The National Interest

Ethen Kim Lieser

Health, Americas

Where did it come from?

An international research team of Chinese, European, and U.S. scientists has reconstructed the evolutionary history of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes the coronavirus, according to a study published in Nature Microbiology. 

The researchers now know that particular viral lineage has been circulating in bats for decades—diverging from other bat viruses about forty to seventy years ago—and likely includes other contagions that have the potential to infect humans.

“Collectively our analyses point to bats being the primary reservoir for the SARS-CoV-2 lineage,” the study’s authors wrote.

“While it is possible that pangolins, or another hitherto undiscovered species, may have acted as an intermediate host facilitating transmission to humans, current evidence is consistent with the virus having evolved in bats resulting in bat sarbecoviruses that can replicate in the upper respiratory tract of both humans and pangolins.”  

The researchers noted that in concluding their findings, they had to engage in rigorous detective work to identify the full makeup of the virus.  

“Coronaviruses have genetic material that is highly recombinant, meaning different regions of the virus’ genome can be derived from multiple sources,” Maciej Boni, associate professor of biology at Penn State, said in a news release.  

“This has made it difficult to reconstruct SARS-CoV-2’s origins. You have to identify all the regions that have been recombining and trace their histories. To do that, we put together a diverse team with expertise in recombination, phylogenetic dating, virus sampling, and molecular and viral evolution.”  

SARS-CoV-2 was found to be 96 percent genetically similar to the RaTG13 coronavirus that was discovered in 2013 in a sample of the Rhinolophus affinis horseshoe bat in Yunnan Province, China.  

SARS-CoV-2 is believed to have diverged from RaTG13 in 1969. 

“The ability to estimate divergence times after disentangling recombination histories, which is something we developed in this collaboration, may lead to insights into the origins of many different viral pathogens,” Philippe Lemey, of the Department of Evolutionary and Computational Virology, KE Leuven, said in a release. 

Like the older members of the lineage, the coronavirus also has the ability to bind with human receptor cells. 

“This means that other viruses that are capable of infecting humans are circulating in horseshoe bats in China,” David Robertson, professor of computational virology at MRC-University of Glasgow Centre for Virus Research, said in a release.  

He added that preventing future pandemics will require better samplings of wild bats and utilizing human-disease surveillance systems that can identify novel pathogens in real-time.  

“The key to successful surveillance,” Robertson said, “is knowing which viruses to look for and prioritizing those that can readily infect humans. We should have been better prepared for a second SARS virus.”  

Now more than eight months into the pandemic, there are roughly 30.2 million confirmed cases of coronavirus worldwide, including at least 947,000 related deaths, according to the latest data from Johns Hopkins University.  

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

Image: Reuters

Kris Osborn

Security, Asia

Beijing would like to carry out longer range strike missions, but it needs more tankers.

Key point: China's military is increasingly advanced and numerous. However, one platform they don't have enough of are aerial refueling tankers.

Aircraft carriers, stealth fighters, anti-satellite weapons, drones, cyber attack technology and a growing arsenal of ballistic missiles are all among a series of Chinese weapons said to present serious concerns for Pentagon leaders and weapons developers, according to DoD’s annual China report.

The Pentagon 2018 report, called “Military and Security Developments Involving the People’s Republic of China,” details a broad spectrum of risks to include global economic expansion, massive military modernization and breakthrough weapons technology able to threaten US superiority.

While of course the report emerges within the context of a complicated, multi-faceted and stressed US-China relationship which includes growing tensions, military rivalry and some measure of cooperation as well. A recent DoD news report, for instance, was careful to mention China as a potential “adversary,” not “enemy.”

Nevertheless, the Pentagon assessment is quite detailed in its discussion of the fast-growing military threat posed by China. A few examples, for instance, include the report’s discussion of China’s short, medium and long-range ballistic missile arsenal. China is believed to possess as many as 1,200 short-range missiles and up to 300 intermediate range missiles, according to the report. With this in mind, the report specifies that some of China’s longer-range, precision-guided ballistic missiles are able to reach US-assets in the Pacific region.

The Pentagon report, along with previously released Congressional assessments of China’s military, catalogue information related to China’s nuclear arsenal and long-range intercontinental ballistic missiles - such as the existing DF-31, DF-26 and DF-31A along with the DF-41. In fact, the Pentagon report specifically cites the DF-26 as presenting a particular threat; the intermediate range ballistic missile, the report says, can carry both conventional and nuclear explosives out to ranges of 4,000 kilometers.

“US bases in Japan are in range of a growing number of Chinese MRBMs and LACMs. H-6K bomber flights into the Western Pacific Ocean demonstrate China’s ability to range Guam with air-launched LACMs. The DF-26, which debuted publicly in 2015 and was paraded again in 2017, is capable of conducting precision conventional or nuclear strikes against ground targets that could include U.S. bases on Guam,” the 2018 report says.

The Chinese are believed to already have a number of road-mobile ICBMs able to carry nuclear weapons, the report says. The DF-41 is reported to have as many as 10 re-entry vehicles, analysts have said.

China is known to have conducted several hypersonic weapons tests. Not surprisingly, US Air Force leaders are currently accelerating prototyping, testing and development of hypersonic weapons.

In addition, China's well-documented anti-satellite, or ASAT, weapons tests have inspired international attention and influenced the Pentagon and US Air Force to accelerate strategies for satellite protection such as improving sensor resiliency, cyber hardening command and control and building in redundancy to improve prospects for functionality in the event of attack.

China's rapid development of new destroyers, amphibs, stealth fighters and long-range weapons is quickly increasing its ability to threaten the United States and massively expand expeditionary military operations around the globe, according to this years’ Pentagon report as well as several previous Congressional reports from the US-China Economic and Security Review Commission.

In recent years, the Chinese have massively increased their foreign presence around the globe, in a transparent effort to rival the US as a global superpower. The Chinese have made large incursions into Africa, and even set up a military base in Djibouti, Africa, right near a strategically vital US presence.

“China’s military strategy and ongoing PLA reform reflect the abandonment of its historically land-centric mentality. Similarly,doctrinal references to “forward edge defense” that would move potential conflicts far from China’s territory suggest PLA strategists envision an increasingly global role,” the report cites.

Many of the details of the Pentagon’s 2018 report are aligned with similar claims made in a 2016 US-China Economic and Security Review Commission, a Congressional report which also specified China's growing provocations and global expeditionary exercises.

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

Recommended: Russia's Next Big Military Sale - To Mexico?

Recommended: Would China Really Invade Taiwan?

Additional instances of Chinese provocation in recent years include placement of surface-to-air-missiles and fighters in sensitive areas of the South China Sea, along with its announcement of an "air exclusion zone" in recent years. While the US military flew B-52 bombers through this declared zone in a demonstration of defiance, the move did demonstrate China's growing willingness to be aggressive. In addition, Chinese "land reclamation" and territorial claims in the South China Sea continue to prompt US "freedom of navigation exercises" to unambiguously challenge China's claims.

Chinese Navy:

While Chinese naval technology may still be substantially behind current U.S. platforms, the equation could change dramatically over the next several decades because the Chinese are reportedly working on a handful of high-tech next-generation ships, weapons and naval systems.

China has plans to grow its navy to 351 ships by 2020 as the Chinese continue to develop their military’s ability to strike global targets, according to the Congressional reports.

Also the Chinese are building their own indigenous aircraft carriers; their first self-built carrier was launched last year and is expected to enter service by 2019, the Pentagon report says. More are being built to joint China’s first carrier, the Ukrainian-built Liaoning.

Looking to the future, the 2016 report says "future Chinese carriers are likely to be flat deck ships, like U.S. aircraft carriers, that utilize steam or magnetic catapults and would enable the PLA Navy to employ aircraft armed with heavier munitions intended for maritime strike or land attack missions. According to DOD, China could build several aircraft carriers in the next 15 years. China may ultimately produce five ships—for a total of six carriers—for the PLA Navy."

The report also cites the LUYANG III, a new class of Chinese destroyers are engineered with vertically-launched, long-range anti-ship cruise missiles. The new destroyers carry an extended-range variant of the HHQ-9 surface-to-air missile, among other weapons, the report says.

As evidence of the impact of these destroyers, the reports point out that these new multi-mission destroyers are likely to form the bulk of warship escorts for Chinese carriers - in a manner similar to how the US Navy protects its carriers with destroyers in "carrier strike groups."

"These 8,000 ton destroyers (the LUYANG III) . . . have phased-array radars and a long-range SAM [surface-to-air missile] system which provides the [navy] with its first credible area air-defense capability," the 2016 report states.

The Chinese are currently testing and developing a new, carrier-based fighter aircraft called the J-15.

Regarding amphibious assault ships, the Chinese are now adding more YUZHAO LPDs, amphibs which can carry 800 troops, four helicopters and up to 20 armored vehicles, the report said.

"The YUZHAO can carry up to four air cushion landing craft, four helicopters, armored vehicles, and troops for long-distance deployments, which DOD notes ‘‘provide[s] a . . . greater and more flexible capability for ‘far seas’ operations than the [PLA Navy’s] older landing ships.,’ according to the report.

The Chinese also have ambitious future plans for next-generation amphibious assault ships.

"China seeks to construct a class of amphibious assault ships larger than the YUZHAO class that would include a flight deck for conducting helicopter operations. China may produce four to six of these Type 081 ships with the capacity to transport 500 troops and configured for helicopter-based vertical assault," the report says.

Some observers have raised the question as to whether this new class of Chinese amphibs could rival the US Navy's emerging, high-tech America-Class amphibious assault ships.

The Chinese are also working on development of a new Type 055 cruiser equipped with land-attack missiles, lasers and rail-gun weapons, according to the review.

China’s surface fleet is also bolstered by production of at least 60 smaller, fast-moving HOBEI-glass guided missile patrol boats and ongoing deliveries of JIANGDAO light frigates armed with naval guns, torpedoes and anti-ship cruise missiles.

Pentagon and Congressional reports also say that Chinese modernization plans call for a sharp increase in attack submarines and nuclear-armed submarines or SSBNs. Chinese SSBNs are now able to patrol with nuclear-armed JL-2 missiles able to strike targets more than 4,500 nautical miles.

The Chinese are currently working on a new, modernized SSBN platform as well as a long-range missile, the JL-3, the commission says.

Chinese Air Force:

A 2014 Congressional report states that the Chinese People’s Liberation Army currently had approximately 2,200 operational aircraft as far back as four years ago, nearly 600 of which were considered modern.

Regarding stealth aircraft, the Chinese now operate their first 5th Gen stealth fighter, the J-20. The aircraft is reported to be more advanced than any other air platform currently deployed in the Asia-Pacific region. The Chinese are also testing a smaller stealth fighter variant called the J-31 although its intended use is unclear, according to the report.

In 2014, China displayed the Shenyang J-31 stealth fighter at China’s Zuhai Air show, according to various reports. However, several analysts have made the point that it is not at all clear if the platform comes close to rivaling the technological capability of the US F-35.

At the same time, the 2014 Congressional report specifically cites a Defense Science Board finding that Chinese cyber attacks resulted in the theft of significant specs and technical details of a range of US weapons systems - to include the F-35. In fact, the Pentagon’s recent news story about the 2018 mentions that apparent similarities between the F-35 and Chinese J-20 could very well be a result of espionage.

Overall, the U.S. technological advantage in weaponry, air and naval platforms is rapidly decreasing, according to all the assessments. To illustrate this point, the Congressional review cites comments from an analyst who compared U.S.-Chinese fighter jets to one another roughly twenty years ago versus a similar comparison today.

The analyst said that in 1995 a high-tech U.S. F-15, F-16 or F/A-18 would be vastly superior to a Chinese J-6 aircraft. However today -- China’s J-10 and J-11 fighter jet aircraft would be roughly equivalent in capability to an upgraded U.S. F-15, the review states. For this reason, the Air Force is now moving aggressively on a range of upgrades to its fleet of F-15s, to include new computer technology, electronic warfare, radar and weapons systems. 

Alongside their J-10 and J-11 fighters, the Chinese also own Russian-built Su-27s and Su-30s and bought Su-35s from Russia as well.

“The Su-35 is a versatile, highly capable aircraft that would offer significantly improved range and fuel capacity over China’s current fighters. The aircraft thus would strengthen China’s ability to conduct air superiority missions in the Taiwan Strait, East China Sea, and South China Sea as well as provide China with the opportunity to reverse engineer the fighter’s component parts, including its advanced radar and engines, for integration into China’s current and future indigenous fighters,” the review writes.

In addition to stealth technology, high-tech fighter aircraft and improved avionics, the Chinese have massively increased their ability with air-to-air missiles over the last 15-years, the review finds.

“All of China’s fighters in 2000, with the potential exception of a few modified Su-27s, were limited to within-visual-range missiles. China over the last 15 years also has acquired a number of sophisticated short and medium-range air-to-air missiles; precision-guided munitions including all-weather, satellite-guided bombs, anti-radiation missiles, and laser-guided bombs; and long-range, advanced air-launched land-attack cruise missiles and anti-ship cruise missiles,” the review says.

The review also points to the Y-20 aircraft, a new strategic airlifter being developed by the Chinese which has three times the cargo-carrying capacity of the U.S. Air Force’s C-130. Some of these new planes could be configured into tanker aircraft, allowing the Chinese to massively increase their reach and ability to project air power over longer distances.

At the moment, the Chinese do not have a sizeable or modern fleet of tankers, and many of their current aircraft are not engineered for aerial refueling, a scenario which limits their reach.

“Until the PLA Navy’s first carrier-based aviation wing becomes operational, China must use air refueling tankers to enable air operations at these distances from China. However, China’s current fleet of air refueling aircraft, which consists of only about 12 1950s-era H–6U tankers, is too small to support sustained, large-scale, long-distance air combat,” the review states.

The Pentagon annual review also raises concerns about China’s acquisition of Russian-built S-400 surface to air missiles.

The S–400 more than doubles the range of China’s air defenses from approximately 125 to 250 miles, the previous Congressional review writes. This new range would create a weapons with enough reach to cover all of Taiwan, the Senkaku Islands, and parts of the South China Sea, the review says.

This first appeared in Warrior Maven here in 2018.

Image: Reuters

Randal O'Toole

Society,

Conceived with racist assumptions and faulty financial projections, the DC Metro system has proved to be a financial and operational disaster. The region would do better rely more on cars and, in some places, buses.

Highway traffic in the Washington DC metro area returned to 80 percent of its pre‐​pandemic levels in July, but DC transit carried only 16 percent as many riders as it did in July 2019. Metro’s own surveys have found that most of its riders don’t plan to return until and unless an effective COVID vaccine is found.

Given this, there is no better time to simply shut down the Metro rail system, thus saving taxpayers billions of dollars. Conceived with racist assumptions and faulty financial projections, the system has proved to be a financial and operational disaster. The region would do better rely more on cars and, in some places, buses.

When the system was originally designed, planners knew it would cost more than buses so they planned to build lines only into white neighborhoods because they figured blacks wouldn’t be able to afford the fares. When blacks objected, a line built into black neighborhoods in Anacostia was followed by a concerted effort by the DC government to gentrify the neighborhoods, forcing many families out.

As of 2018, the median income of DC‐​area transit commuters was more than $60,000 a year, which was 8 percent more than that of all workers in the region. More DC transit commuters earn above $75,000 a year than earn less than $35,000 a year.

Despite the high incomes of transit riders, fares don’t come close to covering the costs of running the system. As author Zachary Schrag documents in his book, The Great Society Subway, the original planners of the 103‐​mile rail system expected that fare revenues would cover 100 percent of operating costs and 80 percent of capital costs. As of 2018, fares covered barely half the operating costs and have paid for none of the capital costs, which turned out to be four times greater than anticipated.

The federal and local governments dealt with high costs by having the federal government pay most of the capital costs while local governments paid most of the operating subsidies. What neither took into account was that rail systems must be completely rebuilt about every 30 years. Metro’s staff warned as early as 2002 that the system would need billions for capital replacement over the next decade, but no one came up with the money.

Instead of rehabilitating the system, Virginia and Maryland politicians demanded that the federal government fund construction of the Silver Line in Virginia and Purple Line in Maryland, which together cost nearly $10 billion. The Silver Line actually harmed the system as a whole because it shares tracks under the Potomac River with the Blue and Orange lines, which were running at capacity during rush hours. Adding Silver Line trains meant cutting Blue Line trains that were carrying more riders than the Silver Line trains.

Meanwhile, the system decayed as predicted. In 2009, when the computerized signaling system that kept trains from crashing into one another failed, a crash killed nine people. Metro’s response to was to turn off the computers and let train operators, whose previous job had mainly been to open and close doors at the stations, drive the trains, resulting in jerky service and more crashes. When smoke in the tunnels from worn‐​out insulators killed a passenger in 2015, Metro’s response was to shut down its lines to inspect all of the insulators. But the fundamental problem of worn‐​out equipment remains, with at least two further smoke incidents in the last year alone.

The National Transportation Safety Board’s report on the 2009 crash criticized Metro’s “lack of a safety culture.” More than a decade later, that hasn’t changed. A safety audit published last week by the Washington Metrorail Safety Commission found that the agency still did not have a safety culture.

Metro often had rail operations employees working longer hours than specified by its own safety guidelines. It allowed employees to work with broken equipment and sometimes attempted “to manipulate safety event investigations that create unacceptable safety risks.” Metro, added the audit, was a “toxic culture workplace” that “includes racial and sexual comments, harassment, and other unprofessional behavior.”

When Metro’s current CEO, Paul Wiedefeld, took the job in November 2015, he promised to improve the safety culture. Instead, he has been besieged by revenue and budgetary problems that were made worse by the coronavirus. Last week, Metro released a budgetary report to its board projecting that–despite having received nearly a billion dollars from the CARES Act–it would have to cut 39 bus lines, reduce service on all the rail lines, and make numerous other cuts just to finish its current fiscal year–and the agency has no idea how it will continue operating next year unless the federal government provides another bailout.

All of these problems show that the region can’t afford to keep running the trains and will have to shut them down sooner or later. Given the few number of riders being carried at present, the best time to do so is now when it will cause the least disruption. 

This article was first published by the Cato Institute.

Image: Reuters

Warfare History Network

History, Eurasia

Barbarossa was eventually defeated, but not until four years had passed and tens of millions had died.

“War is mainly a catalogue of blunders.”   

—Winston Churchill (1950)

On Sunday, June 22, 1941, as the sun slumbered, 3.6 million soldiers, 2,000 warplane pilots, and 3,350 tank commanders under skilled German command crouched at the border of Soviet-occupied Poland ready to invade the Communist nation Joseph Stalin had ruled with steel-fisted brutality for years. 

Shortly after 3 am, in an operation Adolf Hitler called “Barbarossa,” a three-million-man Axis force struck Soviet positions along a 900-mile-long front. German aircraft bombed military bases, supply depots and cities, including Sevastopol on the Black Sea, Brest in Belarus, and others up and down the frontier. The night before, German commandos had snuck into Soviet territory and destroyed Red Army communications networks in the West, making it difficult for those under attack to obtain direction from Moscow.

By the end of the first day of combat, some 1,200 Soviet aircraft had been destroyed, two-thirds while parked on the ground. The poorly led Soviet troops who were not killed or captured buckled under the German onslaught.

Stalin was staggered by the German ambush. Germany’s unannounced act of war violated the nonaggression pact that Hitler and Stalin had signed less than two years earlier and placed at risk the very survival of the Soviet Union. 

At first, Stalin insisted that it was just a provocation triggered by some rogue German generals and refused to order a counterattack until he heard officially from Berlin. The German declaration of war finally arrived four hours later. 

Hitler justified Barbarossa on the basis that the Soviet Union was “about to attack Germany from the rear.” Eventually, after much dithering, Stalin ordered the Red Army to “use all their strength and means to come down on the enemy’s forces and destroy them where they have violated the Soviet border,” but oddly directed that until further orders “ground troops were not to cross the border.”

The Soviet dictator lacked the heart to inform the Russian people that the Germans had invaded. That bitter task fell to Minister of Foreign Affairs Vyacheslav Molotov, who reported the assault in a radio broadcast more than eight hours after the conflict began. Sadly, Axis bombs and bullets had already alerted millions to the disaster.

Despite the urging of his military officers, Stalin, fearing he would be blamed for the losses, declined to take on the title of commander in chief of the Red Army. He did not even meet with the Politburo until 2 pm on that traumatic day.

Lacking sufficient skilled military leadership, the shocked Red Army reacted slowly and fearfully. As the Germans stormed east and mauled the Soviet troops, Stalin’s generals asked for permission to retreat to reduce casualties, move to defensive positions, and prepare for a counterattack. Stalin refused. His poorly equipped, trained, and led soldiers were ordered to stand their ground regardless of the consequences.

In the first 10 days of combat, the Germans thrust some 300 miles into Soviet territory and captured Minsk and more than 400,000 Red Army troops. At least 40,000 Russian soldiers died each day. Axis forces gained almost total air control and destroyed 90 percent of Stalin’s mechanized forces. Twenty million people who had been living under Soviet control were suddenly living in Axis territory. Many of those in areas previously invaded by Stalin (e.g., Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland) initially welcomed the Germans as liberators.

Stalin seemed close to a nervous breakdown. The losses were so humiliating that, despite being the head of government, he retreated to his summer home and, during several gloomy June days of heavy drinking, refused to answer his phone or play any role in his nation’s affairs, leaving the ship of state to flounder helplessly. On June 28, he muttered, “Lenin left us a great legacy, but we, his heirs, have ****ed it up.” 

Senior Soviet leaders mustered the courage to visit Stalin’s dacha on June 30. Upon arrival, they found him despondent and disheveled. He nervously asked, “Why have you come?” Stalin apparently thought that his underlings were there to arrest him. But they, long cowed by the dictator’s brutal intimidation, simply beseeched him to return to work at the Kremlin. He eventually did so.

Certainly, Operation Barbarossa was spawned by Hitler’s hatred of communism and dream of world domination. But Stalin’s many missteps in the previous two years enticed Hitler to attack and contributed significantly to Barbarossa’s early successes. Stalin’s blunders included purging the Soviet military of its leaders, entering into a treaty with Hitler that triggered a world war that subsequently ravaged Russia, launching a bumbling attack on Finland in late 1939, misreading Hitler, adopting a flawed plan of attack on Germany, and ignoring warnings of Hitler’s forthcoming Axis invasion of the Soviet Union.

In furtherance of Lenin’s goal of provoking a worldwide communist revolution, Stalin sought to undermine capitalist governments across Europe. He sought to destroy anyone abroad or at home who might stand in the way of his brand of communism. According to Stalin, “As long as the capitalist encirclement exists there will continue to be present among us wreckers, spies, saboteurs and murderers.” 

In a 1937 speech, the “man of steel” (which is what “Stalin” means in Russian) made his brutal stance clear: “Anyone who tries to destroy the unity of the socialist state, who aims to separate any of its parts or nationalities from it, is an enemy, a sworn enemy of the state and of the peoples of the USSR. And we will exterminate each and every one of these enemies, whether they are old Bolsheviks or not. We will exterminate their kin and entire family. We will mercilessly exterminate anyone, who with deeds or thoughts threatens the unity of the socialist state.”

This thinking gave rise to the Great Terror in which Stalin had millions of Soviet citizens arrested for “counterrevolutionary crimes” or “anti-Soviet agitation.” In 1937 and 1938, at least 1.3 million people were convicted of being “anti-Soviet elements.” More than half were executed—on average 1,500 people shot dead each day.

Stalin used the Great Terror to eliminate potential threats within the Soviet military. He removed some 34,000 Red Army officers from service. Of those, 22,705 were shot or went “missing.” Out of 101 members of the Red Army’s supreme leadership, Stalin had 91 arrested and 80 shot. Eight of nine senior admirals in the Soviet navy were put to death. By 1939, he had essentially decapitated the military forces responsible for protecting the Soviet Union from invasion.

In Hitler’s 1925 autobiography, Mein Kampf,he declared both his fierce opposition to Marxism and Germany’s need to acquire more territory to provide “living space” for its people. Hitler made clear that one source of such lands would be “Russia and her vassal border states.”

Following Hitler’s 1933 rise to power in Germany, the fascist policies he implemented were directly targeted against Stalin’s communism. Over the next half-dozen years, in contravention of the Versailles Treaty that basically forbade Germany from rearming, Germany’s military might and expansionist aspirations grew at a fearsome rate. Hitler added to Germany’s territory by absorbing Austria in 1938 and large parts of Czechoslovakia in early 1939. His gaze then fell upon neighboring Poland.

Stalin was right to fret about Hitler’s goal of seizing fertile lands to the east of Germany, including Ukraine. Stalin recognized that the Soviet Union and its Red Army in the late 1930s were not ready for war. He could buy time and seek to retard Hitler’s appetite either by forming an alliance with Germany’s traditional foes, Great Britain and France, or by pursuing a nonaggression treaty with Hitler.

In early 1939, Stalin began negotiations with France and Great Britain aimed at a treaty that would leave Hitler facing opponents to the east and west of Germany. These efforts, however, were impeded by the reluctance of both France and Great Britain to enter into a treaty with a communist nation bent on undermining capitalist democracies and especially one led by an unpredictable and ruthless dictator like Stalin.  The negotiations proceeded fitfully.

Several months later, seeking to thwart a treaty among Great Britain, France, and the Soviet Union, Hitler secretly invited Stalin to discuss a nonaggression pact (the so-called Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, named after the two countries’ foreign ministers). Hitler’s covert plan for a late summer attack on Poland, which both France and Great Britain had promised to defend, motivated him to strike a deal with Stalin so that Germany would not face a hostile military to the east.

In late August 1939, Hitler and Stalin stunned the world by announcing that their two nations had agreed to a trade and nonaggression pact. This came about only after Stalin obtained Hitler’s secret promise that the two nations would invade and carve up Poland between them, and Germany would facilitate Stalin’s desire to take over Latvia, Estonia, Bessarabia, and parts of Finland.

On August 19, Stalin justified his unlikely deal with Hitler to the Politburo: “The question of war and peace has entered a critical phase for us.  Its solution depends entirely on the position which will be taken by the Soviet Union. We are absolutely convinced that if we conclude a mutual assistance pact with France and Great Britain, Germany will back off from Poland and seek a modus vivendi with the Western Powers. War would be avoided, but further events could prove dangerous for the USSR.

“On the other hand, if we accept Germany’s proposal … and conclude a non-aggression pact with her, she will certainly invade Poland, and the intervention of France and England is then unavoidable. Western Europe would be subjected to serious upheavals and disorder. In this case we will have a great opportunity to stay out of the conflict, and we could plan the opportune time for us to enter the war.

“The experience of the last 20 years has shown that in peacetime the Communist movement is never strong enough for the Bolshevik Party to seize power. The dictatorship of such party will only become possible as the result of a major war.”

Stalin continued: “Comrades, I have presented my considerations to you. I repeat that it is in the interest of the USSR, the workers’ homeland, that a war breaks out between the Reich and the capitalist Anglo-French bloc. Everything should be done so that it drags out as long as possible with the goal of weakening both sides. For this reason, it is imperative that we agree to conclude the pact proposed by Germany, and then work in such a way that this war, once it is declared, will be prolonged maximally. We must strengthen our propaganda work in the belligerent countries in order to be prepared when the war ends.”

So, on August 23, 1939, the cold-blooded, anticapitalist leader who aimed to “Sovietize” the world climbed into bed with the cold-blooded, anti-Bolshevik leader who dreamed of fascist world rule.

On September 1, 1939, more than a million German warriors invaded Poland from the west. Sixteen days later, in accord with the secret August pact between Stalin and Hitler, half a million Soviet troops invaded Poland from the east. Within weeks the Polish nation simply vanished and, having pocketed its territory, Germany and the Soviet Union now shared a common border and responsibility for starting World War II.

In late November 1939, Stalin ordered about one million Red Army soldiers to invade neighboring Finland, a nation of just 3.6 million residents. (Finland had been ruled by Russia until 1918, when anti-Bolsheviks prevailed in a Finnish civil war.) During four months of harsh winter fighting against brave and defiant resistance, more than 200,000 Red Army soldiers died (Nikita Khrushchev said in his memoirs that the figure was closer to a million)—dwarfing the Finns’ military fatalities. 

Embarrassed, Stalin entered into an armistice under which Finland surrendered some territory, but the modest Soviet land gain was disproportionate to such vast human losses. Because of its unprovoked attack on Finland, the Soviet Union was expelled from the League of Nations.

Stalin’s earlier purge of his military leaders and the Red Army’s woeful showing in Finland persuaded Hitler that Soviet forces were weak and encouraged him to consider a surprise attack on the USSR. Stalin was painfully aware by 1940 that the Red Army was lacking in leadership, weapons, manpower, infrastructure, training, and war planning. He ordered a massive upgrade of the military to be carried out at top speed. But this would take time, and in the interim care would have to be taken not to provoke Hitler into attacking Russia.

To Stalin’s amazement and discomfort, during the first half of 1940, German military forces stormed through Belgium, Denmark, Norway, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, and France and drove the humbled British forces back to their island from the European mainland. These rapid victories did not comport with the Soviet leader’s strategic concept that the Western European countries would, to communism’s ultimate advantage, exhaust each other in a protracted war.

Under their trade agreements, the Soviet Union supplied Germany with huge quantities of foodstuffs, raw materials, and oil and acquired from international markets goods Hitler needed but could not otherwise obtain due to Great Britain’s naval blockade of German ports. Ironically, by mid-1940, the Soviet Union was Germany’s most important trading partner. 

Stalin’s view at this time was that Hitler’s desire to seize land to the east was motivated mainly by Germany’s need for additional food and natural resources. Thus, Stalin hoped that if the Soviet Union satisfied much of Hitler’s hunger for essential goods the risk of a near-term German attack would be tempered.

Stalin appreciated that a German attack on the Soviet Union was likely to come eventually. He assumed, however, that Hitler would not strike until after Great Britain had surrendered. He believed the British could hold out until at least mid-1942. He also assumed that before attacking the USSR Hitler would demand from Stalin land and resources and that the Führer’s ultimatum would afford the Soviets some time to react with a concession, a preemptive attack, or at least a move to defensive military positions.

During the summer of 1940, Stalin secretly contemplated having the Red Army launch a surprise attack on Germany in 1942. He hoped that by then the Red Army would be stronger as its officers gained experience and it was modernized, and Germany would be weaker from her ongoing battles against Great Britain. 

Consistent with his August 1939 remarks to the Politburo, Stalin reasoned that if Germany fell the Red Army would have a clear path to sweep into capitalist Europe and implant communism there. He directed a few top generals to covertly draft battle plans. In October 1940, after reviewing several proposals, Stalin wavered over when—or whether—to launch a preemptive strike, but planning for such an attack continued.

Coincidentally, in July 1940, Hitler asked his generals to develop secret plans for a German surprise attack on the Soviet Union.  The Führer’s objectives were to eradicate “Jewish” Bolshevism, gain territory and natural resources to the east, exterminate the Stalinist threat, and eliminate the chance that the USSR would provide aid to Great Britain.

In November 1940, Hitler invited the Soviet Union to join with Germany, Italy, and Japan as a member of the Tripartite Pact, which committed all signatories to align in the event of war with the United States. The German dictator also sought to persuade the Soviet dictator to focus his territorial expansion efforts on the Middle East rather than Eastern Europe.

Because Stalin coveted lands in Europe and wanted Hitler to withdraw Axis troops from Finland, the negotiations failed. These differences convinced Hitler that conflict between his nation and Stalin’s was inevitable.

By December 18, 1940, Hitler’s mind was made up.  He ordered his generals to complete detailed war plans “to crush Soviet Russia in a rapid campaign”—code named Operation Barbarossa—to begin in May 1941.

At about the same time, Stalin ordered the Red Army to construct armed fortifications close to the German/Soviet border. When completed, these would be an asset in a preemptive Soviet attack but a liability in a defensive contest triggered by a German blitzkreig. Military convention called for such fortifications to be set a distance inland from the border to protect troops, artillery, and weapons from prompt destruction or capture in the event of a surprise attack and to give the defending military forces room to maneuver.

As spring arrived in 1941, Stalin still had not decided whether or when to launch a preemptive assault on Germany. His generals, however, continued to prepare for such an attack.

In 1941, Hitler took steps to guard his southern flank against a hostile attack in the coming war on Soviet Russia and convinced Bulgaria and Yugoslavia to join the Tripartite Pact. When in early April civil war broke out in Yugoslavia, he sent troops to quell the uprising. His forces also invaded Greece that month to salvage a failed Italian operation there. These relatively brief military operations, however, forced Hitler to delay the start of Operation Barbarossa. It was reset for June 22.

In April 1941, Stalin proudly announced that the Soviet Union had entered into a nonaggression pact with Japan. This significantly reduced the threat of military action against the USSR from the east and allowed Stalin to focus on Germany. 

On May 10, Hitler’s Deputy Führer, Rudolph Hess, flew solo to the British Isles and parachuted into Scotland with the objective of negotiating peace between Germany and Great Britain. The British arrested Hess, who had made his flight without Hitler’s knowledge or consent. But Stalin’s suspicious and conspiratorial mind worried that if Hess were indeed on a secret peace mission and Germany ended its conflict with the British, the threat of a German attack on the USSR would balloon.

On May 15, Stalin’s top generals gave him an updated preemptive attack plan declaring that “it is necessary to deprive the German command of all initiative, to preempt the adversary and to attack.” The generals proposed sending troops, planes, and other equipment to the western border in the guise of “training exercises.”

With the risk of a Japanese invasion apparently neutralized, nervous about what Hess was up to in England, aware that Germany was massing troops at his border, and believing that the first nation to attack would likely prevail, Stalin felt the urge to be proactive. According to some historians, he decided to move the Soviet preemptive attack up from 1942 to the coming summer. 

Just a few days earlier, in a speech to Red Army military school graduates, Stalin had declared, “Our military policy must change from defense to waging offensive actions.” He then ramped up production of planes and other military equipment, drafted almost a million more men into the armed forces, and began moving millions of Red Army soldiers and their supplies west to be in place by July 10.

Still wary of giving Hitler an excuse to strike first, Stalin sought to conceal his massive military expansion near the German/Soviet border. Soviet propaganda derided rumors of a Russian buildup as “totally fantastic”—the troops were merely training. Yet, out of fear of inciting Germany to attack, Stalin repeatedly refused his generals’ requests to place those western Red Army soldiers on combat alert. He told them, “You must understand that Germany will never on its own move to attack Russia…. If you provoke the Germans on the border, if you move forces without our permission, then bear in mind that heads will roll.”

Stalin’s vulnerability to a preemptive Axis attack in 1941 was increased by the fact that after moving into Poland in 1939, the Soviets had taken down their defensive fortifications near their old border but had not yet completed new ones at the more westerly frontier. 

Another problem was that the military supplies and warplanes Stalin had ordered moved to the new border in advance of the planned preemptive strike were now exposed to capture or destruction in a surprise Axis assault. 

Moreover, his military communications systems were rudimentary, and his ability to quickly move troops and equipment by road or rail was limited. Additionally, many of his weapons were outmoded. Finally, Stalin had no backup plan addressing how the USSR would defend if Germany struck first.

During the first half of 1941, the United States, Great Britain, and other foreign nations had gotten wind of Germany’s secret plan to attack the USSR. In April, Winston Churchill, no fan of communism, sent an invasion warning to Stalin. President Franklin Roosevelt delivered a similar alert. Stalin also received invasion signals from Soviet spies abroad, the increase of Axis troops on the border, repeated German aircraft incursions into Soviet territory, and the fact that many German diplomats and their families began to leave Moscow.

But Stalin, ever cynical of the motives of others, discredited all of these alarms. The Soviet leader remained convinced that Hitler would not be foolish enough to initiate a two-front war during the first half of 1941, even though by then the only powerful nation Germany was fighting was the beleaguered Great Britain. 

Stalin knew that the fall “mud season” and harsh Russian winter dictated that any German blitzkrieg likely to succeed would have to be launched by mid-summer. Thus, he reasoned that if Russia could avoid an immediate attack he would be in position to strike first.

In early June, Stalin’s anxiety about internal threats and traitors bubbled up anew. He once again purged the Red Army leadership, this time of 300 officers, including more than 20 who had received the nation’s highest military honor. As a result, about three-quarters of his field officers had no more than two years of experience in their posts.

In a peculiar June 14, 1941, radio broadcast reflecting Stalin’s paranoia and unwillingness to acknowledge the imminent threat, the Kremlin announced that British rumors of a German attack on the USSR were an “obvious absurdity” and “a clumsy propaganda manoeuvre of the forces arrayed against the Soviet Union and Germany.” This statement troubled Stalin’s surviving generals, for it was inconsistent with their efforts to gear up for the war brewing at the border.

On June 19, 25 German ships abruptly left a port controlled by the USSR, and Stalin grew more nervous. He ordered that his planes on the western frontier be camouflaged within a month but continued to deny permission to place his troops on combat alert.

Seeking some assurance that his nonaggression pact with Hitler would hold, on June 21 (the day before the scheduled blitzkrieg) Stalin instructed his diplomats to contact Germany’s foreign minister to ask why so many German troops had gathered on the Soviet border. Ribbentrop’s staff stubbornly maintained throughout the day that the German diplomat was unavailable. Late that evening, when questioned about rumors of an impending Axis attack, Germany’s ambassador to the USSR simply said he was unable to supply an answer.

Also that evening, a German defector informed a Red Army officer that the blitzkrieg would come the next morning. Stalin panicked. Hitler might actually strike first! But the Soviet dictator reacted inconsistently. He alerted his field generals that a German attack could come on June 22 or 23 and told them to move their troops closer to the border and be on high alert. At the same time, Stalin warned them to prudently prevent “big complications”—war—and “not to yield to any provocation” from the Germans. Did this mean they were to accept an Axis blow and not counterattack? With no further explanation, Stalin went home for the evening.

Operation Barbarossa was launched several hours later with devastating impact on the Soviets. As both sides were gearing up for a preemptive attack, Hitler struck first and caught the Soviets flatfooted. A massive force of nearly four million Axis troops (from Germany, Italy, Hungary, Romania, Finland, Slovakia, and Croatia), 3,350 tanks, 7,200 pieces of artillery, 2,770 warplanes, and 700,000 wagon-pulling horses crashed across a front that stretched 1,800 miles—from the East Prussia-Lithuania border on the Baltic Sea to the border of Romania and Ukraine on the Black Sea.

The Axis attack was astonishing in its speed, scope, and savagery. Soviet divisions, hopelessly outnumbered and outgeneraled, were torn to shreds by the advancing Axis troops. Some five million Red Army troops would be taken prisoner; most would not survive the war. Nazi death squads, known as Einsatzgruppen (“Operational Groups”), swept across the conquered lands in the wake of the combat troops to round up Jews in the towns and villages and kill them.

Stalin’s many errors invited the devastation. Stalin’s target date for his attack on Hitler was tardy by at least two weeks. The Soviet dictator had failed to heed multiple warnings of a German blitzkrieg. Before that, he had rejected a pact with France and Great Britain that, as he acknowledged to the Politburo, would have prevented World War II and probably the June 1941 attack.

Stalin had positioned his combat supplies and undisguised warplanes too near the German border, neglected to develop an adequate military transportation system, and taken down his fortifications at the old Soviet boundary without completing new ones. The Red Army lacked sound defensive plans in the event of a surprise enemy attack. 

Stalin failed to order an immediate and comprehensive counterattack early on June 22 and then refused to permit a strategic retreat. His decision to decapitate the Red Army had left him with meek and inexperienced combat leadership. The German attack achieved shocking results during its opening stages, leaving Stalin depressed, disheveled, and drunk.   

However, good fortune continued to follow Stalin personally. Despite ruthlessly eliminating all opposition within the Communist Party, killing and starving millions of Soviets in the 1930s and imprisoning millions more, bungling preparations for war with Hitler, and going into depressed hiding for several days after Hitler’s stunning attack, Stalin’s weak subordinates did not do to him in late June what he surely would have done to them had the roles been reversed; he was not arrested, tortured, imprisoned, or shot dead by firing squad. 

Stalin was also fortunate in late June that bellicose Japan rejected Hitler’s urgings and chose not to attack the Soviet Union from the east as Barbarossa advanced from the west.

And, although Stalin’s conspiracy with Hitler led to the start of World War II and years of vital communist aid to Axis forces, in the summer of 1941, when Stalin was most vulnerable, two capitalist nations opposed to communism came to his rescue. Great Britain and the United States sent lifesaving military supplies and food to the besieged Soviet leader—something that Stalin was loath to acknowledge.

Stalin was also lucky that Hitler had decided to postpone his Soviet invasion by five weeks to put down uprisings in Yugoslavia and Greece. The resulting belated Axis march on Moscow was thwarted by the snow and bone-cold December weather just a few miles from the Russian capital. An earlier start could have yielded a far different outcome. 

Barbarossa was eventually defeated, but not until four years had passed and tens of millions had died. Lacking Stalin’s good luck, the people of the Soviet Union paid a frightful price in death and destruction for his catalogue of blunders.

This article first appeared on the Warfare History Network.

Image: Wikimedia Commons.

Kris Osborn

Security,

In the event of a conflict, there would likely be risks of major power warfare engagement, as opposed to a small exchange of fire. The possibility of rapid escalation would be very high. 

An interesting interactive illustration from a prominent think tank appears to raise the question as to the extent to which China already controls the majority of the South China Sea. 

The map, presented by the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), shows China’s fighter jet, bomber, radar and missile reach across the South China Sea, demonstrating that very little to none of the region is outside of China’s threat envelope. 

For example, the map indicates that the range of Chinese fighter jets completely encircles the South China Sea, stretching from mainland China down around the Philippines to the Southern parts of SouthEast Asia. China’s bombers, radar, anti-ship cruise missiles and air-defenses also have extensive reach spanning across wide swaths of dispersed terrain.

For instance, the map shows an area in the South China Sea called Fiery Cross Reef which has shelters equipped for mobile missile platforms and hangars sufficient to house 24 combat aircraft. This kind of placement offers China the ability to reach, cover and potentially attack virtually all areas of the South China Sea quickly.

The map also says that China’s HQ-9 Surface to Air Missile systems and YJ-12B anti-ship cruise missiles were deployed to the island in early 2018 

“A KJ-500 airborne early warning and control aircraft was seen on the island in 2020,” the CSIS map says. 

Does this mean that U.S influence and activity in the area is constrained? At risk? Or merely challenged when it comes to operating in the area to assert freedom of navigation and counter China’s controversial and provocative territorial claims? 

Taken individually and collectively, each of the factors may not seem to fully restrict U.S. missions, patrols, training exercises or interoperability maneuvers with allied platforms. U.S. stealth fighters and bombers are built to operate in high-risk or contested areas by relying upon speed, altitude and stealth to elude detection from enemy air defenses. 

Navy surface ships travel with integrated layered defenses engineered to find and knock out incoming ballistic missiles or anti-ship cruise missiles and the presence of Chinese fighter jets in contested areas by no means ensures Chinese air supremacy in the region. 

For instance, the U.S. consistently operates drone flights, surveillance plane missions and bomber patrols in and near the area, suggesting that China’s reach and influence, while significant and disturbing to U.S. leaders, does not amount to what might be termed “operational control” of the area. 

What it does show, however, is that in the event of a conflict, there would likely be risks of major power warfare engagement, as opposed to a small exchange of fire. The possibility of rapid escalation would be very high. 

Kris Osborn is Defense Editor for the National Interest. 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 appeared as a guest military expert on Fox News, MSNBC, The Military Channel, and The History Channel. He also has a Masters Degree in Comparative Literature from Columbia University. This article first appeared earlier this year.

Image: Reuters.

Michael Peck

History, Europe

Without Hitler's halt order, the beaches of Dunkirk would have become a giant POW cage.

Key Point: Why did Hitler issue the halt order? No one knows for sure.

War movies tend to depict the battles a nation wins—not the ones it loses.

So with a blockbuster Hollywood movie on Dunkirk hitting the silver screen this July, one would think that Dunkirk was a British victory.

In fact, Dunkirk was the climactic moment of one of the greatest military disasters in history. From May 26 to June 4, 1940, an army of more than three hundred thousand British soldiers was chased off the mainland of Europe, reduced to an exhausted mob clinging to a flotilla of rescue boats while leaving almost all of their weapons and equipment behind.

The British Army was crippled for months. If the Royal Navy and Royal Air Force had failed, and the Germans had managed to conduct their own D-Day invasion of Britain, the outcome would have been certain.

So why do the British celebrate Dunkirk as a victory? Why is it called the Miracle of Dunkirk when another such miracle would have given Hitler the keys to London?

Consider the situation. In just six weeks during the spring of 1940, Britain and France had been crushed. When Hitler invaded France and the Benelux countries on May 10, 1940, the Allies were totally off balance. The cream of the Franco-British armies, including much of the ten-division-strong British Expeditionary Force (BEF), had been stationed in northern France. The plan was for them to advance into northern Belgium to stop a German advance, because that was the route the Germans took in 1914. Unfortunately, the German panzer spearhead divisions struck in the center of France, through the weakly defended Belgian and Luxembourg Ardennes forest. Quickly penetrating through the wooded hills, their tank columns turned north to cut off the Allied forces in Belgium from behind, while other German forces—backed by paratroopers—seized Holland and squeezed the Allies from the other direction.

Plagued by disorganization and lethargic leadership, the Allies tried to retreat from Belgium back to France. But it was too late. On May 19, the hard-driving panzer divisions had reached Abbeville, on the English Channel. The bulk of the Allied armies were trapped in a pocket along the French and Belgian coasts, with the Germans on three sides and the English Channel behind. Meanwhile, other German column raced for Paris and beyond, rendering any major French counterattack nothing more than a mapboard fantasy.

The British did what they always when their armies overseas get in trouble: start seeking the nearest port for an exit. With a typical (and in this case justified) lack of faith in their allies, they began planning to evacuate the BEF from the Channel ports. Though the French would partly blame their defeat on British treachery, the British were right. With the French armies outmaneuvered and disintegrating, France was doomed.

But so was the BEF—or so it looked. As the exhausted troops trudged to the coast, through roads choked with refugees and strafed by the Luftwaffe, the question was: could they reach the beaches and safety before the panzers did? There were four hundred thousand British and French troops to evacuate, through a moderate-sized port whose docks were being destroyed by bombs and shells. Even under the best of conditions, it would have taken more time than the Allies could rightfully expect for those troops to be lifted off the beaches.

Despite the general Allied collapse, the British and French troops defending the Dunkirk perimeter fought hard under constant air attack. Nonetheless, had Hitler’s tank generals such as Heinz Guderian had their way, the hard-driving panzers would have sliced like scalpels straight to Dunkirk. The beaches would have become a giant POW cage.

Then on May 24, Hitler and his high command hit the stop button. The panzer columns were halted in their tracks; the plan now was for the Luftwaffe to pulverize the defenders until the slower-moving German infantry divisions caught up to finish the job.

Why did Hitler issue the halt order? No one knows for sure. Hitler had fought in that part of France in World War I, and he worried that the terrain was too muddy for tanks.

Luftwaffe commander Hermann Goering assured him that his bombers and fighters could do the job. There were concerns about logistics, or a potential French counterattack. Or maybe it was just that Hitler, that perennial gambler, was so dazzled by his own unexpected success at the dice table of war that he lost his nerve.

Whatever the reason, while the Germans dithered, the British moved with a speed that Britain would rarely display again for the rest of the war. Not just the Royal Navy was mobilized. From British ports sailed yachts, fishing boats, lifeboats and rowboats. Like the “ragtag fleet” in Battlestar Galactica, anything that could sail was pressed into service.

France has been ridiculed so often for its performance in 1940 that we forget how the stubbornness and bravery of the French rearguards around Dunkirk perimeter allowed the evacuation to succeed. Under air and artillery fire, the motley fleet evacuated 338,226 soldiers. As for Britain betraying its allies, 139,997 of those men were French soldiers, along with Belgians and Poles.

As they heaved themselves into the boats under a hail of bombs, the soldiers cursed the RAF for leaving them in the lurch. They couldn’t see above the tumult above the clouds where the RAF Hurricanes and Spitfires hurled themselves against the Luftwaffe. Weakened by losses during the French campaign, the RAF couldn’t stop the German air assault. But they at least could hamper it.

The evacuation was incomplete. Some forty thousand troops were captured by the Germans. The Scotsmen of the Fifty-First Highland Division, trapped deep inside France, were encircled and captured by the Seventh Panzer Division commanded by Erwin Rommel. The BEF did save most of its men, but almost all its equipment—from tanks and trucks to rifles—was left behind.

So why did the British treat Dunkirk as a victory? Partially it was out of necessity. The British public needed some good news now that their world had fallen apart. Yet despite Churchill’s rousing rhetoric about the battle, he knew that pseudo-victories would never defeat Hitler. “Wars are not won by evacuations,” he told the House of Commons.

The best answer is that the successful evacuation of the cream of the British Army gave Britain a lifeline to continue the war. In June 1940, neither America nor the Soviets were at war with the Axis. With France gone, Britain, and its Commonwealth partners such as Australia and Canada, stood alone. Had Britain capitulated to Hitler, or signed a compromise peace that left the Nazis in control of Europe, many Americans would have been dismayed—but not surprised.

A British writer whose father fought at Dunkirk wrote that the British public was under no illusions. “If there was a Dunkirk spirit, it was because people understood perfectly well the full significance of the defeat but, in a rather British way, saw no point in dwelling on it. We were now alone. We’d pull through in the end. But it might be a long, grim wait…”

Their patience and endurance were rewarded on May 8, 1945, when Nazi Germany surrendered.

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

This article first appeared in 2017.

Image: Wikimedia Commons

Kris Osborn

Security,

Both countries are racing to gain a foothold in the resource-rich Arctic.

Key point: The terrain in the Arctic is extremely rugged. That means having the right equipment and training will matter more than in other regions.

Combat in the Arctic is a difficult proposition.

Sub-zero temperatures, penguins, polar bears, ice, glaciers and snowstorms all present challenges for possible combat operations. This is a growing concern among U.S. weapons developers now that the military is massively increasing Arctic warfare preparations. 

Increased activity in the Arctic, accelerated by fast-melting ice, continues to generate substantial international competition, particularly between Russia and America. Arctic ice is melting much faster than previously anticipated, leading major powers to see a fast-pressing need to step-up Arctic war preparation more than ten-years earlier than expected. Warmer weather and higher water temperatures are melting ice, opening up new waterways, areas for transit and an ability to gather resources and strategic advantages. Russia’s Northern Sea Route along the country’s Arctic border presents the largest and most prominent waterways approaching the Arctic. In order to protect that area and its resource claims, Russia has more ice breakers than the United States, and Moscow has been massively increasing its Arctic operational-tempo and basing there. 

For all of these reasons, the Office of Naval Research is looking at ways to help advanced weapons systems operate in extreme temperatures. The Pentagon is fast-tracking new icebreakers. The Army’s cold weather units, such as the 10th Mountain Division and Alaska-based forces are increasing the volume and frequency of cold weather warfare preparations. As part of this, the Army is also moving quickly to acquire a new Cold Weather All Terrain Vehicle, a platform especially engineered to operate in the harshest of cold weather combat conditions. 

The CATV Request for Prototypes Proposals was issued by the Army in June through the National Advanced Mobility Consortium, a BAE Systems statement said. Early prototypes will eventually be submitted for “limited performance and endurance testing,” according to the Army’s request for proposal.

BAE Systems is one vendor moving to offer a solution with its “Beowulf” vehicle. BAE reports that Beowulf is based on the BvS10, which is currently in production and already operational in multiple variants with five countries, first going into service with the U.K. Royal Marines in 2005. 

“The Beowulf and its armored sister vehicle, the BvS10, represent the most advanced vehicles in the world when it comes to operating in any terrain, whether it’s snow, ice, rock, sand, mud, swamp, or steep mountainous climbs, and its amphibious capability allows it to swim in flooded areas or in coastal water environments,” Keith Klemmer, director of business development at BAE Systems, said in a written statement. 

Having an Arctic-ruggedized combat vehicle certainly introduces a number of tactical advantages. Not only can it transport forces across dangerous, sub-zero terrain, but could perhaps at some point be configured as an unmanned variant designed to transport supplies, ammunition, fuel and other essential resources at minimal risk to soldiers. Also, should there need to be an Arctic attack or advance of some kind, it goes without saying that an Arctic-ready vehicle could greatly change the equation by advancing attacking infantry or even pulling weapons systems such as artillery. It could incorporate sensors intended to assess the thickness or strength of ice as well. 

Of course, BAE has not discussed any specifics related to its offering, yet the existence of such a platform raises interesting questions about the kinds of systems and technologies likely to inform its construction. BAE’s Beowulf offering looks like a tracked vehicle which most likely incorporates newer kinds of warming and propulsion technologies, as well as cold-weather operational hardening of various kinds. Interestingly, it would also make sense if, as a tracked vehicle, the Beowulf were able to climb glaciers and descend at safe speeds without sliding. 

Also, it would not be surprising if Beowulf’s technical systems incorporate some kinds of hull-warming, ice-melting technologies now being fast-tracked for Navy ships preparing for Arctic operations.

Finally, it would also seem likely that this kind of ice-ready vehicle includes some kinds of systems engineered to prevent an engine or vehicle oils from freezing. 

Kris Osborn is the defense editor for the National Interest. 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 appeared as a guest military expert on Fox News, MSNBC, The Military Channel, and The History Channel. He also has a Masters Degree in Comparative Literature from Columbia University. This article first appeared earlier this year.

Image: Reuters

Warfare History Network

History, Europe

The religious beliefs of Adolf Hitler are frequently misunderstood as either Christian or atheist. A look at his own words reveals a complicated truth.

Key Point: Hitler's religious hypocrisy helped him to appeal to a broad constituency.

No matter how little you know about history, you know something about Adolf Hitler. And if you want to shut down an opponent, you can claim that Hitler said/did/believed the same thing. Godwin’s Law exists for a reason.

But Hitler remains a persistent mystery on one front—his religious faith. Atheists tend to insist Hitler was a devout Christian. Christians contend that he was an atheist. And still others suggest that he was a practicing member of the occult.

None of these theories is true, says historian Richard Weikart in his new book Hitler’s Religion: The Twisted Beliefs that Drove the Third Reich. Delving more deeply into the question of Hitler’s religious faith than any researcher to date, Weikart reveals the startling and fascinating truth about the most hated man of the twentieth century: Adolf Hitler was a pantheist who believed nature was the only true “God.” (click here to listen to an interview with Weikart on the History Unplugged Podcast)

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

In mid-January of 1940, Hitler was discussing with his colleagues a rather frequent topic of his conversations and monologues: the church. After he sarcastically imitated Niemöller, the Confessing Church leader who was incarcerated in a concentration camp, someone in his entourage indicated to him that posterity might not be able to figure out what Hitler’s religion was, because he never openly stated his beliefs. The person who brought this to Hitler’s attention had clearly noticed the discrepancy between his private expressions of intense antipathy to Christianity and his public religious image. Since many in Hitler’s entourage were also intensely anti-Christian, perhaps they were trying to provoke him to state his personal religious views publicly. In any case, this observation about the inscrutability of Hitler’s religious views still has merit today— even though we have far more information about Hitler available to us than most of his contemporaries had.That, of course, does not mean everyone draws the same conclusion. As we have seen, some people today interpret Hitler as an atheist, while others insist he was a Christian. In fact, he has been described as an adherent of just about every major religious position in twentieth-century European society (excepting Judaism, of course), which included agnosticism, pantheism, panentheism, occultism, deism, and non-Christian theism.

Interestingly, when he was confronted in January 1940 with the observation that people might not know Hitler’s religion, he suggested that, on the contrary, it should not be difficult for people to figure it out. After all, he asserted, he had never allowed any clergy to participate in his party meetings or even in funerals for party comrades. He continued, “The Christian-Jewish pestilence is surely approaching its end now. It is simply dreadful, that a religion has even been possible, that literally eats its God in Holy Communion.” Hitler clearly thought that anyone should be able to figure out that he was not a Christian. Nonetheless, Rosenberg reported in his diary later that year that Hitler had determined that he should divulge his negative views about Christianity in his last testament “so that no doubt about his position can surface. As head of state he naturally held back—but nevertheless after the war clear consequences will follow.” Many times, Hitler told his colleagues that he would reckon with Christianity after the successful conclusion of the war.

Interestingly, even in these conversations, Hitler only indicated what he did not believe. He did not explain at that time what he did believe about God, the after-life, or other religious issues. Indeed, it is much easier to figure out what Hitler did not believe than to figure out Hitler’s religion and feelings. Probably, this is partly because Hitler considered God ineffable. Hitler’s God was not one who revealed himself clearly to humanity, but a mysterious being who superseded human knowledge.

HITLER’S RELIGION: WHAT HE DID NOT BELIEVE

So, what did Hitler not believe? He continually rejected Christianity, calling it a Jewish plot to undermine the heroic ideals of the (Aryan-dominated) Roman Empire. He did not accept the deity of Jesus, the resurrection of Jesus, or indeed any of the miracles of Jesus. There is no evidence that he believed in a triune God. Though he esteemed Jesus as an Aryan fighter against Jewish materialism who was martyred for his anti-Jewish stance, he did not ascribe to Jesus’s death any significance in human salvation. Indeed, he did not believe in salvation at all in the Christian sense of the term, because he denied a personal afterlife. Despite his public invocations to God, Hitler also did not believe in the efficacy of prayer. His God responded to people and judged them according to their works, not their words. Although he spurned Christianity, this did not lead him to disbelieve in every form of deity, however. He overtly rejected atheism, associating it with “Jewish-Bolshevism.” Further, he explicitly condemned mysticism, occultism, and neo-paganism. Thus, it is evident Hitler was neither a Christian, atheist, occultist, nor neo-paganist.

While this narrows the range of options of Hitler’s religion slightly, it still leaves us with agnosticism, pantheism, panentheism, deism, and non-Christian theism. A reasonable case could be made for more than one of these options. In order solve this puzzle, however, one must not only examine the full panoply of his religious statements but also decipher how to weigh those statements on Hitler’s religion. Are his private statements more revealing of his true convictions than his public speeches? Probably, but even his private statements must be used cautiously. Are his books a better indication of his personal beliefs than his speeches? This is likely, because he seemed to be more systematic in explaining his worldview in Mein Kampf and in his Second Book. However, they also served propaganda purposes and must be used carefully as well. There also remains the question of whether Hitler even had a coherent metaphysic; if not, perhaps there is no single answer to what Hitler’s religion was.

One problem is that Hitler often portrayed God as an impersonal force, yet sometimes he implied God did take a personal interest in humanity, or at least in the German people’s destiny. Though he usually insisted that God does not intervene in the natural cause-andeffect relationships in the universe, at times he seemed to ascribe a role to Providence in history. When he survived assassination attempts, for instance, he took it as a sign from Providence that he was specially chosen to fulfill a divine mission. Until the very end of World War II, he thought his God would not fail to bring victory to the German people.

One of the reasons it is unlikely that Hitler was a theist is because he did not seem to think God could contravene the laws of nature. Hitler often called the laws of nature eternal and inviolable, thus embracing determinism. He interpreted history as a course of events determined by the racial composition of people, not by their religion or other cultural factors. The way to understand humanity and history, according to Hitler, was to study the laws of nature. He considered science, not religious revelation, the most reliable path to knowledge. What Hitler thought science revealed was that races are unequal and locked in an ineluctable struggle for existence, which would determine the future destiny of humanity.

Whether Hitler construed the laws of nature as the creation of a deistic or theistic God, or the emanation of a pantheistic God, he clearly grounded his morality on the laws of nature, which he consistently portrayed as the will of God. Since nature brought about biological improvement through struggle, Hitler defined moral goodness as whatever contributed to biological progress. Evil or sin, in Hitler’s opinion, was anything that produced biological degeneration. Thus, Hitler thought he was operating in complete harmony with God’s will by sterilizing people with disabilities and forbidding the intermarriage of Germans and Jews. Killing the weak to make way for the strong was part of the divine plan revealed in nature, in Hitler’s view.

Thus, even murdering disabled Germans, launching expansionist wars to wrest territory from allegedly inferior races, and murdering millions of Jews, Sinti, Roma, Slavs, and others defined as subhumans, was not only morally permissible but also obedience to the voice of God and aspects of Hitler’s religion. After all, that was how nature operated, producing superabundantly and then destroying most of the progeny in the Darwinian struggle for existence. Hitler often reminded his fellow Germans that even if this seemed ruthless, it was actually wise. In any case, he warned that they could not moralize about it, because humans were completely subject to the laws of nature.

HITLER’S RELIGION: PANTHEISM AND BRUTAL POWER POLITICS

In the end, while recognizing that Hitler’s religion was somewhat muddled, it seems evident his religion was closest to pantheism. He often deified nature, calling it eternal and all-powerful at various times throughout his career. He frequently used the word “nature” interchangeably with God, Providence, or the Almighty. While on some occasions he claimed God had created people or organisms, at other times (or sometimes in the same breath) he claimed nature had created them. Further, he wanted to cultivate a certain veneration of nature through a reinvented Christmas festival that turned the focus away from Christianity. He also hoped to build an observatory-planetarium complex in Linz that would serve as a religious pilgrimage site to dazzle Germans with the wonders of the cosmos. Overall, it appears a pantheist worldview was where Hitler felt closest to home.

Since it is so difficult to pinpoint exactly what Hitler’s religion was, it might seem his religion was historically inconsequential.

However, hopefully this study of Hitler’s religion sheds light on a number of important issues. First, his anti-Christianity obviously shaped the persecution of the Christian churches during the Third Reich. Second, his religious hypocrisy helped explain his ability to appeal to a broad constituency. Third, his trust that his God would reward his efforts and willpower, together with his sense of divine mission, imbued him with hope, even in hopeless circumstances. This helps us understand why he was so optimistic until the very end, when it should have been obvious much earlier that the game was up.

This article first appeared on the Warfare History Network.

Image: Wikimedia Commons

Fred Lucas

Politics, Americas

"By viewing every issue through the lens of race, they want to impose a new segregation, and we must not allow that to happen."

President Donald Trump, in Constitution Day remarks, drew a direct connection between the riots and mayhem in the streets to what schools are teaching about America.

“Our mission is to defend the legacy of America’s founding, the virtue of America’s heroes, and the nobility of the American character,” the president said at the National Archives Museum Thursday for the White House Conference on American History. “We must clear away the twisted web of lies in our schools and classrooms, and teach our children the magnificent truth about our country.”

In his remarks, Trump announced actions to promote “patriotic education,” and unleashed an attack on several sacred cows of the left such as cancel culture, critical race theory, The New York Times’ 1619 Project, and the looting and arson occurring across the country. 

Delivering the speech on the 233rd anniversary of the Constitution, Trump praised the historical document as being “the product of centuries of tradition, wisdom, and experience.”

“No political document has done more to advance the human condition or propel the engine of progress,” Trump said. “Yet, as we gather this afternoon, a radical movement is attempting to demolish this treasured and precious inheritance. We can’t let that happen.”

Here’s four key moments from the speech. 

1. Policy Actions for ‘Patriotic Education’

The president announced two actions to promote more pro-American education in schools. 

“Our youth will be taught to love America with all of their heart and soul,” Trump said. “We will save this cherished inheritance for our children, for their children, and for every generation to come.”

Trump announced the National Endowment for the Humanities is awarding a grant to support a pro-American curriculum in schools. He also announced that he will be signing an executive order establishing the 1776 Commission to promote patriotic education. 

“It will encourage our educators to teach our children about the miracle of American history and make plans to honor the 250th anniversary of our founding,” the president said of the 1776 Commission. 

This is an important point to draw attention to, said Lindsey Burke, director of the Center for Education Policy at The Heritage Foundation. 

“The president is right to shine a spotlight on the negative effects of critical theory, taught throughout colleges, particularly colleges of education, and which makes its way down through K-12 schools,” Burke told The Daily Signal. “And the administration is right to point to the inaccuracies of the 1619 Project, which should continue to be noted. More parents will now be aware of this content—which paints a negative picture of America—making its way into their children’s schools. America is a truly exceptional nation, and that’s a message that children should hear.”

2. Cancel Culture and the ‘Left-Wing Mobs’

The president added that a “radical movement” is attempting to demolish this treasured American history. 

“The left-wing mobs have torn down statues of our Founders, desecrated our memorials, and carried out a campaign of violence and anarchy,” Trump said. “Far-left demonstrators have chanted the words, ‘America was never great.’ The left has launched a vicious and violent assault on law enforcement—the universal symbol of the rule of law in America.”

Trump added that politicians, establishment media, and even large corporations have sided with those causing the mayhem. 

“Whether it is the mob on the street or the cancel culture in the boardroom, the goal is the same: To silence dissent, to scare you out of speaking the truth and to bully Americans into abandoning their values, their heritage and their very way of life,” Trump said. 

“We are here today to declare that we will never submit to tyranny,” the president added. “We will reclaim our history, and our country, for citizens of every race, color, religion, and creed.” 

3. 1619 Project, Howard Zinn, and ‘Warped, Distorted’ History

During his speech, Trump drew a correlation between the riots and education. 

“The left-wing rioting and mayhem are the direct result of decades of left-wing indoctrination in our schools,” Trump said. “It has gone on far too long. Our children are instructed from propaganda tracts, like those of Howard Zinn, that try to make students ashamed of their own history.” 

Howard Zinn is a liberal historian whose work has focused almost entirely on the negative aspects of American history. 

Trump continued: 

The left has warped, distorted the American story with deception, falsehoods, and lies. There is no better example than The New York Times’ totally discredited 1619 Project. …

America’s founding set in motion the unstoppable chain of events that abolished slavery, secured civil rights, defeated communism and fascism, and built the most fair, equal, and prosperous nation in human history.

The Times’ 1619 Project contends the United States was founded on principle of advancing slavery. The claims of the project have been challenged by historians on the right and left. 

The president said the narratives pushed by the left resemble anti-American propaganda pushed by the country’s adversaries.

4. Teaching Critical Race Theory Is ‘Child Abuse’

Trump talked about critical race theory as an example, which he called a Marxist doctrine that says even children are complicit in racism and society must be radically transformed.   

Critical race theory is a theoretical framework that contends individuals are either oppressed or are oppressors based on their skin color. 

“Teaching this horrible doctrine to our children is a form of child abuse in the truest sense of those words,” Trump said. “For many years now, the radicals have mistaken Americans’ silence for weakness. They are wrong.”

“There is no more powerful force than a parent’s love for their children—and patriotic moms and dads are going to demand that their children are no longer fed hateful lies about this country,” Trump added. “American parents are not going to accept indoctrination in our schools, cancel culture at work, or the repression of traditional faith, culture, and values in the public square.”

Trump noted that he banned the promotion of critical race theory in the federal government through employee training programs that focus on “white privilege” or that the United States is an inherently racist country. 

“Critical race theory, the 1619 Project, and the crusade against American history is toxic propaganda—an ideological poison that, if not removed, will dissolve the civic bonds that tie us together,” Trump said. “That is why I recently banned training in this prejudiced ideology from the federal government and banned it in the strongest matter possible.” 

The president said such propaganda is a departure from the civil rights movement. 

We embrace the vision of Martin Luther King, where children are not judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character. The left is attempting to destroy that beautiful vision and divide Americans by race in the service of political power. 

By viewing every issue through the lens of race, they want to impose a new segregation, and we must not allow that to happen. 

This article first appeared in The Daily Signal.

Image: Reuters.

Kris Osborn

Security, Americas

The basic technology is here, but it is not perfected just yet.

Power scaling, increased precision, space operations, tailorable attacks, missile defense and an ability to pinpoint and incinerate targets are all factors characterizing the development and operational deployment of laser weapons. 

Key point: These weapons will make the F-35 better able to defend itself and also shoot down missiles. However, this revolutionary weapon is not yet ready for full deployment.

While laser weapons are already here, the Pentagon and industry are taking new accelerated steps to prepare them for a much wider sphere of applications. For example, they want to fire them from fighter jets, burning up and disabling attacking anti-ship missiles. They even would like to put lasers in space. 

Some of the next steps include “scaling” the power of laser weapons to increase range, strength, durability and transportability. These are now being worked on by the Air Force Research Laboratory, Missile Defense Agency (MDA) and Office of Naval Research.

Lasers are now on U.S. Navy destroyers and can fire from Stryker vehicles at attack drones, yet a new sphere of laser functionality is on the horizon and approaching quickly. Lasers also already arm Navy amphibious assault ships and will, likely in just the next few years, arm F-22s and F-35s. 

Firing from fifth-generation aircraft includes building upon successful ground tests to ultimately arm aircraft with transportable laser weapons able to fire from the sky. This would likely involve combining numerous laser beams into a single application to optimize missile defense and even, in the future, cultivating laser weapons able to travel beyond the earth’s atmosphere and perhaps fire from satellites. 

The advantages of lasers are clear and well known; they fire at the speed of light. Their combat impact is tailorable depending upon desired combat effect, meaning they can be scaled to either disable or completely destroy targets. They are also silent, lightweight and inexpensive. 

Yet, at the same time, there are areas of technical challenge when it comes to taking some of these news steps. Ship, fighter jet or armored vehicle laser weapons require large amounts of mobile, exportable electrical power. They cannot function without the requisite amount of power, creating form-factor, size, heat and transportability challenges. 

Essentially, engineering a laser weapon that is both powerful enough and also small enough to travel on a high-speed fighter jet, is difficult. This phenomenon is also informing current MDA work which, officials say, is primarily focused upon engineering sufficient “power scaling” of lasers to enable missile defense applications. 

Lasers also need to be hardened against beam attenuation, meaning a weakening of the weapon's power caused by adverse weather conditions, insufficient power or an inability to sustain effectiveness at certain ranges. 

Thermal management is also fundamental, as laser weapon temperature needs to be properly managed, creating a need for technical flexibility when it comes to certain engineering specifics. 

At a recent Booz Allen Hamilton-sponsored Directed Energy Series forum, senior Pentagon weapons developers addressed this point, saying laser weapon construction needs to incorporate open, or less-restrictive technical standards in order to optimize flexibility. The often-referred term is Modular Open Systems Architecture (MOSA). 

“The higher the diode temperature, the less efficient the laser is. However, the thermal management system works most efficiently with higher diode temperatures. So deciding an arbitrary temperature in the MOSA standard would be very risky and result in a suboptimal system,” Dr. Sean Ross, the Deputy High Energy Laser Technical Area Lead and Prototyping Liaison for the Air Force Research Laboratory said in a Pentagon report. 

Ross further elaborated upon this by explaining that, when it comes to thermal management, the “higher the voltage used in the laser, the lower the required weight of the copper conductive wires.”

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 appeared as a guest military expert on Fox News, MSNBC, The Military Channel and The History Channel. He also has a Masters Degree in Comparative Literature from Columbia University. This first appeared in 2019 and is being reposted due to reader interest.

Image: Reuters

Ethen Kim Lieser

Health, World

A coronavirus myth has finally been debunked.

Using non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAID) like ibuprofen for pain management have not been found to worsen novel coronavirus symptoms, according to a new study published in the journal PLOS Medicine.

For the study, researchers were able to obtain data on 9,326 Danish residents who tested positive for the coronavirus between February 27 and April 29. Roughly 250 of those individuals, or 2.7 percent, had filled a prescription for NSAIDs within thirty days of their positive test.

Among the users of NSAID pain relievers, the researchers saw that nearly 25 percent needed to be eventually hospitalized, 5 percent required intensive care, and 6.3 percent died.

For comparison, among the non-users, 21 percent were hospitalized, 5 percent needed intensive care, and 6.1 percent died.

“Considering the available evidence, there is no reason to withdraw well-indicated use of NSAIDs during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic,” the authors wrote.

“However, the well-established adverse effects of NSAIDs, particularly their renal, gastrointestinal, and cardiovascular effects, should always be considered, and NSAIDs should be used in the lowest possible dose for the shortest possible duration for all patients.” 

According to Dr. Joseph Poterucha, an ICU physician with the Mayo Clinic Health System in Wisconsin, coronavirus-positive patients still need to be aware of the numerous and sometimes dangerous side effects of NSAIDs.

“I would urge caution to jumping to any conclusions,” he told Healthline. “In certain individuals with chronic medical comorbidities, the burden of this side effect profile in concert with an active coronavirus infection could be detrimental.” 

That is to say, despite the study’s findings, individuals with chronic kidney disease, heart failure, and history of stroke and stomach ulcers should generally avoid taking NSAIDs.

During the early months of the coronavirus pandemic, the World Health Organization, guided by a French study on NSAIDs in March, stated that people who are infected with the virus shouldn’t take ibuprofen.

The agency has since backtracked on that guidance and now says that it doesn’t advise against it.

“At present there is no evidence of severe adverse events, acute health care utilization, long-term survival, or quality of life in patients with COVID-19, as a result of the use of NSAIDs,” the WHO stated in a scientific brief.

Ibuprofen and other NSAIDs are considered to be some of the most commonly used drugs in the United States—with an estimated thirty million doses consumed and seventy million prescriptions administered each year, according to the American College of Rheumatology.

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

Image: Reuters.

Kris Osborn

Security, Americas

The F-22, F-35, and B-2 are all highly capable and can evade detection until it is too late.

Key point: America's stealth fighters and bombers are not indestructable. However, they are so hard to find and kill that they would make a lopsided difference in any major war.

Despite the loud and fast-growing chorus of analysts, critics and weapons developers who continue to raise the question as to whether stealth technology may slowly be becoming obsolete, some senior weapons developers are citing some ways current and emerging stealth platforms will - for years to come - remain very difficult to destroy.

Russian built S-300 and S-400 air defense weapons, believed by many to be among the best in the world, are able to use digital technology to network “nodes” to one another to pass tracking and targeting data across wide swaths of terrain. New air defenses also use advanced command and control technology to detect aircraft across a much wider spectrum of frequencies than previous systems could. Also, much is being made of Russia’s emerging S-500 system, purported to be even more sophisticated against stealth aircraft.

While there is broad agreement that these newer air defenses do make it harder for stealth platforms to remain fully undetected, there are a variety of reasons why actually destroying a stealth platform - and completing the entire “kill chain” - will remain extremely difficult, if not impossible, to accomplish, according to a former 3-Star Air Force weapons developer.

“Bi-static radar can help detect low observable aircraft. However, to intercept a stealth aircraft requires transfer of detection from a large acquisition radar to a much smaller interceptor radar either on an aircraft or a missile that can track—or maintain continuous “lock-on” of the low observable aircraft. When you transfer track from an acquisition radar to a weapons interceptor necessary to engage at longer ranges than the stealth aircraft can detect and fire at the interceptor, that dramatically reduces the probability of the stealth aircraft being engaged. Detection is not what it is all about, you have an entire kill chain where every element must be successful to intercept and destroy a low-observable aircraft,” Ret. Lt. Gen. David Deptula, Dean of the Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies, told Warrior Maven in an interview

Deptula explained that moving beyond a ground-based radar with a very large aperture to a much smaller “engagement” radar presents substantial challenges for attackers.

“Even if a radar can detect, it now has to track, and when it transfers that data to engage it will have to shoot a missile using much smaller radar than that used for detection. Also, fusing of the interceptor weapon can be affected by low observability technology,” Deptula said. “At every level, low observability decreases the probability of successful intercept.”

Nonetheless, Air Force developers are pursuing a new generation of stealth technology with a sense of urgency, in light of rapid global modernization of new Russian and Chinese-built attack systems.

B-21

Earlier this year, the Air Force finished a substantial technical “critical design review” of its next-generation B-21 Raider bomber, an effort known to be almost entirely secret.

The review, described by Air Force officials as a key step prior to formal construction of the aircraft, assessed design specs, technology plans, computing power and weapons integration for the new bomber – a platform which service developers say will advance stealth technology itself to new, unprecedented dimensions of technological sophistication.

Critical reviews of the emerging B-21 design are essential to engineering a platform able to accommodate the most advanced current and anticipated future stealth properties – which include stealth coating and configuration, radar cross section reduction and heat signature suppression technologies, among other things.

A Mitchell Institute essay – “The Imperative for Stealth,” offers a window of substantial detail into comments from Air Force senior leaders that the B-21 will advance stealth technology such that, according to developers, it will be able to hold “any target at risk, anywhere in the world, anytime.”

“The US is now developing its fourth generation of stealth aircraft. The computational capabilities that were available to design the F-117 and B-2 are dwarfed by the power now available to design teams,” writes the Mitchell Institute essay, by Maj. Gen. Mark Barrett, USAF (Ret.) and Col. Mace Carpenter, USAF (Ret.)

The Evolution of Stealth

Stealth technology works by engineering an aircraft with external contours and heat signatures designed to elude detection from enemy radar systems. The absence of defined edges, noticeable heat emissions, weapons hanging on pylons or other easily detectable aircraft features, means that radar "pings" can have trouble receiving a return electromagnetic signal allowing them to identify an approaching bomber. Since the speed of light (electricity) is known, and the time of travel of electromagnetic signals can be determined as well, computer algorithms are then able to determine the precise distance of an enemy object.

However, when it comes to stealth aircraft, the return signal may be either non-existent or of an entirely different character than that of an actual aircraft. A stealth aircraft will, for instance, appear in the shape of a bird or insect to enemy radar.

Given the increased threat envelope created by cutting edge air defenses, and the acknowledgement that stealth aircraft are indeed much more vulnerable than when they first emerged, Air Force developers are increasingly viewing stealth capacity as something which includes a variety of key parameters.

This includes not only stealth configuration, IR suppression and radar-evading materials but also other important elements such as electronic warfare “jamming” defenses, operating during adverse weather conditions to lower the acoustic signature and conducting attacks in tandem with other less-stealthy aircraft likely to command attention from enemy air defense systems.

Given these factors, Air Force developers often refer to stealth configuration itself as merely one “arrow” in the quiver of approaches needed to defeat modern air defenses.

“Mixing stealthy aircraft with conventional aircraft, deception, air defense suppression, and electronic jamming will complicate an enemy’s defensive problem set by an order of magnitude,” the paper writes.

The authors of the paper explain that newer stealth technology will attempt to outmatch advanced multi-frequency air defenses must utilize a characteristic known as “broadband stealth.”

Multi-band or “broadband” stealth, which is designed to elude both lower frequency area “surveillance” radar as well as high-frequency “engagement radar,” puts an emphasis upon radar cross section-reducing tailless designs such as that now envisioned for the B-21.

“The B-21 image released by the USAF depicts a design that does not use vertical flight control surfaces like tails. Without vertical surfaces to reflect radar from side aspects, the new bomber will have an RCS (Radar Cross Section) that reduces returns not only from the front and rear but also from the sides, making detection from any angle a challenge,” the Mitchell Institute writes.

Stealth fighter jets, such as the F-22 and F-35, have an entirely different configuration and rely upon some vertical flight control surfaces such as tails and wings. Being more vulnerable to lower frequency surveillance radars due to having a fighter jet configuration, an F-35 or F-22 would depend upon its speed, maneuverability and air-to-air attack systems to fully defend against enemies. Given that fighter jets require tails, wings and other structures necessary to performance, they are naturally inherently less stealthy than a high-altitude bomber.

Newer methods of IR or thermal signature reduction are connected to engine and exhaust placement. Internally configured engines, coupled with exhaust pipes on the top of an aircraft can massively lower the heat emissions from an aircraft, such as the structure of the current B-2 - the authors of the essay say.

“Hot gases from the engine can be further cooled using mixing techniques in the exhaust system,” the paper writes.

Technical progress in the area of advanced computer simulations are providing developers with an unprecedented advantage in designing the new bomber as well.

“Simulations of interactions between designs and various threat radars are now far more accurate and realistic, allowing additional refinement of stealth design solutions before any hardware is actually built or tested,” the essay writes.

The new aircraft will be designed to have global reach, in part by incorporating a large arsenal of long-range weapons. The B-21 is being engineered to carry existing weapons as well as nuclear bombs and emerging and future weapons, Air Force officials explained.

If its arsenal is anything like the B-2, it will like have an ability to drop a range of nuclear weapons, GPS-guided Joint Direct Attack Munitions and possibly even the new Air Force nuclear-armed cruise missile now in development called the LRSO - Long Range Stand Off weapon. It is also conceivable, according to Air Force developers, that the new bomber will one day be armed with yet-to-be seen weapons technology.

Kris Osborn of Warrior Maven 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 an-air military specialist at national TV networks. He has a Masters Degree in Comparative Literature from Columbia University. This first appeared earlier this year and is being reposted due to reader interest.

Image: Reuters.

Kris Osborn

Security, Middle East

The U.S. Navy is steaming a massive, highly lethal Carrier Strike Group into strategically vital areas off the coast of Iran, demonstrating solidarity, freedom of navigation, and readiness to launch war should that be necessary.

The U.S. Navy is steaming a massive, highly lethal Carrier Strike Group into strategically vital areas off the coast of Iran, demonstrating solidarity, freedom of navigation, and readiness to launch war should that be necessary.

A Navy announcement said the service has sent the USS Nimitz aircraft carrier along with two guided missile cruisers and one destroyer through the narrow and at times sensitive Strait of Hormuz, a narrower strip of ocean in the Arabian Gulf closely bordering Iran’s Western coastline.

The passageway has, for years, been considered vital for U.S. Navy strategists who seek to not only ensure regional security but also enable the free movement of very large amounts of commercial sea traffic. Very large percentages of the world’s oil supply travels through the area along with a high volume of commercial vessels conducting business throughout the area.

While ensuring safe transit of commercial and civilian ocean traffic is considered essential to the U.S. Navy’s vision, the Strait of Hormuz is also regarded as a highly sensitive military “choke point.” It has often been a location of escalating tensions between the United States and Iran.

The area is known to be home to shallow and deep water mines and has often been an area where Iranian small boats have conducted provocative maneuvers, harassed commercial vessels and even approached U.S. warships.

One way the Navy seeks to address this is simply by increasing presence and sending firepower to the region. The Carrier Strike Group could certainly function as a deterrent against Iranian hostility, given that it brings massive amounts of U.S. power-projection options to the area.

Carrier launched attack planes could easily reach sensitive targets over Iran from the ocean, destroyer and cruiser-fired Tomahawks could threaten most of Iran from great distances, and of course ships could send a sphere of unmanned systems to include supporting aerial drones, undersea robots and surface-operating mine-sweepers.

When it comes to Iran’s sizable arsenal of ballistic missiles, Carrier Strike Groups present deterrents as well in the form of interceptors able to protect U.S. and allied interests in the area. SM-3 and SM-6 interceptors, integrated with ship-based Aegis radar systems and fire control, could track and take out Iranian ballistic missiles.

These kinds of operations can serve a two-fold presence; they can reassure allies and strengthen partnerships through collaborative training exercises, while also sending a clear signal to Iran that, should it wish to engage in any hostile provocations, the United States will be ready.

Finally, while Iran is less likely to launch a major war campaign against U.S. interests, having Carrier Strike Groups appear in the area serves as a powerful reminder to Iran about the massive extent of U.S. firepower available in the event of unanticipated conflict.

Kris Osborn is Defense Editor for the National Interest. 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 appeared as a guest military expert on Fox News, MSNBC, The Military Channel, and The History Channel. He also has a Masters Degree in Comparative Literature from Columbia University.

Image: Reuters.

Ethen Kim Lieser

Health,

The novel coronavirus might be grabbing most of the headlines these days, but people often forget that over the past hundred-plus years, there have been several other notable virus-related pandemics that were responsible for millions of lives lost.

The novel coronavirus might be grabbing most of the headlines these days, but people often forget that over the past hundred-plus years, there have been several other notable virus-related pandemics that were responsible for millions of lives lost.

Even in an average year, the seasonal flu virus can be incredibly deadly. According to a 2017 collaborative study by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and global health partners, between 291,000 and 646,000 people worldwide die from influenza-related respiratory illnesses each year.

In the United States, on average, between nine and forty-five million Americans catch the flu each year, which leads to anywhere between 12,000 to 61,000 deaths. Between October 2019 and April 2020, CDC’s data revealed that there were an estimated thirty-nine to fifty-six million influenza infections and 24,000 to 62,000 fatalities.

More than eight months into the current pandemic, roughly 810,000 deaths have been reported due to COVID-19, according to the latest data from Johns Hopkins University. A substantial and fast-growing figure for sure, but it pales in comparison to the total number of lives taken in other major flu outbreaks. Let’s take a closer look at five of them.

1889 “Russian Flu”

Known as the “Russian Flu,” this particular influenza outbreak is believed to have started in St. Petersburg, but it quickly made its way across Europe and rest of the world. It was also one of the first pandemics to be covered widely by newspapers via telegraph reports. At the conclusion of the outbreak, an estimated one million people had died.

1918 “Spanish Flu”

The 1918 flu outbreak is often remembered as the deadliest pandemic in recent history. Lasting from February 1918 to April 1920, the contagion infected a third of the world’s population in four successive waves and killed at least fifty million people—roughly 675,000 of them in the United States, according to the CDC. The estimated population in the United States in July 1918 was roughly 103 million—so approximately 0.65% of the entire population died from the virus.

1957 “Asian Flu”

First reported in Singapore in February 1957, the new H2N2 virus spread throughout China and other nearby countries before arriving in the United States by that summer. About 1.1 million people died worldwide, including 116,000 in the United States, according to the CDC.

1968 “Hong Kong Flu”

H3N2, the virus responsible for this outbreak, is believed to have evolved from the strain of influenza that caused the 1957 pandemic through “antigenic shift”—a process by which two or more different strains of a virus, or strains of two or more different viruses, combine to form a new subtype. According to the CDC, an estimated one million people died worldwide, with 100,000 of those deaths occuring in the United States.

2009 H1N1 Pandemic

In 2009, the H1N1 virus emerged in the United States and spread quickly around the world. Initially called the “swine flu,” this particular subtype of virus contained a brand-new combination of influenza genes that had not previously been identified. The CDC estimates that between 151,700 and 575,400 people died worldwide during the first year that this virus circulated. Surprisingly, roughly 80% of the fatalities are believed to have been individuals under the age of 65.

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.

Ethen Kim Lieser

Health,

However, that may likely not happen even if they are comparable.

The 1918 flu outbreak is often remembered as the deadliest pandemic in recent history.

Lasting from February 1918 to April 1920, the contagion infected a third of the world’s population in four successive waves and killed at least fifty million people—roughly 675,000 of them in the United States, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Now eight months into this current pandemic, it appears that the novel coronavirus will surely head into the history books as well. Whether it will topple the 1918 pandemic in terms of lives taken remains to be seen.

From current trends, however, the infection and mortality rates are only going in one direction—and they are rising quickly.

In all, there already have been about 23.5 million global cases and about 810,000 deaths due to the coronavirus, according to the latest data from Johns Hopkins University. In the United States, there are 5.7 million cases and 177,000 related deaths.

According to a recent study published in the medical journal JAMA Network Open, researchers were able to focus specifically on the number of excess deaths during the first two months of the coronavirus outbreak in New York City and the peak of the 1918 pandemic in the same city.

“This cohort study found that the absolute increase in deaths over baseline observed during the peak of 1918 H1N1 influenza pandemic was higher than, but comparable, to that observed during the first two months of the COVID-19 outbreak in New York City,” said the study, which analyzed public data from the CDC, the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene and the U.S. Census Bureau.

The overall mortality rate with today’s coronavirus pandemic was found to be lower, the researchers noted, but that is in part due to “improvements in hygiene and modern achievements in medicine, public health and safety.” In 1918, there were no viable vaccines or antibiotics that could effectively treat secondary infections that inevitably emerged in flu-stricken patients.

Given these facts, the increase in deaths during the early coronavirus outbreak was considered “substantially greater” than during the peak of the 1918 flu pandemic, the researchers wrote.

“For anyone who doesn’t understand the magnitude of what we’re living through, this pandemic is comparable in its effect on mortality to what everyone agrees is the previous worst pandemic,” Jeremy S. Faust, an emergency physician at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston who led the team of researchers, told The Washington Post.

Despite stricter mandates to follow public-health guidelines in many parts of the world, the coronavirus is still continuing to spread quickly and putting more lives at risk.

According to new forecast from the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation at the University of Washington’s School of Medicine, nearly 300,000 Americans could be dead from the coronavirus by December 1.

The data, however, predicts that consistent mask-wearing by 95% of the U.S. population has the potential to save 70,000 lives.

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

Image: Reuters

Peter Suciu

Security, Middle East

Experts warn that Iran could respond to a perceived threat with its combat-tested and highly combat-capable cruise missiles.

This past January Iran launched a number of ballistic missiles at U.S. bases in Iraq in response to the U.S. killing of Gen. Qassim Suleimani, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps—Quads Force commander. The strikes weren’t complete misses but were largely seen as militarily ineffective.

Multiple experts suggested Iran “missed” on purpose so as not to escalate the crisis, but by launching its missiles still, the Islamic Republic was able to save face by responding to Suleimani’s assassination in a U.S. drone strike. 

Experts also warned that next time Iran could respond with its combat-tested and highly combat-capable cruise missiles. This includes its Mobin, which was displayed at the MAKS 2019 defense trade show in Russia last summer. That cruise missile has a range of 280 miles, a speed of 560 miles per hour and can carry a warhead of up to 265 pounds, while it also has a low radar cross-section and high radar-evading capability. 

Iran has the largest missile arsenal in the Middle East—one that includes land-attack cruise missiles as well as anti-ship cruise missiles that can be launched from land, sea or air. Stopping a cruise missile isn’t impossible, but right now there are no operational weapons systems that can provide air defense against terrain-hugging cruise missiles over land.   

Exporting These Weapons 

While Iran hasn’t been able to build up a robust domestic defense industry, the Islamic Republic has looked to eventually export its indigenously-developed cruise missiles.

“Iran’s displays of advancements in arms development and production are not only a strategic exercise to attract new buyers, but also reveals the possibility of the country being a bedrock of arms imports to fill gaps in its capabilities,” Mathew George, Ph.D., aerospace & defense analyst at GlobalData, a leading data and analytics company, said in an email to the National Interest. 

“Iran has developed its military capabilities domestically over the past decade or so to circumvent the arms embargo, leading to the occasional demonstration and announcement of new aircraft, unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) and developments in armaments,” George added. “Yet, concerns still exist around whether the specifications mentioned are definite capabilities or whether they are hyped versions of older devices, with the latest Qasem Soleimani missile looking identical to the older Shahab 3 ballistic missile.” 

Regional Stability 

Iran is going down a road other “isolated” nations have been forced to travel—developing a local way to produce weapons. This is because western sanctions and arms embargoes that have been directed against Iran have only served to create a vacuum that the country’s nascent has struggled to fill. Iran has what can be described as an enthusiastic, if not quite cutting-edge military-industrial complex. 

Now it is beginning to take the first step toward being an arms supplier—something that could be a concern to the stability in the Middle East and beyond.

“While these developments are a cause of concern for many countries in the region, an additional supplier of arms into the global market will be welcomed by many countries interested in these technologies, but without the deep pockets and rigorous prerequisites required to purchase from traditional suppliers,” explained George.  

However, those embargos and sanctions can go both ways. So not only can Iran not purchase small arms, but it could be very difficult for the Middle Eastern nation to actively try to sell its wares on the open market—at least not without any potential buyers facing their own sanctions from the UN or United States. 

“Iran will work to ensure that nothing domestic will hamper the lifting of the arms embargo,” added George.  

Arms could be a future revenue stream for the country, and potentially an important one as its oil reserves certainly won’t last forever. 

“Stakeholders will most likely allow for the embargo to be lifted and a new round of arms commerce to ensue until an event linked to spurious organizations and clear evidence of Iranian support of that event leads to another suspension of arms trade with the country.”

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

Image: Reuters

Sebastien Roblin

Security,

The incident remained shrouded in secrecy for decades.

Key Point: The memory of shadowy episodes like the battle of Lima 85 must be preserved.

Fifty years ago on March 12, 1968, a top-secret U.S. base on a mountain top in Laos was overrun by an elite force of Vietnamese commandos. Only six of the eighteen CIA and Air Force personnel manning the remote outpost escaped with their lives in an incident that would remain veiled in secrecy for three decades.

This was because the U.S. military was legally prohibited from operating in Laos. The southeast Asian nation had been wracked by a civil war pitting right-wing royalists against Pathet Lao communists—the latter backed by North Vietnam, which used Laotian territory to clandestinely funnel troops into South Vietnam via the Ho Chi Minh trail. However, in 1962 Washington, Hanoi and Laotian factions all signed a peace treaty in which the foreign powers agreed to withdraw their forces from the country.

However, North Vietnam only withdrew a minority of its forces, and the United States continued transferring extensive military aid to the royalist and instead began a secret but large-scale aerial bombing campaign in the kingdom known as Operation Barrel Roll. Though warplanes based in Vietnam and Thailand flew missions into Laos, CIA-run mercenary contractors and ‘airlines’ such as Air America flew transport and observation aircraft from Laotian bases.

CIA personnel also recruited local Hmong, an ethnic minority present in several southeast Asian states, to fight a guerilla war against the Pathet Lao. It was with this purpose in mind that CIA personnel first established a base atop the steep cliff of Phou Pha Thi mountain, a sacred place in the Hmong’s animist faith which happened to be strategically located near the border with North Vietnam.

This base was one of many ‘Lima Sites’ in Laos intended to facilitate aerial supply of U.S.-allied forces. The main facility was at the peak of the 5,600-foot high mountain surrounded by steep cliffs; you can see the base’s layout in this photo. A path wound downslope to a short 700-meter long airstrip at the base of the mountain was used for resupply and staff rotations, delivered in covert weekly flights by CH-3 helicopters of the 20th U.S. Air Force helicopter squadron.

In the summer of 1966, the U.S. Air Force decided to adapt the base with a new purpose—to serve as radar-navigation system, a or TACAN, by installing a power generator and first a transponder. In the era predating GPS, TACAN sites helped warplanes find their targets, especially, while flying under low visibility conditions or at night. (The first radio navigation system, known as Knickebein, was developed by Nazi Germany, to enable more precise night bombing of England.) In 1967, this was further upgraded to a TSQ-81 antenna and remote bombing system that allowed the base to remotely control U.S. bombers.

Hanoi was only 135 miles northeast of Lima 85, so the clandestine base was able to direct very precise coordinates for U.S. aircraft bombarding the North Vietnamese capital. Because those strikes could involve anything from F-105 fighter bombers to dozens of huge B-52 bombers, this made the base a deadly force multiplier. In just six months, Lima 85 directed between 25 and 55 percent of the air strikes pounding North Vietnamese and Laotian targets.

Because Laotian Prince Souvanna refused to accept U.S. military personnel in Laos, U.S. Air Force personnel deployed to Lima 85 had to sign papers temporarily discharging them from the U.S. military before deploying to Lima, a farcical process known as ‘sheep dipping.’ These technicians were supposed to go unarmed, though they did eventually end up acquiring a handful of small arms. Instead, the base’s security was supposed to be assured by a battalion each of Hmong militia—advised by CIA agents—and Thai Border Patrol policemen deployed around the base of the mountain.

However, Lima 85 may have been concealed from the U.S. public, but it’s presence and purpose were not a secret to the Pathet Lao and North Vietnamese Army (NVA). Scouts probed the base’s defenses in December 1967, and on January 12, 1968 a flight of four An-2 biplane transports attacked Lima 85 using underwing 57mm rockets, and 120mm mortar shells dropped out the side doors, killing four Hmong. An Air America UH-1 helicopter was scrambled to intercept the slow transports shot down one of the transports using AK-47 fired out the side—one of very few helicopter-on-airplane kills on record. Another An-2 crashed, either due to ground fire or a failed evasive maneuver.

The base was subsequently hit by a mortar barrage on January 30, then on February 18 Hmong militia ambushed and killed a team of NVA artillery observers near the mountain and recovered plans for a coordinated bombardment of the facility. American military leaders knew the isolated base was surrounded by stronger enemy forces and likely to come under attack, but the base’s TACAN support was considered so valuable that Amb. William Sullivan resisted evacuating the site. Unable to deploy significant defenses, the base’s technicians instead began dispatching hundreds of airstrikes against nearby communist forces to secure their position.

Elite North Vietnamese commandos from the 41st Special Forces battalion had already scaled the seemingly impassible cliffs on Phou Pha Thi’s northside without being detected on January 22 and reconnoitered the most feasible infiltration routes. Early that March, a thirty-three man platoon under the command of Lt. Truong Muoc assembled near the mountain, where they were reinforced by a nine-man sapper squad. The commandos were equipped with AK-47s, SKS carbines, explosives, hand grenades and three rocket-propelled grenade launchers.

At 6PM on March 11 an artillery bombardment gave cover for Truong’s pathfinders to clear out mines and secure the infiltration paths to Lima 85. A few hours later, regular troops of the 766th Regiment of the NVA and a Pathet Lao battalions launched an attack that pinned down the Hmong troops in the valley around the mountain. Finally around 9 PM, Truong’s men began scaling up the cliff, the operators splitting into five “cells” to launch a multiprong attack. Cells One and two would concentrate on the command post, cells three and four would seize the TACAN equipment and airstrip respectively, and the fifth cell would remain in reserve.

The base personnel reported the artillery bombardment, but Ambassador Sullivan decided not to order an evacuation unless the attack proved to be overwhelming. Only by 8 AM the following morning did he dispatch helicopters and air support to cover the personnel’s escape.

This was far too late. The Truong’s infiltrators were in position by 3 AM that morning and knocked out Hmong guard posts and the base’s TSQ-81 radar and power generator using rocket propelled grenades. When base commander Maj. Clarence Barton and several Air Force technicians rushed out to assess the situation, they were gunned down by the commandos. By 4 AM, the first three cells had captured all of their objectives. Some were captured and then flung over the cliff on Truong’s orders. Only cell 4 was forced to disengage from its objective, unable to dislodge a superior Hmong force of two infantry platoons and a mortar squad deployed around the airstrip.

Surviving U.S. personnel had fled to a ledge on the side of the cliff, where they were trapped as grenades and small arms fire rained down upon them. Firing back with their assault rifles, they attempted to call down an airstrike nearly on top of their position.

Finally at dawn, Air America helicopters covered by A-1 Skyraider attack planes swooped down upon the mountain. Hmong troops, led by two CIA agents and supported by Skyraiders, engaged in a fierce firefight as they attempted to dislodge the NVA commandos from the TACAN site. Though North Vietnamese platoon held its ground, the fracas provided a distraction for five surviving Air Force technicians and two CIA agents to be extracted.

Chief Master Sergeant Richard Etchberger, one of the airmen trapped on the cliff, refused to board a rescue chopper until he had loaded three of his injured comrades on the Huey’s rescue sling. As he was being lifted away, the Pennsylvanian was mortally wounded by a parting burst of assault rifle fire. Communist forces would retain control of Phou Pha Thai mountain and later repel a Hmong offensive to seize it back.

Muoc’s assault on Lima 85 had significantly weakened the U.S. air campaign over North Vietnam and Laos. According to Vietnamese accounts, he lost only one commando and killed at least forty-two Thai and Hmong troops as well as a dozen U.S. airmen. However, Truong would return home to a court martial rather than a hero’s welcome; his superiors were outraged that he had destroyed the valuable TACAN equipment and killed the technicians instead of capturing them.

Ironically, both Washington and Hanoi collaborated in preserving the secrecy of their war in the Laos. North Vietnam needed to maintain and secure the Ho Chi Minh trail’s route through Laos, while the U.S. military was compelled to try to stop them there. That both were violating a treaty they had signed was merely something that had to be concealed from the public.

In a tragic postscript, Etchberger would be posthumously nominated for the Medal of Honor, but would have the request denied by the Air Force due to the need to maintain the secrecy of the U.S. air war in Laos, which would actually escalate under the Nixon administration and be exposed with the release of the Pentagon Papers. The United States dropped one ton of bombs for every person living in Laos, delaying but not preventing, the eventual communist victory in 1975.

Only thirty years later did the United States officially acknowledge the battle at the clandestine site. Etchberger would finally be awarded the Medal of Honor in a ceremony on September 1, 2010. Earlier in the 2000s, Vietnamese veterans of the battle helped U.S. military personnel locate the remains of airmen that had been cast over the side of the cliff, and later those of Major Barton as well.

Preserving the memory of shadowy episodes like the battle of Lima 85 may not heal the wounds of the past, but it can help bring about an honest reckoning of the mistakes that were made and inspire reflection as to how to avoid repeating them in the future.

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

This article first appeared in 2018 and is reprinted here due to reader interest.

Image: Wikimedia Commons

Fred Lucas

Politics, Americas

Why the President is staying away from his former associate's arrest.

A month ago, President Donald Trump lashed out on Twitter about a 3-mile section of border wall built by a private company. 

On Thursday, after former campaign and White House adviser Steve Bannon was indicted for fraud for his role in the privately funded wall project, Trump offered little sympathy.

He said he thought Bannon’s project was “showboating.”

Bannon pleaded not guilty Thursday afternoon in federal court in Manhattan. 

He was arrested for allegedly ripping off donors to the “We Build the Wall” campaign in a case brought by federal prosecutors in the Southern District of New York. 

The prosecutors charged Bannon and three others, including group founder Brian Kolfage, a triple-amputee Air Force veteran. 

Asked by reporters Thursday about news of Bannon’s indictment by the Justice Department for fraud in raising private funds to build a section of wall, Trump noted that Bannon has a lot of affiliations. 

“He worked for Goldman Sachs, he worked for a lot of companies. But he was involved likewise in our campaign, and [was] part of the administration early, early on. I haven’t been dealing with him at all,” Trump said at the White House. 

“I know nothing about the project other than I didn’t like it when I read about it. I didn’t like it. I said, ‘This is for government [to oversee]. This isn’t for private people,” Trump said, adding:

It sounded to me like showboating. I think I let my opinion be very strongly stated at the time. I didn’t like it. It was showboating and maybe looking for funds. You’ll have to see what happens. I think it’s a very sad thing for Mr. Bannon. I think it’s very surprising.

The president added: “I didn’t know he was in charge. I didn’t know any of the other people, either. It’s sad. It’s very sad.”

Building an extended border wall was a key part of Trump’s 2016 campaign for president. In early 2019, he declared a national emergency to use federal funds for the wall construction. 

Bannon, who left his executive role at Breitbart News in 2016 to help run the Trump campaign, was credited—along with veteran Republican political operative Kellyanne Conway—with helping steer Trump to victory. 

Both Bannon and Conway got White House jobs, but Trump fired Bannon after just seven months over suspicions that he was a leaker to reporters. 

After the parting, Trump would refer to Bannon as “Sloppy Steve.” 

Bannon, however, continued being a fierce defender of Trump in the media. 

The other two men indicted by the Justice Department were identified as Andrew Badolato and Timothy Shea.

The ProPublica-Texas Tribune first reported in July that a 3-mile section of the group’s wall in the Rio Grande Valley had severe structural problems. 

White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany issued a statement Thursday asserting that Trump had no involvement in Bannon’s project. 

“President Trump has always felt the wall must be a government project and that it is far too big and complex to be handled privately,” McEnany said in the statement, adding:

The Trump Administration has already built over 300 miles of Border Wall, thanks to the great work of our Army Corps of Engineers, and will have almost 500 miles completed by the end of the year.  Our southern border is more secure than it has ever been.

President Trump has not been involved with Steve Bannon since the campaign and the early part of the Administration, and he does not know the people involved with this project. 

This article by Fred Lucas first appeared in the Daily Signal in 2020. 

Image: Reuters

Charlie Gao

Security, Asia

Koreans hate -- and love -- their Russian tanks.

Key Point: The T-80U is still a relic, but one that has served admirably.

One of the great ironies of the military balance in the Koreas is the fact that South Korea operates more advanced Russian tanks than North Korea. This situation came about in the 1990s after Russia inherited a $1.5 billion debt to South Korea. A deal was made: Russia would give many items of then top-of-the-line military equipment, in exchange for South Korea canceling 50 percent of Russia’s debt. Interestingly, this included the T-80U Main Battle Tank. Nowadays, South Korea fields three “modern” main battle tanks, the T-80U and the indigenous K1 and K2. But how do Korean tankers think the T-80U stacks up against the Korean tanks, which were designed with a more Western philosophy?

In a pure technical comparison, the T-80U lags behind the K1A1 and K1A2. The T-80U has been kept in a relatively stock configuration, while the K1A1 and K2 have been receiving upgrades from the Korean defense industry. While the T-80U has a Day/Night panoramic commander’s sight in the PNK-4S, the K1A1 and K2 both have thermal commander sights. The Korean defense industry puts out the modern M279 APFSDS round for the 120-millimeter cannons of the K1A1 and the K2, but the T-80U is still using imported Russian ammunition. The K2 also has many features that the T-80U doesn’t have, being one of the newest MBTs in the world.

The reliability of the T-80U also doesn’t gain it favors in South Korean service. Reports state that the T-80U’s reliability isn’t the best, although it is better than the BMP-3. Although some T-80U parts, such as the tracks, are produced in South Korea, the majority of parts must be ordered from abroad. The cost of ordering replacement parts from Russia has been steadily increasing over the years (with the cost of some parts doubling or tripling from 1996 to 2006), so many in the South Korean government are considering getting rid of the T-80U to cut maintenance costs.

Not all is bad, though. Koreans do report some advantages over the K1A1 and K2 domestic tanks. The T-80U’s engine has better acceleration performance and is lighter than the domestic tanks due to its turbine nature. Unfortunately, this also makes it consume more fuel. The reduced weight compared to domestic also allows it to be more nimble in the mountains of Korea.

Soldiers who crewed the T-80U generally didn’t have nice things to say about it. The more cramped internal design compared to the K1A1 and K2 could seem claustrophobic, and in gunnery, the T-80U was found to underperform the domestic tanks, both in accuracy and in reload speed.

However, one must take into account the time period in which these criticisms were made. Most soldiers who made these comments compared the T-80U to the K1A1, which only started seeing service in 2001. Compared to the original K1 tank which was Korea’s most advanced tank at the time, the T-80U possessed far more advantages, packing a 125-millimeter gun to the K1’s 105-millimeter, as well as better advanced armor technology. The T-80U was the most advanced tank on the Korean Peninsula when they first arrived. The lack of modernization due to the foreign nature of the parts for the tank and lack of will to “domesticize” a foreign design impeded the T-80U from being fully embraced by the South Korean military. As a result, nowadays Korean tankers don’t find the T-80U to be favorable, as it’s still a relic. But it is one that served admirably, and even contributed to the K2 Black Panther project when it was in its infancy.

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 in 2018 and is reprinted here due to reader interest.

Image: Reuters

Rachel Bucchino

Politics,

If you can figure out his stance, that is. 

In the crucial, battleground state of Pennsylvania, recent polls indicate a tough road for President Donald Trump — but strong support for fracking that’ll preserve gas industry-related jobs might just grant him a shot at still winning, as Democratic nominee Joe Biden plans to cut all oil and gas drilling on federal property if elected in November.

Pennsylvania general election polls show a considerable lead for Biden, as RealClearPolitics polling data revealed that his lead over Trump hovers from 4 to 9 points for polls conducted in August. FiveThirtyEight also collected polls from the battleground state, with Biden holding a number of leads. Most recently, a poll conducted by Redfield & Wilton Strategies showed Biden with a 7-point lead over the president.

Although Biden has maintained a wide margin over Trump in Pennsylvania, both John Fetterman, the state’s lieutenant governor, and Bill Peduto, Pittsburgh’s mayor — who are Democrats — agree that any ban on fracking, or hydraulic fracturing, could destroy all chances of winning the state’s support.

Fracking is a method of removing natural gas from the ground — a process that involves drilling that injects water, sand and chemicals into the ground, which fractures rocks and releases natural gas.

A complete ban on fracking would create a substantial job loss in the gas industry, according to a report by the US Chamber of Commerce’s Global Energy Institute published in December 2019. The report concluded that a ban in 2021 would produce a loss of 5.9 million jobs in nearly seven states in just four years, with about 600,000 job losses in just Pennsylvania — a key state that a candidate must win in the upcoming election.

“In Pennsylvania, you’re talking hundreds of thousands of related jobs that would be — they would be unemployed overnight,” Fetterman told The New York Times in January. “Pennsylvania is a margin play. And an outright ban on fracking isn’t a margin play.”

Peduto echoed his concerns, particularly noting that a “ban-all-fracking-right-now” position would “absolutely devastate communities throughout the Rust Belt.”

“If a candidate comes into this state and tries to sell that policy, they’re going to have a hard time winning,” Peduto said.

Biden’s stance on banning fracking, however, remains unclear.

In a Democratic primary debate from last year, Biden noted that there wouldn’t be any place for fracking in a Biden administration, but then followed up his response with “we would work it out.” Since then, then Biden’s campaign team said that he does not want to ban fracking.

In his climate proposal, Biden calls for clean energy and net-zero emissions by 2050, in addition to a ban on all new oil and gas permits on federal property. Biden reiterated this position at a CNN Town Hall in September, saying he does not back a nationwide fracking ban.

Biden’s inconsistent responses on fracking also came up during a debate in March, when former presidential rival Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) spoke about his firm beliefs on banning all fracking if he were to become president. Biden agreed with Sanders’s stance, but then followed it up with “no more — no new fracking.”

Biden’s unclear and changing beliefs on fracking could cost him one of the most crucial states come November.

Trump, a supporter of fracking, won Pennsylvania’s Electoral College votes in 2016. As a battleground state, there could be a number of reasons for the win, but it’s likely that his advocacy for fracking and preserving gas industry jobs helped him rally support from voters. During his time in office, Trump opened fields for fracking in California and promised to improve energy sector policies on oil and gas extraction, with the intention of creating new jobs for Americans.

Even though Biden towers over Trump in the polls for the state, the real results are unknown, as Biden wants to partly eliminate fracking — which could ultimately lead to him losing the state in the upcoming election.

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

Image: Reuters.