Diplomacy & Crisis News

Charlie Gao

Security,

As the United States has stepped up its military commitments around the globe and embarked on a program of modernizing its weapons, the M2 has also had to change.

Here's What You Need To Remember:

The M2 Browning .50 caliber machine gun is one of the most famous American weapons. Serving since the 1920s, the gun has been a favorite of soldiers in practically every conflict since. It remained the same throughout most of the Cold War, retaining the iron sights, simple pintle mounts, and tripods that were designed for it many decades prior.

But as the United States has stepped up its military commitments around the globe and embarked on a program of modernizing its weapons, the M2 has also had to change. Since 2003 a myriad of improvements have come out for the M2 machine gun to improve its usability, accuracy, and reliability. But even with these upgrades, will they be enough to keep the M2 in service?

The biggest upgrade to the M2 was the transition to the M2A1 model in the 2000s. The standard model for most purposes was the M2HB, an air cooled version with a heavy barrel. Changing the barrel on the M2HB was an involved process that required adjusting the “headspace” (the distance between the bolt face and the cartridge) and the timing of the machine gun for every new barrel.

During sustained fire, this was never ideal, as the process would always take a significant amount of time, but changing barrels is a necessity during sustained fire to avoid overheating. The adjustable headspace and timing were necessary at the time, as parts could not be built to the consistent enough tolerances to have a fixed headspace.

However, a few decades later, quick change barrels were becoming the norm. The German MG34 and MG42 that the M2HB faced in World War II both used quick change barrels that could be swapped extremely rapidly. During the Cold War, the Soviets used .50 caliber machine guns (in their own 12.7 x 108 millimeter caliber). The Soviet NSV was lighter than the M2HB, and featured a quick change barrel.

Despite innovation elsewhere, M2HB’s design was not revised to incorporate these new features. The same design, tripods and mounts continued serving up until the 2000s. At that point, the U.S. military held a competition to develop a quick change barrel kit for existing M2s. General Dynamics won the competition for the kit, and it was adopted as the M2A1.

While the primary change was the addition of a quick change barrel kit, the M2A1 also added a four-pronged flash hider to the barrel, reducing the flash of firing, which especially improves the ability to shoot at night with the weapon, as it makes it less prone to washing out NVGs. The barrel extension is also made of a harder steel.

The Army has replaced all of its M2HBs with M2A1s, and the Marines are looking to do the same. A similar setup is being offered as a whole new machine gun as the M2HB QCB by FN Herstal. Some countries have adopted it under that name.

Recommended: Forget the F-35: The Tempest Could Be the Future

Recommended: Why No Commander Wants to Take On a Spike Missile

Recommended: What Will the Sixth-Generation Jet Fighter Look Like?

Recommended: Imagine a U.S. Air Force That Never Built the B-52 Bomber

Another upgrade that’s common recently is the attachment of optical sights to the M2. While Carlos Hathcock famously made an optic mount for a M2HB during his service in Vietnam, optic mounts were not standardized until much later. In comparison, the Soviet NSV came with a standard optic rail, which was commonly used with a 4x to 6x sight.

But nowadays there is a lot of interest for optic mounts for the M2. The Korean company DI Optical is one of the leaders in this space, producing red dots for the M2HB that have seen use with foreign militaries. Trijicon, who makes the ACOG which has seen wide use also makes a machine gun red dot.

The tripod has also seen improvements. The old M3 tripod of World War II vintage is on the way out in the U.S. Army, being replaced by the new M205 lightweight tripod. The new tripod is sixteen pounds lighter, and has increased traverse and depression range relative to the old tripod.

Charlie Gao studied Political and Computer Science at Grinnell College and is a frequent commentator on defense and national security issues. This article was originally posted last year.

Image: Wikipedia.

John Sohrawardi, Matthew Wright

Politics, Americas

Deepfakes are here to stay. Managing disinformation and protecting the public will be more challenging than ever as artificial intelligence gets more powerful.

An investigative journalist receives a video from an anonymous whistleblower. It shows a candidate for president admitting to illegal activity. But is this video real? If so, it would be huge news – the scoop of a lifetime – and could completely turn around the upcoming elections. But the journalist runs the video through a specialized tool, which tells her that the video isn’t what it seems. In fact, it’s a “deepfake,” a video made using artificial intelligence with deep learning.

Journalists all over the world could soon be using a tool like this. In a few years, a tool like this could even be used by everyone to root out fake content in their social media feeds.

As researchers who have been studying deepfake detection and developing a tool for journalists, we see a future for these tools. They won’t solve all our problems, though, and they will be just one part of the arsenal in the broader fight against disinformation.

The Problem with Deepfakes

Most people know that you can’t believe everything you see. Over the last couple of decades, savvy news consumers have gotten used to seeing images manipulated with photo-editing software. Videos, though, are another story. Hollywood directors can spend millions of dollars on special effects to make up a realistic scene. But using deepfakes, amateurs with a few thousand dollars of computer equipment and a few weeks to spend could make something almost as true to life.

Deepfakes make it possible to put people into movie scenes they were never in – think Tom Cruise playing Iron Man – which makes for entertaining videos. Unfortunately, it also makes it possible to create pornography without the consent of the people depicted. So far, those people, nearly all women, are the biggest victims when deepfake technology is misused.

Deepfakes can also be used to create videos of political leaders saying things they never said. The Belgian Socialist Party released a low-quality nondeepfake but still phony video of President Trump insulting Belgium, which got enough of a reaction to show the potential risks of higher-quality deepfakes.

Perhaps scariest of all, they can be used to create doubt about the content of real videos, by suggesting that they could be deepfakes.

Given these risks, it would be extremely valuable to be able to detect deepfakes and label them clearly. This would ensure that fake videos do not fool the public, and that real videos can be received as authentic.

Spotting Fakes

Deepfake detection as a field of research was begun a little over three years ago. Early work focused on detecting visible problems in the videos, such as deepfakes that didn’t blink. With time, however, the fakes have gotten better at mimicking real videos and become harder to spot for both people and detection tools.

There are two major categories of deepfake detection research. The first involves looking at the behavior of people in the videos. Suppose you have a lot of video of someone famous, such as President Obama. Artificial intelligence can use this video to learn his patterns, from his hand gestures to his pauses in speech. It can then watch a deepfake of him and notice where it does not match those patterns. This approach has the advantage of possibly working even if the video quality itself is essentially perfect.

Other researchers, including our team, have been focused on differences that all deepfakes have compared to real videos. Deepfake videos are often created by merging individually generated frames to form videos. Taking that into account, our team’s methods extract the essential data from the faces in individual frames of a video and then track them through sets of concurrent frames. This allows us to detect inconsistencies in the flow of the information from one frame to another. We use a similar approach for our fake audio detection system as well.

These subtle details are hard for people to see, but show how deepfakes are not quite perfect yet. Detectors like these can work for any person, not just a few world leaders. In the end, it may be that both types of deepfake detectors will be needed.

Recent detection systems perform very well on videos specifically gathered for evaluating the tools. Unfortunately, even the best models do poorly on videos found online. Improving these tools to be more robust and useful is the key next step.

Who Should Use Deepfake Detectors?

Ideally, a deepfake verification tool should be available to everyone. However, this technology is in the early stages of development. Researchers need to improve the tools and protect them against hackers before releasing them broadly.

At the same time, though, the tools to make deepfakes are available to anybody who wants to fool the public. Sitting on the sidelines is not an option. For our team, the right balance was to work with journalists, because they are the first line of defense against the spread of misinformation.

Before publishing stories, journalists need to verify the information. They already have tried-and-true methods, like checking with sources and getting more than one person to verify key facts. So by putting the tool into their hands, we give them more information, and we know that they will not rely on the technology alone, given that it can make mistakes.

Can the Detectors Win the Arms Race?

It is encouraging to see teams from Facebook and Microsoft investing in technology to understand and detect deepfakes. This field needs more research to keep up with the speed of advances in deepfake technology.

Journalists and the social media platforms also need to figure out how best to warn people about deepfakes when they are detected. Research has shown that people remember the lie, but not the fact that it was a lie. Will the same be true for fake videos? Simply putting “Deepfake” in the title might not be enough to counter some kinds of disinformation.

Deepfakes are here to stay. Managing disinformation and protecting the public will be more challenging than ever as artificial intelligence gets more powerful. We are part of a growing research community that is taking on this threat, in which detection is just the first step.

John Sohrawardi, Doctoral Student in Computing and Informational Sciences, Rochester Institute of Technology and Matthew Wright, Professor of Computing Security, Rochester Institute of Technology

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Image: Reuters.

Sebastien Roblin

Security, Asia

While the growing threat posed by Pyongyang’s ballistic missiles, potentially with nuclear armament, is of greater concern, the effects of a sustained deluge of high explosive or chemical shells on a city with a population of ten million—greater than New York City—is still hair-raising to consider.

Here's What You Need To Remember: Seoul has many times the population of Aleppo or Grozny, so casualty rates would likely be greater; nearly twenty-four million people, roughly half of South Korea’s population, are concentrated within the wider metropolitan area. Most casualties from artillery attacks come in the initial moments of the barrage before the victims have a chance to take cover; therefore, a short, unexpected barrage would still inflict a disproportionate number of casualties.

Seoul has to cope with an unusual urban planning program for a huge, modern metropolis: the northern side of the capital lies little more than thirty miles from the border of North Korea, within range of hundreds of enemy artillery pieces—a zone that Pyongyang has threatened to turn into a “sea of fire.” City planners have gamely built more than twenty-three square kilometers of bomb shelters in the South Korean capital as a precaution.

While the growing threat posed by Pyongyang’s ballistic missiles, potentially with nuclear armament, is of greater concern, the effects of a sustained deluge of high explosive or chemical shells on a city with a population of ten million—greater than New York City—is still hair-raising to consider.

However, only a small number of North Korean artillery systems have the long reach to threaten Seoul from across the DMZ. Chief among them are North Korea’s five hundred enormous 170-millimeter Koksan self-propelled guns. The combat-tested system can fling shells at targets as far as thirty-seven miles away when using rocket-assisted projectiles.

The Koksan is a throwback to a class of enormous long-range guns that proliferated in the first half of the twentieth century, with a mission of cracking open the heaviest fortifications and hitting high-value targets well behind the front lines, such as ammunitions dumps, headquarters, logistical chokepoints and enemy artillery batteries. In the 1950s, these heavy guns were increasingly deployed on lightly armored self-propelled carriages, and also acquired the role of firing tactical nuclear munitions. However, systems such as the American 175-millimeter M107 and 203-millimeter M110 were phased out of service, because their mission was superseded by the use of air strikes, tactical missiles and even improved munitions used by smaller 155-millimeter artillery.

However, the constrained, mountainous terrain on the Korean Peninsula and the heavily fortified nature of the demilitarized zone heavily favor the use of artillery. Indeed, American self-propelled artillery played an important role during the Korean War in repelling North Korean and Chinese human-wave attacks. Furthermore, North Korean troops can’t count on having air support at their disposal, nor other types of precision-guided weapons.

The North Korean weapon is of mysterious origin; even the designation M1978 Koksan is not its real name, but simply that of the North Korean county where it was first spotted by Western intelligence in 1978. Most indigenous North Korean weapons are derived from Soviet designs, but the Soviet Union never developed a 170-millimeter weapon. Instead, the Koksan may actually be derived from Japanese coastal guns or German K18 pieces used during World War II.

The M1978 mounts its enormous gun on the hull of a Chinese Type 59 tank—but the crew loading and operating the weapon are exposed to the elements and enemy fire, like the configuration of the American M107 and M110. The 1978 model also does not have any onboard ammunition capacity, and thus relies on soft-skinned ammunition vehicles or pre-positioned stores to sustain a bombardment.

Of course, North Korean artillery would likely fire from Hardened Artillery Sites (HARTS) sprinkled across the border. Many are tunneled into the side of mountains, ingeniously designed for concealment and protection; some even accommodate living quarters. It’s hard to beat having a mountain between you and counter-battery fire.

The Koksan actually has a track record of being used for strategic attacks, as in 1987 North Korea sold several battalions of the system to Iran during the Iran-Iraq War. The type still appears in military parades staged by Tehran; you can see photos of it here.

In 1986, Iranian forces managed to capture the Al-Faw Peninsula, which lay next to oil fields in Kuwait—then seen as a major ally of Iraq (yes, alliances in the Middle East can shift very quickly). The Koksans were therefore deployed to bombard the Kuwaiti oilfields, disrupting their production. Finally in 1988, Iraqi forces supported by chemical weapons launched a surprise attack during Ramadan and overran the Iranian positions. Several Koksans were captured and subsequently paraded and then inspected by American officers—who noted traces of the Iraqi chemical agents.

Around that time, North Korea began deploying the M1989 variant of the Koksan, which featured a lengthened (and thus more stable) chassis with an enclosed cab for four personnel, similar to that of the Soviet 2S7 Psion system; one crew member is often seen in parades wielding a Strela or Igla man-portable surface-to-air missile. Another four ammunition loaders ride on accompanying vehicles.  The M1989 also added onboard ammunition capacity of twelve rounds. This last feature could allow the M1989 to make an initial “burst” of fire as high as three or four rounds in a minute, before decreasing to a more typical rate of one round per minute.

Would Seoul Be Consumed by a “Sea of Fire”?

In 2012, the Nautilus Institute published a very detailed study arguing that the threat posed by Koksan and long-range 240-millimeter multiple-rocket launchers is exaggerated. More recently the National Interest’s Kyle Mizokami advanced a similar argument; both articles are well worth reading.

To start with, even the long-reaching Koksan would have to be deployed on a very narrow stretch on the edge of the DMZ to hit only the northwestern edge of Seoul. The attacking batteries would promptly be subject to scouring counter-battery fire, air strikes and ground-based attacks.

Furthermore, it took months of sustained bombardment to ravage cities such as Aleppo in Syria or Grozny in Chechnya, while a second Korean War would likely resolve itself in weeks. Additionally, it is far from certain that the North Korean military would concentrate firepower on civilian targets, as it would pay an opportunity cost of failing to destroy actual military targets, and also would likely cause the death of hundreds of Chinese nationals living in Seoul, incurring the wrath of Beijing.

However, there are some qualifications to consider. First of all, Seoul has many times the population of Aleppo or Grozny, so casualty rates would likely be greater; nearly twenty-four million people, roughly half of South Korea’s population, are concentrated within the wider metropolitan area. Most casualties from artillery attacks come in the initial moments of the barrage before the victims have a chance to take cover; therefore, a short, unexpected barrage would still inflict a disproportionate number of casualties.

Even the Nautilus report estimates casualties as high as twenty-nine thousand—even though such a death toll would not correspond to the city being “flattened.” Nonetheless, the effects of panic could lead to hundreds of thousands of refugees flooding limited road networks with calamitous consequences from both a humanitarian and military point of view, as proved to be the case during the Korean War.

North Korean guns might also increase lethality, and spread chaos by making use of chemical warheads, which are believed but not confirmed to be available for the Koksan. Finally, if South Korea and the United States were compelled to expend disproportionate resources to counter the strategic artillery threat, then arguably the guns may have served their intended purpose.

The presence of huge guns along the border underscores that a conflict between North and South Korea would involve a terrible cost in civilian lives. However, the threat posed by the Koksan needs to be kept in chilling perspective: the huge guns could inflict terrible suffering if turned on civilian targets, though not on the scale that Pyongyang boasts, due to limitations on range, logistics and the need to survive counterattack. Their use in an urban barrage designed to maximize body count would be of dubious military utility and trigger retribution, likely leading to the destruction of the North Korean regime, a prospect one hopes is appreciated in Pyongyang.

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 piece was originally featured in October 2017 and is being republished due to reader's interest.

Media: Wikipedia

Carol Kwiatkowski

Health, Americas

Hundreds of scientists are calling for a comprehensive, effective plan to manage the entire class of PFAS to protect public health while safer alternatives are developed.

Like many inventions, the discovery of Teflon happened by accident. In 1938, chemists from Dupont (now Chemours) were studying refrigerant gases when, much to their surprise, one concoction solidified. Upon investigation, they found it was not only the slipperiest substance they’d ever seen – it was also noncorrosive and extremely stable and had a high melting point.

In 1954 the revolutionary “nonstick” Teflon pan was introduced. Since then, an entire class of human-made chemicals has evolved: per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, better known as PFAS. There are upward of 6,000 of these chemicals. Many are used for stain-, grease- and waterproofing. PFAS are found in clothing, plastic, food packaging, electronics, personal care products, firefighting foams, medical devices and numerous other products.

But over time, evidence has slowly built that some commonly used PFAS are toxic and may cause cancer. It took 50 years to understand that the happy accident of Teflon’s discovery was, in fact, a train wreck.

As a public health analyst, I have studied the harm caused by these chemicals. I am one of hundreds of scientists who are calling for a comprehensive, effective plan to manage the entire class of PFAS to protect public health while safer alternatives are developed.

Typically, when the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency assesses chemicals for potential harm, it examines one substance at a time. That approach isn’t working for PFAS, given the sheer number of them and the fact that manufacturers commonly replace toxic substances with “regrettable substitutes” – similar, lesser-known chemicals that also threaten human health and the environment.

Toxic Chemicals

A class-action lawsuit brought this issue to national attention in 2005. Workers at a Parkersburg, West Virginia, DuPont plant joined with local residents to sue the company for releasing millions of pounds of one of these chemicals, known as PFOA, into the air and the Ohio River. Lawyers discovered that the company had known as far back as 1961 that PFOA could harm the liver.

The suit was ultimately settled in 2017 for US$670 million, after an eight-year study of tens of thousands of people who had been exposed. Based on multiple scientific studies, this review concluded that there was a probable link between exposure to PFOA and six categories of diseases: diagnosed high cholesterol, ulcerative colitis, thyroid disease, testicular cancer, kidney cancer and pregnancy-induced hypertension.

Over the past two decades, hundreds of peer-reviewed scientific papers have shown that many PFAS are not only toxic – they also don’t fully break down in the environment and have accumulated in the bodies of people and animals around the world. Some studies have detected PFAS in 99% of people tested. Others have found PFAS in wildlife, including polar bears, dolphins and seals.

Widespread and Persistent

PFAS are often called “forever chemicals” because they don’t fully degrade. They move easily through air and water, can quickly travel long distances and accumulate in sediment, soil and plants. They have also been found in dust and food, including eggs, meat, milk, fish, fruits and vegetables.

In the bodies of humans and animals, PFAS concentrate in various organs, tissues and cells. The U.S. National Toxicology Program and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have confirmed a long list of health risks, including immunotoxicity, testicular and kidney cancer, liver damage, decreased fertility and thyroid disease.

Children are even more vulnerable than adults because they can ingest more PFAS relative to their body weight from food and water and through the air. Children also put their hands in their mouths more often, and their metabolic and immune systems are less developed. Studies show that these chemicals harm children by causing kidney dysfunction, delayed puberty, asthma and altered immune function.

Researchers have also documented that PFAS exposure reduces the effectiveness of vaccines, which is particularly concerning amid the COVID-19 pandemic.

Regulation is Lagging

PFAS have become so ubiquitous in the environment that health experts say it is probably impossible to completely prevent exposure. These substances are released throughout their life cycles, from chemical production to product use and disposal. Up to 80% of environmental pollution from common PFAS, such as PFOA, comes from production of fluoropolymers that use toxic PFAS as processing aids to make products like Teflon.

In 2009 the EPA established a health advisory level for PFOA in drinking water of 400 parts per trillion. Health advisories are not binding regulations – they are technical guidelines for state, local and tribal governments, which are primarily responsible for regulating public water systems.

In 2016 the agency dramatically lowered this recommendation to 70 parts per trillion. Some states have set far more protective levels – as low as 8 parts per trillion.

According to a recent estimate by the Environmental Working Group, a public health advocacy organization, up to 110 million Americans could be drinking PFAS-contaminated water. Even with the most advanced treatment processes, it is extremely difficult and costly to remove these chemicals from drinking water. And it’s impossible to clean up lakes, river systems or oceans. Nonetheless, PFAS are largely unregulated by the federal government, although they are gaining increased attention from Congress.

Reducing PFAS Risks at the Source

Given that PFAS pollution is so ubiquitous and hard to remove, many health experts assert that the only way to address it is by reducing PFAS production and use as much as possible.

Educational campaigns and consumer pressure are making a difference. Many forward-thinking companies, including grocers, clothing manufacturers and furniture stores, have removed PFAS from products they use and sell.

State governments have also stepped in. California recently banned PFAS in firefighting foams. Maine and Washington have banned PFAS in food packaging. Other states are considering similar measures.

I am part of a group of scientists from universities, nonprofit organizations and government agencies in the U.S. and Europe that has argued for managing the entire class of PFAS chemicals as a group, instead of one by one. We also support an “essential uses” approach that would restrict their production and use only to products that are critical for health and proper functioning of society, such as medical devices and safety equipment. And we have recommended developing safer non-PFAS alternatives.

As the EPA acknowledges, there is an urgent need for innovative solutions to PFAS pollution. Guided by good science, I believe we can effectively manage PFAS to reduce further harm, while researchers find ways to clean up what has already been released.

Carol Kwiatkowski, Adjunct Assistant Professor of Biological Sciences, North Carolina State University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Image: Reuters.

Kyle Mizokami

Security,

The Glock 17 handgun shook up the gun industry in a big way.

Here's What You Need To Remember: The G17 can stand up to a wide array of physical abuse, including being run over by a car and frozen in ice, as well as dust and other environmental factors while remaining completely reliable. The Glock’s seventeen-round magazine had the highest ammunition capacity of any commercially available pistol of its time.

(This is a combination of several pieces posted last year merged into one post for your reading pleasure.) 

5 Best Glocks

The Glock 17 handgun shook up the gun industry in a big way. Gaston Glock’s polymer pistol masterpiece, with its emphasis on ruggedness and reliability, swept the military and law-enforcement world and conquered the civilian market. Slowly, the company has introduced new handguns, all based on the original design, to compete in virtually every niche of the handgun market, from large-bore semiautomatics to discreet concealed carry. Here are five of Gaston Glock’s best designs.

Glock 17

The handgun that started it all, Gaston Glock’s first handgun was originally designed to win a contract to supply the Austrian Army with handguns. It is a remarkable piece of engineering for someone who had only studied, but never designed, handguns of his own. The polymer lower receiver reduced the handgun’s weight where metal was unnecessary while keeping a traditional all-steel frame. The G17 can stand up to a wide array of physical abuse, including being run over by a car and frozen in ice, as well as dust and other environmental factors while remaining completely reliable. The Glock’s seventeen-round magazine had the highest ammunition capacity of any commercially available pistol of its time.

Glock 21

One of the first Glock variants, the Glock 21, was simply the original Glock 17 scaled up to accept the .45 ACP round. The result was a high-capacity .45 pistol, something that wasn’t exactly common. The Glock 21 could carry thirteen .45 ACP rounds while the standard .45 pistol, the Colt 1911A1, could carry seven or eight. The use of weight-reducing polymers was particularly useful in the G21, as it offset the weight of a magazine full of .45 rounds. The introduction of the Glock 21 early in the company’s line proved that Glock understood many American shooters were skeptical of what they considered the relatively low-powered nine-millimeter round, and that the basic design could scale up to accommodate more powerful, higher recoil ammunition.

Glock 19

The Glock 17 was a very popular handgun but, designed for military service, it was a bit larger than what many enthusiasts, concealed-carry wearers and home-defense users wanted. The result was the Glock 19. The Glock 19 was designed as a compact version of the Glock 17, approximately half an inch shorter than the G17 in overall length, height and barrel length. Ammunition capacity was decreased only slightly, to a still-respectable fifteen rounds. The G19, while not designed as a service pistol, has attracted a military following, with Navy SEALs and U.S. Army Rangers choosing it as their standard sidearm. A modified Glock 19, the 19X, was submitted to the U.S. Army’s Modular Handgun System competition.

Glock 43

Designed as a subcompact carry pistol, the G43 is Glock’s first “single stack” handgun, featuring a thin magazine carrying six nine-millimeter rounds in a single vertical column. The G43 is one of the smallest pistols in the subcompact category, just 6.26 inches long and four and a quarter inches high. The pistol is just one inch thick, and loaded weighs just 22.36 ounces. This combination of small size and light weight makes the Glock 43 exceptionally easy to conceal on one’s person. While the relatively small ammunition capacity is a bit unusual for a Glock, concealed carry pistols in general are strictly defensive firearms and the low round count is a tradeoff.

Glock 18

In Glock’s entire inventory of handguns, there is one gun not available for sale in the United States to regular gun owners. This particular gun, the Glock 18, has a selector switch located on the slide that allows for two modes: traditional semiautomatic fire and fully automatic fire. The Glock 18 is a Glock 17 full-size pistol with the ability to fire at rates of up to 1,200 rounds per minute. In addition to seventeen-round magazines, Glock also manufactures thirty-three-round magazines that fit in the magazine well of most nine-millimeter Glocks, and would be particularly useful in the G18. Saddam Hussein had a Glock 18C, a version with a built-in compensator to deal with the recoil of fully automatic fire, on him when he was captured by U.S. forces in December 2003. The gun was later presented to former president George W. Bush as a war trophy.

The Swiss-German company Sig Sauer has been in the arms business for a long time. Swiss SIG (Schweizerische Industrie Gesellschaft) a company founded in 1853, partnered with the German Sauer in 1976 to produce firearms. The joint company rode the European wave of handgun manufacturers in the late 1980s and 1990s with its series of handguns based on the original P210 platform.

Today Sig Sauer sells a full line of handguns and modern sporting rifles in the United States, and has penetrated both the military and law enforcement markets. Although the company failed to sell the P226 handgun to the U.S. Military in 1984—losing out to Beretta of Italy—in 2017 it succeeding in winning the contract for the Beretta’s replacement, the M17 Modular Handgun system. Here is a list of some of Sig Sauer’s best service pistols.

5 Best from Sig Sauer

Sig P210

The Sig P210 is the original handgun that started the company’s entire line of P2XX pistols. The P210 is generally regarded as one of the best-designed pistols of the twentieth century. Adopted in 1949 by the Swiss Army, it replaced a Swiss copy of the Luger P08 pistol, the Model 29. The P210 is also considered one of the most accurate pistols ever built.

The P210 is built as one might expect a Swiss watch: “beautifully made” with carefully fitted parts. The design itself is based on the locked breech, short-recoil pistol operating system devised by John Moses Browning, and disassembles like a standard Colt-Browning type pistol. The P210 is chambered in 9mm and its only drawback was an eight-round magazine, which was remarkable then but about half the size of today’s magazines. The P210 was used by the Swiss Army, Danish Army and West German Border Guard.

Sig P220

The next pistol in the Sig line that rose to prominence was the M75, otherwise known as the Sig P220. The M75 was adopted by the Swiss Army in 1975, and was a logical evolution of the P210. The pistol internally was similar to the P210, with the incorporation of a manual decocker that lowered the hammer into a safety notch without pulling the trigger. It also featured a firing pin lock that prevented the gun from being fired even if dropped while cocked.

The P220 also different from the P210 in having a shorter barrel and larger trigger well. Still in production, the pistol is offered in 9mm, .45 ACP and 10mm Auto. The P220 found success in law enforcement organizations worldwide—including Sweden and the United States—and is the sidearm of the Japan Self Defense Forces.

Sig P226

The P226 was Sig’s breakout gun in the U.S. market and its most popular pistol. The P226 was actually developed for the U.S. Army’s competition to replace the World War II–era M1911A1 handgun with a modern design. Although it lost to Beretta, a series of dangerous accidents involving Berettas in Navy service caused the SEALs to switch to the P226 instead.

Armed with SEAL cachet and exploiting the explosion in high-capacity 9mm handguns caused by Glock, the P226 became a very popular handgun.

Internally, the Sig P226 is similar to its predecessors, having a double action/single action design: the first shot requires a long ten-pound trigger pull to cock and then fire the pistol, while subsequent shots have a lighter 4.4-pound pull. Unlike previous Sig P2XX guns, the P226 had a double-column magazine that widened the grip but allowed fifteen 9mm rounds—nearly twice as as previous Sigs—to be carried in a single magazine.

Sig P229

The Sig P226 is a large steel pistol that is not easy to carry concealed. As an alternative, Sig Sauer developed the P229. The P229 is a smaller, shorter pistol in the same size and weight range as the Glock 19 and the Smith & Wesson M&P Compact.

The P229 is a scaled-down P226, with a barrel .4 inches shorter than its predecessor. The pistol retains the 9mm, fifteen-round magazine and still has an all-metal firearm, resulting in a pistol that weighs thirty-four ounces loaded—five more ounces than the Glock 19. At 1.5 inches, it is also a third of an inch wider than the Glock 19. Nevertheless, for those used to the Sig’s manual of arms or the need for a decocker, the P229 is an excellent compact pistol.

Sig P320/M17 Modular Handgun System

In 2017, Sig Sauer beat Glock, Beretta, and other competitors for the U.S. Army’s M17 Modular Handgun System (MHS). The M17 is based on the Sig Sauer P320 and appears similar on its surface to other Sig pistols—but has several new internal updates from previous designs. The MHS consists of the full-sized M17 pistol and the compact M18, both of which are chambered for 9mm and distributed with seventeen- and twenty-one-round magazines.

Unlike previous Sig handguns, the P320 is a striker fired pistol that does away with a hammer and firing pin. The P320 also has a manual safety, a key Army requirement. The pistol is double action only, meaning a single trigger pull will both cock the pistol and release the firing pin, firing the gun. The P320 for civilians is available in 9mm, .357 SIG, .40 Smith & Wesson and .45 ACP.

5 Best from Smith & Wesson: 

Smith & Wesson is one of the oldest, and most storied names in American firearms. Founded in the 1800s, the company specialized in revolvers and guns such as the No.3 and Schofield became synonymous with the Old West. Although Smith & Wesson is best known for its handguns,the company now makes guns of all stripes, from revolvers to pistols to their own version of the AR-15 rifle. Here are five of the storied company’s best contemporary offerings.

Smith & Wesson 686

Smith & Wesson categorizes its revolvers using a system of letters, with the so-called “L” frames set in the middle between small and large caliber guns. One of the most popular “L frames” is the Smith & Wesson 686 .357 Magnum. The 686 is capable of shooting both high powered .357 Magnum and lighter .38 Special ammunition. This gives shooters the option of training on .38 Special until they know the ins and outs of the revolver and then stepping up to the more lethal .357 Magnum when they feel comfortable.

The 686 has a four-inch barrel, an overall length of 9.6 inches, and weighs two and a half pounds. It also adjustable sights, a satin stainless steel finish, double action firing system and a six or seven round cylinder.

Smith & Wesson Model 29

The Smith & Wesson Model 29 was one of the first revolvers chambered for the powerful .44 Magnum round. A blued, six cylinder revolver with wooden grips and a classic style, the Model 29 became particularly popular after its use in the “Dirty Harry” series of films. The Model 29 is an all-steel handgun with heft, all the better to soak up the punishing level of recoil a user experiences when fired. Barrel length ranged from four to ten inches. The powerful .44 Magnum cartridge was particularly popular with gun enthusiasts and hunters who stalked dangerous prey. Discontinued in 1999, Model 29 was recently put back into production.

Smith & Wesson Model 442 Pro Series

In Smith & Wesson’s lettering system the smallest revolvers use the so-called “J frame,” and one of the smallest revolvers of all is the Model 442 Pro Series. Designed as a concealed carry revolver, the 442 is chambered in .38 Special and can handle more powerful, higher pressure +P rounds. The revolver frame is made of aluminum alloy to reduce overall weight with the cylinder itself made of carbon steel and barrel made of stainless steel. The 442’s cylinder holds five rounds, resulting in a narrower pistol that is easier to carry concealed. The revolver is double action only, meaning a single pull with both advance the cylinder to fresh round and release the firing pin, firing the gun. The 442 lacks a hammer, allowing for a smoother draw from under clothing.

Smith & Wesson M&P 2.0

Smith & Wesson’s successful “wonder nine” pistol, the M&P followed in the footsteps of the Glock to produce a highly effective, high capacity polymer frame pistol. The Military & Police Model, currently in version 2.0, has a low bore axis, which the manufacturer claims reduces muzzle climb and allows the shooter to get sights back on target faster. The M&P 2.0 incorporates a five-inch stainless steel barrel into a pistol with an overall length of eight inches. The double action pistol is available in nine millimeter and .40 Smith & Wesson, with the 9mm version sporting a seventeen round magazine plus one in the chamber, for a total of eighteen rounds. The pistol also features an optional loaded chamber indicator and optional thumb safety. Somewhat unique among pistols it comes with four different palmswell grip inserts for maximum ergonomic comfort.

Smith & Wesson 1911A1

The patent on John Moses Browning’s 1911 handgun design ran out long ago, and nearly all gun companies now manufacture their own versions of this iconic handgun. Smith & Wesson is no exception, producing its own S&W1911 E-Series pistols. The pistols are generally true to the final version of the 1911A1, with the exception of stainless steel barrels, skeletonized hammers, and in some cases an accessory rail for the mounting of lights and lasers. The company makes both full-size Government and smaller Commander handguns, the latter with a barrel three quarters of an inch shorter than the five-inch Government barrel and a slightly shorter slide. Commanders also feature bobtailed mainspring housings and aggressive checkering to help the shooter stay on target. The 1911 E-Series is generally true enough to form to satisfy 1911 purists.

5 Best from Ruger: 

Sturm Ruger & Company, also known as Ruger Firearms, is one of the most well known and respected names in the American gun industry. Founded in 1949 by gun designers Bill Ruger and Alexander McCormick Sturm, the company started out producing an accurate and relatively inexpensive target pistol before branching out to other handguns and eventually long guns.

In 2016, the company reported manufacturing just under two million firearms, making it the second largest gun manufacturer in the U.S. Ruger is second only to Smith & Wesson in the handgun market and Remington in the pistol market. Here are five weapons that exemplify the company’s broad and varied line of firearms.

Ruger American Rifle:

First launched in 2011, the Ruger American Rifle was designed to be an accurate, inexpensive, mass-produced bolt action rifle for the modern hunting market. The American Rifle incorporates a number of features that used to be the province of more expensive hunting rifles, but due to modern manufacturing techniques could be brought down to a lower price point.

The American Rifle includes three features that make it an attractive rifle out of the box. The barrel is cold hammer forged steel, for long barrel life. The Ruger Marksman Adjustable Trigger has a pull weight of 3-5 pounds, allowing the shooter to customize the pull to whatever they feel most comfortable. The lightweight, synthetic stock is free floated, meaning the barreled does not touch the stock past the rifle’s action. This prevents undue pressure from being exerted on the barrel that could throw off accuracy.

The Ruger American Rifle is chambered in a wide variety of calibers, from .270 Winchester to .338 Winchester Magnum and including the new 6.5-millimeter Creedmoor round.

Ruger LCR:

One of Ruger’s most technically interesting new weapons is the Ruger LCR revolver. Introduced in 2009, the LCR was a new design that fully took advantage of the latest in polymer and metal technologies to create one of the lightest revolvers on the market.

The Ruger LCR weighs just 13.5 ounces unloaded, achieving significant weight savings with its combination polymer and aluminum frame. Although common in high capacity autoloading pistols, the use of polymers in handguns is unusual. The LCR uses polymer where metal-quality strength is not an issue, such in the grip frame, but uses aluminum in the rest of the frame. The revolver uses a steel cylinder to safely handle high chamber pressures.

The LCR is equipped with a five-round cylinder and is capable of shooting both .38 Special and higher pressure .38 Special +P rounds. The gun is just 6.5 inches long and—coupled with a dehorned frame and lack of an external hammer the gun—is easy to draw from behind clothing. A rubber Hogue grip fully encases the backstrap, making the revolver more comfortable to shoot.

Ruger Precision Rifle:

Just as the Ruger American Rifle brought an inexpensive, accurate hunting rifle to the masses, so did the Ruger Precision Rifle. Built using modern manufacturing techniques, the RPR as it is known to fans is a quick way to get into the precision shooting hobby. Mated with a suitable optic, the RPR is capable of consistently making accurate long distance shots right out of the box.

Introduced in 2015, the Ruger Precision Rifle is based on the action of the Ruger American bolt action rifle inserted into an aluminum chassis of Ruger’s own manufacture. The Ruger also uses the same three lug bolt action for quick and positive lockups, as well as a cold-hammer forged steel barrel. The barrel is finished off with the Ruger Hybrid Muzzle Brake, which minimizes barrel flash while lessening noise and pressure waves to the left and right of the shooter—a welcome addition to those who regularly shoot from crowded shooting ranges.

The Ruger RPR weights just 9.8 pounds, relatively light for a precision rifle, and includes a hinged stock for portability. The RPR comes in barrel lengths including 20, 22, and 26 inches, and calibers include .308 Winchester, 6-millimeter Creedmoor, 6.5-millimeter Creedmoor, .300 Winchester Magnum and .338 Lapua Magnum. The rifle uses industry standard Accuracy International magazines.

Ruger Mini-14:

The Ruger Mini-14 is one of the company’s most popular weapons. Essentially a scaled down M-14 battle rifle chambered in .223 Remington, the Mini-14 is the quintessential general-purpose semi-automatic rifle, used by ranchers, police forces, and shooters who need a durable, rough-use long gun capable of quick follow-up shots.

Developed by Bill Ruger and firearm designer James L. Sullivan in the late 1960s, the Mini-14 is a short-stroke, gas piston rifle with a rotating bolt. In that respect, it is similar to the M-1 Garand, M-14, and even the AK-47. The Mini-14 weighs 6.39 pounds unloaded, has a practical rate of fire of 40 rounds per minute and can accept 20 and 30 round magazines.

The Mini-14’s does not have a pistol grip, meaning it was not affected by the 1994 to 2004 federal assault weapons ban. In 1987, Ruger released a version chambered in 7.62x39, giving users a gun capable of using Chinese and Soviet exported ammunition and a weapon that met the minimum caliber standard for deer and similar-sized game. Recently the company released a Mini-14 in .300 Blackout, a new round that offers superior ballistic performance at short range.

Ruger American Pistol:

Although one of the largest gun manufacturers in America, a U.S. military contract has eluded Ruger. The company designed and released the Ruger American Pistol to compete in the U.S. Army’s Modular Handgun System, a contract that would replace the U.S. Army—and later the entire U.S. military’s—arsenals of M9 Beretta handguns with a new, modern pistol.

Ruger’s pistol didn’t win the Army contract, but it was released to the civilian market in 2015. Released as the American Pistol, the gun is a striker-fired double action pistol with a trigger weight of 5.5 pounds. A locked breech and short recoil pistol, at its heart, is a stainless steel removable chassis. Matched Ruger’s polymer grip and steel frame, the pistol has an overall length of 7.5 inches and a weight of 30 ounces. New compact versions shed some length and weight to make a weapon more suitable for concealed carry. The pistol is available in 9-millimeter and .45 ACP.

One of the major benefits to the American public to come from the Modular Handgun System was the requirement for enhanced ergonomics. The pistol comes with three different backstraps to fit a wide variety of hand sizes, and the pistol is fully ambidextrous. Going forward, these features will likely become standard on handguns sold in the United States.

Kyle Mizokami is a writer based in San Francisco who has appeared in The Diplomat, Foreign Policy, War is Boring and The Daily Beast. In 2009 he co-founded the defense and security blog Japan Security Watch. You can follow him on Twitter: @KyleMizokami. This article first appeared in 2019 and is reprinted here due to reader interest.

Image: Reddit.

James Holmes

Security, Asia

America’s navy can use all the joint-service help it can get as it squares off against China and Russia in their home waters.

Here's What You Need To Remember: Competitive strategy is a mode of competition worth rediscovering. The United States and its allies are developing hardware and methods for closing the straits puncturing the first island chain to Chinese vessels and aircraft. In so doing they can deny China the access it must have to transact commerce, diplomacy, and military affairs in faraway regions.

The feel-good story of last month comes out of the U.S. Marine Corps, whose leadership has set in motion a crash effort to field anti-ship missiles for island warfare. Grabbing headlines most recently is the high-mobility artillery rocket system, or HIMARS. In effect, HIMARS is a truck that totes around a launcher capable of disgorging a variety of precision-guided munitions. Some can pummel ships at sea.

And devil dogs will grin. As will their U.S. Navy shipmates. America’s navy can use all the joint-service help it can get as it squares off against China and Russia in their home waters. The Marine Corps Hymn proclaims that marines are “first to fight,” and that remains true in this age of Eurasian seacoasts abristle with long-range precision-guided armaments and missile-armed ships and planes prowling sea and sky. But that fight will commence at sea, not on distant beaches. Marines realize they may never reach Pacific battlegrounds without first winning command of waters that furnish an avenue into contested littorals.

Marine Commandant Robert Neller is fond of telling his comrades they must “fight to get to the fight.” His logic is remorseless. And marines will take up arms in company with navy and merchant-marine sailors who man the fleet. Expeditionary forces can’t even begin prying open the halls of Montezuma or the shores of Tripoli until they defeat hostile navies and batter down “anti-access” defenses. But it goes further. In all likelihood, the fight will involve more than just the naval services. U.S. Air Force aviators may bear a hand in future high-sea imbroglios. Even the U.S. Army stands poised to get into the action as soldiers prepare for “multi-domain operations” spanning the terrestrial, air—and, yes, saltwater—domains.

In other words, future fights promise to be joint fights that mesh capabilities from naval and non-naval services. In that sense, the future promises to be a throwback to Pacific campaigns of old. It’s fitting, then, that marine magnates are peering both ahead and back in time as they orient the Corps toward today’s challenges. They want to harness newfangled technology to help win the war at sea while returning the service to its maritime heritage after seventeen years of battling insurgents and terrorists on dry land. In so doing they intend to bolster the efficacy of American maritime strategy.

First, technology. Nowadays sea power is no longer purely a matter for fleets. To the extent it ever was: that a ship’s a fool to fight a fort is an old adage, not one of recent coinage. Nor is sea power an exclusive province of navies. It is a joint enterprise whereby seagoing, aviation, and ground forces concentrate firepower at embattled scenes on the briny main to impose their will on the foe. The logic is plain. More and more shore-based weaponry can strike farther and farther out to sea as sensor technology and precision guidance mature. Fleets are beneficiaries of fire support from that weaponry so long as they cruise within its range.

Or as General Neller puts it, “There’s a ground component to the maritime fight.” Marines constitute “a naval force in a naval campaign; you have to help the ships control sea space. And you can do that from the land.”

And you can do it best from the land you already occupy. Emplaced on islands dotting the Pacific Ocean, HIMARS and kindred missile launchers could give Chinese ships of war a very bad day. If positioned along the “first island chain” paralleling the mainland’s coastline before the outbreak of war, marines and their joint-service and allied brethren could plausibly threaten to bar access to the Western Pacific and points beyond. And they could execute the threat in wartime, confining Chinese merchantmen, warships, and aircraft to the China seas to exact a frightful economic and military penalty should Beijing do things the United States and its allies hope to deter.

The Marine Corps’ missile procurement blitz will be instantly familiar to China’s People’s Liberation Army (PLA). In fact, the marines are mounting a version in miniature of the PLA’s “anti-access/area-denial,” or A2/AD, strategy. China’s armed forces want to keep the U.S. Pacific Fleet and affiliated joint forces out of the Western Pacific or take a heavy toll should they try to break in. Advanced technology likewise super-empowers U.S. and allied forces. They could strew anti-ship and anti-air missiles on landmasses comprising the first island chain while deploying additional munitions aboard aircraft, submarines, and surface craft lurking nearby.

Land forces—marines and soldiers, American and allied—can anchor the ground component of U.S. maritime strategy in Asia. Like A2/AD, island-chain defense leverages the symbiosis between sea- and shore-based implements of sea power. Joint firepower will help expeditionary forces fight their way to the fight. Or, in the case of the first island chain, likely battlefields already belong to allies or friends. Island warriors only need to hold friendly soil—and as military sages from Clausewitz to Moltke the Elder teach, tactical defense represents the strongest form of warfare.

If imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, Beijing ought to feel flattered indeed. And dismayed!

Second, culture. Sophisticated implements like HIMARS accomplish little unless used with skill and verve. The naval services are trying to rejuvenate martial cultures deadened by three ahistorical decades. Once upon a time—in fact, throughout their history until recent times—the U.S. Marine Corps and Navy assumed they had to fight for command of the sea before they could harvest the fruits of command. In other words, they assumed they had to wrest control of important waters from local defenders in order to render seaways safe enough to land troops, bombard coastal sites, or, in the air and missile age, loft firepower deep into the interior. They had to make the sea a protected sanctuary.

In other words, they assumed they had to do what naval services have done throughout history. Yet service chieftains instigated a cultural revolution in 1992, declaring in effect that the sea services were now exempt from the rigors of peer-on-peer combat. That year they issued a strategic directive titled “. . . From the Sea” proclaiming that, with the Soviet Union dead and the Soviet Navy rusting at its moorings, the U.S. Navy and Marine Corps could afford to reinvent themselves as “fundamentally different” sea services. With no peer antagonist to duel and none on the horizon, they were at liberty to assume away their most elemental function.

Not only could the sea services drop their guard; the leadership ordered them to. And they complied. Tactics and weaponry for prosecuting major combat languished in the wake of “. . . From the Sea.” The services first lost their fighting edge during the strategic holiday of the 1990s, and then while waging irregular warfare in the years since 9/11. Small wonder the services find themselves struggling to refresh their cultures for the new, old age of great-power strategic competition that’s upon us.

Few in uniform today remember the Cold War, when the prospect of battle was a daily fact of life. Preparing for strategic competition demands more than upgrading equipment or relearning skills grown stale. It demands that officialdom and senior commanders imprint bloody-minded attitudes on the sea services anew. Only thus will they extract maximum combat power out of new weapons and sensors, assuring hardware fulfills its potential.

And third, strategy. If highfalutin’ technology and the cultural counterrevolution pan out, the U.S. Marines and fellow services will have positioned themselves to execute a strategy that could give rival great powers fits. Look back again to look ahead. During the late Cold War, the founding chief of the U.S. Office of Net Assessment, Andrew Marshall, exhorted the Pentagon and the armed forces to fashion “competitive strategies” whereby they could compete at a low cost relative to American economic means while compelling the Soviets to compete at a prohibitive cost relative to their means. Over time the approach would render waging cold war unaffordable for Moscow.

Competitive strategy is a mode of competition worth rediscovering. The United States and its allies are developing hardware and methods for closing the straits puncturing the first island chain to Chinese vessels and aircraft. In so doing they can deny China the access it must have to transact commerce, diplomacy, and military affairs in faraway regions. And they can close these narrow seas with systems such as HIMARS. While HIMARS anti-ship rounds are not cheap in absolute terms, dislodging rocketeers from Pacific islands would prove far more burdensome for the PLA. An allied strategy can compel Chinese forces to fight to get to the fight—flipping the logic of anti-access and area denial against them.

In short, island-chain defense is strategy on the cheap in relative terms. It’s an approach that would conjure a glint in Andrew Marshall’s eye.

Let’s call it a “Great Wall in reverse” strategy, with islands comprising the guard towers and joint sea power stationed on and around the islands forming the masonry in between. The legendary Great Wall was built to keep out Central Asian nomads who ravaged China from the steppes. Properly fortified, an archipelagic Great Wall can barricade China within the China seas—and thereby force the PLA to compete on allied terms at a fearsome cost to itself.

HIMARS, then, may look like a humble truck. In reality, it is far more: a tactical implement commanding significant strategic import. As the Marine Corps girds to fight in the air, on land, and sea, it ought to procure anti-ship weapons in bulk—and in haste.

James Holmes is J. C. Wylie Chair of Maritime Strategy at the Naval War College, coauthor of Red Star over the Pacific, and author of A Brief Guide to Maritime Strategy. The views voiced here are his alone. This article first appeared last year.

Image: Flickr.

Richard Douglas

Security,

This is the complete guide to home defense guns

Here's What You Need To Remember: If you’re looking for a fast and accessible firearm, then go for a semi-automatic pistol. In many gun experts’ opinions, it’s the best firearm type for home defense. It’s cheap, concealable, accurate, and very fast. It’ll be ready whenever you need it.

This is the complete guide to home defense guns. In this in-depth guide, you’ll learn:

-What to look for in a home defense gun

-The pros/cons with each firearm type

-What’s the best home defense gun for you

- And much more

 So if you’re trying to look for the best home defense weapon that’ll protect you and your family, this guide is for you. Let’s dive right in.

There’s no such thing as a one size fits all for home defense.

It depends on you and your needs. More specifically, it boils down to your proficiency (or comfort) with your firearm. For example, if all you do is practice with a pistol, then that’s the right gun for you. Likewise, if you only practice with a rifle, then that’s your best home defense weapon. Why is that so?

Stress. When the stressful home invasion occurs, you won’t have time to think. You’ll only have time to act. So choosing a gun that you’re proficient with will help you respond faster, saving you and your families’ life.

That said, here’s the complete breakdown of each firearm type with pros, cons, best use, and even recommendations.

Rifles

Rifles are a great home defense choice. Why? Rifles are insanely accurate, fast, and have the largest magazine. This is great for multi-intruder home defense scenarios. But is it the right choice for you? Here the complete breakdown:

Pros

-Lethal

-Very accurate (longer sight radius)

-Low recoil (depending on your caliber)

-Large magazine (30 rounds)

-Highly modifiable

-Designed to engage multiple targets

Cons

-Expensive

-Heavier (reduces handling speed)

-Easier to disarm (due to barrel size)

-Over-penetration (hits more than the intended target)

-Decreased maneuverability (can’t easily be moved in small spaces)

Best Uses

If you want an edge over your intruders, then get a rifle.

It has a larger magazine, more accurate, and incapacitates quickly. You can take an army with a rifle. In fact, that’s how a veteran took out a three-man armed robbery. That’s why I highly recommend a rifle (if you can afford one). It gives you the firepower necessary to overpower your intruder(s).

Recommendation

Smith & Wesson M&P15 Sport II: A very popular 30 round AR-15. It’s an affordable, close-quarters AR-15 that’s designed for home defense. Bonus tip: throw on some game-changing accessories like an AR-15 optic, light and an adjustable stock, and you’ll be ready-to-go.

Shotguns

Shotguns are usually recommended for home defense. It’s great at short-range, scary, and very reliable. Here’s the breakdown:

Pros

-Affordable

-Doesn’t jam

- Doesn’t over-penetrate (depending on gauge)

-Racking sound scares intruders

-Works great in low light

-Weapon-of-choice for wild animals and zombies (just kidding)

Cons

-Heavier

-Strong recoil

-Shorter magazine (5-6 rounds)

-Slow reloads

-Short-range use only

-Not precise (can hit friendlies due to spread)

-Needs to be aimed (at home defense ranges)

-Weak stopping power (may not incapacitate targets immediately)

Best Use

If you potentially deal with wild animals or you want to intimidate your intruder, then choose a shotgun. Otherwise, opt-in for another firearm type.

Why? The spread. Let’s say the bad guy’s got your wife in a headlock. Will a shotgun be able to accurately (and safely) take down the bad guy without hitting your wife? No, it wouldn’t.

You’d probably end up hitting your wife because of the spread. Not to mention, most shotguns have a 5-6 shot magazine, so you’ll be out of ammo very fast. That said, I have nothing against shotguns. A lot of people prefer them for home defense with wonderful results. I’m just breaking it down on paper.

If you like a shotgun and you’re proficient with it, then go with one! I agree: it’s an intimidating gun and can save you a firefight when you rack the gun. Yet, it does have its flaws (as mentioned above).

Recommendations

Remington 870: A reliable (and popular) pump-action shotgun. It’s lightweight, intimidating, and affordable.

Benelli M2: A semi-automatic shotgun that doesn’t require you to pump the handle. Just aim and fire.

Revolvers

A revolver (or a “hand cannon”) is a simple and reliable handgun. It’s small, deadly, and affordable. It’s also terrifying. That’s why some prefer a revolver for home defense. But is it any good?

Let’s break it down:

Pros

-Reliable

-Easy-to-operate (aim and pull)

-Scary

Cons

-Troublesome recoil

-Requires more skill to fire

-Fires slower (due to trigger)

-Reloads slower (due to revolver’s cylinder)

-Smaller Magazine (6 rounds)

Best Uses

If you’re a “revolver” kind of guy, then go for a revolver. But be warned: it’s not very effective.

It has a small magazine, a bit of a kick, takes longer to reload, and requires more skill to shoot accurately. That’s why law enforcement (minus old cops) stopped using revolvers. They replaced it with a semi-automatic pistol (I’ll cover why below).

That said, if you’re a revolver man, you don’t need a recommendation. But if you do, here it is.

Recommendation

Smith & Wesson Model 66: A 6-shot, .357 Magnum revolver. It’s got an adjustable sight and concealable.

Semi-Automatic Pistol

A semi-automatic pistol is the most common home defense weapon. It’s lightweight, accurate, easy to use, and concealable. It also fits in cramped locations like hallways and doorways. That’s why Law Enforcement and FBI prefer it. But is it the right choice for home defense? Here’s the full breakdown:

Pros

- Inexpensive

-Lightweight

-Accurate

-Concealable

-Fast Target Acquisition

-Requires only one hand

-Maneuverable in tight spaces (like small rooms)

Cons

- Short-range

-Shorter Mag (potential ammo shortages)

-Less control (smaller grip surface)

-Can over-penetrate (depending on caliber)

Best Uses

If you’re looking for a fast and accessible firearm, then go for a semi-automatic pistol. In many gun experts’ opinions, it’s the best firearm type for home defense. It’s cheap, concealable, accurate, and very fast. It’ll be ready whenever you need it.

Recommendation

S&W M&P9c: A polymer-frame, striker-fired double-stack 9mm pistol. It’s affordable, accurate, ergonomic and very concealable.

What’s The Best Gun For Home Defense?

The truth is, it doesn’t matter what weapon you choose. You can choose a shotgun, pistol, revolver, or rifle. They all do the same job—incapacitate whomever it’s pointed at.

Sure, some guns do it better than others. But honestly, it doesn’t matter. What matters is you choose a weapon and practice with it. Because let’s face it:

In a stressful home defense situation, you’re not going to have time to “remember” how to use a gun. You’ll be relying on your training instincts. The better trained you are, the better instincts you’ll have at your disposal.

So keep it simple. First, choose a weapon you like. Then, take it out to the range. And continuously practice. The more you practice, the better the gun (and you) become at home defense. But that’s enough from me.

What’s Your Favorite Home Defense Weapon?

Maybe you like a shotgun? Or an AR-15 equipped with an optic? Either way, let me know what you think in the comments below. 

Richard Douglas is a firearms expert and educator. His work has appeared on large gun publications like The Daily Caller, ODU Magazine, American Shooting Journal, SOFREP, and more. In his free time, he reviews various optics and guns on his Scopes Field blog. This first appeared earlier this year.

Image: Reuters.

Sebastien Roblin

Technology,

Nuclear-powered submarines have traditionally held a decisive edge in endurance, stealth and speed over cheaper diesel submarines.

Here's What You Need To Remember: Who would have guessed nuclear reactors are incredibly expensive? AIP powered submarines have generally cost between $200 and $600 million, meaning a country could easily buy three or four medium-sized AIP submarines instead of one nuclear attack submarine.

Nuclear-powered submarines have traditionally held a decisive edge in endurance, stealth and speed over cheaper diesel submarines. However, new Air Independent Propulsion (AIP) technology has significantly narrowed the performance gap on a new generation of submarines that cost a fraction of the price of a nuclear-powered boat.

A conventional submarine’s diesel engine generates electricity which can be used to drive the propeller and power its systems. The problem is that such a combustion engine is inherently quite noisy and runs on air—a commodity in limited supply on an underwater vehicle. Thus, diesel-powered submarines must surface frequently to recharge their batteries.

The first nuclear-powered submarines were brought into service in the 1950s. Nuclear reactors are quieter, don’t consume air, and produce greater power output, allowing nuclear submarines to remain submerged for months instead of days while traveling at higher speeds under water.  

These advantages led the U.S. Navy to phase out its diesel boats in favor of an all-nuclear powered submarine fleet.  However, most other navies have retained at least some diesel submarines because of their much lower cost and complexity.

In the 1990s, submarines powered by Air Independent Propulsion (AIP) technology entered operational use. Though the concept dated back to the 19th century and had been tested in a few prototype vessels, it was left to Sweden to deploy the first operational AIP-powered submarine, the Gotland-class, which proved to be stealthy and relatively long enduring. The 60-meter long Gotlands are powered by a Stirling-cycle engine, a heat engine consuming a combination of liquid oxygen and diesel fuel.

Since then, AIP powered-submarines have proliferated across the world using three different types of engines, with nearly 60 operational today in fifteen countries. Around fifty more are on order or being constructed.

China has 15 Stirling-powered Yuan-class Type 039A submarines with 20 more planned, as well as a single large Type 032 missile submarine that can fire ballistic missiles. Japan for her part has eight medium-sized Soryu class submarines that also use Stirling engines, with 15 more planned for or under construction. The Swedes, for their part, have developed  four different classes of Stirling-powered submarines.

Germany has also built dozens of AIP powered submarines, most notably the small Type 212 and 214, and has exported them across the globe. The German boats all use electro-catalytic fuel cells, a generally more efficient and quiet technology than the Stirling, though also more complex and expensive. Other countries intending to build fuel-cell powered submarines include Spain (the S-80), India (the Kalvari-class) and Russia (the Lada-class).

Finally, France has designed several subs using closed-cycle steam turbine called MESMA.   Three upgraded Agosta-90b class subs with MESMA engines serve in the Pakistani Navy.

Nuclear vs. AIP: Who Wins?:

Broadly speaking, how do AIP vessels compare in performance to nuclear submarines?  Let’s consider the costs and benefits in terms of stealth, endurance, speed and cost.

Stealth:

Nuclear powered submarines have become very quiet—at least an order of magnitude quieter than a diesel submarine with its engine running.  In fact, nuclear-powered submarines may be unable to detect each other using passive sonar, as evidenced by the 2009 collision of a British and French nuclear ballistic missile submarines, both oblivious to the presence of the other.

However, there’s reason to believe that AIP submarines can, if properly designed, swim underwater even more quietly. The hydraulics in a nuclear reactor produce noise as they pump coolant liquid, while an AIP’s submarine’s engines are virtually silent. Diesel-powered submarines can also approach this level of quietness while running on battery power, but can only do so for a few hours whereas an AIP submarine can keep it up for days.

Diesel and AIP powered submarines have on more than one occasion managed to slip through anti-submarine defenses and sink American aircraft carriers in war games. Of course, such feats have also been performed by nuclear submarines.

Endurance:

Nuclear submarines can operate underwater for three or four months at a time and cross oceans with ease. While some conventional submarines can handle the distance, none have comparable underwater endurance.

AIP submarines have narrowed the gap, however.  While old diesel submarines needed to surface in a matter of hours or a few days at best to recharge batteries, new AIP powered vessels only need to surface every two to four weeks depending on type. (Some sources make the unconfirmed claim that the German Type 214 can even last more than 2 months.) Of course, surfaced submarines, or even those employing a snorkel, are comparatively easy to detect and attack.

Nuclear submarines still have a clear advantage in endurance over AIP boats, particularly on the long-distance patrols.  However, for countries like Japan, Germany and China that mostly operate close to friendly shores, extreme endurance may be a lower priority.

Speed:

Speed remains an undisputed strength of nuclear-powered submarines. U.S. attack submarine may be able to sustain speeds of more than 35 miles per hour while submerged. By comparison, the German Type 214’s maximum submerged speed of 23 miles per hour is typical of AIP submarines.

Obviously, high maximum speed grants advantages in both strategic mobility and tactical agility.  However, it should be kept in mind that even nuclear submarines rarely operate at maximum speed because of the additional noise produced.

On the other hand, an AIP submarine is likely to move at especially slow speeds when cruising sustainably using AIP compared to diesel or nuclear submarines.  For example, a Gotland class submarine is reduced to just 6 miles per hour if it wishes to remain submerged at maximum endurance—which is simply too slow for long distance transits or traveling with surface ships.  Current AIP technology doesn’t produce enough power for higher speeds, and thus most AIP submarines also come with noisy diesel engines as backup.

Cost:

Who would have guessed nuclear reactors are incredibly expensive?  The contemporary U.S. Virginia class attack submarine costs $2.6 billion dollars, and the earlier Los Angeles class before it around $2 billion in inflation-adjusted dollars.  Mid-life nuclear refueling costs add millions more.

By comparison, AIP powered submarines have generally cost between $200 and $600 million, meaning a country could easily buy three or four medium-sized AIP submarines instead of one nuclear attack submarine. Bear in mind, however, that the AIP submarines are mostly small or medium sized vessels with crews of around 30 and 60 respectively, while nuclear submarines are often larger with crews of 100 or more.  They may also have heavier armament, such as Vertical Launch Systems, when compared to most AIP powered vessels.

Nevertheless, a torpedo or missile from a small submarine can hit just as hard as one fired from a large one, and having three times the number of submarine operating in a given stretch of ocean could increase the likelihood chancing upon an important target, and make it easier to overwhelm anti-submarine defenses.

While AIP vessels may not be able to do everything a nuclear submarine can, having a larger fleet of submarines would be very useful in hunting opposing ships and submarines for control of the seas. Nor would it be impossible to deploy larger AIP powered submarines; China has already deployed one, and France is marketing a cheaper AIP-powered version of the Barracuda-class nuclear attack submarine.

It is no surprise that navies that operate largely around coastal waters are turning to cheap AIP submarines, as their disadvantage are not as relevant when friendly ports are close at hand. The trade off in range and endurance is more problematic for the U.S. Navy, which operates across the breadth of the Atlantic, Pacific and Indian Oceans. This may explain why the U.S. Navy has shown little inclination to return to non-nuclear submarines. However, AIP submarines operating from forward bases would represent a very cost-effective and stealthy means to expand the Navy’s sea-control mission.

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

Image: Wikipedia.

James Holmes

History,

These battleships were rightly feared during their time.

Key point: These five battleships helped to revolutionize naval warfare. Here is why history remembers them.

Ranking the greatest battleships of all time is a tad easier than ranking naval battles. Both involve comparing apples with oranges. But at least taking the measure of individual men-of-war involves comparing one apple with one orange. That's a compact endeavor relative to sorting through history to discern how seesaw interactions shaped the destinies of peoples and civilizations.

This appeared earlier and is being reposted due to reader interest.

Still, we need some standard for distinguishing between battlewagons. What makes a ship great? It makes sense, first of all, to exclude any ship before the reign of Henry VIII. There was no line-of-battle ship in the modern sense before England's "great sea-king" founded the sail-driven Royal Navy in the 16th century. Galley warfare was quite a different affair from lining up capital ships and pounding away with naval gunnery.

One inescapable chore is to compare ships' technical characteristics. A recent piece over at War Is Boring revisits an old debate among battleship and World War II enthusiasts. Namely, who would've prevailed in a tilt between a U.S. Navy Iowa-class dreadnought and the Imperial Japanese Navy's Yamato? Author Michael Peck restates the common wisdom from when I served in mighty Wisconsin, last of the battleships: it depends on who landed the first blow. Iowas commanded edges in speed and fire control, while Yamato and her sister Musashi outranged us and boasted heavier weight of shot. We would've made out fine had we closed the range before the enemy scored a lucky hit from afar. If not, things may have turned ugly.

Though not in so many words, Peck walks through the basic design features that help qualify a battleship for history's elite -- namely guns, armor, and speed. Makes sense, doesn't it? Offensive punch, defensive resiliency, and speed remain the hallmarks of any surface combatant even in this missile age. Note, however, that asymmetries among combat vessels result in large part from the tradeoffs naval architects must make among desirable attributes.

Only sci-fi lets shipwrights escape such choices. A Death Star of the sea would sport irresistible weaponry, impenetrable armor, and engines able to drive the vessel at breakneck speed. But again, you can't have everything in the real world. Weight is a huge challenge. A battleship loaded down with the biggest guns and thickest armor would waddle from place to place. It would make itself an easy target for nimbler opponents or let them run away. On the other hand, assigning guns and speed top priority works against rugged sides. A ship that's fleet of foot but lightly armored exposes its innards and crew to enemy gunfire. And so forth. Different navies have different philosophies about tradeoffs. Hence the mismatches between Yamato and Iowa along certain parameters. Thus has it always been when fighting ships square off.

But a battleship is more than a machine. Machines neither rule the waves nor lose out in contests for mastery. People do. People ply the seas, and ideas about shiphandling and tactics guide their combat endeavors. Great Britain's Royal Navy triumphed repeatedly during the age of sail. Its success owed less to superior materiel -- adversaries such as France and the United States sometimes fielded better ships -- than to prolonged voyages that raised seamanship and gunnery to a high art. Indeed, a friend likes to joke that the 18th century's finest warship was a French 74-gun ship captured -- and crewed -- by Royal Navy mariners. The best hardware meets the best software.

That's why in the end, debating Jane's Fighting Ships entries -- lists of statistics -- for Iowa, Yamato, and their brethren from other times and places fails to satisfy. What looks like the best ship on paper may not win. A ship need not outmatch its opponents by every technical measure. It needs to be good enough. That is, it must match up well enough to give an entrepreneurial crew, mindful of the tactical surroundings, a reasonable chance to win. The greatest battleship thus numbers among the foremost vessels of its age by material measures, and is handled by masterful seamen.

But adding the human factor to the mix still isn't enough. There's an element of opportunity, of sheer chance. True greatness comes when ship and crew find themselves in the right place at the right time to make history. A battleship's name becomes legend if it helps win a grand victory, loses in dramatic fashion, or perhaps accomplishes some landmark diplomatic feat. A vessel favored (or damned) by fortune, furthermore, becomes a strategic compass rose. It becomes part of the intellectual fund on which future generations draw when making maritime strategy. It's an artifact of history that helps make history.

So we arrive at one guy's gauge for a vessel's worth: strong ship, iron men, historical consequence. In effect, then, I define greatest as most iconic. Herewith, my list of history's five most iconic battleships, in ascending order:

Bismarck. The German Navy's Bismarck lived a short life that supplies the stuff of literature to this day. Widely considered the most capable battleship in the Atlantic during World War II, Bismarck sank the battlecruiser HMS Hood, pride of the Royal Navy, with a single round from her main battery. On the other hand, the leadership's martial spirit proved brittle when the going got tough. In fact, it shattered at the first sharp rap. As commanders' resolve went, so went the crew's.

Notes Bernard Brodie, the dreadnought underwent an "extreme oscillation" in mood. Exaltation stoked by the encounter with Hood gave way to despair following a minor torpedo strike from a British warplane. Admiral Günther Lütjens, the senior officer on board, gathered Bismarck crewmen after the air attack and "implored them to meet death in a fashion becoming to good Nazis." A great coach Lütjens was not. The result? An "abysmally poor showing" in the final showdown with HMS Rodney, King George V, and their entourage. One turret crew fled their guns. Turret officers reportedly kept another on station only at gunpoint. Marksmanship and the guns' rate of fire -- key determinants of victory in gunnery duels -- suffered badly.

In short, Bismarck turned out to be a bologna flask (hat tip: Clausewitz), an outwardly tough vessel that shatters at the slightest tap from within. In 1939 Grand Admiral Erich Raeder lamented that the German surface fleet, flung into battle long before it matured, could do little more than "die with honor." Raeder was righter than he knew. Bismarck's death furnishes a parable that captivates navalists decades hence. How would things have turned out had the battlewagon's human factor proved less fragile? We'll never know. Doubtless her measure of honor would be bigger.

Yamato. As noted at the outset, Yamato was an imposing craft by any standard. She displaced more than any battleship in history, as much as an early supercarrier, and bore the heaviest armament. Her mammoth 18-inch guns could sling 3,200-lb. projectiles some 25 nautical miles. Armor was over two feet thick in places. Among the three attributes of warship design, then, Yamato's designers clearly prized offensive and defensive strength over speed. The dreadnought could steam at 27 knots, not bad for a vessel of her proportions. But that was markedly slower than the 33 knots attainable by U.S. fast battleships.

Like Bismarck, Yamato is remembered mainly for falling short of her promise. She provides another cautionary tale about human fallibility. At Leyte Gulf in October 1944, a task force centered on Yamato bore down on the transports that had ferried General Douglas MacArthur's landing force ashore on Leyte, and on the sparse force of light aircraft carriers, destroyers, and destroyer escorts guarding the transports from seaward assault.

Next ensued the immortal charge of the tin-can sailors. The outclassed American ships charged Yamato and her retinue. Like Lütjens, Admiral Takeo Kurita, the task-force commander, appeared to wilt under less-than-dire circumstances. Historians still argue about whether he mistook Taffy 3, the U.S. Navy contingent, for a far stronger force; lost his nerve; or simply saw little point in sacrificing his ships and men. Whatever the case, Kurita ordered his fleet to turn back -- leaving MacArthur's expeditionary force mostly unmolested from the sea.

Yamato met a quixotic fate, though less ignominious than Bismarck's. In April 1945 the superbattleship was ordered to steam toward Okinawain company with remnants of the surface fleet, there to contest the Allied landings. The vessel would deliberately beach itself offshore, becoming an unsinkable gun emplacement until it was destroyed or its ammunition was exhausted. U.S. naval intelligence got wind of the scheme, however, and aerial bombardment dispatched Yamato before she could reach her destination. A lackluster end for history's most fearsome battlewagon.

Missouri. Iowa and New Jersey were the first of the Iowa class and compiled the most enviable fighting records in the class, mostly in the Pacific War. Missouri was no slouch as a warrior, but -- alone on this list -- she's celebrated mainly for diplomatic achievements rather than feats of arms. General MacArthur accepted Japan's surrender on her weatherdecks in Tokyo Bay, leaving behind some of the most enduring images from 20th-century warfare. Missouri has been a metaphor for how to terminate big, open-ended conflicts ever since. For instance, President Bush the Elder invoked the surrender in his memoir. Missouri supplied a measuring stick for how Desert Storm might unfold. (And as it happens, a modernized Missouri was in Desert Storm.)

Missouri remained a diplomatic emissary after World War II. The battlewagon cruised to Turkey in the early months after the war, as the Iron Curtain descended across Europe and communist insurgencies menaced Greece and Turkey. Observers interpreted the voyage as a token of President Harry Truman's, and America's, commitment to keeping the Soviet bloc from subverting friendly countries. Message: the United States was in Europe to stay. Missouri thus played a part in the development of containment strategy while easing anxieties about American abandonment. Naval diplomacy doesn't get much better than that.

Mikasa. Admiral Tōgō Heihachirō's flagship is an emblem for maritime command. The British-built Mikasa was arguably the finest battleship afloat during the fin de siècle years, striking the best balance among speed, protection, and armament. The human factor was strong as well. Imperial Japanese Navy seamen were known for their proficiency and élan, while Tōgō was renowned for combining shrewdness with derring-do. Mikasa was central to fleet actions in the Yellow Sea in 1904 and the Tsushima Strait in 1905 -- battles that left the wreckage of two Russian fleets strewn across the seafloor. The likes of Theodore Roosevelt and Alfred Thayer Mahan considered Tsushima a near-perfect fleet encounter.

Like the other battleships listed here, Mikasa molded how subsequent generations thought about diplomacy and warfare. IJN commanders of the interwar years planned to replicate Tsushima Strait should Japan fall out with the United States. More broadly, Mikasa and the rest of the IJN electrified peoples throughout Asia and beyond. Japan, that is, proved that Western imperial powers could be beaten in battle and ultimately expelled from lands they had subjugated. Figures ranging from Sun Yat-sen to Mohandas Gandhi to W. E. B. Du Bois paid homage to Tsushima, crediting Japan with firing their enthusiasm for overthrowing colonial rule.

Mikasa, then, was more than the victor in a sea fight of modest scope. And her reputation outlived her strange fate. The vessel returned home in triumph following the Russo-Japanese War, only to suffer a magazine explosion and sink. For the Japanese people, the disaster confirmed that they had gotten a raw deal at the Portsmouth Peace Conference. Nevertheless, it did little to dim foreign observers' enthusiasm for Japan's accomplishments.Mikasa remained a talisman.

Victory. Topping this list is the only battleship from the age of sail. HMS Victory was a formidable first-rate man-of-war, cannon bristling from its three gun decks. But her fame comes mainly from her association with Lord Horatio Nelson, whom Mahan styles "the embodiment of the sea power of Great Britain." In 1805 Nelson led his outnumbered fleet into combat against a combined Franco-Spanish fleet off Cape Trafalgar, near Gibraltar. Nelson and right-hand man Admiral Cuthbert Collingwood led columns of ships that punctured the enemy line of battle. The Royal Navy crushed its opponent in the ensuing melee, putting paid to Napoleon's dreams of invading the British Isles.

Felled on board his flagship that day, Nelson remains a synonym for decisive battle. Indeed, replicating Trafalgar became a Holy Grail for naval strategists across the globe. Permanently drydocked at Portsmouth, Victory is a shrine to Nelson and his exploits -- and the standard of excellence for seafarers everywhere. That entitles her to the laurels of history's greatest battleship.

Surveying this list of icons, two battleships made the cut because of defeats stemming from slipshod leadership, two for triumphs owing to good leadership, and one for becoming a diplomatic paragon. That's not a bad reminder that human virtues and frailties -- not wood, or metal, or shot -- are what make the difference in nautical enterprises.

James Holmes is Professor of Strategy at the Naval War College and coauthor of Red Star over the Pacific. The views voiced here are his alone.

Editor's Note: This piece first appeared on December 26, 2013. It is being recirculated due to reader interest. 

Image: Reuters

Sebastien Roblin

Security, Middle East

But could Tehran hit one?

Here's What You Need To Remember: The IRGC’s short-range ASBMs are situated in a confined theater (the Persian Gulf) in which they would have plentiful opportunities to detect and attack vessels.  Furthermore, the ASBMs attack from a different vector than the far more common sea-skimming anti-ship cruise missiles also deployed in the region.  A saturation attack by many missiles at once, launched from different angles, and including multiple types of weapons, could potentially overwhelm defenses to deadly effect.

In 2009, it became clear that China had developed a mobile medium-range ballistic missile called the DF-21D designed to sink ships over 900 miles away.  This then-nascent technical achievement gave rise to a still-ongoing debate over the survivability of the U.S.’s nuclear-powered aircraft carriers, as the DF-21D outranged the strike planes serving on carrier decks.  This further compelled the U.S. Navy to introduce anti-ballistic missile capability to its destroyers and cruisers in the form of the SM-3 missile.

Ballistic missiles travel in an arcing trajectory to maximize range and velocity, sometimes even exiting the Earth’s atmosphere before plunging down towards their targets at unthinkably fast speeds—in the DF-21’s case, up to ten times the speed of sound.  However, until a decade ago there were no operational anti-ship ballistic missiles (though one was developed by the Soviet Union, but did not enter service) because it’s a lot easier to program a ballistic missile to hit a city or military base, than to have one strike a small, moving target—ie, a ship.

However, just two years later Iran announced it too had already developed an anti-ship ballistic missile.  Tehran is infamous for habitually exaggerating or fabricating claims about its military technology—but in 2013 footage of an apparently successful missile test was released, and by 2014 U.S. intelligence briefings confirmed the missile’s deployment.

The missile, which has the rather on-the-nose name Khalij Fars (“Persian Gulf”), is derivative of Iran’s domestically developed Fateh-110 short-ranged ballistic missile.  The truck-born Fateh-110 series can be fired on short notice because it uses solid fuel; by contrast, liquid-fuel rockets require days to gas up.

The Persian Gulf missile ostensibly uses an electro-optical/infrared seeker to allow it to slam its 1,433-pound warhead home into a moving naval target, though this isn’t absolutely confirmed  because Iran covered the seeker in photos.  An Iranian article claims that in a 2013 test, the missile struck a moving naval target with eight-meters of accuracy (recording here).  A 2014 CSIS assessment concludes that the rocket on average will fall within a few dozen meters of the target, and that the Khalij Fars has likely entered service with operational IRGCN units.

However, the Khalij Fars has one-quarter the DF-21’s range at 190 to 220 miles, and relatedly doesn’t fly as high or fast, with a lower maximum speed of Mach 3 as it plunges towards its target.  Thus the Khalij Fars would likely prove easier to intercept with defensive missiles.

Like Chinese ASBMs, the Khalij Fars would also require external reconnaissance assets to provide initial target-cueing for its inertial guidance system (GPS guidance may also be installed in some variants).  As U.S. surface warships can cruise at a brisk 30 knots (35 miles per hour) making sure the carrier remains within the ‘target box’ of the missile, which can only make limited (though precise) course adjustments during its EO-guided descent, would prove a challenge.  The ships in a carrier task force would likely detect the launch of the Persian Gulf missile and respond with evasive maneuvers to exit the target box.  Thus, multiple missiles might be required to ‘box in’ the target.

However, the Khalij Far’s limitations are significantly mitigated by the fact that the Persian Gulf is quite narrow: only 35 miles across at the straits of Hormuz, to a maximum of 220 miles.  Thus, massing the mobile launchers within strike range may not prove as difficult as would ordinarily be the case.  As the missile achieves a peak speed of 38 miles per minute, the early warning time might also be limited compared to a longer-range (but harder to intercept) missile.

Likewise, it would be easier to locate and cue targeting data for a ship in the Persian Gulf than the open vastness of the Pacific Ocean.  The Iranian Navy and IRGC Navy operate a wide variety of surveillance assets ranging from motor boats, semi-submersible craft, and U.S.-built CH-53 and SH-3 helicopters to drones, bizarre Bavar-2 ground-effect vehicles and ground-based search radars.   

In 2014, Iran also unveiled a a faster (Mach 4) anti-radiation variant of the Khalij Fars called the Hormuz-1 and -2 designed to home-in on land- and sea-based radars respectively—possibly the world’s first anti-radiation ballistic missiles. An anti-radiation missile turns a warship’s greatest defensive advantage—it’s powerful radars—into a vulnerability by homing in on it for guidance.  A ship can de-activate its radar to break the lock, but then leave itself exposed to other threats.

The Hormuz missiles share with the new longer-range Zolfaghar variant of the Fateh-110 a new mobile two-rail launcher. This could help an anti-ship missile battery launch more missiles in a short time frame, over-saturating defenses. Furthermore, experience in the 1991 Gulf War suggests that truck-mounted ballistic missiles can be surprisingly difficult to hunt down even when benefitting from air superiority.

You can see an apparently successful Hormuz test in this video.

In August 2018, Iran announced development of a Fateh-Mobin (“Bright Conqueror”) variant of Fateh-110 with an infrared-seeker for terminal guidance, and claimed radar-evasive features—though such features were not evident to visual inspection.  The Mobin’s seeker apparently gives it anti-ship as well as ground attack capabilities.

Two months later in October 2018, the IRGC Aerospace Force’s commander General Amir Ali Hajizadeh claimed in a speech that Iran had developed a new guided ASBM with 700 kilometer (434 miles) strike range—expanding potential targeting across the Gulf of Oman.  No name was specified, though Iran’s newer Zolfaghar SRBM (an improved Fateh-110) has the same range, so it’s possible he was referring to an anti-ship Zolfaghar variant.

U.S. surface warships nonetheless benefit from formidable multi-layered Aegis air-defense systems, some components of which are designed to tackle more challenging missile threats than the Khalij Fars; furthermore, U.S. carriers always deploy as part of mutually-supporting task forces.

However, the IRGC’s short-range ASBMs are situated in a confined theater (the Persian Gulf) in which they would have plentiful opportunities to detect and attack vessels.  Furthermore, the ASBMs attack from a different vector than the far more common sea-skimming anti-ship cruise missiles also deployed in the region.  A saturation attack by many missiles at once, launched from different angles, and including multiple types of weapons, could potentially overwhelm defenses to deadly effect.

Given the volume of valuable commercial shipping in the Persian Gulf, Tehran is investing in improving its ASBMs—and publicizing that effort to the world—as a means to build conventional military deterrence in a context of rising tensions with Saudi Arabia, Israel and the United States.

Sébastien Roblin holds a master’s degree in conflict resolution from Georgetown University and served as a university instructor for the Peace Corps in China. He has also worked in education, editing, and refugee resettlement in France and the United States. He currently writes on security and military history for War Is Boring. This first appeared earlier in October 2019.

Image: Reuters.

A woman in her 70s whose daughter was killed and whose grandchildren were abducted during two decades of conflict and insecurity in Uganda, has been speaking about how religion has helped her to find a meaning in life.

Sebastien Roblin

Security, Asia

To this day, the Vikrant’s combat operations in the Bay of Bengal remain the only carrier-based combat operations undertaken by an Asian state since World War II

Here's What You Need To Remember: By 1971, war clouds were again on the horizon between India and Pakistan due to Islamabad’s brutal repression of East Pakistan. This prompted millions of refugees to flee into India, prompting New Delhi to begin supporting insurgent supporting independence of the region from West Pakistan.

In the wake of the commissioning of China’s second aircraft carrier, it’s worth remembering that the People’s Republic of China is actually only the third Asian state to operate its own aircraft carrier. The first was Japan, which after a long hiatus following its World War II misadventures, is only just getting back into carrier operations.

Meanwhile, not only has the Indian Navy operated the powerful vessels for nearly sixty years, it also used them effectively in a map-changing war in 1971.

Back in 1957, New Delhi purchased the British Royal Navy’s Hercules, a Hermes-class light fleet carrier that was 75 percent complete when her construction was frozen in May 1946.

Hercules was towed to Belfast, Northern Ireland, where shipbuilder Harland and Wolff completed her in a configuration modernized for jet fighter operations with an angled flight deck and steam catapults. She was finally commissioned as the Vikrant (“Courageous”) in Indian Navy service on March 4, 1961.

As a light carrier, Vikrant was considerably smaller compared to her contemporaries, measuring only 210 meters long and displacing 17,600 tons. But her limited deck space was fine, as the Indian Navy was also busy building its naval air arm from scratch, procuring the first of 66 Hawker Sea Hawk jet fighters—mostly second-hand British and German aircraft—as well as 17 tubby piston-engine Breguet Alize anti-submarine aircraft.

After receiving training in the UK, an Indian Sea Hawk pilot performed the service’s first carrier landing on May 18, 1961. However, Vikrant subsequently sat out a 1965 conflict with Pakistan as she was undergoing a refit.

Conflict in the Bay of Bengal

By 1971, war clouds were again on the horizon between India and Pakistan due to Islamabad’s brutal repression of East Pakistan. This prompted millions of refugees to flee into India, prompting New Delhi to begin supporting insurgent supporting independence of the region from West Pakistan.

By late 1971, the government of Indra Ghandi was set on supporting Bengali revolutionaries seeking to eject the Pakistani military entirely.

Though only three of Vikrant’s four boilers were functioning, limiting her maximum speed to just 17 knots, naval command insisted she must participate in the coming conflict, lest a second no-show deal a blow to the Navy’s morale.

The Vikrant’s role was to maintain a naval blockade of East Pakistan—preventing the Pakistani Army from dispatching reinforcements or evacuating by sea. Once the ground campaign began—a lightning campaign in which helicopters and amphibious tanks were used to leap-frog across Bangladesh’s many rivers—the Vikrant’s air wing would focus on hammering Pakistani naval assets and port facilities.

The air wing’s main combat strength came from INAS 300 “White Tiger” squadron, equipped with eighteen Sea Hawk fighter bombers. With a maximum speed of 600 miles per hour, these would have been outclassed had they encountered the handful of F-86 Sabre’s the Pakistani Air Force had deployed to East Pakistan, but their true potential lay as stable ground-attack platforms armed with four 20-millimeter Hispano cannons, and up to four 500-pound bombs or sixteen 5” rockets.

The lumpy three-ma Alize patrol planes of INAS 310 “Cobra” Squadron were foremost designed to search for submarines using air-dropped sonobuoys and surface-search radar (to catch subs that were surfaced or snorkeling to recharge batteries) and then sink them with depth charges and homing torpedoes. However, they also could be adapted to a more conventional attack role carrying 68-millimeter rockets and bombs. 

The Alizes could fly long distances with their range of 1,000 miles, but would take a while doing so: though there maximum speed was 290 miles per hour, they frequently cruised at only half that. Their radars proved useful for maintaining the blockade by monitoring shipping traffic in lengthy patrols.

A third unit, INAS 321 “Angels” Squadron, operated Alouette III helicopters in the search-and-rescue and resupply role.

Ghazi Hunts Vikrant; Vikrant Hunts Ghazi

The Pakistani Navy concluded a lack of facilities and geographic vulnerability made it impractical to deploy major warships to East Pakistan, so its presence there was limited to squadron of four gunboats as well as smaller armed boats capable of navigating Bangladesh’s many rivers. Thus, the major naval battles of Indo-Pakistani war were fought on India’s western flank. 

However, the Pakistani Navy had one joker up its sleeve: the submarine PNS Ghazi, a former U.S. Tench-class submarine from World War II. Pakistan hoped that a lucky torpedo or two from Ghazi might sink Vikant, turning its losing hand in the Bay of Bengal into a winning one—or at least constrain Vikrant’s operations.

The Indian Navy was also aware of Ghazi’s presence in the sector and made sinking her a priority.

The website Mission Vikrant 71 collects numerous fascinating anecdotes that convey the experience of the sailors and aviators onboard the Vikrant—including one account by pilot Richard Clarke describing Indian anti-submarine operations.

On the second day of the war on December 4, the Vikrat was cruising off the Andaman islands when her lookouts reported spotting a periscope. Clarke scrambled his Alize into the sky loaded with depth charges and headed towards a “distinct ripple.” He released the depth charges on target and was received by jubilant crew upon landing on deck. 

But Clarke recalled that upon being summoned for debriefing, “I very sheepishly had to tell the Fleet Commander that there in fact there was no submarine in the crystal clear blue waters below the ripple when I flew over it. But I realized this only seconds before the depth charges exploded”

In fact, on December 3 Ghazi failed to locate Vikrant and instead moved to deploy mines at the entrance of Visakhapatnam port, the site of the Indian naval HQ. Around midnight on December 3-4 mysterious circumstances caused the submarine to sink with the loss of all 92 aboard.

Whether this was a result of depth charges launched by the Indian destroyer Rajput, a collision with the sea floor while attempting to dodge those depth charges, or due to a mishap during minelaying remains controversial.

Either way, the sinking left Vikrant with a free hand. Starting December 4, her Sea Hawks and Alizes flew nearly 300 sorties hammering Chittagong, Cox’s Bazar and Khulna, sinking numerous small ships and setting fuel stores on fire. One tanker in Chittagong was blasted into three segments.

The carrier also used electronic warfare to locate Pakistani gun boats and dispatch air strikes to sink them.

The carrier-based warplanes encountered heavy anti-aircraft fire, and often returned pocked with shrapnel and bullet holes—though none were lost in the fourteen-day war.

As the Indian Navy began dispatching small amphibious landing forces to cut off retreating Pakistani troops, it also needed intelligence to determine appropriate landing zones. Therefore, Alizes also flew low and slow photo reconnaissance missions with a crewmember using a hand operated F24 camera to obtain the necessary information to plan the landing operations

Cut off from reinforcements, with riverine assets largely sunk from the air (and even one occasion, by amphibious tanks), and unable to evacuate by sea, Pakistani army forces in East Pakistan surrendered on December 16, resulting in the creation of present-day Bangladesh. 

Afterwards, according to 300 squadron officer Gurnham Singh, when one of the carrier’s Alouette helicopters was dispatched ashore on a resupply mission—pilots from 300 squadron requested the chopper crew return with some war booty: spicy Chittagong pickles. This wish was granted when the chopper returned bearing 30 kilos of the spicy pickles plus paratha flat breads.

To this day, the Vikrant’s combat operations in the Bay of Bengal remain the only carrier-based combat operations undertaken by an Asian state since World War II.

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. This article first appeared earlier this year.

Image: Wikipedia.

Charlie Gao

Technology, Americas

The Glock 46 stands as a stark counterpoint to those who say the company cannot innovate.

Here's What You Need To Remember: For all its advanced features, the Glock 46 has only been adopted by one agency, the state police of Saxony-Anhalt, replacing SIG P225s. Other recent Glock adopters appear to have opted for more traditional Glocks. However, for future contracts, the innovative Glock 46 could be Glock’s answer to an increasingly competitive polymer pistol market.

Glock GmbH is criticized by some for being one of the least innovative companies in the gun industry. The basic design of a Glock pistol has changed very little from the original Generation 1 Glock: the majority of changes through the generations are slight changes to the trigger layout and the addition of rails and other ergonomic features. This has led some to say that Glock cannot innovate.

However, the Glock 46 stands as a stark counterpoint to those who say so. Utilizing a rotating barrel system and a redesigned striker system, the Glock 46 is a total rethinking of the Glock design, different in almost every way.

The rotating barrel likely makes the Glock 46 softer shooting than its tilting barrel counterparts. Other pistols with rotating barrels, such as Beretta’s Px4, Grand Power’s K100, and Archon/Arsenal’s Stryk B all are known for their pleasant recoil. It also provides some accuracy benefits. Glock’s approach to the rotating barrel appears to address some concerns leveled at other pistols with rotating barrels, which can be difficult to field strip. Glock’s barrel appears to put two camming pins on the barrel itself, as opposed to the Px4 which places a camming surface on the barrel itself. The change in the placement of the rotating parts could make the Glock 46’s field strip simpler than some of its rotating barrel competition.

The striker is also significantly redesigned, with a new backplate on the rear of the slide. Apparently, the striker can be removed from the pistol by rotating a lever on the back plate and pulling the mechanism out, eliminating the need to drop the striker by pulling the trigger when disassembling the pistol. As many of Glock’s competitors (including the H&K VP9 and Sig P320) have advertised their ability to disassemble without pulling the trigger, Glock finally appears to have caught up and revised one of their pistols to do the same.

The Glock 46 also features a manual safety, likely to fulfill departmental requirements, and a revised grip. The safety is likely optional, as early prototypes of the Glock 46 were shown without it. The 46 has a significantly extended beavertail, which probably eliminates complaints of “Glock bite” that some shooters experience with other Glock pistols. The backstrap system is similarly revised to work with the new beavertail.

For all its advanced features, the Glock 46 has only been adopted by one agency, the state police of Saxony-Anhalt, replacing SIG P225s. Other recent Glock adopters appear to have opted for more traditional Glocks. However, for future contracts, the innovative Glock 46 could be Glock’s answer to an increasingly competitive polymer pistol market.

Charlie Gao studied political and computer science at Grinnell College and is a frequent commentator on defense and national security issues. This article first appeared earlier this year,

Image: Creative Commons

Kyle Mizokami

History, Middle East

The F-15I was made for the IDF and this special version performed well.

Key Point: Even today, Israel loves its F-15I fighter jets. These vaunted aircraft have fought in many battles and won.

One of the fighter jets most associated with Israel is the F-15 Eagle. The first F-15 touched down in Israel in 1976 and the jet has served continuously—and without defeat—since. In 1998, the Israeli Air Force introduced a new version of the jet, one designed for air-to-air and air-to-ground combat. The Ra’am (Thunder) serves as the long-range striking arm of the Israeli Air Force, complementing the new F-35I Adir fighter to ensure Israeli air superiority now and into the foreseeable future.

This first appeared earlier and is being reposted due to reader interest.

The earliest versions of the McDonnell Douglas (today Boeing) F-15 Eagle were pure air-to-air fighters. Large twin-engine, single-seat fighters, they featured a bubble canopy for excellent visibility, a powerful APG-63 radar, a combat load of four AIM-7 Sparrow radar-guided missiles and four AIM-9 Sidewinder infrared-guided missiles, and an M61 Gatling gun. The two Pratt & Whitney F100 engines gave the F-15 such an impressive power-to-weight ratio that the new jet could easily accelerate straight up.

The F-15 was large and versatile enough that engineers considered a multirole version, one that took advantage of the F-15’s power, range, and size to carry air-to-ground weapons. This led to the development of the F-15E Strike Eagle, which entered service with the U.S. Air Force in 1989 and promptly saw service in the 1991 Persian Gulf War. 

The Strike Eagle’s performance in the Gulf War stirred Israeli interest. The Gulf War had not exactly gone as planned for Tel Aviv, which had been bombarded by Scud missiles launched by Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein. Israel acquiesced to U.S. pressure not to retaliate, but even if it had decided to do so it lacked the long-range aircraft and reconnaissance assets necessary to hunt Scud launchers in Western Iraq. Saddam Hussein remained in power after the war to eject his army from Kuwait, ensuring that Iraq would remain a threat to Israel. Meanwhile, Iran was in the early stages of its nuclear weapons program. A long-range fighter would be a necessary weapon for deterring, or failing that destroying, threats from the east. 

An Israeli Strike Eagle would go a long way toward fixing the Israeli Air Force’s shortcomings. The F-15E’s conformal fuel tanks would add range the range necessary to attack long-range targets. The dual air-to-air/air-to-ground capability meant an F-15E could self-escort if necessary. (In 1981, Israeli F-15s escorted F-16s tasked to destroy the Iraqi nuclear reactor at Osirak, enlarging the air group and the need for aerial refueling and other support.) A single plane that could do it all, that the Israel Air Force already knew very well, was an intriguing option. 

Israel selected the F-15I, or Ra’am, in May 1994 with an initial agreement to buy twenty-one aircraft (known as Peace Fox V) with a further option for four more (Peace Fox VI.) The order was increased to twenty-five aircraft in 1995. The F-15 had already served in the Israeli Air Force for fifteen years, and Israeli engineers had plenty of ideas on how to improve on the platform. Israeli Aerospace Industries worked with manufacturer Boeing (which had since purchased McDonnell Douglas) to contribute many of the aircraft’s avionics. 

The F-15I hosted a number of indigenous features. The aircraft had an Israeli-made central computer, GPS/inertial guidance system, and an Elbit display and sight helmet (DASH). The airplanes were delivered with electronic warfare systems built into the F-15E, instead of using the Israeli Elisra SPS-2110 Integrated Electronic Warfare System. 

The F-15I could carry all the weapons Israeli F-15As carried and then some. The Ra’am initially carried AIM-9L Sidewinder and Python infrared-guided short-range missiles, but time has narrowed that down to the Python. The fighter also carried both the older AIM-7 Sparrow and newer AIM-120 AMRAAM radar-guided medium-range missile. 

The F-15I’s twin engines and large airframe mean can carry up to 18,000 pounds of fuel and munitions. The Israeli Air Force originally described the jet’s ordnance load as thirty-six Rockeye cluster bombs or six Maverick air-to-ground missiles. Today, the F-15I’s air-to-ground munitions set has expanded to include Paveway laser-guided bombs, Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM) satellite-guided bombs, BLU-109 “bunker-buster” bombs, the SPICE precision-guided bomb, and AGM-88 HARM anti-radar missiles. 

The first F-15I arrived in Israel in 1997, with new aircraft arriving at about once a month until the order was fulfilled in 1999. The aircraft served continuously over the past twenty years, not only in training exercises but anti-terrorism operations, the 2006 Lebanon War, the Gaza War, Operation Pillar of Defense, and Operation Cast Lead. The F-15Is were also heavily involved in Israeli planning to strike Iranian nuclear facilities had Iran, a strike headed off by the signing of the 2015 nuclear agreement between Iran and the West.

The IAF’s adoption of the F-35I “Adir” fighter did not dampen the country’s enthusiasm for the F-15. The IAF still calls the aircraft its “strategic aircraft,” with the head of the Air Force stating, “At the end of the day, when we want to reach far distances with few aircraft many arms - the F-15I wins.” 

In 2016, Israel announced the start of an upgrade program meant to keep the F-15I relevant, including a new active, electronically-scanned array radar and updated avionics. In 2018, the IAF was reportedly torn between purchasing F-15I and F-35 fighters, leaning towards the former over the latter. If Israel purchases more F-15s, it will almost certainly end up flying the platform for the better part of a century. That’s a ringing endorsement for a warplane first flown in the early 1970s.

Kyle Mizokami is a writer based in San Francisco who has appeared in The Diplomat, Foreign Policy, War is Boring and The Daily Beast. In 2009 he co-founded the defense and security blog Japan Security Watch.

This first appeared earlier this year and is being republished due to reader interest.

Image: Reuters

Charlie Gao

Technology,

The Glock 43 marked a significant change in Glock’s product line when it was released.

Here's What You Need To Remember: With its extended grip, proven Glock operating action, and slim profile the Glock 43X remains one of the best choices for those looking for a concealed carry pistol on the current market. Glocks are some of the most popular pistols in the world for a reason: they just work.

The Glock 43 marked a significant change in Glock’s product line when it was released. Featuring a single-stack magazine instead of Glock’s usual double stack, the 43 aimed to be more concealable than Glock’s earlier subcompacts, like the Glock 26. The earlier subcompacts were often criticized for being too thick, as they were practically the same thickness as the full-size models to accommodate the same magazines as larger Glock models.

But the switch to single stack meant that Glock had to make an entirely new frame and slide, a significant investment for a single pistol. With the Glock 43X, Glock appears to be building a full family of single-stack pistols based on the Glock 43.

Like Glock’s other “Crossover” models (indicated by the X), the Glock 43X features a longer grip compared to the slide length. This was first tested with the Glock 19X, which paired a full-length Glock 17 grip with a shorter Glock 19 frame and dust cover. As there wasn’t a “full size” single-stack Glock when the 43X was made, the Glock 43X just features a longer grip meant to accommodate a full hand grip, compared to the original Glock 43 which features a short grip that may require a magazine extension for the pinky.

Interestingly, the 43X on its initial release featured only a PVD-coated stainless steel slide, breaking from Glock’s tradition of using a black Tenifer or nDLC coating on their slide. Glock’s decision to do this is uncertain, however, the 43X is a rather atypical model already in their product line being a Crossover, so the stainless slide is probably another aspect meant to make it even more distinctive. However, all black 43Xs were released in July, so the initial stainless 43X slide release could have been a marketing move.

Shooting wise, the 43X is just another Glock. Being released in 2019, it’s a fifth-generation Glock and thus benefits from the improved trigger and marksman barrel characteristic of the fifth-gen. Most reviewers appear to appreciate the improved shootability the longer Crossover grip brings, along with the increased ten-round capacity in the mag.

However, the Glock 43X may face stiff competition in the subcompact market from other recently released subcompacts. Sig Sauer, Inc. has the P365 line with a thirteen round capacity. Springfield Armory’s Hellcat is also competing in the subcompact market and features optic cuts standard on all pistols. The P365 has optic cuts as an optional upgrade on the P365XL model.

Glock has its own optic-ready models with the MOS system, but the only MOS Glocks are double-stack models as the MOS optic cut has only been engineered for wide slides. While some third-party manufacturers are already offering to mill Glock 43 slides for optics, Glock has not yet made a factory optics cut for the Glock 43 or any of its derivatives, which could hurt its competitiveness versus competing models.

However, with its extended grip, proven Glock operating action, and slim profile the Glock 43X remains one of the best choices for those looking for a concealed carry pistol on the current market. Glocks are some of the most popular pistols in the world for a reason: they just work.

Charlie Gao studied Political and Computer Science at Grinnell College and is a frequent commentator on defense and national security issues. This article first appeared last year.

Image: Reddit.

James Jay Carafano, Ana Quintana

Women,

The United States now has a cabinet-level strategy to help women in underprivileged countries before conflicts, during the violence, and in the peace-building process.

Three years ago this week, the United States became a world leader in women’s empowerment. That’s when, in one of President Donald Trump’s first official acts in office, the Women, Peace, and Security (WPS) Act was signed into law.

The United States now has a cabinet-level strategy to help women in underprivileged countries before conflicts, during the violence, and in the peace-building process. Yes, WPS is international in scope, but it is not some vanity nation-building exercise. Strict criteria determine when to engage and where. Activities are undertaken only in countries where it will advance U.S. national security interests.

The United States is the first—and so far only—country with such a law on its books. Yet waiting for other nations or international organizations to lead on this issue was not an option. The United Nations Security Council (UNSC) adopted a women’s peace and security resolution in 2000. Twenty years and nine additional frivolous resolutions later, no UNSC member other than the United States has yet to translate the resolutions’ words into law, much less action. 

Women’s empowerment is not a “feminist issue” or a “wedge issue” of gender politics. Conservatives understand the unique value of women in families and communities and why it should be tied to foreign policy. 

Complementing the security portion of their women’s agenda, is the administration’s hallmark Women’s Global Development and Prosperity Initiative (WGDP). Through funding from United States and private sector sources, this initiative aims to economically empower 50 million women by 2025. Historically, U.S. assistance has often been channeled to ineffective non-governmental organizations or corrupt governments. This initiative by-passes those middlemen and bureaucracies, sending funds directly to dynamic, grassroots change-makers and allowing them to generate prosperity via free markets. 

Women’s empowerment should not be viewed as a charitable contribution. Supporting them is based on a calculated, U.S. interests-driven assessment. Investing in their futures can prevent the rise of repressive regimes and extremist organizations. 

How? As the primary caregivers, women are the first to see warning signs of radicalism and impending violence. If a problem or conflict does break out, women have historically been the first to speak out. 

Need an example? When Al Qaeda terrorists occupied Timbuktu in Mali, local women rallied against the militants and their imposition of sharia law. After the terrorists ravaged and left the African city, women became politically engaged to prevent their return. 

Closer to home, Mexico has found that replacing police officers with women was found to reduce corruption and increase action against drug cartels. 

From these examples, we can see that WPS, implemented wisely, has the potential to be a low- investment, high-yield tool for advancing U.S. interests. As the old maxim tells us, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. And promoting stability before conflicts emerge means keeping peace keepers and troops at home. 

Of course, not every country is on board with such initiatives. Nations like the People’s Republic of China and the theocracy in Iran are dead set on challenging this agenda, and Beijing and their ideological allies are successfully co-opting the UN system to advance their destructive ideology. 

China, Cuba, and Russia will once again win seats on the UN Human Rights Council (HRC) this year. Like wolves in sheeps’ clothing, they don the cloak of UN legitimacy while violating human rights (up-to and including genocide against the Uighurs) and launching illegal military campaigns. Clearly, it is past time to get the UN back in order.

In the meanwhile, expect the current administration to continue leading the free world on women’s empowerment. Inconsequential forums and toothless resolutions are no measure of success. Vulnerable women and the American taxpayer deserve meaningful action and tangible, positive outcomes. 

U.S. public diplomacy and civil society efforts are now making a difference. They have overcome legal barriers to women’s participation in the Colombia peace processes. They are staunching radicalization in countries like Nigeria. Their in-the-field programs in Burma, Somalia and Venezuela are strengthening women’s abilities to rebuild their countries. 

This kind of foreign policy is long overdue. 

A Heritage Foundation vice president, James Jay Carafano directs the think tank’s research on matters of national security and foreign relations. Ana Quintana is a senior policy analyst in Heritage’s Allison Center for Foreign Policy Studies.

Charlie Gao

Security,

The Glock 19 is one of the most popular guns on the planet.

Here's What You Need To Remember: While all of these trends cannot be solely attributed to the Glock 19, it’s probably fair to attribute some responsibility to it. As the “gold standard” of what a modern pistol should be, most firearm designers are acutely aware of what it does well and what it does poorly.

The Glock 19 is one of the most popular guns on the planet. Police, militaries, and paramilitaries on almost every continent carry them daily. As a result, the Glock 19’s design has heavily influenced designers at competing firms. Here are some ways the Glock 19 has been influential on the firearms market.

1. Size:

While originally billed as a “compact” handgun, the Glock 19 managed to fit 15 rounds into a package that was lighter and smaller than most full-size duty handguns at the time. As a result, many departments bought them as standard-issue handguns, cutting down on the weight and bulk of their sidearms. The proliferation of the Glock 19 as a standard-issue gun made its form factor the standard worldwide. Most new pistols are designed to be as similar sized as possible to the Glock 19, as the longer barrel and grip of older duty pistols have been largely made redundant.

This can be seen in CZ releasing the P-10C, the “Compact” version of their P-10 pistol as the initial version, releasing the full-sized P-10F only a few years later. Similar trends can be seen in the sizing of the Walther PPQ and PPS pistols, as well as Beretta’s APX.

2. Light Rails:

While the Glock 19 is excellent in most aspects, one possible weakness is its semi-proprietary “Glock rail” used to mount weapon lights. While most Picatinny-compatible flashlights will fit on the Glock rail, the single cross slot limits the options when it comes to moving lights forward and back on the rail. As a result, most of Glock’s competitors use a standard Picatinny-spec three-slot rail to offer more flexibility and compatibility than the Glock 19. Even custom frames like the Polymer80 frame for the Glock 19 ditch the Glock rail for a standard three-shot Picatinny.

In this specific case, the Glock 19 was more influential in showing what not to do than what to do, but influential nonetheless. While proprietary rails were popular in the 1990s, they are all but gone today. 

3. Sights:

In another example of “what not to do”, Glocks have long been infamous for the plastic sights that they ship with from the factory. The stock plastic sights on the Glock, while clear and readable enough, are known for subpar durability, easily wearing down if one carries or uses the gun a lot. While Glock offers metal sights from the factory for serious contracts, plenty of guns still ship without them.

This has also driven plenty of Glock competitors to ship only with metal sights from the factory as an option as a way to one-up the Glock.

While all of these trends cannot be solely attributed to the Glock 19, it’s probably fair to attribute some responsibility to it. As the “gold standard” of what a modern pistol should be, most firearm designers are acutely aware of what it does well and what it does poorly.

Charlie Gao studied political and computer science at Grinnell College and is a frequent commentator on defense and national-security issues. This article first appeared last year.

Image: Reddit.

Nikola Zečević

Religion,

The Orthodox Church in Montenegro has already played a crucial role in two turning political points in the contemporary history of the small Mediterranean country.

The parliamentary elections in Montenegro brought the first and historic change last month. The Democratic Party of Socialists (DPS) has ruled continuously since the first post-communist elections (1990) while going through various phases of ideological transformations and adjustments. Despite frequent and serious accusations of corruption, kleptocracy, the effect of the captured state, etc. it had the open support of Western countries. Its leader, Milo Djukanovic, achieved a convincing victory (53.9 percent of the vote) in the first round of the 2018 presidential election, which gave him confidence to proclaim a renewal of the Montenegrin Orthodox Church as one of the main principles in the new DPS party program.

A religious organization under such name already operates in Montenegro, at least since 1993. However, it is not canonical, has a low number of members, and is officially unrecognized in the Orthodox world. On the other hand, the Orthodox Church in Montenegro, or OCM (a part of the Serbian Orthodox Church since 1920), is the only canonical Orthodox Church in the country and one of the most popular institutions among Montenegrin citizens. Before 1920 it was independent and de facto autocephalous.

However, at the end of 2019, the government of Montenegro initiated the adoption of the Law on Freedom of Religion or Beliefs and the Legal Status of Religious Communities, with the aim of (re)nationalization of the OCM’s property, through administrative procedures instead of court proceedings. In this way. DPS wanted to subordinate the OCM to the state and force its dignitaries to enter the process of restoring autocephaly and separate from the Serbian Orthodox Church, following the example of the Orthodox Church in Ukraine (whose autocephaly was partially recognized in 2019). Djukanovic even stated on several occasions that if OCM refused to be a part of such a solution, a new church “for Orthodox Montenegrins” would be formed. However, OCM rejected such ideas and started protests (in the form of religious processions called Litiyás) against the disputed law, assessing it as unconstitutional and discriminatory. Tens of thousands of people of different political preferences had consistently protested against the controversial law every week, since the beginning of 2020 until the escalation of the coronavirus pandemic, after which public gatherings were banned.

Nevertheless, the negotiations between the government and the church on amending and enforcing the law began in March. However, after the first meeting, the government postponed the continuation of negotiations for four months. This caused strong dissatisfaction within the church, which demanded the withdrawal or amendment of the disputed law. In that sense, the OCM’s Metropolitan Amfilohije publicly invited the citizens not to vote for the ruling parties in the upcoming elections, announcing the continuation of the Litiyás. Following this statement, unofficial opinion polls showed a dramatic change and a sharp drop of DPS in ratings. The government soon initiated the resumption of negotiations with OCM in July, offering significant concessions, including amending of the disputed articles but asked the OCM only to register in accordance with the new law. The church rejected this offer, arguing that its contemporary registration would mean the loss of its historical and legal continuity.

One week before the elections, Metropolitan Amfilohije addressed the public again and called on all Montenegrin citizens to go to the polls and vote against the ruling parties. The OCM justified its open interference in the electoral process with the example of the 1948 election in Italy, when the Roman Catholic Church openly supported Christian Democrats versus the left-wing coalition. Although all public opinion polls, before Metropolitan’s statement, which showed that the turnout in the elections would be between 66 and 68 percent, something unexpected happened: as many as 76 percent of voters went to the polls on August 30.

The DPS won 35 percent, and its “traditional coalition partners” close to 14 percent of the vote. However, the three opposition coalitions (For the Future of Montenegro, Peace is Our Nation, Black on White) won over 50 percent of the vote, which secured them a narrow majority in parliament.

The head of the coalition is a pro-Western and Christian Democratic oriented professor named Zdravko Krivokapic, who is also a new majority’s candidate for the prime minister. However, the backbone of this group is mostly pro-Serbian, conservative coalition Democratic Front. Although its member, the Movement for Changes, has formed a separate parliamentary club, with a pro-NATO and pro-EU platform, the two remaining constituents of the coalition (New Serb Democracy and Democratic People’s Party) are openly Russophilic and strongly influenced by the Serbian president Aleksandar Vucic. For these reasons, their leaders are targeted as undesirable in sensitive positions in the government, especially in defense and security departments.

The Peace is Our Nation coalition is led by the pro-European and catch-all party, Democratic Montenegro. Its leader, Aleksa Becic, was recently elected as a speaker of the Montenegrin parliament. The Black on White coalition is led by the pro-European and green party United Reform Action (URA) and its progressive leader Dritan Abazovic. The leaders of the three coalitions signed a promising agreement that Montenegro will not change its foreign policy principles, including its pro-EU and pro-NATO orientation. They also called for minority parties (mostly Bosniak and Albanian) to enter the new government.

On the other hand, the Democratic Party of Socialists, although responsible for Montenegro's long-standing pro-Western course, has produced a number of serious affairs related to political corruption. DPS also showed overt unwillingness for electoral and judicial reforms. That is why Freedom House has recently marked Montenegro as a “Hybrid Regime” for the first time since 2003. The conflict with the church, as the most influential religious institution in the country, dealt a final blow to the DPS.

The Orthodox Church in Montenegro has already played a crucial role in two turning political points in the contemporary history of the small Mediterranean country. In 1997, OCM supported the pro-Western-oriented Djukanovic against the pro-Milosevic-oriented candidate Momir Bulatovic, which significantly contributed to Djukanovic's victory. Also, in the time of the Montenegrin independence referendum (2006), despite its preference for preserving a state union with Serbia, the OCM was neutral and did not interfere.

Its leader Metropolitan Amfilohije, in spite of his anti-NATO discourse and occasional EU-skepticism, supported the aforementioned agreement between the leaders of the three coalitions on the pro-EU and pro-NATO orientation of the future government. It is interesting to mention that, as a moderate ecumenist and erstwhile Greek student, he played a crucial role for the Serbian Orthodox Church regarding taking part in the Pan-Orthodox Council of Crete (2016), which was strongly opposed by the Russian Orthodox Church. Although his statements are usually harsh and controversial, he recently showed an enviable dose of pragmatism and openness to cooperation with Western political factors.

Finally, it should be emphasized that secularism is one of the basic principles of modern civilization, which can be threatened by both the state and the church. OCM indeed previously questioned the secular order of the society, (but only declaratively) through interference in the political issues, most often through the criticism of foreign policy of the government. On the other hand, the (former) ruling elite seriously violated the principle of secularism by announcing the formation of a new Orthodox church and by trying to nationalize the church property with a controversial law, which, at the same time, ultimately relativized one of the basic human rights: the right to property.

And so, this backlash occurred.

Nikola Zečević is a teaching fellow at the University of Donja Gorica in Podgorica, Montenegro.

Image: Reuters.

Stephen Silver

Technology,

Sure, the pandemic has many relooking what sorts of media they pay for. A new report breaks down where those trends could head.

Subscription TV revenue, from cable and satellite, was $94.2 billion last year. But the pandemic, as has been widely reported, has seen cord-cutting trends escalate quickly. A new report says that decline is likely to continue.

According to a new report from PriceWaterhouseCoopers, called U.S. Edition: Entertainment & Media Outlook 2020‑2024, revenues from subscription TV will drop by 2.9 percent compound annual growth rate through 2024, when they are seen at $81.4 billion.

This will happen, the report said, due to “wide acceptance and demand for SVOD platforms as well as competition from vMVPD offerings.”

The news wasn’t all bad for pay TV, as the firm says the U.S. remains the biggest market in the world for pay TV by far, and that the rate of decline in pay TV “will likely lessen towards the end of the forecast period.”

Also, there’s a chance cable could get better.

“Traditional pay-TV providers will focus on optimizing programming as a lever to increase video profitability, as well as continued investments in personalization, aggregation, speed and the best-possible digital experience,” the report said.

In its other findings, the PriceWaterhouseCoopers report looked at entertainment and media, how they’ve been affected by the coronavirus pandemic, and how they might recover. 

Overall, the firm sees the entertainment and media industries pulling in $2 trillion in revenue in 2020, a drop from $2.1 trillion in 2019. But that number is seen increasing to $2.2 trillion in 2021 and hitting $2.5 trillion by 2024. 

Also, even before the pandemic, PriceWaterhouseCoopers found that revenue for overall subscription video-on-demand (SVOD, or subscription streaming services like Netflix) overtook that of the movie box office in 2019. The gap increased, of course, with movie theaters closed for much of 2021, but it’s still seen widening in future years, with revenues from SVOD doubling those of the box office by 2024. 

“As recently as 2015, box office revenues were three times those of the SVOD (subscription video on demand) sector. Having caught up with the box office sector in 2019, SVOD is now projected to surge away in the coming five years, reaching twice the size of the box office in 2024,” the report said.

The report also predicted that the sorts of industries that have been decimated by the pandemic- movie theaters, live music venues and trade shows—will “struggle to regain their footing in the coming years,” and aren’t expected to reach pre-pandemic levels until “at least” 2024. 

“In effect, people cocooned in their residences set about constructing their own bundles of content by purchasing or subscribing to all-you-can-eat packages of video, music, content, exercise and experiences,” the report said of consumer behavior during the pandemic. 

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

Image: Reuters

Sebastien Roblin

Security, Middle East

And the consequences of that near clash are still playing out.

Here's What You Need To Remember: These acts are Tehran’s way of signaling it can and will retaliate if the United States maintains its economic vice. Iran couldn’t “win” a war versus the United States—Iran’s annual defense budget costs roughly the same as a single U.S. aircraft carrier—but it could cause losses in amounting to tens or hundreds of billions of dollars in disrupted trade, and a terrible toll in human lives, not just drones and damaged tanker hulls.

By most accounts, the United States and Iran came within minutes of armed conflict with each other on June 20, 2019.

Around 4:30 AM that morning, a U.S. Navy RQ-4N Global Hawk spy drone flying a routine circuit over international airspace in the Persian Gulf was shot down by an Iranian Ra’ad surface-to-air missile system.

Later that day, U.S. forces were ostensibly “ten minutes” away from striking three Iranian bases likely with air- and sea-launched missiles when President Donald Trump changed his mind and canceled the attack. He later cited concerns that killing an estimated 150 Iranians over the loss of an unmanned drone was a disproportionate response.

Since the Trump administration unilaterally withdrew from a nuclear deal with Iran in May 2018, it has waged a “maximum pressure campaign” on Tehran through economic sanctions. Iran had been complying with the JCPOA nuclear deal, which sharply restricted its nuclear technologies and opened sites to foreign inspectors in exchange for allowing Western companies access to the Iranian market. However, the deal’s critics complained the JCPOA did not regulate Iran’s rapidly improving ballistic missile capabilities nor address Iran’s involvement in the civil wars in Syria and Yemen, and support for Hezbollah.

For one year, Tehran continued adhering to the JCPOA. However, the destabilizing effects of the new sanctions proved intolerable.

Iran’s oil exports have diminished to one-fifth their previous level, from 2.5 million barrels per day to 500,000. The sanctions also scared away most European investment, even though European signatories to the nuclear deal still adhere to the JCPOA. This has resulted in a devastating recession, with Iran’s economy shrinking 4-6 percent and Iranian citizens being affected by 40-60 percent inflation, and unemployment projected to rise from 12 to 26 percent.

But though the sanctions imposed by Washington inflicted the intended damage, they succeeded only in angering, not cowing, Iran’s leaders. 

Just as the United States’s stark political divisions arguably were decisive in Trump’s withdrawal from the Obama-era JCPOA, Iran’s competing power centers were divided over the agreement. Those supporting limited compromises with West have been made to look foolish, giving ammunition to the hardline religious factions and their Revolutionary Guard Corps paramilitaries.

Thus, Tehran is now retaliating with a “maximum pressure” campaign of its own. Iran cannot use sanctions to punish America, but it can inflict economic pain by threatening the valuable shipping lanes running from Persian Gulf ports, through the straits of Hormuz, and into the Gulf of Oman.

During the Cold War, Soviet premier Nikita Kruschev famously said “[West] Berlin is the testicle of the West. When I want the West to scream, I squeeze on Berlin.” The Persian Gulf is Iran’s West Berlin.

One-third of all the world’s oil passes through Hormuz. Both the Gulf and the Straits are quite narrow—only twenty-one miles at the latter’s narrowest point—and shallow, with only one or two viable transit lanes through which large tankers can pass at parts. The north-eastern half of the Gulf coast is Iranian territory, meaning Iranian units can stage fast boats and long-range missile batteries for attacks at any point along that roughly 1,000-mile coastline. 

The Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps Navy has trained to launch hit-and-run attacks on both military and commercial shipping using swarms of fast, expendable motor boats, naval mines, and long-range anti-ship missiles. During the Iran-Iraq war, Iran also used oil platforms, islands and even converted tankers to stage forces for attacks.

Iran’s regular (“Artesh”) Navy includes over two dozen small mini-submarines and divers equipped with swimmer-delivery vehicles (SDVs) well suited to hiding in the noisy, shallow crags of the Gulf to launch surprise torpedo attacks or deploy mines in key shipping lanes.

Consider, then, the sequence of events since May 2019.

On May 12, four merchant ships anchored off the Gulf of Oman by the United Arab Emirates were sabotaged with limpet mines. Investigators noted the precision with which they were laid suggested elite combat divers.

Then on June 13, another two tankers—the Norwegian Front Altair and the Japanese Kokuka Courageous—experienced fiery blasts within minutes of each other at 3 AM. Iranian vessels rescued most of their crews and fired a man-portable anti-aircraft missile (that missed) at a U.S. MQ-9 drone observing the scene. The crew of an IRGCN patrol boat was also filmed removing an unexploded limpet mine from the side of the Kokuka Courageous.

Iran clearly had both the means (it’s specialized naval forces) and motive (retaliating against the maximum pressure campaign) for the attacks, the precise and nigh-simultaneous execution of which seem calculated to signal Iranian authorship, while maintaining a veneer of deniability for propaganda purposes. 

On June 17, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani announced Iran would recommence enriching higher-grade uranium in violation of the nuclear deal.

Three days later, the Revolutionary Guard Corps shot down the U.S. Navy drone—possibly without Rouhani’s approval. Iranian and American accounts disagree as to whether the drone had violated Iranian airspace, but bear in mind the slow, conspicuous and expensive RQ-4 is not designed to overfly hostile airspace. 

These acts are Tehran’s way of signaling it can and will retaliate if the United States maintains its economic vice. Iran couldn’t “win” a war versus the United States—Iran’s annual defense budget costs roughly the same as a single U.S. aircraft carrier—but it could cause losses in amounting to tens or hundreds of billions of dollars in disrupted trade, and a terrible toll in human lives, not just drones and damaged tanker hulls.

Some anti-Iranian ideologues like National Security Advisor John Bolton, and like-minded national leaders in Israel and Saudi Arabia, have believed the high costs of a war are worth paying to suppress Iran’s nuclear research program. (Conveniently for America’s allies, that cost would be born foremost by the United States.) Those who see war with Iran as desirable and “winnable” may hope Iran’s escalation will “gift” America with a causus belli.

But what would a U.S. “victory” in such a war even look like? The Pentagon certainly has no appetite for an invasion and occupation of Iran, which has twice the population of Iraq. A prolonged air war—the more likely outcome—could kill thousands, and deplete stocks of expensive standoff-range missiles, without necessarily succeeding at destroying Iran’s nuclear and ballistic missile technologies in their hardened underground shelters. 

Meanwhile, Iran would retaliate with asymmetric warfare across the Persian Gulf, the Middle East and potentially beyond. Nor could the United States necessarily control the duration of the war. Remember, Iran pressed on with the Iran-Iraq war for six more bloody years after it had mostly expelled invading Iraqi troops. 

Washington instinctively wishes to punish Iran so as not to reward its aggressive tactics. For example, after canceling the air strikes, the Trump ordered a cyber attack on Iran’s missile systems, and on June 24 placed new sanctions on Supreme Leader Ali Khameini. Rouhani responded by describing Trump as “mentally retarded” and announced plans to abrogate additional provisions of the JCPOA, while his foreign minister stated this marked “the permanent closure of the path of diplomacy.”

Trying to one-up the Iranians in tit-for-tat aggravations—one cyber attack, downed drone, imposed sanction and broken treaty obligation at time—is a losing game. Tehran is simply unlikely to respond constructively to threats of “obliteration.”

If America wants Iran to change its behavior, it will have to re-establish ruptured lines of communication and re-create genuine incentives for diplomacy, rather than leading with threats of war and crushing sanctions. After all, the danger of devastating and messy regional war already underpins Iran’s own deterrence-based security strategy in the Persian Gulf—and games of chicken where neither side de-escalates end badly for everyone involved.

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 last year. It is being republished due to reader interest.

Image: Wikipedia.