The National Interest

Stephen Silver

Technology,

It was an image macro that made its way around social media last week, making appearances on Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, and even Nextdoor: It implored users to go to Google, enter any three-digit number, and the phrase "new cases." The answer, supposedly, would show "proof" that Google, and/or news outlets, are conspiring to sew fear, or possibly even that coronavirus in its entirety was a hoax.

It was an image macro that made its way around social media last week, making appearances on Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, and even Nextdoor: It implored users to go to Google, enter any three-digit number, and the phrase "new cases." The answer, supposedly, would show "proof" that Google, and/or news outlets, are conspiring to sew fear, or possibly even that coronavirus in its entirety was a hoax.

Some high-follower social media accounts pushed the conspiracy theory, as did websites like Gateway Pundit, which alleged that "Google continues to push the coronavirus panic-porn by pushing headlines to their users." Some users even posted videos of themselves doing the searches in real time.

Doing that search, or even doing it with four-digit numbers, does indeed return results for most numbers. But as it turns out, this isn't proof of any kind of conspiracy or untoward behavior. It's really just a matter of mathematical probabilities.

Ever since coronavirus hit the United States earlier this year, hundreds if not thousands of government entities have announced daily statistics about new cases, deaths and other aspects of the pandemic. This has happened at the city, county, state and national level, nearly every day, for four months. Because coronavirus is a topic of major interest, media outlets tend to write about them. And the results about “new cases” are nearly all about coronavirus, because in the last several months, what else would “new cases” refer to?

Therefore, that's a lot of numbers. And because the governments reporting those numbers represent areas of varying sizes, the numbers are sometimes large and sometimes small. And sometimes the number refers to another line in the article, possibly referencing a total number of cases to date, or deaths.

But what they all are is real.

To take a number at random, 250. A search for "250" and "new cases" brings up a government report from the Oregon Health Authority (OHA), from June 26, listing "250 new confirmed and presumptive cases of COVID-19." The results also return, on the first page, multiple news articles from Oregon newspapers and TV stations about that OHA report. There's also a separate report, from a Florida news outlet, about 250 cases in Brevard County, on June 27, and a June 24 story from a local TV station in Texas, about Wichita Falls-Wichita County Public Health District stating that the total number of cases in that county had reached 250.

To take another number, 315. The first several results are all news articles based on the announcement on June 23, by the governor of Kentucky, that that state had 315 new cases. Further down is an African Press Organization story from June 9 about 315 new cases reported in Nigeria.

These are all real stories, from real government offices and real news articles. They haven't been faked or manipulated by Google or anyone else. And most sadly of all, those numbers represent real people who really do have a potentially fatal disease.

The issue was even addressed by Danny Sullivan, Google's public search liason.

"If you search for words or figures, we try to show pages that have those words & figures," Sullivan tweeted last week. "With 100,000s of pages from 1,000s of agencies with daily stat updates on COVID-19, you can search for most anything & get a match."

So in other words, there is zero reasons to believe that those numbers aren't real, or that Google is making them up to scare people about coronavirus, which is real.

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

Michael D. Cohen

Security, Asia

Author: "I would argue that one way for the United States to end North Korea’s love affair with nuclear weapons—if that is indeed possible—would be for the United States to somehow credibly commit to living with North Korea. This now means credibly committing to living with a nuclear North Korea, which many Americans and others would not be willing to do. But if the alternative is war on the Korean Peninsula, then isn’t this at least worth further consideration?"

Editor's Note: As the world commemorates the 70th anniversary of the start of the Korean War, the Center for the National Interest’s Korean Studies team decided to ask dozens of the world’s top experts a simple question: Do you believe that the Korean War will finally come to an end before its next major anniversary in 2025? The below piece is an answer to that question. Please click here to see even more perspectives on this important topic.

When we speak of America’s forever wars, we tend to think of Afghanistan and perhaps Iraq, but of course, the United States has been at war with North Korea for over three times as long. If the term ‘forever war’ implies that many people are beginning to question whether it is worthwhile, then North Korea’s status as a longtime U.S. adversary seems so etched into the minds of foreign policy inclined Americans that pressure for it to end pales in comparison to the acceptance of this status quo. As the war reaches its seventieth anniversary, the prospects of its ending warrant special attention.

We debate the causes and consequences of North Korea’s nuclear weapons program, but some causes that few would disagree with, although their importance can be debated, is that the United States is much more powerful than North Korea, has a military alliance with South Korea (not to mention Japan and Australia), has not formally recognized North Korea despite President Donald Trump’s recent summitry, and has not ended the Korean War. Given all this, should we be surprised that North Korea has turned to nuclear weapons, especially after the fate of Saddam Hussein’s Iraq and Muammar el-Qaddafi’s Libya?

I would argue that one way for the United States to end North Korea’s love affair with nuclear weapons—if that is indeed possible—would be for the United States to somehow credibly commit to living with North Korea. This now means credibly committing to living with a nuclear North Korea, which many Americans and others would not be willing to do. But if the alternative is war on the Korean Peninsula, then isn’t this at least worth further consideration?

There are several challenges, not least of which is that Kim knows democratic leaders come and go and that their successors can always press the reset button on the North Korea relationship. Kim, therefore, has little incentive to play along. We can criticize Trump’s summitry for its lack of lower-level planning, but even had this been much better, Kim still would have had strong incentives to demand much, to commit little, to play a long game and see who would succeed Trump. After seven decades of mistrust and little communication, cycles of threats and confrontation are hard to get away from.

Ending the Korean War seems a good—perhaps the best?—way for a U.S. president to signal to North Korea that Washington not only wants to ratchet down tensions but is willing to at least seriously consider living with a nuclear North Korea. But the many forces which have pushed against this thus far lead me to regard this as unlikely; it may be most likely if Trump wins a second term in November. If he continues his summitry with North Korea, then there may be a good chance that the end of the war will be part of a larger settlement. Of course, if this settlement involves the United States in any way weakening its alliance with South Korea—I expect it would—it could be a very destabilizing outcome that might even lead to a greater probability of conflict. In that event, Trump or his successor could still reinstitute the state of war with North Korea much more easily than the current state of war could be ended. Given that these pressures to maintain, or reintroduce, a state of war seem far greater than any initiatives to overcome them, I’d predict that the Korean War will most likely not have ended by 2025. So it may be the ultimate forever war of our time.

Michael D. Cohen is is a senior lecturer (assistant professor) at the National Security College of the Australian National University’s Crawford School of Public Policy. He is author of When Proliferation Causes Peace: The Psychology of Nuclear Crises and is co-editor of North Korea and Nuclear Weapons: Entering the New Era of Deterrence.

Image: Reuters. 

Richard Douglas

Security, World

Here's what you need to know about this fascinating weapon.

The Mossberg 500 has been a staple in the shotgun game for over fifty years, and for a good reason:

It’s manufactured to military specs, and the only pump-action shotgun to pass the MIL-Spec 3443 E test—requiring the gun to handle 3,000 rounds of 23-gauge buckshots, non-stop, without fail.

Today, there are two types of Mossberg 500s made: the field model and the special purpose model. The field model is perfect for hunting, while the special purpose is optimal for self-defense and law enforcement.

How has this gun maintained its popularity over so many decades? Keep reading to find out...

Accuracy

Accuracy is pretty much inherent with a pump-action. The 28” barrel increases the range by a mile, and the double beads and choked barrel improve the accuracy even further. In fact, I’ve fired over 400 shots through the Mossberg 500 and maintained a 1” grouping.

Reliability

The 500 is astoundingly reliable. It passed the MIL-Spec 3443 E test and it doesn’t rely on maintenance for reliability. While you should always keep up with proper cleaning and maintenance on your guns, this isn’t one of those shotguns you have to clean in between each use for reliability. I’ve fired over 400 rounds with zero misfires!

Handling

The Mossberg 500 is a high functioning shotgun, with a good balance between adaptability and consistency. It handles smoothly, and feeds, fires, and ejects without issues. The 500 has an infinite selection of aftermarket accessories and interchangeable barrels to allow complete customization, and you can switch the barrels easily. All you have to do is unscrew the magazine knob, pull the action down halfway, and twist the barrel to pull it off the receiver. Then, just put the new barrel in, screw the knob back into the tube, and pump the action. The forend is a nice, tight fit on the action rails, and the serrated wood is easy to grip.

Trigger  

The Mossberg 500 features a top-tang safety, mounted at the top near the rear of the receiver. It’s easy to see, convenient to reach without moving your trigger finger, and naturally ambidextrous. The trigger is crisp, breaking at 6 lbs even, which is ideal for most uses. If enhanced safety is important to you, you’ll be happy to hear that the action is manually operated, meaning you have to squeeze the trigger to fire each shot.

Magazine & Reloading

The mag capacity is 5+1, but it also ships with a wooden stopper to permit loading only three shells, due to stricter hunting laws in some areas. Dual-action bars ensure reliable cycling, and the shell lifter keeps debris from collecting inside the receiver, making loading easier. The shell lifter only lowers for a moment during the loading cycle when the slide is all the way back, so there’s no risk of catching your thumb or glove between the lifter and the magazine. Loading is simple: you cock the action, press a lever by the trigger guard to unlock the action, and load the magazine. Then, actuate the bolt release, and rack the forend to load a shell into the chamber. The 500 comes with dual extractors, and the pump ejects fired shells and chambers a fresh round via the forend.

Length & Weight

The Mossberg 500 comes as a 12-gauge, 20-gauge, and .410 bore. If you buy the Field Combo, it ships with two barrels: 28” and 18.” With the 28” barrel, the gun weighs 8.7 lbs; and with the 18” barrel, it weighs 7.4 lbs. While it’s not the lightest shotgun around, it’s still relatively lightweight, partly thanks to the aluminum receiver. It keeps the weight down, while still being strong enough to keep the gun well balanced.

Recoil Management

Recoil is pretty much average for a 12-gauge shotgun, if not a little better. There’s a rubber recoil pad at the butt of the gun, and this along with the stock design makes firing more comfortable than other 12-gauge pump-actions.

Price

The Mossberg 500 retails around $320. It’s a pretty mid-priced pump-action, unlike its budget-friendly counterpart, the Maverick 88. While these two shotguns are pretty similar, it’s worth spending the extra money on the 500 if you can swing it!

My Verdict?

This is the perfect all-purpose shotgun. You can use it for hunting, clay shooting, and home defense. Here are some of the best features:

• Outstanding, military-grade reliability
• Easy to change barrels adapt to different situations
• Has stood the test of time—proven in the streets, field, and combat

In short: The Mossberg 500 is one of the best pump-action shotguns on the market today. There’s a reason these have been around for so long: they’re affordable, reliable, tough, and functional.

Richard Douglas is a firearms expert and educator. His work has appeared in large publications like The Armory Life, Daily Caller, American Shooting Journal, and more. In his free time, he reviews optics on his Scopes Field blog.

Image: Reuters

Matthew Petti

Security,

Congress is furious, but the State Department is quiet.

Congressional pressure is building to reprimand Turkey for its military campaign against Kurdish militants in northern Iraq.

The Turkish military is carrying out two offensives—Operation Claw-Eagle and Operation Claw-Tiger—aimed at rooting out Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) militants in the Kurdistan region of Iraq.

The operation has struck rural PKK hideouts as well as populated areas, including the Makhmour Refugee Camp and the Yazidi community of Mount Sinjar.

“I strongly condemn the Turkish air strikes & ground operations near Kurdish & Yazidi civilian areas,” Rep. Eliot Engel (D–N.Y.) announced in a Friday statement. “This type of reckless endangerment of civilian lives is unacceptable, especially for a NATO ally.”

Engel, the outgoing head of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, called on Turkish president Recep Tayyip Erdoğan to stop the operation “immediately.”

Rep. Jim Cooper (D–Tenn.) added on Saturday that he was “disturbed” by the operation. Cooper represents Nashville, a city with a large Kurdish community.

The lawmakers’ comments came after a widely-shared video showed an alleged Turkish bomb striking a lake while a family played nearby. Local journalist Jîl Şwanî claims that the video showed his brother and nephew in Kunamasi, a town in Sulaymaniyah Governorate.

The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, appointed by Congress to investigate human rights worldwide, condemned the offensive for its effects on Yazidi genocide survivors.

Turkish forces “represent a dangerous escalation of violence in an already-fragile area,” USCIRF chair Gayle Manchin said in a June 19 statement, and “are particularly threatening to hundreds of traumatized Yazidi families attempting to return to Sinjar and to other civilians in northern Iraq.”

Rep. Frank Pallone (D–N.J.) shared the statement on Twitter, adding that the United States must “diplomatically work with our allies to end Erdogan's reckless, dangerous, and cruel actions in the region.”

USCIRF previously slammed Turkey’s military offensives against Kurdish militants as a threat to religious freedom in Syria.

Turkey defends its cross-border incursions as a defensive campaign against the PKK, which both the Turkish and U.S. governments consider a terrorist group. PKK militants have waged a decades-long war against the Turkish state.

“The only target of our heroic Turkish Armed Forces in the successful Operation Claw-Tiger was the terrorists,” the Turkish defense ministry announced in its own Friday statement. “As before, no civilians were or will be harmed in this operation.”

The Turkish offensive has killed at least five civilians so far.

Iraq’s central government condemned the operation as a violation of its sovereignty, summoning the Turkish ambassador in protest. Iran also shelled several Kurdish villages during the operation, the Iraqi government alleges.

Turkish foreign minister Hami Aksoy told reporters on June 26 that Turkey “would like to reiterate one more time our expectations such as cooperation and acting in harmony with Turkey against the [PKK] terror organization.”

Iraqi Kurdish authorities have been more muted. Iraqi Kurdistan has hosted thousands of Turkish troops for years, and the region’s ruling Kurdistan Democratic Party is a rival of the PKK.

The U.S. State Department has also been muted, despite the mounting pressure from Congress.

“We continue to urge all of Iraq’s neighbors to respect its sovereignty. At the same time, we recognize that Turkey has legitimate security concerns,” a State Department spokesperson told the National Interest on June 16. “This is a matter of sovereignty for both countries that needs to be settled on a bilateral basis.”

Matthew Petti is a national security reporter at the National Interest. Follow him on Twitter: @matthew_petti.

Image: Reuters.

Matthew Petti

Security, Middle East

“I also wanted to minimize any potential gains for Iran, something Mattis never seemed to prioritize.”

Former Defense Secretary James Mattis wanted to “downplay” the threat posed by Iran, former National Security Advisor John Bolton claims in his upcoming book.

Mattis was nicknamed “Mad Dog” and “Chaos,” but Bolton portrays the retired four-star Marine general as a voice of moderation in President Donald Trump’s early cabinet—especially as Bolton pushed for a self-described policy of “regime change” towards Iran.

“[T]he ghost of Mattis’s protestations about taking Iran seriously would dog us right until the end of 2018, when he departed, and beyond,” Bolton wrote.

Mattis, through a spokesperson, declined to comment on the book.

The conflict between Bolton and Mattis over Iran began on April 7, 2018, when Bashar al-Assad was accused of launching a deadly chemical weapons attack on civilians in the rebel-held city of Douma.

Trump had earlier bombed Syrian military bases in response to a similar incident in 2017. Bolton wanted to make Assad, whose government was defended by Iranian troops, “pay dearly” for using chemical weapons again.

But, he claims, Mattis “pushed relentlessly” for an “innocuous” response. Mattis was, in Bolton’s eyes, “focused on ISIS rather than Iran” in Syria.

France, Britain and the United States bombed a group of Syrian chemical research facilities on April 14. Six soldiers and three civilians were injured, according to the Syrian government.

“The Pentagon's proposed response to Syria's chemical weapons attack was far weaker than it should have been, largely because Mattis had stacked the options presented to Trump in ways that left little real choice,” Bolton wrote.

Mattis butted heads with Bolton again later that month, when Trump was considering nixing a 2015 deal aimed at regulating the Iranian nuclear program. Bolton instead wanted to pursue a pressure campaign either “to bring Iran to its knees, or to overthrow the regime.”

Mattis sent Bolton a “classified document” weighing in against the decision, although he also said that he could “live with it,” according to Bolton.

Trump eventually pulled out of the deal.

At a July 26 meeting to discuss the progress of the campaign against Iran, Mattis tried “to downplay the overall importance of Iran in the international threat matrix,” according to Bolton.

Tensions over Iran flared up for the last time in September, when attackers fired on the U.S. Consulate in Basra, Iraq. 

“‏Coming days before the anniversary of 9/11, and with the 2012 assault on our Benghazi diplomatic compound on our minds, we needed to think strategically about our response,” Bolton wrote. “Dead Americans in Iraq, tragic in themselves, might accelerate withdrawal, to our long-term detriment, and that of Israel and our Arab allies.”

Bolton thought that the attackers were “undoubtedly supplied by Iran,” but says that Mattis argued that “we weren’t abolustely sure the Shia [Muslim] militia groups were tied to Iran, which defied credulity.”

After two more attacks, “even Mattis could not deny the Iran connection.” The State Department evacuated the consulate in Basra and issued a statement blaming Iran.

Mattis and Bolton found themselves on the same side at the end of the year, both fighting to keep Trump from withdrawing U.S. forces from Syria. But Bolton could not help but insult Mattis’s views on Iran.

“I also wanted to minimize any potential gains for Iran, something Mattis never seemed to prioritize,” he wrote, claiming that Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman Gen. Joseph Dunford “understood better” the Iranian threat.

The bureaucratic fight over Syria eventually prompted Mattis to publicly resign from Trump’s cabinet.

“He may have established a reputation as a warrior-scholar for carrying with him on the battlefield a copy of Marcus Aurelius’s Meditations,” Bolton wrote, “but he was no debater.”

Less than a year later, Bolton was also out of the White House—fired by a tweet.

Matthew Petti is a national security reporter at the National Interest. Follow him on Twitter: @matthew_petti.

Image: Reuters.

Mark Episkopos

Culture, Asia

Korea's special music has a truly global following.

Breaking out of the East Asian market in the mid-2000s, K-Pop has surged in popularity to become one of the world’s fastest growing music genres. It is also the spear tip of South Korea’s thriving cultural export industry, boasting a net worth of approximately $5 billion and projected to generate tens of billions of dollars for South Korea’s economy in the coming years.

But what exactly is K-pop, and how did this upstart genre outgrow its humble roots to become a global cultural phenomenon with a loyal western following?

The rise of K-pop is relatively easy to date. “Pop music” is an umbrella term for countless commercial genres since the mid-twentieth-century, but K-pop refers to a specific aesthetic and performance style that grew out of Korean adaptations of American popular music in the early 1990’s. The birth of K-pop is commonly traced to the group Seo Taiji and Boys, whose unique blend of hip-hop, rock, and tight dance choreography took the South Korean music scene by storm. Several major music studios, beginning with SM Entertainment in 1995, were founded to capitalize on this growing untapped market. The earlier grunge elements of K-pop were replaced with a focus on mass-marketable idols, the first of which became the wildly successful boy band H.O.T.

As K-pop crystallized into a well-established musical genre over the next decade, it came to be defined by several industry traits that help explain its competitiveness as a cultural export: an impressively high standard for choreography and vocals, an accessible and widely appealing aesthetic, an effective network of Seoul-based producers capable of putting out a quality product at a fast pace, and generous government support.

At the core of what gives K-pop its characteristic polish is the “trainee system”: a process developed by SM Entertainment founder Lee Soo-Man for scouting, refining, and promoting idols. After being selected by a rigorous audition process involving hundreds of candidates, the prospective idol is run through an extensive training period. This period, which can last from months to years, involves schooling in vocals, rapping, and dancing, as well as English language classes. Idol trainees are expected to endure a grueling rehearsal schedule and must prove that they can maintain a company-approved public image. Those who make it through to the end are finally offered a contract, which can take the form of becoming part of a group or—for a select few—being supported in a solo venture.

The trainee system has ensured that the K-pop industry keeps on churning out a steady supply highly talented performers, but it’s not cheap; training an idol can cost just shy of $30,000 per month according to industry insiders, while the process of making assembling and signing a K-pop group from beginning to end costs millions of dollars. Government support has been a crucial means of offsetting these costs, with the Culture Ministry establishing an entire department to oversee K-pop-related matters. Aside from fostering a growth-friendly regulatory climate, the Culture Ministry has injected the K-pop industry with hundreds of millions of dollars in grants meant to foster Korea’s tourism and cultural export sectors.

There is no single factor to account for the breakout success of K-pop, which stems from a constellation of propitious circumstances and sound strategies pursued on the level of management. In just over three decades, K-pop has gone from a fringe phenomenon to a lucrative and globally renowned network of state-sponsored producers and performers—an unmitigated success on South Korea’s longstanding path to become a leading soft power exporter.

Mark Episkopos is a frequent contributor to The National Interest and serves as research assistant at the Center for the National Interest. Mark is also a PhD student in History at American University. 

Image: Reuters

Jonathan Corrado

History, Asia

Listening to veterans is the best way to learn the lessons of the Korean War and to honor those who served. They remind us both what we lost and what we have gained through the conflict. Time is running out to gain the benefits of their experience and wisdom directly.

Editor's Note: As the world commemorates the 70th anniversary of the start of the Korean War, the Center for the National Interest’s Korean Studies team decided to ask dozens of the world’s top experts a simple question: Do you believe that the Korean War will finally come to an end before its next major anniversary in 2025? The below piece is an answer to that question. Please click here to see even more perspectives on this important topic.

Although current conditions suggest that an end to the Korean War before 2025 is an unlikely outcome, the seventieth anniversary of the war’s start provides us with an opportunity to reflect on the legacy of the conflict and the lessons it offers. The perspective offered by studying the war’s beginning, expansion, and aftermath provides valuable lessons that help illuminate an informed approach to deterring future conflict and achieving a stable and lasting peace. 

The United States was caught unprepared twice during the Korean War: first during the North Korean invasion, and then again when Chinese forces poured over the Yalu River and entered the conflict. The CIA did issue a prescient warning in June 1949 saying that “Withdrawal of US forces from Korea in spring of 1949 would probably in time be followed by an invasion [...] by the North Korean People's Army possibly assisted by small battle-trained units from Communist Manchuria.” However, most analysts and policymakers in Washington were focused on other regions as potential flashpoints for satellite conflicts with the Soviet Union, including Iran, Greece, Turkey, and Berlin. Just before North Korea invaded in June 1950, the CIA ranked Korea fifth in terms of “explosiveness.”

Although sufficient information was collected to suggest both North Korea’s invasion and China’s subsequent entrance into the war, the quality of the analysis was diluted by presumptions about the adversary. Policymakers over-attributed Moscow’s centrality to the decisionmaking of all Socialist countries and paid not enough consideration to local actors and incentives. Analysts applied mirror imaging, interpreting the interests of the adversary through the prism of their own perspective. In the case of China, recovering from civil war and woefully outmatched by American military muscle, the costs expected of conflict seemed to outweigh potential gains, but a glimpse into Chinese strategic history illustrates that Chinese empires have for centuries spent blood and treasure to intervene on the Korean Peninsula.

The aftermath of the war set conditions for the establishment of an alliance that has credibly deterred conflict for over sixty-five years. This isn’t to say that the U.S.-ROK Alliance hasn’t changed, grown, or adapted over the years. Indeed, the alliance has weathered numerous stressors and evolutions, including major force reductions in 1960, 1971, and 2004, provisional plans for withdrawal under the Carter administration, and substantial reconfigurations of the force presence.

Today, an overwhelming majority of Koreans and Americans continue to support the alliance. The strong foundation of this relationship has proven resilient enough to withstand past pressures and will continue to serve as a bedrock for the road ahead. It is the key to seeking positive improvements on the peninsula, with South Korea’s President Moon Jae-in suggesting that the alliance should remain after denuclearization, a peace treaty, and even unification. A strong alliance creates ideal conditions for lasting diplomatic progress. Gen. Robert B. Abrams, commander of the United Nations Command, Combined Forces Command, and United States Forces Korea, said the joint U.S.-ROK Alliance posture supports “negotiation by permitting our diplomats to speak from a position of unquestioned strength and capability.”

Listening to veterans is the best way to learn the lessons of the Korean War and to honor those who served. They remind us both what we lost and what we have gained through the conflict. Time is running out to gain the benefits of their experience and wisdom directly, but you will still be able to watch Marine veteran and Korean War Veterans area commander Sal Scarlato recount his journey into service and revelation about why the United States joined the fight as well as take advantage of the collection of oral histories from Korean War veterans curated and made available to the public by the Korean War Legacy Foundation.

Jonathan Corrado is the director of policy at The Korea Society (TKS). You can follow him on Twitter @jcorrado1953.

Image: Reuters. 

Daniel R. DePetris

Security, Asia

And that can only mean one thing: dialogue and negotiation are needed, now more than ever. 

Marking the anniversary of the 1950-1953 Korean War is always a heavy emotional affair. You can see the strain and grief in the eyes of the men (the youngest now in their late-80’s) who fought on the frontlines and continue to carry the memories of that horrible three-year ordeal with them. Nobody is anticipating an official conclusion of the war anytime soon, which means the vast majority of these veterans will die without seeing a peace treaty signed between Washington, Seoul, and Pyongyang. The fact that a full seventy years have passed with the armistice still in place only compounds the sadness and leads many who experienced the conflict to wonder whether peace will ever be possible.

It’s this context why the Korea Institute for National Unification (KINU)’s latest unification survey is so timely and important. Seven decades after the first shots were fired on the Korean Peninsula and over eight months since U.S. and North Korean officials last met for face-to-face nuclear talks, how are South Koreans feeling about the prospects for peace with their northern neighbor? Are they discouraged? Sad? Angry? Hopeless? Or do they hold at least some sliver of hope that the situation could turn around?

According to KINU’s poll, there is no question South Koreans are a bit apathetic about the North. Trust in North Korean leader Kim Jong-un’s regime has declined from 23.8% in November 2019 to 15.6% today, a result of a two-year inter-Korean reconciliation process that hasn’t resulted in the divine peace and harmony South Korean President Moon Jae-in promised in 2018. Nearly 90% of South Koreans believe North Korea will never give up its nuclear weapons regardless of what the U.S. and Seoul offer in return. 41.7% are skeptical there is anything the South Korean government can do about the North’s nuclear development—a seven-point rise from the previous year. The South Korean population, at least if KINU’s survey is any indication, largely looks at North Korea and sees an uncooperative, stubborn, if not irreconcilable entity that will remain a nuclear power for years to come. 

You can’t fault the South Korean people for this perception, particularly given the events of the last two weeks, with North-South communication links cut, the liaison office blown up in a spectacular show of defiance, and Moon himself showing the limits of his patience with Pyongyang’s antics .

KINU, however, also finds that South Koreans are quite pragmatic with respect to North Korea policy. While Kim’s trust numbers may be in the toilet, the percentage of South Koreans who said that dialogue and compromise with the North should be pursued increased from 38.1% last November to 45.7% today. 

These numbers are confused on the surface, but there is actually some logic to it. 

First, Moon Jae-in’s engagement policy with Pyongyang appears to be one of his biggest positives. As the poll suggests, the South Korean people remain supportive of what Moon is trying to do: establish a degree of tranquility with the Kim regime in order to minimize the possibility of a miscalculation, demonstrate to the North that there are more goodies in cooperation than confrontation, and strive toward the day when the two Koreas can finally exchange ambassadors, operate embassies on one another’s territory and celebrate normal diplomatic relations. Sure, the Blue House may not have much to show for its efforts (partly because Washington continues to put Seoul on a leash and restrict what it can do on the reconciliation track), but it’s not like Moon’s conservative political opposition has a better idea about how to address the problem.

Second, never underestimate the power of history. The Korean War is a graphic reminder to tens of millions of Koreans on the peninsula of how bloody and destructive inter-Korean relations can get if dialogue is sacrificed. While younger South Koreans don’t exactly have North Korea top of mind in their daily lives, the three-year war between the North and South is baked into the national narrative on both sides of the DMZ. South Koreans have been living for decades under the cloud of North Korean artillery stationed a few dozen miles outside of their capital city. Any renewed armed conflict between Seoul and Pyongyang would certainly involve Washington and likely drag Beijing into the mix as well. While North Korea wouldn’t be able to compete with U.S. and South Korean military hardware, the Kim regime could unleash a torrent of fire on South Korean soil that would kill hundreds of thousands of people—millions if nuclear weapons become part of the equation.

Maintaining a dialogue, or at least channels of communication, is a low-cost and common-sense mechanism to ensure the worst doesn’t happen.

Unless something unexpected happens, the inter-Korean track and U.S.-North Korea negotiations will be frozen in place this year. President Donald Trump will be focused on his re-election campaign over the next five months and believes the political costs of another summit with Kim Jong-un outnumber the benefits. As Frank Aum of the U.S. Institute of Peace pointed out in May, “It’s hard to envision anything that could cause any dramatic shifts from either side, at least this year.” No truer words have been written.

South Koreans, however, don’t see many viable alternatives to keeping the phone lines open. 

Daniel R. DePetris is a columnist at the Washington Examiner and a contributor to the National Interest.     

Image: Reuters

Kate Kizer

Security, Asia

Author: "Despite pessimism and brinkmanship in Washington and Pyongyang, the Korean War—the United States’ longest-running war—will officially end by 2025. With the war, which was merely paused by the armistice agreement of July 1953, having reached its 70th anniversary, it’s important to reflect on what it will take to conclude it and to work toward lasting peace. While there are many roadblocks, the most important is the lack of political will in the United States and the international community."

Editor's Note: As the world commemorates the 70th anniversary of the start of the Korean War, the Center for the National Interest’s Korean Studies team decided to ask dozens of the world’s top experts a simple question: Do you believe that the Korean War will finally come to an end before its next major anniversary in 2025? The below piece is an answer to that question. Please click here to see even more perspectives on this important topic.

Despite pessimism and brinkmanship in Washington and Pyongyang, the Korean War—the United States’ longest-running war—will officially end by 2025. With the war, which was merely paused by the armistice agreement of July 1953, having reached its 70th anniversary, it’s important to reflect on what it will take to conclude it and to work toward lasting peace. While there are many roadblocks, the most important is the lack of political will in the United States and the international community.

The key to building this political will is changing the Washington foreign policy establishment’s perception of associated political and security costs. The idea that ending the war is a “gift” to North Korea or an insult to our South Korean allies is false. Ending the war is a common-sense, low-stakes step supported by South Korea. It does not, as some contend, mean the immediate withdrawal of U.S. forces from South Korea or undermine the ability of the United States to defend itself or its regional allies. It would, however, provide a crucial security guarantee to North Korea and uphold part of the Singapore Summit joint statement.

While ending the conflict may not have the immediate effect of North Korea’s unilateral denuclearization—the unattainable fever dream of many in Washington foreign policy circles—it would help create the environment to address the security concerns that justify the development and existence of North Korea’s nuclear arsenal, as well as its totalitarian system of government. Seventy years of “strategic patience,” bombastic rhetoric, and military brinkmanship have done little to ensure the well-being of people on the Korean Peninsula. Recognizing these failures and recent developments should pave the way for a new approach in the next five years.

For what may be the first time, members of Congress have begun to understand the linkages between building peace and addressing the United States’ concerns with a nuclear-armed North Korea. People in the United States support diplomacy with North Korea. Furthermore, South Korea has a progressive president who was elected with a popular mandate to seek inter-Korean reconciliation, and whose party won sweeping majorities in the latest election. This is likely to only further President Moon Jae-in’s willingness to seek peace.

While recent North-South tension might seem like an irreversible breakdown, it is more likely the North’s attempt to break the stalemate with the United States. In which case, it provides a critical opportunity to renew diplomatic entreaties and offer steps, including limited sanctions relief and an end-of-war declaration, to jump-start de-escalation and progress.

Perhaps what provides the clearest evidence that the war will end by 2025 is the growing transnational solidarity movement of peace advocates, such as Women Cross DMZ and Peace Action, in the United States and South Korea. This movement has begun socializing the idea that prioritizing peace is an essential component of achieving the United States’ stated national security goals in Korea. The coordinated grassroots organizing that has taken hold across borders since the Trump-Kim diplomatic opening has grown from a vision of shared security and well-being that rejects militarism as the primary tool of safety.

The coronavirus crisis has further revealed what this movement recognizes: a re-envisioning of how governments, including the United States, achieve security and prosperity for everyday people is urgently needed. Ending the war with North Korea is an opportunity to reimagine U.S. engagement from one based on hostility and military threats to one based on understanding and cooperation. It is this people-powered movement helping push governments to pursue such a transition that will be essential to building safety for all and ending the Korean War by 2025.

Kate Kizer is the Policy Director at Win Without War, a national network of organizations and activists working to establish a progressive foreign policy for the United States. Follow her on Twitter @KateKizer.

Peter Suciu

Security, Europe

A very robust, high-capacity weapon.

With its top-mounted pan magazine the Pulemyot Degtyaryova Pekhotny (Degtyaryov’s infantry machine gun)—better known as the DP-28—looked archaic but it proved to be a very efficient design. The light machine gun was reliable, accurate and most importantly durable. As with other Soviet small arms it could be manhandled, used in foul conditions and still work like it was new. It could, and did, endure freezing temperatures and continue to lay down fire on enemy positions when other weapons wouldn’t function.

One look at the weapon and it isn’t hard to see how it earned the nickname “the record player” as it featured a large pan magazine on the top that held 47 rounds of 7.62x54mmR ammunition, the same caliber that was used in Russian/Soviet military’s Mosin Nagant bolt action rifle. While there is no evidence that it was based on the American-designed Lewis Gun that was used by the British military during the First World War, it certainly had similarities in the design.

The DP-28 as it is known in the west, despite the fact that according to some sources it was never known by that name within the Red Army, was designed by Vasily Alekseyevich Degtyaryov in the late 1920s. Degtyaryov was one of those Soviet arms designers who had managed to survive the end of the Imperial Russian Czarist era and went on to work for the new Communist regime. He even rose to head the very first Soviet firearms design bureau.

During his lengthy career he created several types of machine guns, submachine guns and even anti-tank weapons. Degtyaryov reached the rank of Major General of the Engineering and Artillery Service, was a doctor of technical sciences and later was awarded the Hero of Socialist Labor—becoming the second recipient of that honor after Joseph Stalin!

One of his first weapons was actually the DP-28 light machine gun. But light is certainly relative, and unlike what current video games may suggest, it really couldn’t be fired easily on the move. The top loading pan magazine may seem an odd choice today, but it must be remembered that many other arms manufacturers and designers considered how gravity could aid the feeding process, which is why the British Bren Gun and other light machine guns of that era also featured top loading magazines. In the case of the DP-28 the round magazine provided plenty of ammunition but it also ensured that the line of sight over the weapon wasn’t obscured. By placing the rounds on top of the weapon it also provided mobility that was lacking in belt-fed light machineguns.

While heavier than a rifle, a single Red Army soldier could still carry and operate it—much like the Bren, Lewis or the American Browning Automatic Rifle. Weight-wise, at roughly 20 pounds unloaded/25 pounds loaded, it was a bit heavier than the BAR but around the same as the Bren. But unlike those other weapons a soldier needed to be prone or have the bipod supported on a flat service if the shooter hoped to have any accuracy at all.

Simple but Robust

The DP-28 featured a simple design with very few parts—just 80 in total in the early models—compared to other machine guns of the era. The gas operated weapon was able to fire approximately 550 rounds per minute, a lower rate of fire than some machineguns but this actually helped reduce the risk of the barrel overheating. This was important because, unlike the Bren or the German Army’s MG34 general purpose machine gun, the DP-28 didn’t feature a changeable barrel. Despite this shortcoming in combat situations, it filled the role of a squad light machinegun very well.

A far bigger issue with the DP-28 was that the magazine held just 47 rounds and changing the magazine was far from a quick process. Even worse was the fact that reloading the magazines was a slow and tedious process. DP-28 gunners typically carried the gun with a loaded pan magazine and had three more in a carrying pouch.

The weapon was updated in 1943/44 as the DPM and this version featured a more rigid bi-pod and added a pistol grip that made it easier to hold. In total only about 795,000 DP-28/DPM light machine guns were produced by the Soviets between 1928 and the early 1950s. Copies of the weapon were later produced by Poland in the early days of the Cold War while Communist China produced its own copies of the late-war DPM as the Type 53.

It was the standard Soviet infantry light machine gun during the World War II and afterwards the weapon was used in the Chinese Civil War, the Korean War and even the Vietnam War—where both DP-28s and DPMs were provided to the PAVN and VietCong forces. Examples have been seen in modern conflicts including Somalia, as well as in the ongoing civil wars in Libya and Syria and even in Afghanistan. That is a testament to Degtyaryov’s design—it is the record player that just keeps going!

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: Creative Commons. 

Warfare History Network

History, Americas

It was one simple headline...

Key Point: The one saving grace was that Japan wasn't reading American newspapers.

Stanley Johnston, a reporter for the Chicago Tribune accredited to the Navy as a correspondent, had made two forays into the South Pacific aboard the aircraft carrier Lexington. He was rescued when the ship was sunk in the Battle of the Coral Sea in May 1942. He and other survivors returned to San Diego via Noumea. En route, Johnston’s roommate aboard the cruiser Chester was Commander Morton Seligman, executive officer of the sunken carrier. Seligman had a copy of Admiral Nimitz’s operation order to the Midway forces. The message was top secret. Whether Seligman actually showed it to Johnston or left it adrift in the stateroom for Johnston to read is moot. The fact that security was compromised almost had terrifying results and could have reversed the course of the war.

The ability to continue to read Japanese messages since several enemy codes had been broken was crucial to victory, and Johnston almost gave that secret away. He filed a story on the victory at Midway with the Chicago Tribune. It was picked up by the San Francisco Chronicle and run on its front page.

Johnston’s exclusive said that the Navy knew of the Japanese plan for Midway beforehand and was waiting to meet the enemy there. It was an almost verbatim text of the top secret message. Anyone who read it could infer that the Japanese codes had been broken. What else could the headline, “Navy Had Word of Jap Plan to Strike at Sea” imply?

There was talk of bringing Chicago Tribune owner Robert R. McCormick and Johnston to trial for endangering national security. The only vestige of hope that the Navy had was that the Japanese did not read American newspapers and that Americans would soon regard the headline as “yesterday’s news.” Evidently, the Japanese did not pick up on the blunder, and the attention of the American public was diverted.

McCormick and Johnston were never tried lest it highlight an incident which the Navy wanted to bury. Johnston became persona non grata to the Navy. Proposals that the Navy requisition the ships bringing timber for newsprint across the Great Lakes for the Tribune or that Canada suspend delivery of pulp to McCormick never came to fruition. Admiral Ernest J. King decreed that Seligman would never be promoted to captain and retired him in 1944.

Seligman had received a Navy Cross in World War I, two more later and a Purple Heart in early 1942. Under statutes that remained in effect until 1958, as a decorated officer of the Navy, Mort Seligman became a “tombstone” captain. He held the rank and privileges but not the pay of a retired Navy captain.

This article by Colonel James W. Hammond, Jr. originally appeared on the Warfare History Network.

Image: "USS Bunker Hill (CV-17) hit by two Kamikazes in 30 seconds on 11 May 1945 off Kyushu. U.S. Navy. Overlaid with headline from the Chicago Tribune, June 7, 1942.

Kyle Mizokami

Security,

The P94 represented a maturation of the P-series design that benefited from seven years of being on the market.

Here's What You Need To Remember: The Ruger P94 was a historically underrated handgun. Although eventually outdated by more modern designs, it was accurate, rugged and reliable. It is still well regarded by Ruger aficionados and was an important stepping stone to the company’s contemporary line of pistols.

During the 1980s, an invasion of European nine-millimeter handguns washed over the United States, achieving swift victories in the American handgun market and capturing large market shares. One of the first American counterattacks against this invading force was the Ruger P-series semiautomatic handgun. The P-series was ultimately exemplified by the P94 handgun.

Much like the 1960s saw the “British invasion” of pop music into the United States, the 1980s saw a similar invasion of the so-called European “Wonder Nines”—a slew of black, high capacity, nine-millimeter semi-automatic pistols. Wonder Nine pistols were typically nine-millimeter handguns made of polymer and aluminum, resulting in strong but lightweight firearms, often with magazine capacities fifty percent larger than their American equivalents.

The “Wonder Nines” overwhelmed the American firearms industry by introducing something totally new—and at an affordable price point. They also built up considerable cachet: the Glock 17 handgun benefitted from allegations it was “undetectable” in airport metal detectors (it wasn’t) while the Beretta 92SB-F distinguished itself by becoming the official handgun of the U.S. Armed Forces.

One of the first American guns to counter the European invasion was the Ruger P-series. First released in 1987, the Ruger P85 wasn’t the most elegant looking of handguns, but it was rugged and dependable. The P85 had been developed by Ruger for the Pentagon’s Joint Service Small Arms Program (JSSAP) handgun competition. JSSAP’s mission was to field a new handgun to replace a raft of service handguns across the army, air force, marines and navy, particularly hundreds of thousands of World War II-era M1911A1 series handguns.

The P85 failed to win the JSSAP project—the contract went instead to Beretta—but the gun was released to the civilian market. There it was known as a dependable, rugged, affordable handgun that was easy to disassemble for cleaning. The slide, barrel and internal parts were all made of stainless steel, while the frame was made of aluminum. The only plastic used in the P85 was for the grip panels. Normally a double action handgun, it also had an exposed hammer for single action use. It had a noticeably chunky exterior typical of late twentieth century Ruger handguns, which tend to be slightly overbuilt.

In 1994, Ruger came out with the P94 handgun. The P94 represented a maturation of the P-series design that benefited from seven years of being on the market. The gun’s blocky features were trimmed back quite a bit, resulting in a sleeker, more modern-looking weapon. The slide in particular, which looked like something from a 1940s-era handgun, became more monolithic and plain-looking—and in this case plain was definitely better. The ribbed grip panels, which looked antiquated in the 1980s, were replaced with a more contemporary waffle pattern.

Internally, the P94 differed only in caliber. The P94’s primary difference from earlier P-series guns was being designed to shoot the new—at the time—.40-caliber Smith & Wesson cartridge. Introduced in the 1990s, the .40 Smith & Wesson was typically slower than a nine millimeter Parabellum pistol round (1074 vs 1138 feet per second) but delivered more muzzle energy (423 foot-pounds vs 357 foot-pounds). The use of the wider .40 S&W however reduced magazine capacity significantly, from the fifteen rounds of the nine millimeter P85 to just ten rounds in the P94. The .40 S&W round was seen as a middle ground between what many considered an anemic nine millimeter round and heavier .357 Magnum and .45 ACP pistols and revolvers.

The .40 S&W round’s popularity has receded in recent years, due to what many consider an unpopular recoil action and the marketing of more lethal nine-millimeter ammunition. The P94 itself was discontinued in 2004, ten years after the first introduction, and today in its place Ruger offers the SR40 pistol.

The Ruger P94 was a historically underrated handgun. Although eventually outdated by more modern designs, it was accurate, rugged and reliable. It is still well regarded by Ruger aficionados and was an important stepping stone to the company’s contemporary line of pistols.

Kyle Mizokami is a defense and national-security writer based in San Francisco who has appeared in the Diplomat, Foreign Policy, War is Boring and the Daily Beast. In 2009 he co-founded the defense and security blog Japan Security Watch. You can follow him on Twitter: @KyleMizokami.

Image: Wikipedia.

Kyle Mizokami

History, Europe

Hitler's most fearsome weapons.

Key Point: German war technology nearly ended Western civilization as we know it.

The forces of Nazi Germany in World War II were some of the most formidable fielded in any war. Backed by German science, engineering and modern mass-production techniques, it was a new type of highly mechanized warfare. Faster paced and deadlier than the armed forces that fought in the Great War just twenty years before, it overwhelmed slower-moving enemies and helped Germany subjugate an entire continent. Here are five examples of German war technology that very nearly ended Western civilization as we know it.

The Panzerkampfwagen VI (Tiger Tank)

The tank’s modern reputation as a fast, hard-hitting, deadly war chariot is largely due to the German Army’s use of the tank in the early years of World War II. Although first invented by the British in World War I, the Wehrmacht and SS took the tank to its logical conclusion, in doing so swinging the pendulum of war from defense as the dominant form of warfare back to the offense.

Although the bulk of German tank forces was composed of smaller tanks such as the Panzerkampfwagen III and IV, the Panzerkampfwagen VI—or Tiger tank—was designed to be the decisive factor on the armored battlefield. At fifty-four tons, it was considerably larger than contemporary tanks, and together with its thick armor and eighty-eight-millimeter main gun, made the Tiger a so-called “heavy” tank. Introduced in 1942, the Tiger’s KwK 36 gun could gut any mass-produced Allied tank built during the war, and the tank’s thick armored hide could shrug off most Allied antitank rounds.

Tigers were organized into heavy tank battalions and deployed by German Army commanders where they were needed the most. As a result, unlike other German tanks which prioritized protection and mobility over firepower in a general offensive, the Tiger emphasized firepower and protection over mobility, as it typically had specific objectives in mind.

Messerschmitt Bf 109 fighter

The Messerschmitt Bf 109 was hands down the most lethal fighter of the Second World War. Designed by legendary aircraft designer Willy Messerschmitt in the mid-1930s, it replaced a grab bag of forgettable interwar German fighters with a fresh design that included a monocoque airframe, retractable landing gear and a closed cockpit.

Early Bf109A models served in the Spanish Civil War. By the late thirties, German rearmament was in full swing and the Me109 became the main fighter of the fledgling Luftwaffe. Fast and maneuverable, it was also hard hitting, featuring two .51-caliber heavy machine guns and one twenty-millimeter cannon.

The Bf109A and the Luftwaffe served all over Europe, North Africa and European Russia, dominating all other air forces until 1943 with the exception of the Royal Air Force. The Bf109 and its wartime variants had the most serial aces of the war, including pilots such as Adolph Galland, Werner Molders and Johannes Steinhoff. Overall, 33,984 Bf109s of all kinds were built by German and Czech factories. Ironically, a variant of the Bf-109, the Czech Avia 199, served with an embryonic Israeli Air Force in the late 1940s.

MG-42 Machine Gun

The crew-served machine gun was a major contributor to the high death rate of World War I, and the interwar German Army, though small, ensured it had highly effective machine guns to help it punch above its weight. The MG-34 machine gun, adopted in 1934, was lightweight, had an extremely high rate of fire of up to 1,200 rounds per minute, and was capable of quick barrel changes on the battlefield—a must for an infantry-support machine gun.

Unfortunately, the MG-34 was built made more like a watch than a battlefield weapon, and as a result manufacturer Rheinmetall could not keep up with demand. The MG-42, introduced in 1942, was an attempt to simplify the design into something that could be more easily mass-produced, and ultimately four hundred thousand were produced. The MG-42’s high rate of fire proved highly beneficial in defensive battles, particularly strongpoints backed up by mobile reserves on the Eastern Front.

German small arms doctrine held that the MG42—not the infantry weapon—was the foundation of infantry firepower. The infantry, armed with slower-firing Karabiner 98k bolt-action rifles, supported the machine gun. By contrast, the U.S. Army placed less emphasis on machine guns, fielding fewer of them than a comparable German unit, while at the same time increasing overall firepower with the semiautomatic M1 Garand and the M1918 Browning Automatic Rifle.

The U-Boat

The German Navy (Kriegsmarine) in World War II was not the dominant arm of the German military. There would be no repeat of the German High Seas Fleet. As a result, it had to focus its limited resources on what was most effective its traditional maritime foe, the Royal Navy. While the response to the French Navy was the German Army, fighting the United Kingdom required a naval response.

But without capital ships, how would Germany take the fight to the Atlantic? The answer was the Unterseeboot, or U-boat submarine. U-Boats had been highly successful in World War I, and the Kriegsmarine heavily reinvested in them in World War II. This again proved successful, with U-boats sinking 2,779 Allied ships totaling 14.1 million tons between 1939 and 1945. The most successful U-boat, U-48, sank fifty-one ships. That translated to 306,874 tons of Allied shipping—the equivalent of three modern Nimitz-class aircraft carriers.

Not only did the U-boat campaign force the Allies to slow the flow of troops and war materials across the Atlantic and organize shipping into convoys for protection, it also affected the British civilian population, which suffered chronic shortages of foodstuffs and other goods. Initially powerful, U-boats were eventually nullified by Allied countermeasures and ultimately failed to sever lines of communication between North America and western Europe. Germany’s submarine force lost heavily—765 U-boats were lost during the course of the Second World War.

Panzerfaust

Germany’s use of masses of tanks on the modern battlefield opened Pandora’s box. Within a few years Allied forces would be returning the favor and it was suddenly the German Army that was facing large numbers of British, American and Soviet tanks. As the quality of German forces declined and the number of Allied forces went up, the Wehrmacht had a need for a cheap, inexpensive way to saturate the battlefield with tank-killing firepower. The result: the Panzerfaust.

The Panzerfaust was incredibly simple for an effective antitank weapon. A single-shot, recoilless weapon, it featured a large, egg-shaped warhead attached to a disposable metal tube. The primitive trigger ignited the black powder propellant, sending the warhead to an effective range of thirty yards. The shaped charge warhead had an astonishing penetration capability of up to 7.9 inches, making it capable of destroying any Allied tank.

The Panzerfaust made anyone—even old men and children dragooned into the German Army late in the war—a potential tank killer. The introduction of this new short-range, last-ditch weapon made Allied tank crews more cautious around German infantry that did not appear to have strong antitank defenses, such as towed guns. During the Battle for Berlin, some Soviet tankers even welded bed springs to their tanks, in hopes that prematurely detonating the shaped charge warhead would save their tank—a tactic the U.S. Army used decades later with so-called “slat armor” on Stryker armored vehicles.

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

Image: Wikimedia Commons / Julius Jääskeläinen

Kris Osborn

Technology, Americas

A fascinating new possibility for the U.S. Army.

A forward-operating Army unit is under heavy fire and poised to attack. The soldiers are armed with small arms weapons, shoulder-fired missiles, drones and even helicopter support, yet commanders need to know which among many targets to hit. Which targets should be hit first? Are any target points about to fire incoming weapons? Do any of the target vehicles contain innocents or non-combatants? What if there are integrated threats woven together from several different angles and points of view at one time? Essentially a non-linear attack? Which comparable previous scenarios might offer the best course of actions to consider? If squad leaders simply do not know the answers to these questions, they cannot attack, leaving themselves more vulnerable with little time to react. 

Dr. Bruce Jette, Assistant Secretary of Army, Acquisition, Logistics and Technology, examined this predicament in a conversation with TNI, explaining that emerging applications of AI are beginning to “perform AI on AI” in a collective decision-making fashion. 

“I have eight targets and four enemy vehicles. Which ones are the best ones to shoot? Or does everyone have to decide on their own? Or could I have an AI program that is looking at all eight vehicles seen and decide how I would distribute fire most effectively? It would be an AI program on top of an AI program,” Jette explained. 

After all, combat decisions invariably involve a complex tapestry of interwoven variables, including things like sources of incoming fire, enemy size and location, terrain and identifying multiple points of attack. Other important variables are also additional air or surface supportive fires options and, clearly and simply, deciding which weapons to use and where to use them across an entire unit. 

Artificial intelligence can already gather, fuse, organize and analyze otherwise disparate pools of combat-sensitive data for individual soldiers. Target information from night vision sensors, weapons sights, navigational devices and enemy fire detection systems can increasingly be gathered and organized for individual human soldier decision-makers. So, what comes next?

“We are looking at how we can apply AI to the analysis of data coming in from various AI systems. I can have an AI system that is generating an image of what is in front of me that gets sent to an AI system that is able to determine whether it is one image or multiple images,” Jette said. 

Jette’s description of current Army initiatives involves a host of collaborative efforts to identify and quickly harness or leverage the best available new technologies. Operating within this concept, Jette’s science and technology experts work in close coordination with Army Research Laboratory partners. Together, they are immersed in a complex new series of research and experimentation initiatives to explore the “next-level” of AI. Fundamentally, this means not only using advanced algorithms to ease the cognitive burden for individual soldiers—but also network and integrate otherwise stovepiped applications of AI systems. In effect, this could be described as performing AI-enabled analytics on groups of AI systems themselves, as described by Jette and Army Research Laboratory scientists. 

“Autonomy is doing things in a snipped way that can be connected. We can benefit from an overarching AI approach, something that looks at the entire mission. Right now our autonomy solves very discreet problems that are getting more complicated,” Dr. J. Corde Lane, Director, Human Research and Engineering, Combat Capabilities Development Command, Army Research Laboratory, Army Futures Command, told TNI in an interview earlier this year.

What does this mean? In essence, it translates into a way combat commanders will not only receive AI-generated input from individual soldiers but also be able to assess how different AI systems can themselves be compared to one another and analyzed as a dynamic group. For instance, Lane explained, perhaps multiple soldier-centric AI-empowered assessments can be collected and analyzed in relation to one another with a mind to how they impact a broader, squad-level combat dynamic. In particular, simultaneous analysis of multiple soldier-oriented AI systems can help determine the best course of action for an entire unit, in relation to an overall mission objective.

“What is the entire mission and possible courses of action? Do we optimize the logistics flow? Find targets as the dynamic battlefield gets more complex? The Commander can draw upon advanced AI to explore new options,” Lane explained.

Therefore, in addition to drawing upon algorithms able to organize data within a given individual system, future AI will encompass using real-time analytics to assess multiple systems simultaneously and how they impact one another to offer an overall integrated view. All of this progress, just as is the case now, will still rely heavily upon human decision-making faculties to optimize its added value for combat. Integrating a collective picture, drawing upon a greater range of variables will require soldiers to incorporate new tactics and methods of analysis to best leverage the additional available information. Exploring this intersection between new technology and its impact upon tactics, formations and maneuvers, is something Jette described as a top priority commanding much of his time. 

Kris Osborn is the new 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

Kyle Mizokami

Security, Americas

The gun that kicked off a new era.

Key Point: This weapon was very modern and would influence many other models. It was a classic and here is how it made its mark.

One of the finest handguns today is based on a Swiss design that, were it not for a creative corporate partnership, could have never left the neutral, land-locked country. The Sig P220 became available for sale worldwide only after the Swiss manufacturer partnered with a German company. The P220 went on to commercial success and adoption by countries including West Germany and Japan. The P220 is also the ancestor of many current Sig handguns, including the P226.

Founded in Switzerland in 1853, Schweizerische Industrie Gesellschaft, or SIG, developed a reputation for finely made, supremely engineered firearms—perhaps not a surprise for a country known for developing precision wristwatches. The company developed the Sig P210, a nine-millimeter parabellum pistol that was known for accuracy. The P210 was used by the Swiss Army, Danish Army, and West German Border Guard security forces.

During the 1970s, SIG reengineered the P210 to create the P220, giving it a shorter barrel and a larger magazine, and making it both cheaper and easier to manufacture. Swiss law prevented wider export of the P-series handguns, so the company partnered with German gunmaker J.P. Sauer und Sohn GmbH. Like SIG, Sauer had a long pedigree designing firearms, having been founded in 1751. The resulting partnership, Sig Sauer promised to open up the P210 basic design to the rest of the world—and that it did.

The P220 is approximately 7.79 inches long and a height of 5.5 inches. It is 1.3 inches wide, making it less attractive for concealed carry use, but then again it is a full-sized pistol. It weighs 1 pound, 13 ounces unloaded. It has a 4.40 inch barrel with six grooves and a right hand twist. It has an aluminum alloy frame and a carbon steel barrel, with a exposed hammer for single action operation. Early versions of the P220 were chambered in nine-millimeter parabellum and featured a detachable box magazine that held 9 rounds. Today the P220 platform is sold in both .45 ACP and ten-millimeter, each with a magazine of eight rounds, with nine-millimeter reserved for the P210, P225, P226, and P229.

The Sig P220 is of the same locked-breech pattern pioneered by American gun designer John Moses Browning, using a fixed cam underneath the barrel to withdraw and unlock the barrel from the slide. The slide is carried inside the gun, rather than riding on the outside of the receiver on milled rails.

The P220 is a double action pistol, meaning pulling the trigger both raises and lowers the hammer, which then strikes the firing pin, firing the weapon. This results in a longer trigger pull than a single action weapon, but is one that can be more quickly brought into action. In double action mode, it has a weighty ten-pound trigger. (Neither trigger pull weight nor travel are great objections to armies that issue handguns to conscripts that rarely use guns.)  The P220 includes a manual decocker, allowing the user to lower the firing pin on a loaded gun without pulling the trigger. The handgun also sports an automatic firing pin lock that prevents the firing pin from moving from moving unless the trigger is correctly pulled.

The P220 was adopted by the Swiss Army as the Pistol 75. It was also purchased by the Japan Self Defense Forces, Chile, Iran, Nigeria, and Uruguay. Sold in .45 ACP and ten-millimeter versions, the pistol is commercially available to civilian shooters in the United States. A slightly smaller version, the Sig P225, was classified by the West German government as the P6 and adopted by the Police Field Force Reserve, Federal Customs Police, and a number of German state police forces. Forty thousand P6s were reportedly made by Sig Sauer for the German police. It was also reportedly adopted by the U.S. Secret Service although is likely no longer in service.

The P220’s success isn’t just measured in the fact that it is still manufactured and sold today, but in its descendants. The P226, developed for the U.S. Army’s handgun trials in the 1980s, featured a double magazine that nearly doubled its capacity to fifteen rounds. The P226 also included an ambidextrous magazine release. While the U.S. Army and rest of the U.S. armed services went on to purchase the Beretta 92SB-F, the elite U.S. Navy SEALS went on to purchase the P226 after a number of accidents involving frame fatigue on the Beretta. This was followed by the lighter, more compact P228 and the P229, chambered in .40 Smith & Wesson.

The P220 was the original that spawned an entire family of pistols and is still, despite its age, a viable choice today. Had the two companies, one German and one Swiss, not joined forces to bring the design to the rest of the world, the P220 might have been restricted to a relatively small European market.

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

This first appeared in 2019 and is being reposted due to reader interest.

Image: Sig Sauer

Gun News Daily

Security,

There are a wide variety of good .40 pistols to choose from.

Key point: The .40 was developed to give law enforcement a more powerful pistol than the 9mm to begin with.

Times are always changing, and that certainly applies to the gun world. A current trend that we are seeing now is a resurgence of the 9mm at the expense of the .40 S&W.

For instance, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) recently switched from the .40 S&W to the 9mm Luger, specifically switching from the Glock 22 and 23 to the Glock 17 and 19. The United States military very strongly considered switching to .40, but ultimately stuck with the 9mm when they selected the SIG Sauer M17 as their new service weapon. And police departments all across the country are trading in their .40 caliber pistols for 9mm.

It’s not difficult to see why. Even though 9mm FMJ is a fairly weak manstopping round, today there are a great abundance of highly effective self-defense jacketed hollow point loads at the disposal of civilians and law enforcement alike.  As a result, the need for .40 has diminished greatly, and on top of that, 9mm pistols carry more bullets and have lighter recoil.

You see, the whole reason .40 was developed was to give law enforcement a more powerful pistol than 9mm. Yes, the .45 ACP was out, but .45 pistols were also very limited by capacity.  This was why the 10mm was developed, but when the recoil created from the round was a little too excessive for some, it was shortened into the .40 S&W we have today.

The .40 S&W has served well for many years and will continue to do so for many more to come, but like was just discussed, the transition to a round that’s stopping power potential has been increased significantly and in a lighter and more controllable package is why we’ve seen .40 pistols begin to be replaced by 9mm.

But at the same time, this transition away from the .40 means that today there are an abundance of surplus .40 caliber pistols on the market, many of which are available for below average prices. And just because the .40 caliber itself is not as popular as it once was does not at all mean that it’s not a viable choice for defense.

In fact, the .40 is the third most popular caliber today, after the 9mm and .45 ACP, and is still very easy to find.  For these reasons, a .40 caliber pistol remains a more than viable option for self-defense or home defense, and again, the abundance of surplus guns and police trade-ins means that you have a lot of options at budget price points.

1. Beretta Px4 Storm and Px4 Storm Compact

What makes the Beretta Px4 Storm an impressive option for a .40 is its capacity: 14+1 rounds in the full size version and 12+1 in the Compact model, which is the same kind of capacity that you would expect out of a 9mm pistol.

The Px4 also deserves a place on this list because of the fact that the rotating barrel design helps to decrease the extra recoil produced from the heavier .40 caliber round. The gun is also safe to carry thanks to its double action trigger pull and its manual slide safety, that also acts as a decocking lever just like the Beretta 92 series.

The Px4 also comes with an ML-STD 1913 Picatinny Rail and back straps on the gun for different hand sizes.

2. Glock 22 and 23

Do you want to know a .40 pistol that holds even more bullets than the Beretta Px4 Storm Compact? It’s the most popular law enforcement pistol ever made: the Glock 22, which can boast of a 15+1 round capacity.

The Glock 22 has ridden in the holsters of more current United States law enforcement officers than any other pistol currently out there, which is certainly a big claim to fame.  The Gen 5 version was recently released, which has a number of improved features such as different ergonomics and a flared mag well to make reloads much easier.

Essentially, the Glock 22 is identical to the Glock 17 in terms of dimensions, only it’s chambered for the .40 instead of the 9mm. A smaller variant of the Glock 22 in .40 is called the Glock 23, which holds 13+1 rounds of ammunition and is equivalent in size to a Glock 19.

3. Heckler & Koch USP and USP Compact

The Heckler & Koch USP is a pistol that was designed completely around the .40 caliber. This is in direct contrast to many other pistols on the market chambered in .40 that are built on a 9mm platform.

Since the .40 caliber is a high pressure round, this means that 9mm frames chambered in .40 will typically have a shorter service life than the 9mm. But because the HK USP was built around the .40 caliber, it will be able to endure several thousand more rounds before needing to have parts replaced.

Beyond that, the HK USP is a full size duty pistol that holds 13+1 rounds of .40 in the magazine. The Compact variant, which is around the same size as a Glock 19 and is much easier to conceal, holds 12+1 rounds.

The USP is a double action single action pistol with a frame mounted safety and decocking lever. The safety can be engaged without decoking the handgun, so the pistol can be carried cocked and locked much like a 1911, and make your first shot a nice and crisp single action only pull.

4. SIG Sauer P226/P229

Right now there are a lot of surplus and law enforcement trade-in SIG Sauer P226 and P229 pistols in .40 S&W floating around the market for only the $300 to $400, which represents a truly incredible value.  These pistols may be well worn on the outside, but on the inside they have been fired very little and are still in truly excellent condition.

Regardless of whether you were to go with a surplus SIG or a new one, you’re definitely getting a quality pistol regardless. Both the P226 and the P229 hold 12+1 rounds with a factory magazine, while aftermarket quality Mec-Gar magazines will extend this capacity to 13 or 14 rounds.

The P226 and P229 are double action single action pistols that lack manual safeties. But there are also versions of them, popular with law enforcement, that had a lighter double action only pull. These are called DAK pistols, and they are among the most popular of surplus options available for a budget price point.

5. Smith & Wesson M&P and M&P 2.0

Like the HK USP, the Smith & Wesson M&P is also built on a .40 caliber frame, which should give it a longer service life than other .40 pistols.

The full size M&P pistol holds 15+1 rounds when chambered in .40, giving equivalent firepower to the Glock 22. The Compact 2.0 model holds 13+1 rounds, and is slightly smaller for concealed carry purposes.

The M&P has proven itself to be a very reliable striker fired pistol, and it also found its way into the holsters of law enforcement officers across the United States as well.  The 2.0 M&Ps also have very aggressive stippling on the grip, which is becoming a big trend with pistols in today’s world.

6. Walther P99 and PPQ

Walther pistols such as the P99 and PPQ are known for being among the most ergonomic pistols on the market today.  The P99 itself is a very unique offering. Despite being a striker fired gun, it is a double action/single action pistol with a decocking lever.

The PPQ is a more traditional striker fired auto in that it has a very light and crisp single action only trigger, which is also very widely regarded as being one of the best triggers of any pistol that money can buy today.

The P99 and PPQ also hold either 11+1 or 12+1 rounds of .40, depending on the magazine that you get.  Something that should be noted is that they can be rather snappy when chambered for the .40 round, so you’ll need to be prepared for that and get plenty of training in so you can properly manage the recoil.

Conclusion

Any one of these .40 caliber pistols would be a good choice for home defense, concealed carry, self-defense, or just casual range use.

This article by Will Ellis originally appeared at Gun News Daily in 2019.

Image: GLOCK 23 .40S&W Pistol - 3rd Generation. Wikimedia/Michael Donnermeyer. Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported.

Joseph Trevithick

Security, Americas

Here's what they can do.

Key Point: These clever weapons allow the SEALs to be stealthier. Here's how they make SEALs among the moth lethal forces out there.

 

More From The National Interest: 

Russia Has Missing Nuclear Weapons Sitting on the Ocean Floor 

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

Where World War III Could Start This Year

How the F-35 Stealth Fighter Almost Never Happened

The Navy’s SEALs are well-known for their exotic guns—everything from machine gun to grenade launchers … and several iconic, quiet handguns.

The Navy stood up the Sea Air Lands teams in 1962 and quickly sent them to Vietnam to search out the enemy and work with local forces. The naval operators realized a suppressed pistol would be ideal for many of their most secretive missions.

“The value … of suppressed weapons had been noted prior to the teams deploying for combat operations in Vietnam,” noted SEAL historian Kevin Dockery writes in his book Special Warfare Special Weapons. “But very few weapons of that type were available during the early years of the war.”

At the time, the Pentagon still saw silencers as a highly specialized tool for individual operations. During World War II, intelligence organizations like the Office of Strategic Services—the forerunner of the Central Intelligence Agency—were far bigger customers.

Still, the technology was by no means new. Hiram Maxim—of Maxim machine gun fame—generally get credit for inventing the first sound suppressor for firearms and patenting it in 1909.

The noise of a gun firing comes from gasses popping out from behind the bullet—just like a backfiring car or opening a bottle of champagne. The devices—which Maxim trademarked as a “silencer”—work mainly by giving all of those fumes a different place to go.

The OSS and their British counterparts ordered a variety of suppressed pistols, submachine guns and rifles during the war, according to a contemporary U.S. Army study. And these weapons lingered on in both military and CIA arsenals well after the conflict ended.

With the close connection between special operations units and the CIA early on, the SEALs managed to get their hands on some of these guns. But the firearms were aging … and never intended for regular combat use.

For instance, the CIA had become particularly fond of a “wipe” type silencer. This kind of suppressor includes a soft rubber or plastic disc to help seal in the gasses after the bullets pass through.

But these “wipes wore away quickly under the stress of firing,” Dockery explains. “The intent was for the operator to use the weapon for a mission and then get rid of the suppressor.”

The SEALs needed a weapon that could handle day-to-day use out in the field. So the Navy set to work developing a replacement.

In 1967, the naval commandos got the first of new MK-3 “noise suppressors.” The silencers were fitted to specially modified nine-millimeter Smith & Wesson Model 39 pistols.

The MK-3 was still a wipe design, but essentially had a suppressor inside a suppressor. A large spring and O-ring held a separate insert firmly in place inside a main tube.

 

As the wipes were blasted away, the gasses could still expand inside this outer shell. Individual commandos could unscrew the whole arrangement and install a fresh insert back at base.

The MK-3 “becomes less effective after firing 24 rounds,” an official naval manual notes. “The suppressor insert refurbishes the suppressor.”

The weapons themselves—called the MK-22—also had a bar to prevent the slide from moving back and forth. This feature would make the gun a single-shot affair, but also eliminate the noise from the shifting parts.

To top this off, the elite sailors got unique subsonic ammunition that wouldn’t make the cracking sound that results from breaking the sound barrier. The pistol quickly became a popular and iconic addition to the SEALs’ arsenal.

In Vietnam, commandos fired the guns to take down lone guards or, more often, kill animals that could give them away. SEALs dubbed the weapons “hush puppies” … for obvious reasons.

“Very seldom did I used [sic] the hush puppy against a person—dogs and ducks raising an alarm were a much more common target,” Dockery quotes an unnamed SEAL as saying in his book.

The naval commandos kept their quiet pistols after the fighting Southeast Asia came to an end. But the teams were clearly tiring of the expendable wipe suppressors.

By the 1980s, the Navy had purchased a number of Heckler & Koch Model P9S pistols along with new silencers to replace the older combination. A company called Qual-A-Tech made the suppressors, which collected the propellant gasses in fixed chambers, according to a separate Air Force test report.

At the same time, the Pentagon was searching for a new pistol to replace the decades-old M1911. The SEALs and the fledgling Special Operations Command were both less than thrilled with the resulting nine-millemeter Beretta handgun.

SOCOM asked private companies to come up with what it called an “Offensive Handgun Weapon System” The weapon would shoot ammo that was “hotter”—loaded with extra or more powerful gunpowder—than traditional military rounds.

Companies also had to supply suppressors and lasers with their test guns. Only Heckler & Koch and Colt responded to the request.

SOCOM eventually chose the H&K offering. After the selection, the designers tweaked the pistol—initially called the EX-23—in a number of ways.

Most notably, designers replaced the original boxy suppressor. Knights Armament Company supplied a more traditionally shaped device with fixed baffles like the Qual-A-Tech silencer.

Most of the new weapons, finally dubbed the MK-23, went to the SEALs. The guns became “the first caliber .45 [caliber] … pistol to enter U.S. military service since the venerable government-model 1911A1,” the official operator’s manual states.

As of 2012, the SEALs still had their MK-23s, according to a SOCOM briefing.

This first appeared several years ago. 

Image: Reuters

Christian Whiton

Security, Asia

After years of aggression, broken promises and falsehoods, most recently about the coronavirus outbreak, the Chinese government has finally begun to face the consequences of its misconduct. On behalf of industries that range from technology to pharmaceuticals, the United States is fighting back against the Chinese. Why then is it looking the other way as Chinese companies buy up the commercial aircraft that Americans fly?

After years of aggression, broken promises and falsehoods, most recently about the coronavirus outbreak, the Chinese government has finally begun to face the consequences of its misconduct. On behalf of industries that range from technology to pharmaceuticals, the United States is fighting back against the Chinese. Why then is it looking the other way as Chinese companies buy up the commercial aircraft that Americans fly?

In April, a company named BOC Aviation purchased twenty-two airplanes from United Airlines and leased them back to the carrier. The sale included Boeing 737-9 MAX and 787-9 planes that can be expected to serve in United’s fleet for two decades. 

The previous month, American Airlines conducted a similar sale and leaseback of twenty-two of its own Boeing 787 aircraft. In May, Southwest Airlines sold ten of its Boeing 737-800 planes to the company and then leased them back as part of the deal.

A May 4 article in the Financial Times appropriately titled “BOC Aviation Taps Parent for Assault on Leasing Market” indicates that BOC Aviation is headquartered in Singapore. In fact, “BOC” stands for “Bank of China,” which is wholly owned by the Chinese government and is therefore tied inextricably with the Chinese Communist Party and its international aspirations. 

A May 8 analysis by aviation consulting firm Cirium about BOC Aviation’s “leaseback spree,” noted that the company is “…one of those lessors with considerable dry powder from its behemoth parent, the state-owned Bank of China.” The analysis added: “The lessor has partly been able to achieve this many leaseback deals due to its ability to draw down funds from a $2 billion ‘backstop’ revolving credit facility, provided by Bank of China.”

Think about that. Our government is allowing its foremost adversary to buy up the aircraft our citizens fly. Could this be a coincidence or simple business transaction devoid of political or national security considerations? That is a near-impossibility when it comes to China. Its foreign business activities are increasingly linked with its governmental efforts to dominate important fields and disrupt the economies of the United States and the rest of the free world.

The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative’s 2018 report on Chinese trade practices noted that Beijing’s commercial policies are far from benign: “These acts, policies, and practices work collectively as part of a multi-faceted strategy to advance China’s industrial policy objectives,” the report states. “They are applied across a broad range of sectors, overlap in their use of policy tools… are implemented through a diverse set of state and state-backed actors, including state-owned enterprises.” Elsewhere, the report states: “Obtaining and developing cutting-edge technology in the aviation sector has long been an objective of the Chinese government.”

It’s easy to rationalize Beijing’s sudden and growing ownership of planes that Americans fly. Some say the airlines need the money amid the economic fallout from the coronavirus pandemic. Others argue that the name on a title is irrelevant since the planes are still operated and possessed by U.S. carriers. 

These arguments don’t hold up. The U.S. government has expended tens of billions of dollars bailing out airlines and ensuring they have access to more capital if they need it. The recipients of this taxpayer support should not double-dip with the Chinese. And even though these Chinese-owned aircraft are leased, the U.S. carriers involved are still in hock to the Chinese government, which will influence their decision-making. 

The irony is that this development occurs as the Trump administration and Congress have begun trying to reduce China’s influence over key parts of the U.S. economy. The administration recently expanded export controls against Huawei, the Chinese technology manufacturer, by banning the export of foreign-made semiconductors to Huawei, even if they were made with U.S. technology.

In Congress, Republican Sens. Rick Scott (Florida), Josh Hawley (Missouri), and Marco Rubio (Florida), and Steve Daines (Montana) have proposed legislation that would reduce America’s dependence on China for pharmaceutical ingredients and medical protective equipment.  Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Arkansas) has offered a plan to increase U.S. military deterrence in the Pacific.  Scores of other bills targeting the Chinese government are circulating on Capitol Hill. And the Trump administration is likely to announce new financial sanctions to punish China for its crackdown on Hong Kong. 

The American people are on board, too. A recent Gallup poll showed that two-thirds of Americans have an unfavorable view of China; only a third see the country in a favorable light. In this environment, it seems obvious that we should not allow ever-increasing Chinese ownership of our commercial aircraft.

Kyle Mizokami

Security, Americas

The design might be old, but...

Key Point: These guns are very well-made and are pretty durable. Here is how they pulled it off.

One of the most successful handgun designs of all time is the 1911 series semi-automatic pistol. Designed for war and to take advantage of the deadly .45 round, the 1911 and subsequent variants were the official handguns of the U.S. military from World War I well into the 1980s. The classic design, revered by many gun enthusiasts, is still sufficiently popular that most American gun manufacturers produce their own version. Sturm Ruger is no exception, the company’s SR1911 handgun a faithful rendition of what many consider gun designer John Moses Browning’s ultimate design.

In 1899 the U.S. Army was deployed to the Philippine islands. A recent colonial acquisition wrestled from Spain, the Army was sent to pacify Moro insurgents chafing under foreign rule. The war, which lasted for three years, saw American infantry engaged in close quarters jungle and village combat. The Army’s issue pistol, the Colt M1892 revolver chambered in .38 Long Colt was judged of insufficient power to stop a charging Moro tribesman, often requiring several shots to put the guerilla down. At times during the sometimes fierce, sometimes brutal hand-to-hand combat, there was time for only one shot.

After the insurrection ended in 1902 the Army took a hard look at upgrading its handguns. A new caliber, the bigger, more powerful .45 Automatic Colt Pistol (ACP) round was waiting in the wings. The new .45 ACP round was designed by prolific firearms inventor John Moses Browning and offered up to 50 percent more energy at the muzzle over .38 Long Colt, providing greater “stopping power” than ever before. Browning paired it with his brand new, thoroughly modern pistol design whose adoption promised to put the U.S. Army in the forefront of handheld small arms technology. The pistol, adopted in 1911 as the M1911, served throughout World War I. An updated version, the M1911A1, was adopted in the interwar years and remained standard issue among all the U.S. military services until it was replaced by the Beretta M9 handgun in 1985.

Browning’s patent on the 1911A1 expired decades ago, spawning easily more than a dozen contemporary imitators. Ruger’s SR1911 is typical of contemporary takes on John Browning’s masterpiece—conservative with few if any Ruger-specific design changes. The SR1911A1 handgun is a slab-sided, all steel firearm approximately 8.67 inches long, 5.45 inches high, and 1.34 inches wide. It weighs approximately 39 ounces unloaded and approximately 44.7 ounces with a loaded seven-round, single stack magazine flush with the pistol grip. The SR1911 also comes with an eight-round magazine that protrudes slightly from the grip, and with one round in the chamber can carry up to nine rounds.

The SR1911 features a 5-inch long barrel with a 1:16-inch right-hand twist to stabilize a 230-grain bullet. Like most handguns, the 1911A1’s effective range is short, typically 50 meters but depending in large part upon the shooter’s training and familiarity with the platform. Recoil is heavy but the gun’s reputation as a “hand cannon” is overstated—recoil is more of a firm push or shove than a violent jerk, making a .45 ACP handgun more manageable than handguns chambered for some lighter rounds.

The SR1911 includes a number of features that have come to be accepted in the highly conservative world of 1911 owners. The exposed hammer and trigger are both skeletonized for weight savings, and the gun has an oversized ejection port and extended magazine release. It features arguably the best sights for a 1911 series handgun, 3 dot adjustable Novak sights. Although traditionally blued or parkerized, Ruger’s 1911 is finished in satin stainless steel, completed with dark hardwood grip panels featuring the Ruger medallion.

The 1911 was one of the safest handguns at introduction in 1911 and arguably still is today. The SR1911 features a beavertail grip safety to prevent accidental discharge, and a manual safety means the pistol can be carried “cocked and locked,” with a round in the chamber, hammer cocked and safety on. A firm, quick push on the manual safety and the pistol is ready to fire. Finally, Ruger’s 1911 features a loaded chamber indicator, making press checks unnecessary.

More than a hundred years after introduction, the 1911 pistol design is still going strong, appealing to both traditionalists and new gun owners alike. Sturm Ruger’s take on the 1911 isn’t the first, and certainly won’t be the last, but it is a strong, robust handgun with Ruger’s reputation for reliability and affordability.

Kyle Mizokami is a writer based in San Francisco who has appeared in The Diplomat, Foreign Policy, War is Boring and The Daily Beast. In 2009 he cofounded the defense and security blog Japan Security Watch. You can follow him on Twitter: @KyleMizokami.

This first appeared in 2019 and is being reposted due to reader interest.

Image: Ruger.

Charlie Gao

Security, Europe

Very impressive.

Key Point: This weapon is versatile and is relied upon by NATO forces. Here is what makes it so good.

The 40mm individual single-shot grenade launcher is one of modern infantry fireteam’s core pieces of firepower. They provide rapid explosive firepower at ranges greater than hand grenades but less than infantry mortars. During the Vietnam War, they were called the “squad leader’s artillery.” While the United States pioneered the use of this class of weapon with the M79 single-shot grenade launcher and later XM148 and M203 underslung grenade launchers, Germany’s Heckler & Koch GmbH has come to dominate this market. But how did the German designs end up replacing the American ones? Are there any real competitors who might challenge H&K’s reign in this market niche?

This first appeared in 2018 and is being reposted due to reader interest.

H&K’s first entry into this market was the HK69, a 40mm single-shot standalone grenade launcher designed as an alternative to the M79. More ergonomically modern, it featured a telescoping metal stock and thumb safety instead of the M79’s shotgun-style safety and wooden stock. It also weighed slightly less than the M79—but still a hefty 5.75 pounds due to its all-steel construction. The HK69A1 was adopted by the German Bundeswehr in the 1980s as the Granatpistole, or GraPi in short. It also has been adopted by a myriad of other nations—notably as late as 2002 (by Finland), when the next generation of H&K grenade launchers was already coming out.

While the HK69 was a moderate success in the 1980s, the M79 was already being replaced by the M203, an underslung grenade launcher in American service that allowed a grenadier to carry a full-length rifle in addition to a grenade launcher. H&K’s answer to the M203 was the HK79, a HK69 adopted into underslung form. This was paired with a G3, HK33, or G41, although it could be adapted to work with other platforms. Such a configuration were called the “Tactical Group Support” (TGS) variants of their parent rifle. The HK79 differed from the M203 and later H&K grenade launchers in that it swung open downwards. In some ways it was a HK69 turned upside down and given revised controls. Also atypical for an underslung grenade launcher, the sights were placed on the right side of the rifle (although there was the option to mount a ladder sight just front of the standard H&K diopter rear sight). The sights might have been placed there to encourage the operator to tightly brace the stock into their body before firing a grenade. However, the HK79 also had weight issues—its all-steel construction made the entire TGS rifle package extremely front heavy. It was adopted by a few nations, notably Norway for their AG3-F1 rifles.

H&K grenade launchers really came into the vogue when H&K designed a new underslung grenade launcher for their new G36 rifle in the 1990s, to replace the HK69A1 “GraPi.” As with the rifle itself, the AG36 was designed to use polymer and aluminum to reduce weight. The swing-under action of the HK79 was switched out for a swing-right action, to make loading grenades more ergonomic for most users. It proved a success in its role as a replacement, reaching full adoption in the Bundeswehr and being packaged with G36 export variants to other European countries such as Spain. Interestingly, the AG36 retains the right side ladder sight from the HK79.

Recommended: How the Air Force Would Destroy North Korea

Recommended: 10 Reasons No Nation Wants to Fight Israel

Recommended: North Korea Has Underground Air Bases

The AG36’s greatest strength proved to be its adaptability. In 1995, H&K offered a variant for the British L85/SA80 rifle. They adopted it as the L17A2, but it only began to be issued when the L85A2 program commenced in 2002, with the designation changed to L123. The L17A1 was a variant put on the UK Special Forces’ Diemaco C8 carbines—in lieu of the American M203 which was traditionally paired with an AR-15 variant. What marks the UK’s adoption as special is it ended an almost thirty-year search for a proper grenade launcher module for the standard British service rifle. Before, many grenade launchers were trialed on the L85, including the M203 and the HK79. The AG36’s next big sale was replacing the M203 itself in U.S. Army service, as the M320. The primary improvement the M320 offered over the M203 was the swing-right action that allowed the M320 to chamber longer rounds (including Raytheon’s 40mm “mini-missile). It also had a simpler safety, the ability to safely restrike the primer of a grenade and could be configured as a standalone module. As a standalone module, the M320 is significantly lighter than the HK69A1. The Army adopted the M320 in 2008, and the Marine Corps followed in 2017. The Hungarian Army has also adopted the M320 for their AK rifles.

In addition to the M320, H&K’s markets their AG36 derivatives under the name AG-C. Unlike the AG36 and L123, these are designed to simply mount on a bottom picatinny rail, similar to the M320. These have seen wide adoption by NATO forces, including the Netherlands on the C7NLD rifles, and Norway on their HK416s. The recent French adoption of the HK416F is also coming with another AG-C variant, called the HK2969F. This marks the departure from the French tradition of using rifle grenades (as supported by the MAS-49 and FAMAS) in favor of underslung 40mm grenade launchers.

With the French adoption of an H&K grenade launcher, the company’s grenade launchers arm practically every major military in NATO. Italy, Turkey, and Poland are some of the only countries to buck the trend, fielding grenade launchers developed in their own countries. H&K’s success was likely due to a well-designed product and smart sales—as well as a lack of a real competitor on the market. If one looks at the British trials that resulted in the adoption of the L17, most domestic competing designs were developmentally immature compared to the AG36, and existing mature designs didn’t have all the features the UK wanted. H&K came onto the scene at the right time with a “better mousetrap,” and reaped the rewards.

Charlie Gao studied political and computer science at Grinnell College and is a frequent commentator on defense and national-security issues.

This first appeared in 2018 and is being reposted due to reader interest.

Image: Wikimedia/UK MOD.