships, bombers, jet fighters, and helicopters by the hundreds; new tanks, military satellites, rockets, and missiles; even a hypersonic missile that goes seventeen times faster than the fastest missile currently available in the world and can hit a target one thousand miles away within fourteen inches from center point,” the president said during his address at the 2020 United States Military Academy at West Point Graduation Ceremony.

While the president’s description of the accuracy of the United States’ hypersonic missiles has been called into question, it remains very much true that the U.S. military won’t allow any nation to gain such an upper hand when it comes to ICBMs. 

Peter Suciu is a Michigan-based writer who has contributed to more than four dozen magazines, newspapers and websites. He is the author of several books on military headgear including A Gallery of Military Headdress, which is available on Amazon.com. 

This article first appeared earlier this year.

Image: YouTube / Russian Ministry of Defense

Moving quickly to resurrect the JCPOA, as Biden seems set to do, would start his presidency with a hugely divisive controversy.

Peter Suciu

History, Asia

The Type 59 was not the first domestically-built (or at least modified) tank used by the PLA.

Here's What You Need to Remember: After the defeat of the Nationalist forces during the Chinese Civil War, the People's Liberation Army (PLA) of the People's Republic of China began to develop its own tank force. But it took until 1959 for the Chinese to develop the Type 59 main battle tank.

Before the outbreak of the Second Sino-Japanese War in 1937, which merged into the Second World War when Japan attacked American and British forces in late 1941, the National Revolutionary Army of China under Chiang Kai-shek was armed with mostly aging European armor. This included the truly antiquated Renault FT tanks, which were “upgraded” to some extent with 37mm guns.

Fearing the Japanese more than the Chinese at the time, Soviet Russia also supplied the Nationalist Chinese with some 82 T-26 tanks, while tank crews were even trained under the supervision of Soviet specialists. The Soviet Red Army was already in the process of upgrading its armored forces and supplied the same T-26 tanks to the Republican forces in Spain as well.

Later during World War II the American's also supplied a few M3 Stuarts and M4 Shermans, and those tanks were put to good use stopping Japanese attacks.

The First Domestic Chinese Tank 

After the defeat of the Nationalist forces during the Chinese Civil War, the People's Liberation Army (PLA) of the People's Republic of China began to develop its own tank force. But it took until 1959 for the Chinese to develop the Type 59 main battle tank (MBT), and in truth it was little more than a Chinese-produced version of the Soviet T-54A, which had been developed after World War II to replace the venerable T-34.

The T-54A was supplied to China under the Sino-Soviet Friendship Treaty after the Korean War. The Chinese military leadership negotiated with the Soviets to acquire the blueprints and assembly know-how to domestically produce their own version. The Type 59 subsequently became the backbone of the Chinese Army, and it was the longest PLA tank production to date, spanning all the way until 1985 when nearly 10,000 were produced in a number of variations. Moreover, it also served as the basis for several other MBTs including the light Type 62, the Type 69, and the Type 97.

However, the Type 59 was not the first domestically-built (or at least modified) tank used by the PLA.

In 1945, the Japanese surrendered large numbers of the Type 97 Chi-Ha ShinHoTo, but most were handed over to the Kuomintang (KMT) or Nationalist forces. However, the Chinese PLA also captured a pair of the tanks at the Imperial Japanese Arsenal in Shenyang, and these were given the designations 101 and 102.

The PLA troops also forced a group of captured Japanese personnel to help repair/refurbish the tanks. Before the work was completed, the Japanese engineers successfully sabotaged 101, leaving the Communists forces with just the one functional but nearly complete tank.

The Number 102 Tank

That particular tank has become the stuff of legend. It was used by the Northeast Special Tank Brigade with thirty soldiers. The tank was used to smash through a wall to help the PLA unit successfully escape from Shenyang as the KMT retook the city.

The number 102 tank then took part in various actions and according to PLA propaganda it was used to kill upwards of 3,000 KMT soldiers. It was later used in the October 1948 action at the Battle of Jinzhou along with other Type 97 tanks, and somehow it survived largely undamaged. Dubbed the “Gongchen” or “Heroic” tank, it took part in the Liaoshen and Tianjin Campaigns and drove within the walls of Peiping in February 1949.

When the People's Republic of China was proclaimed on October 1, 1949, the Gongchen Tank served as the lead armored vehicle in the military parade in Tiananmen Square. It remained in service under the new Communist Red China, until it was officially retired in 1959. Number 102 has been in the Military Museum of the Chinese People's Revolution ever since.

There were other Type 97 Chi-Ha tanks that were produced in China during World War II and later used by the KMT, but it is the Gongchen Tank that remains the most remembered tank today in the People's Republic of China.

Peter Suciu is a Michigan-based writer who has contributed to more than four dozen magazines, newspapers and websites. He is the author of several books on military headgear including A Gallery of Military Headdress, which is available on Amazon.com.

Image: Reuters

Peter Suciu

Security, World

These nuclear-powered carriers, which have two reactors and four shafts for propulsion with a top speed of 30+ knots (34.5mph), were the largest warships in the world until the USS Gerald R. Ford, the lead ship of her class of carriers entered service in 2017.

Here's What You Need To Remember: The Nimitz-class aircraft carrier is unquestionably a symbol of American might and power projection abroad. But that isn't necessarily a bad thing - just ask the many recipients of carrier-based humanitarian assistance programs.

At 1,092 feet, the Nimitz-class supercarriers are more than three times the length of a football field, and with a crew of 3,200 sailors and 2,480 airmen, these are essentially floating cities. The lead ship of the class, USS Nimitz – nicknamed "Old Salt" – was commissioned in May 1975, was named after Admiral Chester Nimitz, who led the U.S. Navy through the Second World War.

The ship was first deployed to the Indian Ocean during the Iran Hostage Crisis and has since logged untold miles, providing security at the 1988 Seoul Olympic Games and later service in the Persian Gulf after Operation Desert Storm. Most recently USS Nimitz was deployed against ISIS in Iraq and Syria, where her F/A-18s took part in the Battle of Afar in 2017.

A total of 10 Nimitz-class carriers have been built, and the last of the class, USS George H.W. Bush, was commissioned in January 2009. These nuclear-powered carriers, which have two reactors and four shafts for propulsion with a top speed of 30+ knots (34.5mph), were the largest warships in the world until the USS Gerald R. Ford, the lead ship of her class of carriers entered service in 2017. Each of the Nimitz-class has an expected 50-year service life with one mid-life refueling. These warships, which have a displacement of 102,000 tons, were all built by Huntington Ingalls Industries Newport News Shipbuilding (now Northrop Grumman Ship Systems) based in Virginia at a unit cost of approximately $8.5 billion (constant year FY 12 dollars).

Each carrier has approximately 60 aircraft onboard and this includes a variety of fixed-wing and rotary-wing aircraft with up to 90 of various types. Typical aircraft on a Nimitz-class carrier include 12 F/A-18E/F Hornets, 36 F/A-18 Hornets, four E-2C Hawkeyes and four EA-6B Prowlers fixed-wing and helicopters, including four SH-60F and two HH-60H Seahawks. In addition, the carriers could also deploy the S-3B Viking, before these were phased out and replaced the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet. The flight deck, which measures 1,092 feet by 252 feet, is equipped with four lifts, four steam-driven catapults and four arrester wires. The carriers are capable of launching one air every 20 seconds.

The air wings of the carriers are customized according to the nature of operations, with the usual air wings replaced with 50 army helicopters on the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower for its operations in Haiti in 1994. Similar considerations can be made when a carrier is used for disaster response and humanitarian assistance.

In addition to the aircraft, the mostly recently built Nimitz-class carriers are now armed with three Raytheon GMLS mk29 eight-cell launchers for NATO Sea Sparrow surface-to-air missiles, which has semi-radar terminal guidance. There are also four Raytheon/General Dynamics 20mm Phalanx six-barreled Mk15 close-in weapons systems that have a 3,000rpm rate of fire.

While the last of the Nimitz-class carriers has been commissioned, and the class will eventually be replaced by the Gerald R. Ford-class, these ten carriers will still strike fear into potential U.S. adversaries for many years to come.

Peter Suciu is a Michigan-based writer who has contributed to more than four dozen magazines, newspapers and website. He is the author of several books on military headgear including A Gallery of Military Headdress, which is available on Amazon.com. This article first appeared several years ago.

Image: Wikipedia.

More From The National Interest: 

Russia Has Missing Nuclear Weapons Sitting on the Ocean Floor 

How China Could Sink a U.S. Navy Aircraft Carrier 

Where World War III Could Start This Year

Sebastien Roblin

Security, Europe

Was it as good?

Here's What You Need to Know: The unglamorous Su-25 has had great impact on a wide range of conflicts.

The Su-25 Frogfoot, known as the Grach or “Rook” by Russian pilots, is one of those aircraft that may not be at the cutting edge of technology, but still has seen widespread service around the world because it offers an effective and useful solution to the need to blast targets on the ground.

As such, its obvious stablemate is the American A-10 Thunderbolt II attack plane. But while the U.S. Air Force wants to retire the A-10 starting in 2022, the Su-25 is undergoing extensive upgrades to keep with the times.

Also unlike the Thunderbolt, it has been disseminated it all over the world and seen action in over a dozen wars, including in the air campaigns over Syria, Iraq and Ukraine.

Not only has Russia had a lot of experience flying Su-25s in combat—it has shot several down as well.

During World War II, Russia’s armored Il-2 Sturmovik attack planes, nicknamed “Flying Tanks,” were renowned for their ability to take a pounding while dishing it out to German Panzer divisions with bombs, rockets and cannon fire.

Unlike the U.S. Air Force in the 1960s, which was enamored with the concept of “winning” nuclear wars with strategic bombers, the Soviet air service, the VVS, placed more emphasis on supporting ground armies in its Frontal Aviation branch. However, no worthy successor to the Shturmovik immediately appeared after World War II

In 1968, the VVS service decided it was time for another properly designed flying tank. After a three-way competition, the prototype submitted by Sukhoi was selected and the first Su-25 attack planes entered production in 1978 in a factory in Tbilisi, Georgia. Coincidentally, the American A-10 Thunderbolt had begun entering service a few years earlier.

Like the A-10, the Su-25 was all about winning a titanic clash between the ground forces of NATO and the Warsaw Pact by busting tanks and blasting infantry in Close Air Support missions. This meant flying low and slow to properly observe the battlefield and line up the plane for an attack run.

Flying low would also help the Su-25 avoid all the deadly long-range SAMs that would have been active in a European battlefield. However, this would have exposed it to all kinds of antiaircraft guns. Thus, the pilot of the Su-25 benefited from an “armored bathtub”—ten to twenty-five millimeters of armor plating that wrapped around the cockpit and even padded the pilot’s headrest. It also had armored fuel tanks and redundant control schemes to increase the likelihood of surviving a hit. And in their extensive combat careers, Su-25s have survived some really bad hits.

Despite the similarities with the A-10, the Su-25 is a smaller and lighter, and has a maximum speed fifty percent faster than the Thunderbolt’s at around six hundred miles per hour. However, the Frogfoot has shorter range and loiter time, can only operate at half the altitude, and has a lighter maximum load of up to eight thousand pounds of munitions, compared to sixteen thousand on the Thunderbolt.

More importantly, the types of munitions usually carried are typically different. The Thunderbolt’s mainstays are precision-guided munitions, especially Maverick antitank missiles, as well as its monstrous, fast-firing GAU-8 cannon.

The Su-25’s armament has typically consisted of unguided 250 or 500 kilogram bombs, cluster bombs and rockets. The rockets come in forms ranging from pods containing dozens of smaller 57- or 80-millimeter rockets, to five-shot 130-millimeter S-13 system, to large singular 240- or 330-millimeter rockets. The Su-25 also has a Gsh-30-2 30-millimeter cannon under the nose with 260 rounds of ammunition, though it doesn’t have the absurd rate of fire of the GAU-8.

The lower tip of the Frogfoot’s nose holds a glass-enclosed laser designator. Su-25s did make occasional use of Kh-25ML and Kh-29 laser guided missiles in Afghanistan to take out Mujahideen fortified caves, striking targets as far as five miles away. KAB-250 laser-guided bombs began to see use in Chechnya as well. However, use of such weapons was relatively rare. For example, they made up only 2 percent of munitions expended by the Russian Air Force in Chechnya.

The Su-25 was still packing plenty of antipersonnel firepower—and that’s exactly what was called for when it first saw action in Afghanistan beginning in 1981. The Su-25 was the workhorse fixed-wing attack plane in the conflict, flying more than sixty thousand sorties in bombing raids on mujahedeen villages and mountain strongholds. They often teamed up with Mi-24 attack helicopters to provide air support for Soviet armored units.

However, as the Afghan rebels began to acquire Stinger missiles from the United States, Su-25s began to suffer losses and the Soviet pilots were forced to fly higher to avoid the man-portable surface-to-air missiles. In all, some fifteen Su-25s were shot down in Afghanistan before the Soviet withdrawal.

With the dissolution of the Soviet Union, Su-25s were passed onto the air services of all the Soviet successor states. Those that didn’t use Su-25s in local wars—on both sides of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, for example—often exported them to countries that did. Frogfoots have seen action in the service of Macedonia (against Albanian rebels), Ethiopia (against Eritrea, with one shot down), Sudan (target: Darfur), and Georgia versus Abkhazian separatists that shot down several. And that list is not comprehensive.

In one notable episode, Cote d’Ivoire acquired several Su-25s and used them in its civil war. When the government of President Laurent Gbagbo was angered by the perceived partisanship of French peacekeepers, his mercenary-piloted Su-25s bombed the French camp, killing nine. Whoever ordered the attack didn’t consider that there was a French contingent stationed at the Yamoussoukro Airfield where the Frogfoots were based. The French used anti-tank missiles to destroy the fighter bombers on the ground in retaliation.

Russian Su-25 were back in action in the Chechnya campaign of 1994 to 1995, flying 5,300 strike sorties. Early on they helped wipe out Chechen aircraft on the ground and hit the Presidential Palace in Grozny with anti-concrete bombs. They then pursued a more general bombing campaign. Four were lost to missiles and flak. They were again prominent in the Second Chechen War in 1999, where only one was lost.

Of course, it’s important to note at this juncture that the Su-25 is one of a handful of Soviet aircraft that received its own American computer game in 1990.

Modern Su-25s

In addition to the base model, the Frogfoot also came in an export variant, the Su-25K, and a variety of two-seat trainers with a hunchback canopy, including the combat-capable Su-25UBM.

There were a number of projects to modernize the Su-25, including small productions runs of Su-25T and Su-25TM tank busters. But the Russian Air Force finally selected the Su-25SM in the early 2000s for all future modernization.

The SM has a new BARS satellite navigation/attack system, which allows for more precise targeting, as well as a whole slew of improved avionics such as news heads-up displays (HUDS), Radar Warning Receivers and the like. The Su-25SM can use the excellent R-73 short-range air-to-air missile, and has improved targeting abilities for laser-guided bombs. Other improvements reduce maintenance requirements and lower aircraft weight.

The National Interest’s Dave Majumdar has written about the latest SM3 upgrade, which includes the capacity to fire Kh-58 anti-radar missiles, which could enable Su-25s to help suppress enemy air defenses, as well as a Vitebsk electronic-countermeasure system that could increase its survivability against both radar- and infarred-guided surface to air missiles.

Georgia and Ukraine also have limited numbers of their own domestically upgrade variants, the Su-25KM and the Su-25M1 respectively. You can check out the Su-25KM variant, produced with an Israeli firm, in this video full of unironic 1980s flair.

Speaking of Georgia, things got messy in 2008 when both Russia and Georgia operated Frogfoots in the Russo-Georgian War. The Georgian Frogfoots provided air support for Georgian troops seizing the city of Tskhinvali. Then Russian Su-25s assisted Russian armor in blasting them out. Russia lost three Su-25s to MANPADS—two likely from friendly fire—and Georgia lost a similar number to Russian SAMs. To the surprise of observers, however, the Russian Air Force did not succeed in sweeping Georgian aviation from the sky.

In 2014, Ukraine deployed its Frogfoots to support ground forces combating separatist rebels in Eastern Ukraine. They assisted in the initial recapture of the Donetsk airport in May, would be followed over a half year of seesaw battles ending in a separatist victory in 2015. Ukraine lost four Su-25s in the ensuing ground-attack missions—three were hit by missiles (one MANPADS, two allegedly by longer-ranged systems across the Russian border), and a fourth was reportedly downed by a Russian MiG-29. Two others survived hits from missiles. As a result, Su-25 strikes were sharply curtailed to avoid incurring further losses.

In 2015, the Russian separatists of the Luhansk People’s Republic claimed to have launched airstrikes with an Su-25 of their own. Depending on who you ask, the airplane was restored from a museum or flew in from Russia.

The Iraqi Air Force has deployed its own Su-25s in the war against ISIS, purchasing five from Russia in 2014 and receiving seven from Iran that had been impounded during the 1991 Gulf War.

Finally, in the fall of 2015, Russia deployed a dozen modernized Su-25SMs in support of the Syrian government of Bashar al-Assad. Many observers noted that of the aircraft involved in the mission, the Su-25s were the best adapted for the close air-support role. The Frogfoot flew 1,600 sorties against rebel-held Syrian cities, and expended more than six thousand munitions, mostly unguided bombs and S-13 rockets. They were withdrawn this year, leaving attack helicopter behind to perform more precise—and risky—close air support missions.

Lessons Learned from Flying Tanks?

While it’s fun to admire high-performing fighters like the MiG-29 or F-22 Raptor, the unglamorous Su-25 has so far had a greater impact on a wide range of conflicts. We can draw a few lessons from its recent combat record.

First, the significant losses suffered by Su-25s demonstrate that without effective air-defense suppression and electronic counter-measures, low-and-slow ground support planes are poised to take heavy losses against Russian-made surface-to-air missiles deployed in sufficient numbers.

Second, observation of Russia’s Syrian contingent suggests that despite possessing a diverse arsenal of precision guided munitions, the Russian Air Force continues to rely primarily on unguided bombs and rockets for the close air support mission.

Lastly, aircraft capable of delivering punishing attacks on ground targets while retaining a good chance of surviving hits taken in return are going to remain in high demand worldwide.

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

This article first appeared in 2016 and is being reposted due to reader interest. 

Image: Reuters

Despite reports of a major Chinese-Iranian trade deal, Beijing won’t jeopardize the possibility of better relations with Washington in order to cozy up to Tehran.

UN Secretary-General António Guterres addressed the Bundestag, the German parliament, on Friday, where he warned of a deficit of international cooperation and underscored that global challenges require global solutions. 

The current conflict is the latest battle in a long-running war over the country’s identity as a unitary or federal state. The United States can restore its credibility as an honest broker by helping resolve it.

A sophisticated cyberattack has hit the heart of the U.S. government, affecting the Treasury, Defense, and Energy departments—among others.

This article is the English version of : Dmitri Trenin, « Russie/OTAN : maîtriser la confrontation », published in Politique étrangère, Vol. 81, Issue 4 , 2016.

NATO’s Warsaw Summit in July 2016 translated into hard military facts the consequences of the political decisions announced at the alliance’s Wales Summit in September 2014, in response to Russia’s actions in Ukraine. As a result, politico-military standoff has returned to Europe after a quarter-century-long “holiday period” of security cooperation ushered in by the end of the Cold War. This new-old standoff will probably last a long time, and heavily affect the security of all countries in Europe, whether members of NATO or not. The situation needs to be taken seriously, with a view to, in the first instance, managing the very real immediate risks that flow from it, and, in the second instance, looking for ways to provide stability to Europe’s downgraded security situation.

The current status of US-Russian and NATO-Russian relations is often compared to the Cold War. This is misleading. The confrontation today is not nearly as fundamental as was the conflict between the Soviet Union and the United States in the 1940s-1980s, with its clash of ideologies, the watertight nature of the Iron Curtain, economic quasi-isolation, and the ever-present fear of a nuclear Armageddon. Today’s situation is different in many ways, but it could be as dangerous. Those who use the Cold War analogy risk looking for the things that will never happen again – and missing new ones that might happen.

Europe: A new division?

In Moscow, NATO is again seen as the main platform for US military presence in Europe and the chief instrument of Washington’s political domination in that part of the world. The Kremlin roundly rejects Western references to Russia’s actions in Crimea and its policies in Ukraine as the main reason for NATO’s reawakening. Rather, it is the process of NATO’s enlargement to the east, which began over two decades ago, that is usually seen in Russia as the central cause of the breakdown of Russian-Western security cooperation in the 1990s and 2000s. President Vladimir Putin publicly described the use of Russian military force in Crimea in 2014 as preventive action against post-Maidan Ukraine’s potential accession to NATO.

The decisions formally taken in Warsaw in 2016 had been openly discussed for some time, and did not come as a surprise to Moscow, which was able to calmly analyze them. Thus, they did not produce a new crisis, in and of themselves. A total of four NATO battalions newly deployed in each of the three Baltic States, and Poland, plus a multinational brigade in Romania are a far cry from the one million-strong contingent of NATO forces long stationed in West Germany. NATO’s Rapid Deployment Force, with six new command posts in the eastern NATO member states, is not an immediate threat to Russia. More frequent NATO exercises close to Russia’s borders command attention, but again they do not look like a covert phase of an imminent invasion.

Yet, the division of Europe is a fact, and its consequences are real. The dividing line on the continent now passes much farther to the east than it used to. The distance from the Estonian border to St Petersburg is less than 200km. The nearest US military base, in Poland’s portion of the former East Prussia, will be just 60km from the Russian border, and 135km from Kaliningrad. Russian military planners highly respect the US military’s capability of transporting large forces across huge distances in short periods of time, and have to consider various contingencies. Russia’s security buffer in the western strategic direction has shrunk considerably. NATO’s current policy toward Russia is routinely described in Moscow as containment. […]

Read the rest of the article here.

>>> More articles of Politique étrangère are available for reading
on Cairn International <<<

The UN marks International Migrants Day on Friday, highlighting their essential contribution to societies everywhere, and underlining migrants' central role in recovery from the coronavirus pandemic. 

The Arab world is trapped in a state of permanent revolution.

Although Afghanistan is coming to the end of a monumental year, authorities will still require international support as they assume greater responsibility for national security while battling COVID-19 and other challenges, UN Special Representative Deborah Lyons told a virtual meeting of the Security Council on Thursday. 

Throughout a challenging year, Germany has been a reliable, generous and “exemplary” friend to multilateralism, the UN chief told journalists on Thursday, speaking at the national parliament building in Berlin.