Agrégateur de flux

Venezuela opposition leader Maria Corina Machado said on Monday (29 July) the country's opposition has 73.2% of the voting tallies from Sunday's election, allowing it to prove election results it says give it a victory.

Americas Lockheed Martin won a $19 million modification for the procurement of material modification kits, and special test and tooling equipment necessary to support F-35 Joint Strike Fighter aircraft retrofit and modification efforts for the Air Force, Marines, Navy, Foreign Military Sales (FMS) customers, and non-US Department of Defense (DOD) participants. Work will be performed in Fort Worth, Texas, and is expected to be completed in August 2027. Naval Air Systems Command, Patuxent River, Maryland, is the contracting activity. US Marine Fighter Attack Squadron 311 (VMFA-311) is close to declaring Initial Operational Capability (IOC) for the F-35C Lightning II, marking a significant milestone for the squadron and the US Marine Corps. Based at Marine Corps Air Station Miramar, VMFA-311 is one of only two squadrons in the Marine Corps operating the F-35C variant, designed specifically for carrier operations. The squadron has successfully met the rigorous training, personnel, equipment, and aircraft number requirements to achieve IOC. The unit, boasting a rich history dating back to the 1940s and including notable figures like Ted Williams and John Glenn, is now at the forefront of naval aviation. Middle East & Africa The US State Department has approved a possible $2.8 billion foreign military […]

Wildfires are once again raging in the south of Europe. With rising temperatures and global warming, wildfires have become a prominent issue for Europe, particularly in the summer, showing that the need for effective prevention and management is critical. 

China and Russia would finally be able to catch up.

The perilous path to the day after.

Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico said on Monday (29 July) his country would halt diesel supplies to Ukraine if Kyiv fails to restore oil flows from Russian group Lukoil through its territory.

Thousands rallied in towns across Serbia on Monday (29 July) against the approval of a controversial lithium mine that had been shuttered for two years following mass protests.

Hungary's foreign minister on Monday (29 July) accused his Polish counterpart of lying, as simmering tensions concerning Warsaw and Budapest's differences over Ukraine erupted into a diplomatic spat.

Consternation grows that China will invade Taiwan. Numerous war games predict horrific outcomes. An invasion would be swift and sharp. As the United States did in the first Gulf War, China would likely knock out Taiwanese radar and air/sea defense capabilities first, followed by drops of airborne troops, including the seizure of airfields and ports. An amphibious assault would follow. The possibility of targeted special operations and cyber actions by embedded PLA assets in Taiwan could also not be discounted. Finally, an EMP attack might happen, shutting down communications and air defense batteries.

Despite this, while many consider a Chinese invasion to be inevitable if not imminent, Taiwan is sending a different, less convincing message—evidenced by the fact that it spends less as a percentage of GDP on its defense than the United States (2.6 percent compared to 3 percent). On top of that, Taiwan does not have a strong draft. During the second decade of this century, even as tensions with China grew, Taiwan reduced the term for compulsory conscription from two years to one and then from one year to only four months in 2017. Only since January 2024 has Taipei increased the term again to one year, but that level of commitment still pales when one considers that during the Cold War, the United States, facing no immediate threat of invasion by anyone, maintained a two-year draft. These facts raise the question of whether Taiwan is serious about resisting a Chinese invasion or even if it takes such threats seriously. 

Taiwan’s politicians likely realize better than Washington that Taiwanese voters may not be as inclined to make the kind of heavy sacrifices that are necessary to defend their freedom as the Ukrainians, Israelis, Finns, or Swiss. The reality is that Taiwanese public opinion on China largely supports the current status quo, which Beijing also tolerates so long as there is no talk of independence. This state of affairs is consistent with the original framework set out by the United States and China in the 1972 Shanghai Communique. The United States acknowledged that “there is but one China and that Taiwan is part of China.” Washington reaffirmed its commitment to the “peaceful settlement of the Taiwan question by the Chinese themselves.” In a 2024 survey, over 33 percent of Taiwanese said that they would like to extend the current status quo indefinitely, followed by about 28 percent who would like to decide the question of independence at some later date and 21.5 percent who would like to maintain the status quo for now but move gradually toward eventual independence.

Taiwan no doubt carefully follows Chinese military writings on its approach to war. Chinese military thinkers suggest that a full-scale, military-style invasion may not be the first option on Beijing’s playlist. Non-kinetic alternatives receive as much consideration in Chinese military thinking.

Without firing a shot, China is already waging war against Taiwan, and it is winning. Beijing’s present strategy is primarily focused on economic absorption, intimidation, and influence. Their aim is to conquer Taiwan by quiet integration into the Chinese economy while warding off, with military threats if necessary, any Taiwanese political momentum toward a declaration of independence. China is Taiwan’s largest trading partner. The Chinese in Taiwan (but not the indigenous population) share a common language and past with mainland Chinese. Hence, the primary attack strategy will continue to be in the information warfare and trade warfighting domains, where China already excels. Even the term “reunification,” as used by Beijing, should be viewed as just another facet of its misinformation tactics. Historically, Taiwan has never been an integrated part of China.

Beijing also takes maximum advantage of its sway as the world’s largest manufacturing partner to influence other countries not to stand in the way of its Taiwan ambitions. The relationship between Taiwan and the United States ironically provides Beijing an additional, convenient excuse for all manner of intimidation tactics, such as the practice drills it conducted offshore Taiwan that were prompted by a visit to Taipei by former House Speaker Pelosi. China’s varied information war tactics are aimed at ineluctably grinding down resistance to unification, eliminating the need for a real military invasion.

In one particular respect, Taiwan should take a page from Hamas’ playbook to fend off China. It must turn more to political or media angles to neutralize China’s overwhelming military strength. Hamas’ slaughter of over 1200 Israeli civilians, taking others hostage, and engaging in rape and other abuses on October 7, 2023, has been overshadowed by global criticism of Israel’s intense military response to that vicious attack. Despite the IDF’s superiority and tactical successes in Gaza, Jerusalem may well have already lost that war in the court of world opinion thanks to Hamas’ “digital war” response.

Taipei, with support from Washington, should fashion the same kind of approach to deter invasion. Beijing must be made to understand that a bloody attack would create unacceptable diplomatic and economic consequences, seriously compromising its domestic economy and raising internal dissent while simultaneously destroying its global standing and trade relations. An effective information warfare campaign is as immediate a necessity for Taipei as is a heightened arms buildup. If Hamas can pull off success over Israel, then Taiwan should be capable of developing an equally effective digital war strategy for itself.

China, unfortunately, has already proven itself quite adept at winning that type of war so far. Nowhere has the product of its successful approach been better demonstrated than in the United Nations. Beijing marshals regular support for its policy on Taiwan in the UN General Assembly and UN agencies, skillfully out-maneuvering Washington and its Western allies. Beijing has successfully courted a voting coalition of countries that cooperate with it to deny Taiwan’s participation in various UN institutions. According to the Carnegie Endowment, China claims that “over 180 countries accept its ‘one China principle.’”

Outside the UN environment, China has also built new frameworks for exercising influence, particularly with the Global South. It helped to establish the BRICS+, a significant new geopolitical bloc that covers 45 percent of the world’s population. Members include Brazil, India, South Africa, Iran, Egypt, Russia, the UAE, Ethiopia, and China. The June 2024 BRICS Summit Beijing Declaration called for major United Nations reforms, including in the Security Council, where Global South countries (except China) remain shut out as permanent members. BRICS is a powerful new coalition that will only help provide Beijing with more cover for its expansionist ambitions in Taiwan and elsewhere. Thailand and Malaysia have just announced that they intend to join BRICS, as well.

If Taipei is to win its current war, then Washington and its allies must develop digital strategies that lay bare China’s imperialistic ambitions for outright annexation of Taiwan. If Taipei and Western friends do not, then the quote often attributed to Sun Tzu will have been proven correct: “If one party is at war with another, and the other party does not realize it is at war, the party who knows it is at war almost always has the advantage and usually wins.” 

Brigadier General Rob Spalding retired from the Air Force after twenty-six years. He served as Chief China strategist for the Joint Chiefs of Staff and as the defense attaché to the US Embassy in Beijing. He also served on the National Security Council at the White House as Senior Director for Strategic Planning. General Spalding is the author of Stealth War and War without Rules. He is currently the CEO of SEMPRE, a resilient 5G secure communications and hybrid cloud company.

Ramon Marks is a retired New York international lawyer and Vice Chair of Business Executives for National Security. The views expressed here are strictly those of the authors.

Image: DLeng / Shutterstock.com.

La vague de chaleur s'est étendue sur toute la France mardi, dont la région parisienne placée à son tour en alerte orange pour les orages en fin d'après-midi. Jusqu'à 35°C ont été enregistrés sur certains sites olympiques alors que "d'intenses précipitations" pourraient toucher Paris et l'Île-de-France en fin de journée. 

In a significant move towards digital transformation, Ireland’s Minister for Health, Stephen Donnelly, has unveiled the Health Information Bill 2024. This landmark legislation, once enacted, will lay the legal groundwork for digital health records in Ireland.

Ireland’s pharmaceutical industry is advocating for a new medicines funding boost in the government's ‘Budget 2025’. The IPHA says a budget bump would allow for the reimbursement of the 36 new medicines which they intend to apply for in 2025.

Summary and Key Points: Germany's Technik Museum Sinsheim is set to showcase a retired German U-Boat, U17, joining its impressive collection of over 3,000 exhibits, including a Concorde and a Soviet-era Tupolev Tu-144.

-The U17, a Type 206 submarine, operated from 1973 until 2010 and undertook a challenging journey from the port of Hamburg to the museum, involving river transport and a 30-mile overland trip. This journey required careful navigation through narrow streets and under bridges, highlighting the logistical efforts involved.

-The U17's relocation adds another layer of historical significance to the museum, which also features the largest collection of Formula One race cars in Europe.

How A German Submarine Is Making a 'Move'

Germany's Technik Museum Sinsheim is already home to more than 3,000 exhibits including a former France Concorde and a Soviet-era Tupolev Tu-144 supersonic aircraft, the largest collection of Formula One race cars in Europe, and numerous military tanks. The museum will soon have a retired German U-Boat on display – which is all the more noteworthy because of where the Technik Museum Sinsheim is located.

The facility, in Baden-Württemberg, is about an hour and a half south of Frankfurt, and more than six hours from the port of Hamburg, which presented challenges in getting U-Boat U17 to the museum. The 350-tonne German Navy submarine, operated from 1973 until 2010, has slowly been making its final journey to the museum via rivers and roads.

After being moved on barge, on July 13, the submarine was put on a 30-axle low-loader and carefully driven to its new home, the museum announced in a post on X, the social media platform formerly known as Twitter.

While submarines can easily travel under the water – which obviously they are designed to do – there were "logistical challenges" that came with it being driven the 50 km (30 miles) on land, namely that it was too large to fit under several bridges. The 295-foot-long and 33-foot-tall boat had to be put on its side and then set upright again to squeeze through some of the narrow streets on the route to the museum.

As TheDrive reported, the straight shot would have been to take it on the Autobahn – cutting the distance down to 30 km (19 miles). However, the slightly longer route was chosen as it was more accessible for the U17.

"We have brought a fascinating exhibit to us in a large team in a spectacular transport," said project manager Michael Einkörn, a former submariner who will also give expert tours of the retired U-Boat at its new home.

The U17 was one of 18 Type 206 U-Boats designed to operate in the shallow Baltic Sea and constructed by Howaldtswerke-Deutsche Werft (HDW) for the Bundesmarine between 1969 and 1975. Though not employed in combat, the Type 206 boats are noteworthy for remaining in service for nearly four decades, longer than any other U-Boat.

Moreover, in 2001, the German Type 206 U24 was deployed to JTFEX 01-2 naval exercises in the Caribbean Sea and managed to break through all the security around the USS Enterprise (CVN-65). The submarine fired green flares and took photographs of the U.S. Navy's flattop, essentially "sinking it."

All have been retired from service with the modern Deutsche Marine, while two remain active with the Colombian Navy.

Slow Roll for German U-boat 

When operational, the U17 was powered by two 4-stroke MTU 600-horsepower diesel-electric engines, and had a cruising speed of 10 knots surfaced and 17 knots submerged. For its final journey on the land, it moved far slower, taking nearly four weeks to travel the final distance to the museum.

The total cost of the move was estimated at around 2 million euros ($2.17 million), which was financed via donations. Even as the U17 has completed its trek, it will still be a year before it is on display. The submarine will be refurbished and painted, while it is on track to be on display next summer. The hardest part was simply getting it to the Technik Museum Sinsheim.

 Peter Suciu is a Michigan-based writer. He has contributed to more than four dozen magazines, newspapers, and websites with over 3,200 published pieces over a twenty-year career in journalism. He regularly writes about military hardware, firearms history, cybersecurity, politics, and international affairs. Peter is also a Contributing Writer for Forbes and Clearance Jobs. You can follow him on Twitter: @PeterSuciu. You can email the author: Editor@nationalinterest.org.

All images are Creative Commons. 

In part one of this series, I suggested that political parties in most Western democracies are realigning along the schism of Court versus Country. This new division does not replace but instead cuts across the familiar cleavage of Left versus Right. That leaves four distinct factions in play: Court Conservatives, Court Progressives, Country Conservatives, and Country Progressives. The shifting alliances and tensions between these four factions play out differently in each nation. However, one consistent pattern is that rural, non-college-educated, and working-class voters are drifting away from Progressive factions toward Country Conservatives. This pattern is reshaping party politics throughout the Western world.

In the case of recent U.S. political realignments, the basic facts of the past decade are familiar to American readers. The big question is how to interpret those facts. Progressives, academics, the mainstream press, European leftists, and Democratic Party leaders agree that what we’re seeing inside America is a resurgence of a 1930s-style fascist dictatorship. They’re mistaken. Viewed in a more reasonable, fair-minded way, with appropriate comparisons to other Western nations along with other periods in American history, I believe what we’re seeing is a reworking of U.S. party politics along the lines of Court versus Country. And this realignment is playing out within the United States in a distinctly American fashion.

On the Republican side of the aisle, Court Conservatives have spent the past eight years in a state of deep internal division. Some have worked in a businesslike manner to pursue common policy objectives with Trump and his supporters. At the other end of the Court Conservative spectrum, a few have torn up their party affiliation and defected to the Democrats. Then, there is every position in between. These internal divisions have left America’s Court Conservatives, by historical standards, in an unusually weak position. First, their leaders failed to put forward a viable third-party candidate in 2016. Then, they failed to challenge Trump in either the 2020 or 2024 primaries successfully. Each new failure has only advertised Court Conservative weakness in today’s GOP.

Internal divisions among American Court Conservatives have been frustrating to Country Conservatives as well as to Court Progressives. Each faction feels that old-school Reagan-Bush Republicans ought, in principle, to side with them. Politically, however, these internal divisions have empowered other factions even while setting a limit on their total appeal. Donald Trump’s GOP, it seems, can count on some, but never total support from Court Conservatives. Similarly, Biden’s Democrats can always count on at least a few Court Conservatives to say nice things about them on TV.

Court Conservative disunity has not prevented Trump from going from one surprise win to the next. This is not because Trump has magical powers. It’s because anti-establishment right-leaning populists have rallied to him over time with unmatched enthusiasm. In the United States, Country Conservatives have greater numerical, institutional, and historical advantages than in any other Western nation. They’re not a majority of American voters, but they do form a plurality, and within today’s GOP, they far outnumber any other faction. In November 2016, Trump demonstrated that contrary to conventional wisdom, he could squeeze out an Electoral College majority with strong support from Country Conservatives and not much else. Democrats made a mistake by completely writing off these voters. It appears they’re making the same mistake again.

The ebullient Republican convention this summer was a clear demonstration of how Country Conservatives now dominate the GOP. Compared to eight years ago, few gestures were made toward the traditional Republican establishment. On the contrary, Trump doubled down by picking J.D. Vance as his running mate. Vance is unmistakably Country in this sense. His views on foreign policy, trade, immigration, and domestic economic policy are populist rather than Court-approved. Trump’s fist-shaking defiance right after the narrow attempt on his life only bolstered his status as a folk hero in the minds of his many supporters. That pugnacious reaction to danger is an instinct that Country Conservatives understand very well.

The Democratic Party, which in living memory possessed great strength among Country Conservatives, has long since pivoted toward Court Progressives for leadership, funding, votes, and ideas. The party has often been successful in winning elections by coopting Country Progressives while fending off the GOP. Four years ago, for example, Bernie Sanders energized left-wing populists, then dutifully led them into line behind the party’s Court nominee, Joe Biden.

Until recently, the conventional wisdom among Court Progressives was that they would defeat the GOP so long as it nominated Donald Trump. Our progressive superiors, therefore, made certain to hunt Trump through America’s court system and mockingly called on Republican voters to nominate him, even while backing MAGA candidates in Republican primaries—for example, in Michigan’s third congressional district during the 2022 campaign season. This was a strange move to make against figures simultaneously described as existential threats to democracy. In any case, it all backfired spectacularly. Court Party attempts to hobble Trump while boosting the MAGA wing of the party only made him stronger, ensuring his nomination and likely his election.

This summer, Court Progressives finally broke into deep division. This wasn’t because of any ideological split. Rather, it’s because the entire Democratic coalition was demoralized by the visibly decrepit condition of its leader, Joe Biden. Last week, Court Progressives solved that problem by engineering Biden’s removal and facilitating the succession of Vice President Kamala Harris. From a strictly professional perspective, one must admire their ruthless efficiency in doing whatever they must to survive. But their underlying problem is the same, with Harris at the top, and perhaps even worse than it was a few months ago.

Democrats have answered the immediate challenge of physical fitness for the nation’s highest office. Consequently, they’re experiencing a kind of sugar high, with a lot of help from the press. But Biden was never unpopular simply because of his age. He was unpopular because of his overly left-wing, demonstrably incompetent approach to one pressing U.S. policy challenge after another. Harris now inherits that unpopularity, and rightly so. She also has one major disadvantage, which Biden did not possess. Unlike Biden, Harris is one hundred percent politically correct. She is entirely a product of the twenty-first-century Court Progressive movement. Unlike Biden, she has no feel whatsoever for Rust Belt working-class voters that Democrats need to win back from Trump. Indeed, she may very well scramble the Electoral College map to the benefit of Republicans.

Harris and the Democrats also have another serious problem, one they and the legacy media prefer not to discuss. A significant percentage of Country Progressives have given up on today’s Democratic Party as hopelessly beholden to the nation’s Court establishment. They can see that Harris is an establishment figure par excellence. A good number of these left-leaning populists will, therefore, vote for third-party candidates, including Robert Kennedy Jr., Cornel West, and Jill Stein. Those candidates, combined, now poll around 8 percent. In a hard-fought race, that’s no small number, and it hurts the Democratic Party more than it does the GOP.

Still, the Democrats’ selection of Kamala Harris is an excellent indication of where the party stands now. As even liberal media outlets admitted not so long ago, Harris is disturbingly incompetent and (until recently) widely disliked within the party. Yet Court Progressives refuse to consider any other candidate. They refuse because they are captive to left-wing identity politics, and to pass over Harris would break that captivity. For this reason, among others, the Democrats will likely lose to Donald Trump in November. And I have to say, after the past eight years, they’ve really got it coming.

Colin Dueck is a professor in the Schar School of Policy and Government at George Mason University and a nonresident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.

Image: Jonah Elkowitz / Shutterstock.com.

Growing North-South tensions are impeding global climate cooperation and hampering Germany’s search for reliable partners. Brazil is a key actor with the potential to alleviate tensions: it sees itself as a bridge-builder and will host the Climate Change Conference in 2025 (COP30). Under their new Partnership for a Socially Just and Eco­logical Transformation, Germany and Brazil should work to strengthen confidence in the climate negotiations, and more generally to promote effective North-South cooperation.

À la veille de la Fête du trône marquant son intronisation il y a 25 ans, le roi du Maroc Mohammed VI a gracié, lundi, des milliers de personnes, dont trois journalistes – Omar Radi, Soulaimane Raissouni et Taoufik Bouachrine – et un intellectuel, l'historien et défenseur des droits humains franco-marocain Maâti Monjib.

Six tirailleurs africains dont quatre Sénégalais, un Ivoirien et un soldat issu de la Haute-Volta (devenu Burkina Faso) viennent officiellement d'être reconnus "morts pour la France à titre posthume". Tous ont été exécutés sur ordre d'officiers de l'armée française au camp de Thiaroye, au Sénégal en la nuit du 1er décembre 1944. Dimanche soir le premier ministre sénégalais, Ousmane Sonko, a réagit. 

July 27 marked the seventy-first anniversary of the Korean Armistice Agreement in 1953. The Korean Peninsula suffered a horrific war from June 25, 1950, instigated by North Korean forces, which resulted in millions of casualties and injuries and displaced up to 8 million people. The devastating war destroyed widespread infrastructure in both North and South Korea, including homes, hospitals, schools, factories, roads, railways, and bridges, pummeling cities [DM1] into ashes.

Therefore, our nation must never forget the horrific history of the Korean War started by Kim Il-sung, the leader of North Korea. Kim Jong-un, his grandson, has identified South Korea as “a state most hostile” to North Korea and boasted that in the event of a war, he would “use all our super power to wipe [our enemies] out.”

Former South Korean president Moon Jae-in and Kim Jong-un agreed to the Panmunjom Declaration in 2018, which established a peace process on the sixty-fifth anniversary of the Armistice Agreement. Moon proposed replacing the Armistice Agreement with a declaration of the end of the war, promoting coexistence between North and South Korea and asserted that the end-of-war declaration would lead to the resolution of the North Korean nuclear issue. This was a misstep that failed to perceive the true ambitions and nature of the North Korean dictatorship, which has been preparing for armed reunification for more than half a century. Relying on the goodwill of a hostile country is a very dangerous idea.

I have experienced all three generations of North Korean leaders, from Kim Il-sung to Kim Jong-il and Kim Jong-un, and have been in close proximity to them to understand their policies of armed reunification with the South for over thirty years. Until Kim Il-sung’s death in 1994, slogans in the offices of the Workers’ Party and the military read, “Let’s unify the country in the leader’s era [Kim Il-sung].” During Kim Jong-il’s reign, the line went, “Let’s unify the country in the general’s [Kim Jong-il’s] era .” Kim Jong-un even openly stated that he would make 2013 the year of a “nationwide patriotic struggle for reunification” and accelerated preparations for war. These are examples that show the direct ambition of the Kim regime to invade South Korea.

Former South Korean presidents Kim Dae-jung, Roh Moo-hyun, and Moon Jae-in held five peace talks with North Korean dictators Kim Jong-il and Kim Jong-un. However, all those peace summits failed. Instead, North Korea received over a billion dollars in food and energy aid from the U.S. (until 2009) and ROK governments, advancing its nuclear missile development, and now threatens South Korea and world peace with nuclear weapons. Signing a peace agreement and coexisting with a hostile country that possesses nuclear weapons is as foolish as inviting a gangster into one’s home and trying to live peacefully with them.

The declaration of the end of the war is literally a declaration that the war is over. It is to confirm the complete end of the war state between the North and South to the 80 million people on the Korean Peninsula and the international community. Therefore, it must be clarified that the end-of-war declaration is different from the current Armistice Agreement system. Any peace must dismantle the demilitarized zone (DMZ), a scar of division and war. The ugly barbed wire fences stretching about 248 km should be removed, and the millions of mines cleared. At the same time, all the numerous military facilities, equipment, and soldiers stationed there should be withdrawn entirely, and the area declared a peace zone.

The North and South are historically one nation. Therefore, if the war is declared over, the land routes and railways crossing the thirty-eighth parallel should be immediately connected and opened, allowing residents of both the North and South to travel freely between Seoul and Pyongyang as they did before 1945. Moreover, peaceful cities and villages should be built together around the former DMZ, complete with “peace parks” and facilities for commerce and tourism.

Moreover, if an end-of-war declaration is made, the closed North Korean regime should open the country and announce a reform policy that guarantees freedom and human rights to its residents. Without such guarantees, residents of both the North and South cannot freely interact, and economic exchanges cannot occur, nor can separated families exchange emails or phone calls. The North Korean regime should also pledge to the international community and the people of both Koreas that it will make denuclearization irreversible. Such prerequisites must be met for a true end-of-war declaration, and it must be agreed upon by the parties involved and the United Nations and announced to the world. Without such binding guarantees, if an end-of-war declaration is made formally, the Kim Jong-un regime could change at any time.

In reality, peace cannot be achieved for free. Genuine peace on the Korean Peninsula can only be guaranteed if the oppressive Kim Jong-un regime falls. This would allow North Korea to open up, guaranteeing economic freedom, rights, and private property to its residents, liberating them from the shackles of slavery. Peace cannot thrive where there is tyranny. Therefore, if the cruel oppression of the North Korean dictatorship continues and the freedom and human rights of North Korean residents are not guaranteed, South Korea cannot even think about peaceful coexistence with the North.

Peace on the Korean Peninsula is not limited to the end-of-war declaration and peace agreements. Due to the ongoing confrontation between communist forces and the free world surrounding the Korean Peninsula, the stability of the peace regime requires the unification of systems between the North and South. In the 1970s, Vietnam also signed a peace agreement, but eventually, North Vietnam invaded South Vietnam and achieved reunification under communist rule. Therefore, peace on the Korean Peninsula will be complete when both the North and South are unified under a free democratic system.

The previous Moon Jae-in administration disingenuously claimed that the end-of-war declaration was not legally binding and merely a political declaration unrelated to the Armistice Agreement, with nothing to do with the dissolution of the UN Command or the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Korea.[AL8] [DM9] 

If the end-of-war declaration lacks international legally binding power, there is a possibility that the North Korean dictator could reverse it at any time, exploiting it continuously. Especially if a declaration is made, the North Korean regime will demand the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Korea and the cessation of U.S.-ROK joint military exercises, inciting protests within South Korea to drive out U.S. forces through candlelight protests. On October 27, 2021, at the Fourth Committee of the UN General Assembly, North Korea’s ambassador to the UN, Kim Song, demanded the dissolution of the UN Command in Korea. This should be seen as the true intention of the North Korean regime regarding the end-of-war declaration.

In 2021, several Democratic legislators, including Congressman Brad Sherman (D-CA), proposed the Peace on the Korean Peninsula Act. In response, thirty-five Republican House members sent an open letter to the White House, expressing deep concerns that the end-of-war declaration would seriously threaten security on the Korean Peninsula. Ironically, some Korean Americans have been lobbying for years to pass the legislation. If their families were living like slaves under the most closed and oppressive regime in the world, would they still advocate for a peace agreement with it?

Moreover, some Korea watchers argue that North Korea behaves better when the United States engages with and makes concessions to it. This logic overlooks why North Korean residents live like slaves and why Kim Jong-un pours the state’s resources into developing nuclear weapons. North Korea’s foreign policy has always been based on deception. For example, when the U.S.-North Korea nuclear agreement was signed in Geneva in 1994, Kim Jong-il rejoiced that he had fooled President Bill Clinton. He boasted to senior officials, “We gained time to develop nuclear weapons and received free light-water reactors worth $4.6 billion and 500,000 tons of heavy fuel oil annually until the reactors are completed.” This is what I heard directly from Kim Jong-il’s speech to senior officials in 1998 at the Central Committee of the Workers’ Party.

For the past half-century, the North Korean regime has had no intention of honoring agreements for reconciliation and cooperation with the South or the United States. Yet, some experts criticize Washington and Seoul for not keeping their promises to Pyongyang. Kim Jong-un sees nuclear weapons as a powerful means to ensure his survival and regime protection, a way to maintain a balance of power between the North and South and a tool to unify the South under his rule through nuclear force. North Korean dictators have been attempting to unify South Korea by force for more than half a century. Expecting the North Korean regime to honor the end-of-war declaration and peace agreements without changing the Kim family regime is an unrealistic fantasy.

About the Author

Ri Jong Ho is a former senior North Korean economic official who served under all three leaders of the Kim family regime. His most recent role was based in Dalian, China, where he headed the Korea Daehung Trading Corporation, overseen by the clandestine Office 39 under the direct control of the ruling Kim family. Before his assignment in Dalian, Jong Ho held pivotal positions, including President of the Daehung Shipping Company and Executive Director of the Daehung General Bureau of the North Korean Workers’ Party, a role equivalent to Vice-Minister rank in the North Korean party-state. Subsequently, he was appointed Chairman of the Korea Kumgang Economic Development Group (KKG) under the North Korean Defense Committee by Kim Jong-il. Jong Ho is a recipient of the Hero of Labor Award, the highest civilian honor in North Korea. Following a series of brutal purges by Kim Jong-un, he defected with his family to South Korea in late 2014. Currently, Jong Ho resides in the greater Washington, DC area.

Image: KCNA Screenshot for main image. Intext image is from Shutterstock. 

Nous sommes à Kirkenes, dans l’extrême nord norvégien, une ville frontalière avec la Russie. Depuis la guerre en Ukraine et la dégradation des relations entre l’Europe et la Russie, le quotidien est chamboulé. Dans cette petite ville de 3 500 habitants, on assiste en plein Arctique, au retour du rideau de fer, après 30 ans de cohabitation avec les Russes. La coopération transfrontalière était synonyme d’espoir et de prospérité dans la région, mais depuis février  2022, tout s’est arrêté ou presque. (Rediffusion)

Summary and Key Points: During the Korean War, the U.S. Navy outfitted Iowa-class battleships with nuclear capabilities through Operation Katie, enabling them to fire Mark 23 "Katie" nuclear shells.

-The USS Iowa, USS New Jersey, and USS Wisconsin were equipped to carry these 15-20 kiloton nuclear projectiles, similar in power to the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

-This classified program, which began in 1952, aimed to provide the Navy with unparalleled firepower capable of destroying entire cities or Soviet battle groups. Although the Katie shells were never used in combat, their presence highlighted the extent of nuclear armament strategies during the Cold War.

Could the U.S. Navy's best battleship, the Iowa-class, actually fire nuclear-tipped shells?

With the Korean War in full swing in the early 1950s, the U.S. Navy had its own wants and needs, plus rivalries with other service branches. The Army, Air Force, and submarines with the Navy were armed with nuclear weapons, but no surface ships could fire atomic devices. One plan was to outfit three of the Iowa-class battleships so they could launch a nuclear shell from the vessels’ main 16-inch guns.

“Katie Bar the Door”

Operation Katie was the name of the program. The moniker came from the abbreviation for kilotons (kt). The idea was to take Army tactical nuclear shells and retrofit them for battleship use.

These were called Mark 23 "Katie" nuclear projectiles and fifty were produced beginning in 1952 and the first arrived in 1956.

The Iowa-class Battleship Would Deliver the Nuclear Round

The navy outfitted the USS Iowa, USS New Jersey, and USS Wisconsin with altered magazines on the ships to carry the shells. Each ship would have ten Katie projectiles and nine practice shells.

This would give the navy the biggest and most powerful nuclear artillery in the world – a total of 135–180 kilotons of yield.

Each Katie Nuclear Shell Would Have Ample Power

The Mark 23 was derived from the Army’s Mark 9 – the first nuclear artillery shell. The Navy’s Mark 23 had a 15-20 kiloton nuclear warhead – about the size of the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki to end World War Two.

So, the Katie would be able to take out a city day or night and in all weather. In a naval battle, it could destroy an entire Soviet battle group. The navy’s nuclear shell was thought to be accurate.

It Took Some Clever Engineering

These shells required careful engineering. “Naval Gazing,” a blog dedicated to the USS Iowa and other battleships, had this to say about nuclear devices fired from artillery.

“An artillery shell is an incredibly difficult environment to put a complicated device like a nuclear warhead. It must withstand normal handling, thousands of Gs of acceleration as it’s fired, and the centrifuge of a shell spinning at 10,000 rpm or more.”

Navy Kept It Classified

It was no surprise that the navy wanted to keep this under wraps, and they never confirmed or denied the presence of nuclear shells on the vessels.

Could the Katie Have Been Used to “Win” a Nuclear War?

But it is plausible that the shells were employed on the battleships. In those days nuclear planners believed the United States could “win” a nuclear war with the Soviets. The Katie shells showed just how far the military was willing to go with nuclear weapons. The nuclear option that would escalate from a conventional war was a real prospect.

The Military Was In the Nuclear Age

Fred Kaplan, writing in his book The Bomb: Presidents, Generals, and the Secret History of Nuclear War summarized the military’s thinking during the era.

“All of these options envision the bomb as a weapon of war, writ large. This vision has been enshrined in the American military’s doctrines, drills, and exercises from the onset of the nuclear era through all its phases.”

Thus, the Katie was part of a larger military strategy. By 1962, the Katie shells were removed and thankfully never used, although the USS Wisconsin may have fired a practice round in 1957. The body of a Mark 23 shell is on display today at a nuclear museum in Albuquerque, New Mexico.

About the Author

Brent M. Eastwood, Ph.D., is the author of Humans, Machines, and Data: Future Trends in Warfare. He is an Emerging Threats expert and former U.S. Army Infantry officer. You can follow him on Twitter @BMEastwood.

Image Credit: All Images are Creative Commons.