Feed aggregator

RÉCIT - Le Nouveau Front populaire entend exercer une pression maximale sur Emmanuel Macron pour imposer leur candidate, louée pour son «indépendance» et son «sérieux».

Violent demonstrations have shattered Sheikh Hasina’s aura of invincibility.

Negotiations are expected to occur in a few weeks with a focus on super-pollutants.

No description

The Republican ticket has unified—around a fundamentally unrealistic foreign policy.

No description

Summary and Key Points: Russia’s only aircraft carrier, Admiral Kuznetsov, has been stuck in drydock undergoing prolonged and problematic modernization efforts. Originally launched in the 1980s, the carrier has faced numerous issues, including design flaws, outdated mazut fuel, and significant operational failures.

-Kuznetsov has been beset by multiple fires, a falling crane, and embezzlement scandals at its repair shipyard.

-Despite plans to return it to service by the end of 2024, its troubled history and the ongoing Ukraine invasion suggest that it may never sail again. Scrapping the carrier could be the most practical option for Moscow.

Is It Time for Russia to Scrap the Embattled Admiral Kuznetsov?

The refit of Russia’s sole aircraft carrier goes on with no end in sight. For years now, Admiral Kuznetsov has been virtually wasting away at various shipyards as it undergoes “modernization” efforts on drydock. The plagued carrier might not ever enter service again. Even if the flagship of the Russian Navy does make it back out to sea, its troubled history, design flaws, and underwhelming capabilities will sideline the vessel. It will be more of a burden than an asset. 

Admiral Kuznetsov was supposed to venture from the port of Murmansk this year after spending nearly a decade tied to the dock. According to Russian state-run media last summer, the country’s only aircraft carrier was nearing the end of its refit saga. 

But this did not happen. The Soviet-era flattop remains dry-docked in Murmansk. As TASS reported: "According to the adjusted plan, factory sea trials of the aircraft carrier should begin in the spring of 2024. If the tests pass without glitches, then the ship can be handed over to the fleet at the end of 2024. If something goes wrong during the tests, then a shift to 2025 is inevitable." 

Clearly, Kuznetsov did not pass these initial tests.

Introducing Admiral Kuznetsov

Russia’s sole carrier was constructed by the Black Sea Shipyard during the Cold War and officially launched in the mid-1980s. Intended as the lead ship of a two-ship Kuznetsov class, the dissolution of the Soviet Union left Kuznetsov an only child. 

Kuznetsov was originally laid down as “Riga,” followed by “Leonid Brezhnev” and later “Tbilisi.” Ultimately, the carrier was renamed to honor Soviet Admiral Flota Sovetskoho Soyuza Kuznetsov. The Soviets intended Kuznetsov to function as a heavy aircraft-carrying cruiser during the Cold War, capable of supporting and defending missile-carrying submarines and other aircraft. However, the carrier’s design flaws, infrastructure issues, and perhaps bad luck have prevented her from achieving any of these missions.

Russia’s Sole Aircraft Carrier May Be Cursed 

Unlike modern carriers that are powered by nuclear energy, Kuznetsov runs on a goopy, tar-like substance called mazut. During the Cold War, this fuel source was popular due to its thick viscosity. While older military and commercial vessels relied on mazut in the past, the substance’s numerous shortcomings have led manufacturers to use nuclear or gas turbine propulsion systems instead. 

Kuznetsov was simply not built to withstand its intended service life. Poor piping installed during the carrier’s initial construction prevents its boilers from operating at full capacity simultaneously. This issue has only confounded the mazut’s drawbacks, as proper boiler and piping installations are required to ensure it can be adequately preheated and pressurized.

As previously detailed by Harrison Kass, “Mazut would be considered a Bunker B or Bunker C fuel. Bunker fuels, which is a colloquial term for the fuel oil that marine vessels use, are divided into A, B, or C classifications, based on their boiling points, carbon-chain lengths, and viscosities. A is the highest quality classification. C is the lowest. Lower quality fuel emissions, like mazut’s, typically produce large amounts of sulfur and have negative effects on the environment and human health.”

Kuznetsov’s mazut issue is not the carrier’s only limiting factor. The Russian carrier uses a simple bow ramp to carry out flight operations, while its foreign near-peers have shifted to magnetic-powered catapults and steam-powered catapults that work much better. The first and only time Kuznetsov used this system in combat was in 2016-2017, when she deployed to Syria. Two airframes were lost due to faulty arresting wires during this stint in the Middle East, essentially proving the carrier useless.

Should Moscow Scrap Admiral Kuznetsov Once and for All?

Kuznetsov’s Syria deployment is just one chapter in a desultory history. Between 2016 and 2022, the carrier suffered from multiple fires onboard, a falling crane, and even a crime of embezzlement relating to the shipyard where she once underwent repairs. It appears Kuznetsov will not re-enter service with the Russian Navy as planned by the end of the year.

Considering the ongoing invasion of Ukraine, it is unlikely the carrier will receive enough resources, funding, and labor to enable her to sail the seas any time soon. Perhaps nixing Kuznetsov altogether is the best plan of action for Moscow.

About the Author: Maya Carlin 

Maya Carlin, National Security Writer with The National Interest, is an analyst with the Center for Security Policy and a former Anna Sobol Levy Fellow at IDC Herzliya in Israel. She has by-lines in many publications, including The National Interest, Jerusalem Post, and Times of Israel. You can follow her on Twitter: @MayaCarlin. 

Image Credit: Creative Commons and/or Shutterstock. 

The former president’s health and mental acuity haven’t received nearly enough scrutiny.

Now that Democrats have installed Kamala Harris as the presumptive 2024 nominee, focus is shifting to who Harris may pick as her running mate. The Vice President pick is typically about pure political calculus – geography, deficiency balance, demography balance – and Harris’s pick will be no different.

Here are a few of the leading candidates, in no particular order.

Senator Mark Kelly

Mark Kelly probably has the most compelling biography in the Democratic Party. Combat pilot. Test pilot. Astronaut. Husband of a gun-violence victim (who happened to be a sitting congresswoman). Senator. The Kelly template is reminiscent of John Glenn’s, who pivoted from fighter pilot to the Mercury program, where he became the first American to orbit the Earth in Friendship VII, before serving as the US Senator from Ohio.

Glenn is an American icon, who enjoys broader name recognition than Kelly, for his early NASA exploits, although Kelly spent significantly more time in space (four Space Shuttle missions versus Glenn’s one Mercury mission).

Unlike Glenn, Kelly is not quite a national figure (politically). Yet Kelly has that moderate appeal (as a gun owner and Second Amendment supporter) that could help Harris attract independents. Oh, and Kelly represents Arizona – a vital swing state that will help decide the entire election.

Governor Josh Shapiro

“Perhaps nobody in the Democratic Party right now is a bigger rising star,” The Washington Post wrote of Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro. The former attorney general could become the first Jewish person ever elected on a presidential ticket and could help Harris compete for Pennsylvania’s all-important 19 electoral votes.

Shapiro could also help the Harris ticket appeal to independents and moderates. “More than 3 in 10 Pennsylvania Donald Trump supporters also supported Shapiro,” The Washington Post reported.  

Shapiro, like Kelly, is newer to national politics – and may seem green for a national ticket.

Governor Roy Cooper

Californian Kamala Harris could help bolster her credentials in the South with North Carolina Governor Roy Cooper. The second-term governor is a household name in North Carolina, where he has served in office since the 1980s.

Cooper remains extremely popular in North Carolina, where has won five statewide campaigns – in years that Republicans carried the state for the presidential election. Cooper is the most experienced, and presumably, the most politically savvy name on Harris’s shortlist. Cooper is also older, however, at 67 – which may be more of a turn-off than usual, given the concerns over Biden’s age, and the hype over Harris’s relative youth.  

Governor J.B. Pritzker

Governor J.B. Pritzker is well-established in elite Democratic circles, and, not coincidentally, happens to be a billionaire. Accordingly, Pritzker could help bring some mainstream and financial clout to the ticket (not that the ticket will be lacking in either).

But while Pritzker has been a competent governor, he doesn’t have the geographic appeal; Illinois is a solidly blue state that Harris likely has in the bag. What Harris needs on the ticket is someone who can help her win votes she would not otherwise earn. Pritzker may prove to be an electoral redundancy.

About the Author: Harrison Kass

Harrison Kass is a defense and national security writer with over 1,000 total pieces on issues involving global affairs. An attorney, pilot, guitarist, and minor pro hockey player, Harrison joined the US Air Force as a Pilot Trainee but was medically discharged. Harrison holds a BA from Lake Forest College, a JD from the University of Oregon, and an MA from New York University. Harrison listens to Dokken.

Families dig with their bare hands for loved ones buried under the mud of landslides.

Will the U.S. Navy replace its dedicated electronic warfare fighter jet with a new aircraft? Based on some recent statements by Boeing officials, it looks like that the Navy is thinking of replacing the EA-18G Growler electronic warfare fighter jet with an improved version of the brand new F-15EX Eagle II.

F-15EX Eagle II: A New Electronic Warfare Fighter Jet?

To begin with, electronic warfare aircraft like the EA-18G Growler have a niche but very important mission: find and suppress enemy radar and radio by jamming and kinetic strikes to enable other fighter jets and bombers to complete their missions.

As air defense weapon systems and sensors become more advanced so electronic warfare aircraft become more important on the battlefield.

In a potential conflict with China in the Indo-Pacific, electronic warfare aircraft would play a key role in helping the U.S. military and its allies establish air superiority. Beijing has invested heavily in Anti-Access/Aerial Denial (A2/AD) systems to restrict the capabilities of the Navy and prevent its aircraft carriers from entering the fray in force. Several of these A2/AD systems rely on powerful sensors and radars to perform their mission. This is where electronic warfare aircraft like the EA-18G Growler come into play.

A New Electronic Warfare Fighter Jet?

According to Boeing’s executive director for fighter jet business development, Rob Novotny, the defense and aerospace giant is evaluating the technical feasibility of introducing the electronic warfare capabilities of the EA-18G Growler into the F-15EX Eagle II platform.

The Boeing official highlighted that the project is quite new and is currently undergoing the initial stages of determining viability. In terms of potential clients, Novotny said that both NATO and U.S. allies and partners in the Indo-Pacific would likely be interested.

The F-15EX Eagle II is the newest fighter jet in the U.S. military. A 4.5th generation aircraft, the F-15EX Eagle II is a multirole aircraft that can achieve both air superiority and deliver accurate strikes on the ground. The Air National Guard received its first operational F-15EX Eagle IIs this summer.

The Navy has been using the EA-18G Growler operationally since 2009 and today flies approximately 150 aircraft of this type. Based on the structure of the F/A-18 Hornet/Super Hornet, the EA-18G Growler is expected to go out of production in the next few years, thus encouraging discussion about the Navy’s future electronic warfare capability.

“Modern aerial combat requires command of the electromagnetic spectrum, and this platform would lead the way into the next decade or two,” Novotny said. 

The brand new F-35C Lightning II stealth fighter jet that is gradually entering service for the Navy is also capable of electronic warfare missions, but the EG-18 Growler remains the only dedicated aircraft for that type of mission in America’s naval air fleet.

There is an argument that giving the electronic warfare mission to the F-35C would be the better option, given the aircraft’s stealth capabilities. However, there is another argument that electronic warfare capability could create stealth conditions if enemy sensors are taken out from afar via electronic warfare means.

“Stealth means, to me, I can go to a place where the enemy doesn’t want me to go, and I can operate in their environment, achieve my objective, and not be targeted,” the Boeing official added. 

About the Author

Stavros Atlamazoglou is a seasoned defense journalist specializing in special operations and a Hellenic Army veteran (national service with the 575th Marine Battalion and Army HQ). He holds a BA from Johns Hopkins University and an MA from Johns Hopkins’ School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS). His work has been featured in Business Insider, Sandboxx, and SOFREP.

Image Credit: Creative Commons. 

No description

The Working Sub Group on Planning of Military Cooperation of the India-Russia Intergovernmental Commission on Military and Military Technical Cooperation (IRIGC-M&MTC) held its 3rd Meeting on 23-24 July, 2024 at New Delhi

Last month’s Russia-North Korea summit was a reminder of the dangers of bilateral military cooperation between the two rogue regimes. 

Pyongyang has provided millions of artillery rounds and dozens of missiles to prolong Moscow’s brutal invasion of Ukraine. In return, Pyongyang receives economic benefits and potentially high-end military technology.

Less noticed were pledges by Russian President Vladimir Putin and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un to augment bilateral trade. Resulting measures could increase the already extensive numbers of North Korean workers in Russia. These workers, along with those sent to China and other countries, work in violation of UN resolutions. They allow the Kim regime to evade international sanctions by earning foreign currency for its prohibited nuclear and missile programs.

North Korea, for decades, sent its citizens to work abroad for wages that benefit the regime. However, UN Security Council Resolution 2397, adopted in December 2017, required UN member-states to repatriate all North Korean workers within their borders by December 2019.

Despite this edict, more than 100,000 North Korean laborers continue to work in 40 countries, though predominantly in China and Russia. They generate an estimated annual revenue of $500 million for Pyongyang. They labor in factories, agriculture, construction, logging camps, and mining operations. North Korea also operates restaurants in at least five countries, generating $700 million in annual revenue for the regime.

In December 2023, a Russian Construction Ministry official announced that Moscow requested 2,000 workers from North Korea in order to address labor shortages in Siberia. In February 2024, hundreds of North Korean workers were seen disembarking from a train near Vladivostok. In April 2024, North Korea sent workers to the Russian-occupied Donbas region in Eastern Ukraine.

In 2022, Chinese officials indicated there were 80,000 North Koreans just in Dandong, a seafood industry hub. Large groups of North Koreans have been sent to work at clothing and electronics parts factories in China’s Jilin Province.

North Korean overseas workers are exploited. They work in highly abusive conditions and in violation of international labor laws. The workers usually receive only 10% to 30% of their salary, with the rest provided directly to the North Korean government. Workers have to relinquish their passports and often work between 14 and 16 hours a day, with no holidays, except perhaps for one day a month. They can suffer confinement, beatings, and sexual exploitation.

Recently, North Korean workers in China engaged in strikes and riots after not receiving wages for several years. In January 2024, some 2,000 North Korean workers occupied a factory in Jilin Province, beating to death a North Korean official in charge of managing them, to protest unpaid wages.

In addition to laborers, North Korea sends IT workers overseas for activities both illicit and legitimate (though still UN-proscribed). The North Koreans use false foreign identities to fraudulently gain employment as freelance computer engineers with technology and virtual currency companies. Thousands of highly skilled North Korean information technology workers currently operate in Belarus, China, Malaysia, the Philippines, Russia, and Singapore.

Some North Korean IT workers can earn more than $300,000 per year, with 90% of the wages going to the regime. Most of the North Korean IT workers are engaged in non-hacking computer activity, but they are often involved in virtual currency companies and are able to launder illicitly obtained funds back to North Korea. Some use their access to foreign companies to carry out malicious cyber activities.

In May 2024, the United States announced charges against an Arizona woman, a Ukrainian man, and three foreign nationals on allegations of illegally helping North Korean IT workers pose as U.S. citizens and gain employment with 300 unwitting U.S. companies. The scam provided money and proprietary information to the North Korean regime.

Identifying and exposing North Korean violations will be harder after Russia vetoed the annual reauthorization mandate for the UN Panel of Experts created in 2009 to identify evidence of violations of UN resolutions. The panel also monitored and publicized UN member-states’ compliance with enforcing required sanctions.

Half-hearted enforcement of U.S. laws and UN sanctions by the Biden administration undermines the effectiveness of international efforts to hold North Korea, and other nations, accountable for violating those laws. The U.S. has also long refrained from going after Chinese and Russian banks and businesses assisting North Korea’s illicit nuclear and missile programs.

The U.S. should target North Korean overseas workers by requesting countries eject North Korean workers lest they face secondary sanctions against their companies, government agencies, or financial institutions.

Similarly, Washington should impose sanctions against any entity supporting North Korean cybercrimes and malicious cyber activity, including by providing technology, equipment, training, and safe haven to North Korean hackers.

Washington should take the lead in working with foreign governments to reduce Pyongyang’s use of illicit means to finance its growing military threat to the region and to the American homeland.

About the Author: Bruce Klingner

Bruce Klingner is Senior Research Fellow for Northeast Asia at the Heritage Foundation. He previously served 20 years with the CIA and Defense Intelligence Agency, including as CIA’s Deputy Division Chief for Korea.

Image Credit: Shutterstock. 

Secretary of State for Defence, John Healey, signed a joint declaration with German Minister of Defence, Boris Pistorius, on 24 July, 2024.

RÉCIT - La présidente de la région Île-de-France a investi 500 millions d’euros pour la réussite des Jeux olympiques dont la moitié dans les transports

En première ligne, la maire de Paris veut faire de la compétition une vitrine de son bilan, et prouver qu’elle a transformé la capitale en dix ans.

DÉCRYPTAGE - Mardi soir, sur France 2, le président a admis que « régler la question du chômage de masse » n’était « pas suffisant ». Un aveu qui remet en cause l’essence même du macronisme.

Demonstrations in New Caledonia, which legally belongs to French sovereignty, caused a diplomatic row between France and Azerbaijan. The demonstrations and tensions in New Caledonia began after a public debate in the country about a new voting law, which, according to supporters of independence from France, discriminates against the indigenous population – the Kanaks.

The French claimed that they had noticed another flag flying in the demonstrations alongside the Kanak flag and it was the flag of Azerbaijan. Another claim of the French against Azerbaijan is that suddenly there is a group within Azerbaijan that is connected to the government and publicly supports the people of New Caledonia in their struggle against France. This, although difficult to define as “conclusive evidence”, was enough for the authorities in France to assume that there are people in Azerbaijan who support New Caledonia. The French were not satisfied with suspicions, but they issued statements and publicly blamed Azerbaijan for the instability in New Caledonia.

Another thing that caused France to raise its suspicions towards Azerbaijan as a country that interferes in the internal affairs of France, is the involvement and support of Azerbaijan in the NAM movement, or its full name “The Non-Aligned Movement”. NAM is a movement that began in the 1960s to help developing countries liberate themselves from the yoke of colonialism (with an emphasis on the countries of the Soviet Union, because during the founding period, the Cold War took place) to conduct themselves independently, without external intervention of the big powers.

In addition to this, NAM works to help peoples who cry out for independence to get their independence politically, economically, and socially. The principles that guide the NAM movement and the country of Azerbaijan, which is itself a country that has been liberated from colonialism for many years, will make it easy for the movement and the country to cooperate over the years. It was accompanied by a common desire in French colonies.

Although France is no longer a power since the beginning of the last century, it no longer controls half of the world, but it has not given up its influence in the countries and regions it controls.  France actually wants influence economically, politically, and militarily also in the lands it left a long time ago. Allowing this is called “neo-colonialism” these days. Because of France’s foreign policy towards the countries it liberated, it managed to arouse the ire of all kinds of anti-colonial movements around the world, including in New Caledonia. Instead of the people in power having a reckoning with France regarding France’s foreign policy and its attitude towards countries affected by them, they preferred to find a scapegoat to take the blame for the instability in the French colonies.

One would think that because of France’s way of acting with its colonies and the countries that were formerly its colonies, it would ideologically support countries that want to expand their territory, but no. French hypocrisy came out in full force when it came to the Azerbaijani-Armenian conflict. France supported Armenian separatism in the Karabakh region and Armenia’s military terrorist operations nearby. France tried to circumvent the just demand for the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan following territorial claims by Armenia, when both houses of the French Parliament recognized the independence of the “Republic of Artsakh” in 2020, although Armenia itself did not recognize it. The French support for Armenian separatism goes well with the arguments against France, which acts selectively and cynically in everything related to support for international principles and the value of sovereignty. One can understand that what interests France are personal geopolitical interests and nothing more.

The point that the Haitian media keeps accusing Azerbaijan of anti-French potential emphasizes the French’s confidence in the lack of French foreign policy, which is characterized as colonial behavior. For example, an article from the French magazine Le Monde presents Azerbaijan’s anti-colonial actions as anti-French actions and is spreading false information about French foreign policy. It is difficult to know whether the French act this way because the French journalists really do not understand how France’s colonial foreign policy is perceived externally or because of repressed feelings of guilt from the hopes that France makes for the peoples it rules and dominates. To be sure, the sentence about the camel that cannot see its own hump does not fit the country in the same way that in this situation as it fits the description of France.

 In conclusion, it is clear to see that French foreign policy continues in many areas of the country. France’s attempts to mark Azerbaijan as undermining its sovereignty in New Caledonia, apparently stem from a search for a scapegoat in order not to give it the judgment for its actions. If not, probably out of feelings of guilt the French prefer not to see the damage they are doing and have done, to many peoples and many countries.   

Summary and Key Points: The U.S. Navy faces significant challenges in the Indo-Pacific, particularly against China’s advanced anti-access/area-denial (A2/AD) systems, which threaten the traditional role of aircraft carriers.

-The potential for a Chinese invasion of Taiwan has prompted military planners to consider new strategies, including the use of autonomous drones and mobile forces to counter Chinese amphibious landings. Carriers may be repositioned as reserve forces or deceptive tools to draw Chinese resources.

-The evolving technology and strategic importance of carriers necessitate a careful reevaluation of their role in potential conflicts with China.

U.S. Aircraft Carriers in a War with China:

As the world progresses deeper into a decade of concern, military planners continue to contend with the potential of a Chinese invasion of Taiwan. 

Chinese President Xi Jinping has made no secret of his ambitions toward the island nation. Should a military clash begin in the region, U.S. military leadership right now would be faced with several tough choices on how to respond. One of the key decisions would be how to use the U.S. Navy’s carriers. Once invulnerable floating fortresses, rapid Chinese advances in anti-access/area denial (A2/AD) capabilities leave these vessels facing new and serious risks. As thinking evolves, several theories on potential uses for carriers have begun to emerge.

Carrier Vulnerabilities and Traditional Roles

Naval strategy in the Pacific during the Second World War relied heavily on carriers. Though these vessels remained vulnerable to shore-based threats, across the vast reaches of America’s island-hopping campaign they were able to protect battle fleets and landing forces while projecting power against enemy fleets and positions. 

Until the past decade or so, this is the role they would have filled in a conflict with China: sailing with impunity in the South and East China Seas, as well as the Strait of Taiwan, to rout Chinese landing forces and strike strategic locations on the mainland. 

Major advances in both the quantity and quality of Chinese anti-ship missile systems have made this strategy untenable. Recent wargames projected the U.S. would lose two carriers at the outset of hostilities simply due to their presence within range of these systems. The saturation of the combat area with A2/AD systems means the Navy will be unlikely to employ carriers in their traditional role. It appears that establishment thinking has begun to understand this and to fight against the inertia of traditional plans to explore new strategies for defending Taiwan. 

Outlining Different Strategies

It is widely recognized that allowing China unimpeded access to the Strait of Taiwan to conduct amphibious landings would result in Taiwanese defeat. While the Republic of China Armed Forces possess some capabilities to contest control of the Strait, it is likely these would be reduced to low operation capability shortly after the outbreak of hostilities, thanks to mainland China’s overwhelming quantitative superiority. 

As discussed above, conventional U.S. forces are also at risk should they attempt to project power into the Strait. This is why some leaders are looking to lessons from Ukraine to make the Strait a “hellscape” for Chinese forces. In this scenario, the U.S. floods the region with autonomous aerial, surface, and subsurface drones: cheaply made, difficult to detect, and highly lethal. The idea would be to limit the effectiveness of a Chinese landing and to buy Taiwanese and coalition defenders time to move assets into the region to blunt a Chinese assault. 

A similar plan envisions drawing high-profile U.S. forces – such as carriers – back to or behind the second island chain. In their place would remain a dispersed, mobile force “to blunt Chinese attacks and reassure allied publics.” These units would serve a similar function to the drones of the “hellscape” strategy, attacking valuable People’s Liberation Army Navy ships while incurring relatively few losses in return. While unable to fully stop an invasion, they could buy time for reserve forces to reach the battlefield. 

How Do Aircraft Carriers Fit Into the Equation?

Whatever strategy the U.S. and allies pursue, the role of carriers will need to be re-evaluated. Some thought has already gone into the more granular aspects of strategy, but there is still much room for discussion and debate. From a grand strategy perspective, carriers would be part of an outside force to assist mobile units in the first island chain. In this scenario, carriers would act almost as a reserve force to either plug any gaps on the defensive or exploit gaps on the offensive. 

Simultaneously, holding carriers out of harm's way allows them to act as a “fleet in being” and require the PLA to devote resources to A2/AD instead of offensive capabilities aimed at taking Taiwan. 

Finally, some envision upending the use case for carriers entirely and using them as a deceptive force to draw out Chinese resources without undertaking offensive missions essential to the war effort. 

Much thought must be given to the use of carriers in a conflict with China. Continued advances in technology, such as the recently unveiled AIM-174B, will also change the calculus around carrier strategy, and planners must stay abreast of such developments.

While losses happen in war, carriers represent a massive investment. The loss of a carrier would be a devastating blow, not only strategically but also to the prestige of the U.S. As such, pursuing an appropriate strategy without succumbing to risk aversion is essential.  

About the Author: Maya Carlin 

Maya Carlin, National Security Writer with The National Interest, is an analyst with the Center for Security Policy and a former Anna Sobol Levy Fellow at IDC Herzliya in Israel. She has by-lines in many publications, including The National Interest, Jerusalem Post, and Times of Israel. You can follow her on Twitter: @MayaCarlin. 

All images are Creative Commons.