Diplomacy & Crisis News

Annika Seppälä

Environment, World

The power of the sun really does help heat the planet and keep the Earth warm.

When the Sun ejects solar particles into space, how does this affect the Earth and climate? Are clouds affected by these particles?

When we consider the Sun’s influence on Earth and our climate, we tend to think about solar radiation. We are acutely aware of the skin-burning dangers of ultraviolet, or UV, radiation.

But the Sun is an active star. It also continuously releases what is known as “solar wind”, made up of charged particles, largely protons and electrons, that travel at speeds of hundreds of kilometres per hour.

Some of these particles that reach Earth are guided into the polar atmosphere by our magnetic field. As a result, we can see the southern lights, aurora australis, in the southern hemisphere, and the northern equivalent, aurora borealis.

Aurora australis observed above southern New Zealand. Shutterstock/Fotos593

This visible manifestation of solar particles entering Earth’s atmosphere is a constant reminder there is more to the Sun than sunlight. But the particles have other effects as well.

Read more: Why is the sun's atmosphere so hot? Spacecraft starts to unravel our star's mysteries

Solar particles and ozone

When solar particles enter the atmosphere, their high energies ionise neutral atmospheric nitrogen and oxygen molecules, which make up 99% of the atmosphere. This “energetic particle precipitation”, named because it’s like a rain of particles from space, is a major source of ionisation in the polar atmosphere above 30km altitude — and it sets off a chain of reactions that produces chemicals that facilitate the destruction of ozone.

The impact of solar particles on atmospheric ozone was first observed in 1969. Since the early 2000s, thanks to new kinds of satellite observations, we have seen growing evidence that solar particles play an important part in influencing polar ozone. During particularly active times, when the Sun releases large amounts of particles into space, up to 60% of ozone at altitudes above 50km can be depleted. The effect can last for weeks.

Lower down in the atmosphere, below 50km, solar particles are important contributors to the year-to-year variability in polar ozone levels, often through indirect pathways. Here, solar particles again contribute to ozone loss, but a recent discovery showed they also help curb some of the depletion in the Antarctic ozone hole.

How ozone affects the climate

Most of the ozone in the atmosphere resides in a thin layer at altitudes of 20-25km — the “ozone layer”.

But ozone is everywhere in the atmosphere, from the Earth’s surface to altitudes above 100km. It is a greenhouse gas and plays a key role in heating and cooling the atmosphere, which makes it critical for climate.

In the southern hemisphere, changes in polar ozone are known to influence regional climate conditions.

Solar particles ionise nitrogen and oxygen molecules in the atmosphere, which leads to other chemical reactions that contribute to ozone destruction. Shutterstock/PunyaFamily

Its depletion above Antarctica had a cooling effect, which in turn pulled the westerly wind jet that circles the continent closer. As the Antarctic hole recovers, this wind belt can meander further north and affect rainfall patterns, sea-surface temperatures and ocean currents. The Southern Annular Mode describes this north-south movement of the wind belt that circles the southern polar region.

Ozone is important for future climate predictions, not only in the thin ozone layer, but throughout the atmosphere. It is crucial we understand the factors that influence ozone variability, be it man-made or natural like the Sun.

The Sun’s direct influence

The link between solar particles and ozone is reasonably well established, but what about any direct effects solar particles may have on the climate?

We have observational evidence that solar activity influences regional climate variability at both poles. Climate models also suggest such polar effects link to larger climate patterns (such as the Northern and Southern Annular Modes) and influence conditions in mid-latitudes.

The details are not yet well understood, but for the first time the influence of solar particles on the climate system will be included in climate simulations used for the upcoming Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) assessment.

Read more: Solar weather has real, material effects on Earth

Through solar radiation and particles, the Sun provides a key energy input to our climate system. While these do vary with the Sun’s 11-year cycle of magnetic activity, they can not explain the recent rapid increase in global temperatures due to climate change.

We know rising levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are pushing up Earth’s surface temperature (the physics have been known since the 1800s). We also know human activities have greatly increased greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Together these two factors explain the observed rise in global temperatures.

What about clouds?

Clouds are much lower in the atmosphere than where most solar particles penetrate. Particles know as galactic cosmic rays (coming from the centre of our galaxy rather than the Sun) may be linked to cloud formation.

It has been suggested cosmic rays could influence the formation of condensation nuclei, which act as “seeds” for clouds. But recent research at the CERN nuclear research facility suggests the effects are insignificant.

This doesn’t rule out some other mechanisms for cosmic rays to affect cloud formation, but thus far there is little supporting evidence.

Annika Seppälä, Senior Lecturer in Geophysics, University of Otago

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

Image: Reuters.

Stephen Silver

MQ-9, Americas

Marine Lt. Gen. Eric Smith, commanding general of Marine Corps Combat Development Command, had testified before Congress last week that the Marines were looking to procure sixteen more of the MQ-9A drones.

The Marine Corps has plans to deliver new drones to Hawaii, in order to deal with threats from China. That’s according to a new "Unmanned Campaign Framework” released this week by the Marines and Navy, as cited by United Press International.

The Marines will place eighteen MQ-9A Reaper unmanned aerial drones in the Pacific, including eight of them in Hawaii, the framework said. Those drones have wingspans of sixty-six feet and can weigh as much as 10,500 pounds, according to United Press International. 

Marine Lt. Gen. Eric Smith, commanding general of Marine Corps Combat Development Command, had testified before Congress last week that the Marines were looking to procure sixteen more of the MQ-9A drones, of which there were previously only two, according to United Press International. 

The MQ-9A Reaper drones can now carry eight Hellfire missiles, compared with the previous four. 

“Previous to this software, the MQ-9 was limited to four AGM-114s across two stations. The new software allows flexibility to load the Hellfire on stations that previously were reserved for 500-pound class bombs or fuel tanks,” an Air Force report said last fall. 

That forty-page Unmanned Campaign Framework was released March 15, meant to lay out the strategy for how to best use drones and other unmanned weapons. 

"The Department of the Navy is moving with purpose to innovate and adapt new technology to build a more lethal and distributed naval force for the future,” Thomas W. Harker, the acting secretary of the Navy, wrote in his introduction to the report 

“To compete and win in an era of great power competition, the Department is committed to investing in advanced autonomy, robust networks, and unmanned systems to create true integrated human-machine teaming that is ubiquitous across the fleet . . . to ensure success, the Navy and Marine Corps are tightly coupling our requirements, resources, and acquisition policies to develop, build, integrate and deploy effective unmanned systems faster.”

The introduction to the report discusses the different advantages of autonomous systems for warfighting, including the ability to take on additional risk, to “increase lethality, capacity, survivability, operational tempo, deterrence, and operational readiness, and to adapt to changes. 

The Navy report also sets up a “Human Dependence” matrix, from “Human Operated” to “Remote Operated” to “Human Supervised” to “Human-Machine Teaming” to “Near-Independent Autonomy.” 

In addition, the report includes a section on “legal, policy, and ethical considerations.” 

“The overarching task for the DON is to develop, procure, field, and employ increasingly sophisticated unmanned systems that maximize warfighting effectiveness through their incorporation of autonomy and artificial intelligence, while remaining consistent with the Law of Armed Conflict, DOD policy, and AI ethical principles.” 

Stephen Silver, a technology writer for the National Interest, is a journalist, essayist and film critic, who is also a contributor to The Philadelphia Inquirer, 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

Michael Peck

U.S. Army, Americas

Here are some areas where American weapons shine – or don't.

Here's What You Need to Know: No one seems to have a huge advantage.

How good are U.S. Army weapons compared to their overseas counterparts? Quite good in many areas, but foreign weapons have some capabilities that American weapons don't, according to a new study.

The study, prepared by think-tank RAND Corp. on behalf of the U.S. Army, examined major ground combat systems. Note that it is mostly based on open-source data rather than classified information. Nonetheless, here are some areas where American weapons shined – or didn't:

Tanks and Infantry Fighting Vehicles:

"The U.S. Army’s armored fighting vehicles (AFVs) compare well with their foreign counterparts, particularly the M1A2's Abrams main battle tank, which is widely regarded as the world’s best tank in terms of protection and anti-armor firepower," RAND concludes. Russians, Israelis, and others may disagree with that assessment, but after comparing the Abrams with Russia's T-90, Germany's Leopard and Israel's Merkava, the study praised the Abrams' depleted-uranium armor and antitank ammunition. What the Abrams does lack is a high-explosive fragmentation round, which is found in foreign tanks (though the U.S. Marine Corps uses German-made HE shells).

Foreign tanks also have various capabilities that American vehicles don't, such as active protection systems on Israeli and Russian models, and appliqué top armor on the Leopard.

The U.S. Army's Bradley infantry fighting vehicle also rates favorably against the competition, though the Bradley fitted with the Bradley Urban Survival Kit III (BUSK III) armor kit will have much lower power-to-weight then vehicles like the German Puma, Russian BMP-3, and the Israeli Namer. The Bradley is well-armed with a 25-millimeter cannon and TOW missiles, but the Puma has antitank missile jammers, while the Namer has heavy armor (because it's an actual tank converted to a personnel carrier). As for the BMP-3, "protection is secondary to mobility and cost-effectiveness, which provides insight into Russia’s strategic decisions regarding what qualities are more important for an IFV—protecting the crew is less important compared with vehicle mobility and firepower."

RAND suggests a few options for the Bradley and Stryker, including a bigger gun like the 30-millimeter cannon on the British Warrior, as well as better sensors. "There is no denying that when compared with its foreign counterparts, the main version of Stryker (the infantry carrier) is very lightly armed," the study noted. With the U.S. Army now examining air-droppable armor,  the study also noted that Russia has air-droppable BMD vehicles, while China is developing such vehicles.

Artillery:

The U.S. Paladin self-propelled howitzer comes off second-best to the German PzH 2000, because the German howitzer is much more automated. "A quick comparison of the ability of a platoon of four Paladins and four PzH 2000s to deliver fires over a three-minute period shows the limitation of the U.S. system compared with the leader among the world’s self-propelled howitzers," the study says. "While a Paladin platoon could deliver 48 shells in an intense three-minute fire mission, the German platoon could deliver 120 shells—and could do so at distances up to 50 percent greater than Paladin’s maximum range."

In terms of rocket artillery, the American GMLRS is capable, but may soon outranged by Russian and Chinese weapons. "The entrance of the Chinese and their greater emphasis on much heavier, longer-range rockets that begin to bridge the gap between rocket artillery and short-range ballistic missiles could have a significant effect over time in extending the trend toward longer-range strike systems."

Helicopters:

Again, U.S. helicopters are rated as quite capable, with significant advantages in their capacity for manned-unmanned teaming with drones, as well as their third-generation forward-looking infrared (FLIR) sensors. The Eurocopter Tiger carries fewer Hellfire missiles and has less advanced FLIR sensors, the Russian Mi-28 is currently flying without radar and defensive countermeasures, and the Chinese Z-10 still has teething problems. However, non-U.S. helicopters do have the advantage of being cheaper.

What's most interesting about the RAND study is that there doesn't seem to be a huge difference between the capabilities of U.S. Army equipment, and those of its allies and potential enemies. America excels in many areas, other nations excel in a few, but no one really seems to have a huge advantage.

Michael Peck, a frequent contributor to TNI, is a defense and historical writer based in Oregon. His work has appeared in Foreign Policy, WarIsBoring and many other fine publications. He can be found on Twitter and Facebook.

This article first appeared in 2015.

Image: U.S. Army photo by Spc. Angel Ruszkiewicz

Michael Peck

J-15, Asia

With a barely disguised touch of schadenfreude, Sputnik News delved into the woes of the J-15.

Here's What You Need to Know: The J-15 is an unlicensed copy of Russia's Su-33 carrier jet, which is a 1980s derivative of the Su-27K land-based fighter.

Remember that Russian carrier-based jet that China copied without permission? Those airplanes are crashing, and Russia doesn't seem too broken up about it.

Though Russia and China are now friends, even holding joint exercises, Russia's Sputnik News recently trotted out an article titled "Chinese Navy Short on Carrier-Based Fighters, Only Has Problem-Ridden J-15."

The J-15 is an unlicensed copy of Russia's Su-33 carrier jet, which is a 1980s derivative of the Su-27K land-based fighter. China had acquired a T-10K-3, an Su-33 prototype, from Ukraine and then reverse-engineered it.

With a barely disguised touch of schadenfreude, Sputnik News delved into the woes of the J-15. "Love for the fourth-generation J-15 jet is seldom shown in Chinese circles," said the Russian news site. "The Asia Times noted that Chinese media has disparaged the plane in numerous ways, including referring to it as a 'flopping fish' for its inability to operate effectively from the Chinese carriers, which launch fixed-wing aircraft under their own power from an inclined ramp on the bow of the ship. The J-15's engines and heavy weight severely limit its ability to operate effectively: at 17.5 tons empty weight, it tops the scales for carrier-based fighters. The US Navy's F-18 workhorse, by comparison, is only 14.5 tons."

Many shoppers on eBay and Amazon can attest to what happens when you buy "unlicensed" products, though one can ask how many of these problems began with the original Russian design. In any event, so many J-15s have crashed and burned that China is developing a new carrier jet, the J-31.

After dissecting the J-15's flaws, Sputnik News then trotted out Russian military expert Vasily Kashin, who proceeded to explain why you shouldn't copy other nation's aircraft without permission.

"Years ago the Chinese decided to save some money and, instead of buying several Su-33s from Russia for their subsequent license production in China, they opted for a Su-33 prototype in Ukraine," Kashin said.

"The development of the J-15 took more time and more money than expected, and the first planes proved less than reliable," said Kashin. "By spending some more time and money, the Chinese will apparently solve the problems they now have and will get a fairly reliable and powerful carrier-based fighter."

At this point, it is worth noting that the Soviet Union and post-Soviet Russia also had a habit of "acquiring" Western technology without the consent of the owners, for everything from the atomic bomb, to the Space Shuttle and video games. It's actually a dubious accomplishment, an admission that a nation lacks the capacity to really innovate its own technology.

Considering that China has the same habit, there is a poetic justice here.

Michael Peck is a contributing writer for the National Interest. He can be found on Twitter and Facebook.

This article first appeared in September 2018.

Image: Reuters

Michael Peck

Il-22PP, Eurasia

Turning off a satellite could be construed as an act of war.

Here's What You Need to Know: Electronic-warfare aircraft have become a fixture of aerial warfare since World War II.

Russia says it is developing a new aircraft that can disable the electronics on U.S. satellites.

Could this new development trigger a nuclear war?

The electronic warfare aircraft “will be capable of turning off the electronics installed on military satellites,” according to Russia’s Sputnik News. The conceptual work has been completed and design and development will begin soon.

“The work is currently underway to develop an aircraft equipped with jamming systems that will replace Il-22PP Porubshchik [electronic warfare aircraft], which are currently being delivered to the Russian Aerospace Forces,” an unnamed Russian defense industry source told Sputnik News. “This machine will receive a fundamentally new on-board equipment, which will allow to conduct electronic suppression of any targets—ground, air, sea—and disable enemy satellites that provide navigation and radio communication on the ground.”

Russia currently operates three electronic warfare aircraft based on the Ilyushin Il-22, according to Sputnik News. The Il-22PP versions are variants of the Il-22 (NATO code name Coot B) airborne command post, which is itself derived from the Il-18 airliner, which first flew in the 1950s.

The Il-22PP was first flown publicly in 2016. The aircraft, described as an “escort jammer” to support other aircraft, was intended to disrupt radars, surface-to-air and cruise-missile guidance systems, and tactical data networks such as Link 16.

“The problem of Porubshchik 1 is in the aircraft platform itself, as Russia has about 10 Il-22 planes and this machine cannot be reproduced,” the defense industry source told Sputnik News.

“The new aircraft will be named Porubshchik 2, but most likely, this machine will join the Aerospace Forces under a different name,” the source added. “There definitely will be a new air-frame. There is a possibility of developing such an aircraft on the basis of Tu-214 or Il-76 plane.”

None of this is particularly noteworthy. Electronic-warfare aircraft, such as the EA-18G, have become a fixture of aerial warfare since World War II. Jamming radars, missile-guidance systems and communications networks has become par for the course. For that matter, the Pentagon worries about Russian and Chinese capabilities to jam or spoof GPS links that are key to accurate navigation and targeting.

But disabling the electronics on satellites? This would seem to be a different challenge, and how Russia plans to tackle it is unclear. For example, what does it mean to “turn off” a military satellite? Convince the satellite to shut down its systems, perhaps by spoofing a command signal from ground control? Or does it mean hitting the satellite with some kind of powerful beam that fries its electronics or disrupt its systems? And how powerful a system could be mounted on what is essentially a medium-sized airliner?

However, the most interesting question isn’t about aircraft or satellites. It’s about who is willing to risk nuclear war. The Trump administration’s draft Nuclear Posture Review, released in January, suggests that America could respond with nuclear weapons to a kinetic or cyberattack on U.S. satellites. “The President will have an expanding range of limited and graduated options to credibly deter Russian nuclear or non-nuclear strategic attacks, which could now include attacks against U.S. NC3 [nuclear command, control and communications], in space and cyber space,” states the NPR.

If Russia can in fact disable the electronics on American satellites, and the NPR does reflect U.S. policy, then turning off a satellite could be construed as an act of war sufficient to justify a nuclear response. Whether a U.S. president would in fact risk thermonuclear war over a disabled satellite is another matter. Nonetheless, Russia’s new toy could have dangerous implications.

Michael Peck is a contributing writer for the National Interest. He can be found on Twitter and Facebook.

This article appeared earlier in 2020.

Image: Reuters

Michael Peck

Tanks, Eurasia

“Tank trousers” and “tank carousels” are among the new tactics that Russian tank crews are using, according to Russian media.

Here's What You Need to Know: What’s interesting here isn’t the tactics themselves, but rather that Russia is trumpeting them as innovative.

“Tank trousers” and “tank carousels” are among the new tactics that Russian tank crews are using, according to Russian media.

In an era of localized conflicts without clear front lines, jihad-mobiles equipped with anti-tank guns and IEDs, the idea of large tank armies facing off along vast fronts has become a thing of the past,” writes Sputnik News, which described the visit of a  journalist from the Rossiya Segodnya news agency to witness exercises of T-72 tanks of the 20th Guards Combined Arms Army.

“It allows us to fire over an unlimited time period,” said Captain Roman Schegolev, a Russian tank company commander. “There can be three, six, nine or more machines. They move uninterrupted in a circular motion, one pummeling the enemy, the other moving to the rear and reloading, the third preparing to enter firing position, and so on. Non-stop shooting. Just make sure to feed the shells.”

Russian tanks will blanket the enemy by firing eight to ten rounds a minute, which they believe will eventually force to return fire and reveal their position. “Imagine tanks shooting for ten, twenty, thirty minutes at a time without a break,” Schegolev said. “On the other side they will break down and open return fire, revealing their armament. Then our disguised sniper tanks with specially trained crews step into action. They quickly and efficiently strike the identified targets.”

Schegolev added the carousel tactic is possible because the T-72 has an autoloader, which gives it an advantage over a manually-loaded M-1 Abrams.

“The tank carousel has been a particularly effective tactic during the Syrian Army’s operations in the country’s geographic conditions of earthen and sand parapets,” according to Sputnik News.

Here, tanks can move along the parapet and, when they reach an opening, shoot, quickly concealing themselves back behind the embankment. So long as they remain in constant motion, it becomes almost impossible to aim at or hit them. Furthermore, to deceive the enemy, the commander can choose which opening to fire from at random, giving the impression there are more tanks deployed than in reality. Openings can be created using engineering equipment, and if necessary, by the crew itself.”

Another Russian tactic is called “tank trousers.” This involves “tanks alternating fire between two trenches, without staying in one position for more than a few seconds,” according to Sputnik News. “The tank enters the trench, fires, kicks into reverse and moves to the next. Enemy anti-tank weapons don’t have time to react.”

Sputnik News also described other tactics, such as using tanks for shoot-and-scoot indirect fire: the vehicles fire their cannon like howitzers at targets they can’t see, and then quickly move to a new firing position before enemy fire can target their position. “Russian tankmen have honed the skill of their plunging fire considerably; at a distance of 8 kilometers, high explosive shells hit within 15 to 20 meters of their target,” Sputnik News said.

This isn’t the first time that Russia has claimed to devised innovative armor tactics. Earlier this year, Sputnik News ran a piece on how Russian tanks will pretend to be artillery pieces. The idea is to lure the enemy artillery into shelling them, but leave the area before the shells arrive, while Russian artillery blasts the enemy guns that have foolishly revealed their position.

What’s interesting here isn’t the tactics themselves, but rather that Russia is trumpeting them as innovative. Rotating tanks in and out of the firing line, rapid fire shooting and switching between alternate firing positions have been standard practice since World War II (the Russians would have learned this the hard way at the hands of the Germans). These are tactics that American, British, Israeli and other tank crews would be familiar with.

Tanks may differ between nations. But often tactics are the same.

Michael Peck is a contributing writer for the National Interest. He can be found on Twitter and Facebook.

This article first appeared in July 2018.

Image: Reuters

The country’s economic success has been accompanied by a slow descent into authoritarianism.

Kris Osborn

Security,

"One B-2 can deliver the punch of an entire aircraft carrier air wing at several orders of magnitude less in operating cost and personnel."

Here's What You Need To Remember: The B-2 Bomber is one of the most well-designed and cost-effective aircraft ever built for military use.

When B-2 stealth bombers attacked Serbia on the opening night of Operation Allied Force in 1999, destroyed Iraqi air defenses during 2003’s “Shock and Awe” and eliminated the Libyan fighter force in 2011 -- the attacks were all guided by highly-specialized pilots trained in stealth attack tactics.

Given the dangers of these kinds of missions, such as flying into heavy enemy ground fire from air defenses, confronting the prospect of air attacks and preparing for electronic warfare over hostile territory, B-2 pilots need to be ready. For this reason, the Air Force is working to ensure that pilots are prepared to fully leverage upgraded digital targeting technology.

“We prepare and train every single day in case we get called up tomorrow,” Lt. Col. Nicola Polidor, Commander of Detachment 5 of the 29th Training Systems Squadron, told Warrior in an interview.

While performing missions, B-2 pilots need to maintain the correct flight path, align with specific targeting intelligence, and load and prepare weapons, all while manning a digital cockpit to control a wide range of additional variables at one time. Polidor, who trains future B-2 pilots at Whiteman Air Force Base in Missouri, says Air Force pilot trainees have adjusted well to learning a seemingly overwhelming amount of new information.

“The biggest challenge for pilots is being able to manage flying for long periods of time at the same time as managing a communications suite and robust weapons package,” Polidor said.

Polidor is only the 10th female B-2 pilot in history.

Training is broken down into an academic phase and a flight phase, with classroom training as the first step. Trainees, Polidor explained, typically spend about two months working on a simulator, before taking their first flight.

“The instructor is in one seat, teaching the trainee how to operate in flight in the other seat. You can fly from either seat and control all facets of the aircraft. Both seats have a glass screen cockpit in front of them and both seats have the stick in front of them,” Polidor said.

Control of the aircraft is carefully managed by both crew members. To change pilot operations from one to another, the crew follows specific protocol. The pilot receiving control says “I have the aircraft,” and the pilot passing over control says “roger.you have the aircraft.”

“At anytime it is understood who is at the controls. The instructor pilot will have hands on the controls, without moving anything….in case the trainee has a problem,” Polidor said.

Part of the glass cockpit in front of the pilot is one of eight displays called the Digital Entry Panel which enables pilots to check hydraulics, electronics, flight controls, environmental conditions, weapons suite.

“It is like a flying computer. You enter text into the computer. We can input the pressure, airspeed or target for a weapon from that panel and send it,” Polidor said. “We have autopilot just like a commercial airliner. We are able to maintain altitude without our having to input into the computer system."​

Despite flying more than 40-hour missions, pilots have no bed and no refrigerator, just two seats in a small cockpit and a small area behind them about the same width as the seat. Pilot’s food, Polidor said, needs to be non-perishable items.

“Sometimes we can bring a little blow-up mattress, put in on the floor and take a nap,” she said. “It’s about big enough for someone who is 5 ft ‘8 but not big enough for taller people.

Most of all, B-2 pilots focus on “being ready,” as they are often the first to strike in high-intensity conflict. An interesting study from the Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies, called “Building the Future Bomber Force America Needs; The Bomber Re-Vector,” points to a recent B-2 attack on ISIS terrorists in Libya.

“On January 19, 2017 two B-2s flying from Whiteman AFB, Missouri released dozens of precision munitions on an Islamic State training camp in Libya. This 33-hour mission again showcased the responsiveness, range, and flexibility of the bomber force,” the study, written by Lt. Gen. David Deptula (Ret.) and Douglas Birkey, states.

Deptula, who was involved in planning and preparation for Operation Iraqi Freedom, talked to Warrior about the warzone importance of the B-2.

“The B-2 is one of the most game-changing aircraft ever built…and one of the most cost-effective. One B-2 can deliver the punch of an entire aircraft carrier air wing at several orders of magnitude less in operating cost and personnel,” Deptula said.

Kris Osborn is a Non-Resident Fellow at The Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies. Osborn previously served at the Pentagon as a Highly Qualified Expert with the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army - Acquisition, Logistics & Technology. Osborn has also worked as an anchor and on-air military specialist at national TV networks. He has a Masters Degree in Comparative Literature from Columbia University.

Michael Peck

Helicopters, Americas

The U.S. Army is arming its AH-64 Apache attack helicopters with an Israeli missile that will enable Apaches to hit targets without a line of sight.

Here's What You Need to Know: The push for stand-off weapons for its helicopters is part of a broader Army push for longer-range weapons,.

The U.S. Army is arming its AH-64 Apache attack helicopters with an Israeli missile that will enable Apaches to hit targets without a line of sight.

The Spike NLOS (non-line-of-sight) missile will allow Apaches to remain safely behind cover – a hill or trees – while they guide the munition to the target.

The Spike NLOS uses electro-optical guidance – basically a camera – with both day and night vision. With a range of 25 kilometers (15.5 miles), the missile uses a wireless data link to connect to the firing platform. “Spike NLOS provides the gunner with the unique ability to attack targets at stand-off range with no line of sight,” according to manufacturer Rafael’s product sheet. “The Spike NLOS weapon system can be operated in either direct attack or mid-course navigation based on target coordinates only. These modes enable the defeat of long-range hidden targets with pinpoint precision, damage assessment and the obtaining of real-time intelligence.”

A Defense News journalist witnessed a U.S. Army test of the Apache-Spike combination at the Yuma Proving Ground in August 2019. “The test shots were performed in challenging terrain. The AH-64 hid behind 1,600 feet of craggy mountain and took take aim at a target representing a Russian Pantsir medium-range, surface-to-air missile system on the opposite slope. In the shot witnessed by Defense News, the Apache flew just a couple of hundred feet above the highest obstacle in the desert when the missiles were fired.

“The missiles hit every target across nine total shots used to evaluate the system. The last missile firing resulted in the weapon hitting a moving target in the dark.”

Spike NLOS is part of a family of Spike missiles, including the shoulder-fired Spike SR anti-tank missile, the Spike LR2 with a range of three miles and the Spike ER2 with a range of 6 to 10 miles. Spike missiles are used by 33 nations, with 30,000 missiles sold, according to Rafael.

Why is the U.S. Army buying an Israeli missile? It’s a temporary solution while the Army grapples with how to equip its attack helicopters with stand-off missiles and drones. The increasing lethality and proliferation of sophisticated air defense systems is a powerful incentive for helicopters to keep as much distance as possible from their targets, just as deadlier anti-aircraft systems spurred the development of glide bombs and other stand-off weapons for fixed-wing strike aircraft.

“The Army is moving forward to address a much-desired capability, particularly when considering how the service will fight in the future where greater stand-off to go up against enemy targets is paramount to successful operations,” Defense News noted.

The push for stand-off weapons for its helicopters is part of a broader Army push for longer-range weapons, especially given fears that Russia’s arsenal of artillery and tactical missiles outranges their American counterparts. For example, the Army’s Precision Strike Missile project aims to develop a missile with a range of about 300 miles.

Michael Peck is a contributing writer for the National Interest. He can be found on Twitter and Facebook.

This article first appeared in January 2020.

Image: U.S. Army / Flickr

Mark Episkopos

Hwasong Missiles, Asia

This is what three of North Korea’s most powerful ICBM models—the Hwasong 14, 15, and 16—are capable of doing.

“The United States and its Asian allies regard North Korea as a grave security threat,” opened a recent Council on Foreign Relations report on the DPRK’s military capabilities. These concerns are not entirely misplaced; North Korea is believed to own a stockpile of around sixty nuclear weapons, including a powerful and steadily growing arsenal of intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBM’s). This is what three of North Korea’s most powerful ICBM models—the Hwasong 14, 15, and 16—are capable of doing.

Hwasong 14 

Hwasong-14 is a two-stage, liquid-fueled mobile ICBM, first test-launched in the summer of 2017. Hwasong-14’s single liquid-fueled engine seemingly bears wide-ranging similarities to its Hwasong-12 predecessor. North Korean authorities claimed the missile could “strike anywhere on earth”—although an obvious exaggeration, the Hwasong-14 does manage to set an important precedent. At a likely range of around 10,000 kilometers, it is the first North Korean missile capable of reaching mainland North America. This new range estimate is significantly revised from initial projections, which pointed to a significantly lower range of around 7,000 to 9,500 kilometers. The Hwasong-14 can deliver a payload of approximately 500-600 kilograms, according to the spectrum of western expert consensus. Though Hwasong-14 is a major leap forward for North Korean ICBM capabilities, the missile’s reliability has been called into question. As noted by the CSIS Missile Defense Project, “debate continues over the Hwasong-14’s reentry vehicle and whether it is capable of surviving the stresses associated with ICBM distance.”

Hwasong-15  

Hwasong-15 shares many technical characteristics with its Hwasong-14 counterpart—in particular, they appear to use similar propulsion systems. Still, the Hwasong-15 dwarfs its predecessor in most performance areas. It boasts a significantly greater range of around 13,000 kilometers and is capable of delivering a 1,000-kilogram payload; it also offers a substantially improved control system, allowing a greater degree of precision. Partly as a result of these performance upgrades, the missile is both larger and heavier than the Hwasong-14. It requires a nine-axle transporter erector launcher (TEL), as opposed to the eight-axle TEL of its predecessor.  

Hwasong-16 

North Korea unveiled its new “monster ICBM,” sometimes referred to as the Hwasong-16, at an October 2020 military parade commemorating the seventy-fifth anniversary of the North Korean Workers’ Party. At first glance, the missile appears to be a bigger and more capable successor to the Hwasong-15. In particular, the DPRK’s newest missile appears to support a much greater payload of around 2,000 to 3,000 kilograms. But the Hwasong-16 is, in some key ways, an apparent step backward for North Korea’s nuclear arsenal. The new missile’s colossal size requires a similarly large TEL—it can’t travel very far and only has a small number of available travel paths, making its movements more predictable. By comparison, the Hwasong-15 is markedly more mobile and is still perfectly capable of delivering catastrophic damage with its 1,000-kilogram payload—it has also been successfully tested at least once. Hwasong-16 is, like all its predecessors, liquid-fueled, defying the widespread expectations of western experts that North Korea is finally ready to make the leap to solid-fueled ICBM technology. Whereas a solid-fueled ICBM can be launched nearly at a moment’s notice, deploying a liquid-fueled missile can take as long as eighteen hours. This gap makes liquid-fueled missiles less survivable and limits their value as second-strike nuclear weapons.  

Mark Episkopos is a national security reporter for the National Interest. 

Image: Reuters

Robert Farley

military, Europe

Military aircraft can have notoriously short lifespans, but that isn’t always the case.

Here's What You Need to Remember: The MiG-21 will easily reach sixty, however, and probably seventy without breaking a sweat. It remains one of the iconic fighters of the supersonic age.

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

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

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

The MiG-21 “Fishbed” is an exception.

Origins

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

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

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

Longevity

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

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

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

The Fishbed at War

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

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

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

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

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

Upgrades

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

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

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

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

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

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

Robert Farley, a frequent contributor to the National Interest, is author of The Battleship Book. This article first appeared in 2019.

Image: Wikipedia.

David Axe

Security,

The arsenal plane would carry large numbers of long-range munitions into combat, adding firepower to a main force of fighters.

Here's What You Need to Remember: The idea is for the fighters to spot targets for the more-vulnerable arsenal planes, allowing the latter to remain farther from the battle. For that reason, an arsenal plane could need sophisticated communications systems, whether it’s a new design or a modification of an existing type.

The head of the U.S. Air Force’s Global Strike Command wants to develop a new aircraft type that can function as the command’s “arsenal plane.”

The arsenal plane would carry large numbers of long-range munitions into combat, adding firepower to a main force of fighters.

However, the arsenal plane presumably would not possess the same sensors, performance and stealth qualities that other types possess.

“The arsenal plane concept is probably better described as more of a clean-sheet approach to a platform that can affordably and rapidly fill the gap for long-range strike capabilities, and to go down more innovative paths,” Gen. Timothy Ray told reporters in early April 2020.

This apparently is the first time that a top Air Force officer has insinuated that a new, “clean-sheet” design, rather than an existing type, should fill the arsenal-plane role. The Air Force previously had hinted that the B-1 and B-52 bombers and even airlifters could function as arsenal planes.

“If you look at our force going forward, a lot of the programs that we have are turning the bomber force into something else,” Will Roper, the Air Force’s top weapons-buyer, said at a press event in Washington, D.C. in November 2019. “A B-52 with a lot of hypersonic weapons on it is, I will call it a bomber, but it's certainly not dropping things down—quite the opposite, right? It's almost a missileer instead of a bomber.”

Ray around the same time said that cargo planes could be candidates for the arsenal role. “You have to go look at those options, if you believe you’ll have access to airlift assets to go do that in a time of crisis,” Ray said. “I’m not mentally there, I don’t see how that comes together.”

There’s a cold logic in the Air Force’s drive to acquire an arsenal plane. To preserve their clean, radar-dodging lines, the service’s F-22 and F-35 stealth fighters typically carry their weapons in small internal bays.

The F-22’s standard loadout is four air-to-air missiles and two 1,000-pound bombs. The F-35 can haul just two air-to-air missiles and two 2,000-pound bombs internally. By contrast, many Russian and Chinese fighters, while not stealthy, routinely carry 10 or more missiles and bombs under their fuselages and wings.

American fighter squadrons could fly into combat with far fewer weapons than their opponents could carry. An arsenal plane, lobbing potentially hundreds of missiles from well behind the aerial front line, could help to close the weapons-gap.

The idea is for the fighters to spot targets for the more-vulnerable arsenal planes, allowing the latter to remain farther from the battle. For that reason, an arsenal plane could need sophisticated communications systems, whether it’s a new design or a modification of an existing type.

“This is a little unusual and something (almost) entirely new,” Brian Laslie, author of The Air Force Way of War, told The Daily Beast shortly after the Air Force first announced the arsenal-plane concept. “But with too few fighters carrying too few weapons—and rapidly-arming foes—the Pentagon seems willing to risk something unusual and new.”

David Axe was defense editor at The National Interest. He is the author of the graphic novels War Fix, War Is Boring and Machete Squad. This article first appeared last year.

Image: Wikipedia.

Harun Karčić

Russia, Balkans

Joe Biden wants a return to the strategic region, but Vladimir Putin is not going down without a fight.

The Russian embassy in Bosnia and Herzegovina recently warned it will “react” if Bosnia takes further steps towards joining NATO, saying it will perceive such an act as hostile. Then, a few days later, Igor Kalabukhov, Russia’s newly-appointed ambassador in Sarajevo, compared NATO to a hostile enemy in an interview and warned that “We must take this fact into consideration – the encroachment of NATO’s infrastructure towards our borders. We must react in a military-technical sense.”

Such warnings, stark as they may be, are not unprecedented.

Moscow clearly believes that the purpose of NATO is to “fight against Russia” and that joining NATO will force Sarajevo to take a side in the “military-political confrontation.” Despite Bosnia being small and war-torn, such a vividly antagonistic posture from Russia clearly shows that the Balkan region as a whole plays an outsized role in wider geopolitical constellations. Namely—Bosnia, Kosovo, and Serbia are the only three remaining Balkan countries that have not yet joined NATO. Serbia is adamant on staying out of the alliance, while Kosovo is yet to fulfill a number of pre-conditions. However, being home to Camp Bondsteel—the biggest U.S. military base in the region—and staunchly pro-American in its foreign policy leaves no doubt as to Kosovo’s geopolitical orientation. Hence, that essentially leaves Bosnia as the only remaining country that wants to join NATO (or at least that is what half of its population wants). Namely, Bosniak Muslims and Croats are, according to opinion polls, pro-NATO oriented while Bosnian Serbs gravitate towards Russia. According to a 2017 International Republican Institute opinion poll carried out in the country, Bosniak Muslims are most eager to join the alliance: 57 percent of Bosniaks strongly support NATO accession, compared to 53 percent of Bosnian-Croats and just 2 percent of Bosnian-Serbs. The logic behind such reasoning is rather straightforward: NATO, led by the United States, intervened twice to save a persecuted Muslim population from the onslaught of a Christian enemy—in Bosnia (1994, 1995) and in Kosovo (1999). Hence the love for NATO. On the other hand, Bosnian Serbs, by means of their shared Orthodox Christian faith and pan-Slavic ties, look towards Moscow.

Russia has for years maintained its opposition to Bosnia joining NATO, though it opted to call for “military neutrality” instead of outright opposition. With Joe Biden, a long-time sympathizer of Bosnia and Kosovo, now in the White House, Moscow is taking a more hostile stance.

For years, a number of Balkan observers (including myself) have been warning of increased Russian malign influence in Bosnia and in the wider Balkan region, particularly after the discovery of Bosnian Serb paramilitaries acting beneath the radar and allegedly linked to Russian biker gangs known as the “Night Wolves.” The “Wolves” have been under U.S. sanctions for years due to their active involvement in the Russian annexation of Crimea and in recruiting pro-Russian separatist fighters to fight in Ukraine. Elsewhere in the region, there was a botched coup d’état engineered by fourteen people (including two Russian military intelligence officers) aiming to install a pro-Russia, anti-NATO government in Montenegro in 2016; Attempts to sow discord in North Macedonia prior to its own NATO accession in 2017—again, blamed on pro-Russian elements—and attempted sabotage of Macedonia’s name change deal with Greece in 2018 (which paved the way for the country to join NATO).

To be clear about one thing—Russia does not view tiny Western Balkan states as a national security threat. However, so far as Moscow is concerned, forestalling their accession to the Western military alliance is a strategic goal within Russia’s broader foreign policy objective of curbing NATO’s expansion. There is also the tit-for-tat moment: since NATO has been infringing upon Soviet-era zones of influence in its soft underbelly (i.e., Georgia and Ukraine), Moscow feels entitled to adequately reciprocate in NATO’s (and the European Union’s) backyard. Russia has been probing and testing the West’s response. The same strategy has been applied in Ukraine’s Donbas, Nagorno-Karabakh, South Ossetia, and Abkhazia, and in Moldova through Transdniestria. By developing the ability to sway over local powerbrokers and play with fire in frozen-conflicts, Moscow can essentially blackmail NATO and the EU and extract concessions from them. Hence, Moscow is using the Balkans as a bargaining chip.

Bosnia is the easiest target as existing deep-rooted problems can be exacerbated to divert the EU’s and NATO’s attention from Moscow’s more ambitious designs. A key Russian ally in Bosnia is the hardline politician Milorad Dodik, currently the Serb-member of the tripartite Presidency of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Not only has he met Russian president Vladimir Putin nearly ten times over the past years, but he has defied almost all Bosnian state institutions and has shown that his party can paralyze Bosnia’s politics—at will. Though not very much liked in the West, Moscow’s rhetorical support is of paramount importance to him. When he ruled over the Bosnian Serb entity (comprising 49 percent of Bosnia) he forged closer relations and received weapons and military advisors from neighboring Serbia and Russia. He is vehemently anti-NATO and staunchly pro-Russian. Moscow knows that rhetoric alone suffices to keep Bosnian Serbs happy, and they can in turn—at Moscow’s request—paralyze Bosnia’s ability to function. If Russia can achieve so much leverage over an EU and NATO-aspiring country with hardly any costly investments, so much the better.

Bosnia’s postwar political system is fiendishly complex and bureaucratic. The country remains starkly divided among Catholic Croats, Muslims Bosniaks, and Orthodox Christian Serbs. Each ethnic group has a president, and every eight months they take turns in running the country. Administratively, Bosnia and Herzegovina is divided into two political entities: one inhabited by Bosnian Serbs (Republic of Srpska), the other shared by Bosniak Muslims and Bosnian Croats (Federation). The Federation is further divided into ten Swiss-style cantons. When not dysfunctional on its own, such a convoluted political composition, relying mostly on consensus in decisionmaking, makes it ideally suited for malign foreign interference.

Russia has for years been waging a systematic assault on Western democracies—either by meddling in U.S. elections, promoting the rise of the far-right in Europe, or advocating BREXIT—which plays into the Kremlin’s ultimate goal of having a weaker European Union. The Kremlin has also done heaps to undermine the post-World War II rules-based international order which seeks to protect smaller states from the predation of larger ones. The Western Balkans have emerged as a new front in this no longer covert war. Russia’s strategic objective in the Western Balkans is not only to block aspiring nations from joining NATO but to stymie the development of pro-Western liberal democracies. Its media outlets disseminate pro-Kremlin narratives in Serbia and among Bosnian Serbs by promoting shared Slavic and Orthodox ties, reinforcing the idea of Russia being the only true ally of Balkan Orthodox Christians, lionizing Vladimir Putin, and memorializing NATO’s bombing of Serbia. Russia is striving to keep public opinion stridently against the alliance.

This brewing conflict has the potential to develop into a more serious confrontation between the United States and Russia, and essentially between Biden and Putin. The Balkans remain unfinished business, left behind from the 1990s and an untimely American pull-out, which is coming back to haunt Washington. Hence, the prospect of Western integration for the region still remains the main vehicle towards achieving sustainable peace and stability. It is a process that will not only require constant commitment and periodical encouraging signals but active involvement of the United States.

Geopolitics has returned to the Balkans and the region has once again become a chessboard in a new “Great Game” where Ankara, Brussels, Washington, Moscow, Berlin—and, increasingly, Beijing—vie for influence and geopolitical leverage in the pursuit of wider aspirations.

Harun Karčić is a journalist and political analyst based in Sarajevo covering foreign influences in the Balkans. He tweets @HarunKarcic

Image: Sebian servicemen attend a military parade near Belgrade, Serbia October 19, 2019.​ Reuters.

Stephen Silver

North Korea Missiles, Asia

North Korea launched a pair of short-range ballistic missiles on Thursday, a considerable escalation from the first launch. Such a launch would, unlike the first one, be considered a violation of sanctions against North Korea. 

Following North Korea’s cruise missile launch earlier this week, the U.S. government, in particular, appeared to downplay the severity of what happened. President Joe Biden told reporters earlier this week that “according to the Defense Department, it’s business as usual,” and even laughed when he was asked if the launch would affect diplomacy.

Then, later in the week, North Korea carried out another missile launch.

North Korea launched a pair of short-range ballistic missiles on Thursday, a considerable escalation from the first launch. Such a launch would, unlike the first one, be considered a violation of sanctions against North Korea. 

Japanese prime minister Yoshihide Suga proclaimed that the launch threatened “peace and safety in Japan and the region,” while South Korean foreign minister Chung Eui-yong expressed  “deep concern,” according to The Washington Post. 

The South Korean government stated that “the two short-range missiles were fired at 7:06 a.m. and 7:25 a.m. from an area on the North’s eastern coast and flew 450 kilometers (279 miles) on an apogee of 60 kilometers (37 miles) before landing in the sea,” according to The Washington Post.

“This activity highlights the threat that North Korea’s illicit weapons program poses to its neighbors and the international community,” U.S. Indo-Pacific Command spokesperson Capt. Mike Kafka said, per the newspaper.

The missile tests follow the visit to the region last week by Secretary of State Tony Blinken and Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin, where they met with their counterparts from Japan and South Korea and are thought to have discussed the North Korean nuclear issue extensively. The United States and South Korea also performed joint military exercises at the same time, the type of exercises that have long been viewed as a provocation by North Korea.

CNN had reported, during the meetings in Asia, that there were indications such a missile test was in the works by the North Koreans.

North Korea has typically launched missile tests or other provocations whenever a new president takes over in the United States or South Korea. In 2017, shortly after President Trump assumed office, the Kim regime launched nuclear and intercontinental missile tests, which led to escalating rhetoric that eventually gave way to a diplomatic process.

Reports prior to the Asia trip had stated that North Korea was being unresponsive to American diplomatic overtures. 

Biden is expected to soon announce his administration’s strategy in regard to dealing with North Korea, which is expected to differ from that of his predecessor. Biden is scheduled to hold his first news conference as president on Thursday, and North Korea is likely to come up.

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

Image: Reuters

Ethen Kim Lieser

Stimulus Check,

According to a recent online survey of more than four hundred investors conducted by Deutsche Bank, it revealed that half of the respondents between twenty-five and thirty-four plan to spend 50 percent of their $1,400 stimulus payments on stocks.

Roughly one hundred twenty-seven million coronavirus relief checks—totaling $750 billion—have already hit the bank accounts of financially struggling Americans, according to the Internal Revenue Service.

And many experts believe that a sizeable portion of those funds will eventually make its way into the market to make big bets on popular but volatile so-called meme stocks like GameStop and AMC.

According to a recent online survey of more than four hundred investors conducted by Deutsche Bank, it revealed that half of the respondents between twenty-five and thirty-four plan to spend 50 percent of their $1,400 stimulus payments on stocks.

That discovery led the German investment bank to state that “a large amount of the upcoming U.S. stimulus checks will probably find their way into equities.”

Meanwhile, those aged eighteen to twenty-four who took part in the poll planned to use 40 percent of the stimulus checks on stocks, and those thirty-five to fifty-four admitted they would use 37 percent of the checks. Individuals over fifty-five said they would put only 16 percent in the market.

Market experts, though, are warning that you shouldn’t bet on such meme stocks if you aren’t in a position to absorb potentially huge losses. For example, to shed some light on the immense volatility of those stocks, GameStop in recent months was driven up by hundreds of percent in part by Reddit traders seeking to squeeze hedge funds betting against the company. The stock then plunged 33 percent on Wednesday following the company’s quarterly earnings report, but then bounced again the next trading day.

“Behind the recent surge in retail investing is a younger, often new-to-investing, and aggressive cohort not afraid to employ leverage,” Deutsche Bank strategist Jim Reid and research associate Raj Bhattacharyya said in a report.

“Given stimulus checks are currently penciled in at circa $405 billion in Biden’s plan (before Senate revisions), that gives us a maximum of around $150 billion that could go into U.S. equities based on our survey. … If we estimate this at around 20 percent (based on some historical assumptions), that would still provide around circa $30 billion of firepower—and that’s before we talk about any possible boosts to 401k plans outside of trading accounts.”

A more conservative approach to spending the stimulus payments has been touted by none other than legendary investor Warren Buffett, who boasts a net worth of roughly $100 billion.

“The first thing I’d do with any money I had would be to pay (credit card debt) off,” he said during last year’s online shareholders meeting for his company Berkshire Hathaway, adding that too many Americans today use credit cards “as a piggy bank to be raided.”

He then told a story about a friend who got her hands on some cash and later asked him for advice on what to do with it. Buffett eventually learned that the woman was still carrying around a credit card balance that was tacking on 18 percent in interest annually.

“It just doesn’t make sense,” he told his shareholders. “You can’t go through life borrowing money at those rates and be better off.”

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

Trump tied American jobs to endless wars in the Middle East. Biden should link them to renewed diplomacy.

In announcing it would prioritize travelers who had received Chinese-made vaccines, Beijing sparked outrage in countries where those aren’t available.

Long sidelined by Islamabad, Moscow, and Beijing, New Delhi is finally taking a seat at the table.

Conrad Black

Joe Biden,

No president in the history of such press conferences, going back to Franklin D. Roosevelt, has ever responded from a briefing book, especially one where the questions were in anticipated sequence as occurred today.

President Joe Biden’s first news conference was the high point of his administration to date; he was fluent, good-humored, well-informed, and only slightly bobbled one or two questions and not in a way that surpassed the confusion deliberately created by Dwight D. Eisenhower’s complicated syntax or Lyndon Johnson’s Texan colloquialisms.

He was very well-rehearsed to take predictable questions on the Democrats’ soft-points and respond with articulate answers that had almost nothing to do with the real issue. Less reassuringly, he read from briefing notes at length in a manner that brazenly advertised the pre-selection of questionnaires, questions, and generally windy and evasive answers. No president in the history of such press conferences, going back to Franklin D. Roosevelt, has ever responded from a briefing book, especially one where the questions were in anticipated sequence as occurred today.

Minute and repetitive questions about the dire border conditions were funneled into a series of responses based on the alleged inhumanity of the previous administration and scrupulously ignored President Trump’s achievement in reducing illegal southern border entries by almost 90 percent.

There were a few gratuitous donkey-kicks against Trump; nothing would be easier, more appropriate, and more certain to continue to moderate the American political temperature than a gracious reference to the former president-the swift development of the vaccines, or even his policy to China, which Biden did acknowledge that he was in some measure continuing. But the Democrats’ obligatory Trump-demonization script does not permit of that, though the refrain resonates more feebly every week.

It was clear as the session proceeded how pre-rehearsed it all was, but it achieved the minimum ambition of spiking claims of the president’s senility. He spoke for over an hour and there was almost none of the worrisome bumbling that afflicted many of his previous public comments, and he did not remotely appear to be adrift or vacant, as he did frequently during the campaign and at times since his inauguration.

He had the old Joe Biden casual charm and comradeliness with the working press that has made him a popular figure in Washington since he first arrived there nearly fifty years ago. He did undoubtedly raise his game on what we have seen before and everyone should be reassured that all the Manchurian Candidate and related theories of a waxworks dummy president being shunted around like an effigy and stammering incomprehensibly when asked anything more challenging than the identity of the male occupant of Grant’s Tomb is asked, were laid to rest, at least for the time being.

The journalists themselves will be aware that the whole occasion was a long-prepared set-up, but that does not imply that the regime has no answer for serious questions, even if the president was not prepared to offer any. The format and pre-selection of questioners didn’t allow the refutation of such whoppers as his assertion that the “overwhelming majority” of people arriving at the southern border were sent back, or that most Republicans support him; (the real number that does is ten percent-he may have been referring to support of his Covid Relief bill, but that is not what he said).

Nothing came up about the administration’s green ambitions, nothing about the covid pandemic apart from accelerating vaccines, about school reopenings, and there was nothing about taxes and the proverbial economic reset, nothing at all about gun control, and not one word about Iran.

There was much discussion about the filibuster, but the president and the press just filibustered each other on the issue. The closest there was to any actual news was his agreement that North Korea was the greatest foreign policy problem and his stated expectation that he would seek reelection in 2024.                  

It was a fair day for the president, but a further disgrace to the worthless partisan press. There was no challenge on any of the soft pre-cooked answers, except on a couple of border matters, where the president entered a cul-de-sac and self-bloviated into silence. He was not challenged on a shaming PBS question that the Mexican border was being swarmed because “Joe Biden is a decent man.”

A low hurdle was cleared and the president was alert and affable; the terrible, outrageous nightmares of the Trump-baiting press conferences and all the contumely of that era are mercifully receding, but honeymoons, especially as hokey a honeymoon as this one, don’t last long.          

Conrad Black is a writer and former newspaper publisher whose most recent book is Donald J. Trump: A President Like No Other. He is Chairman Emeritus of the National Interest.

The decline of Israeli democracy holds lessons for the United States.