WAR 02-27-2021-to-03-05-2021___****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
(458) 02-06-2021-to-02-12-2021___****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****
WAR - 02-06-2021-to-02-12-2021___****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****


(459) 02-13-2021-to-02-19-2021___****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****

WAR - 02-13-2021-to-02-19-2021___****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****


(460) 02-20-2021-to-02-26-2021___****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****

---------------------------------------------------

Posted for fair use.....

Afghanistan: 2 killed, 3 injured in two separate blasts
Two people were killed and three injured in two blasts in Kabul and Nangarhar provinces on Saturday, TOLO News reported citing local officials and police.
ANI | Kabul | Updated: 27-02-2021 16:42 IST | Created: 27-02-2021 16:42 IST

Two people were killed and three injured in two blasts in Kabul and Nangarhar provinces on Saturday, TOLO News reported citing local officials and police. According to Police, one person was killed and two were wounded in an explosion that targeted a vehicle in Bagrami district in Kabul at around 9 am on Saturday.

Local officials said a civilian was killed in the explosion that targeted a vehicle carrying Abdul Qahar Qadir, a member of the Nangarhar provincial council. Qadir was wounded in the explosion said officials.
 
Last edited:

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
Posted for fair use.....

  1. El Centro

Thu, 02/25/2021 - 3:53pm

SWJ El Centro Book Review – In the Vortex of Violence: Lynching, Extralegal Justice, and the State in Post-Revolutionary Mexico
Daniel Weisz
Vortex Cover

Gema Kloppe-Santamaría, In the Vortex of Violence: Lynching, Extralegal Justice, and the State in Post-Revolutionary Mexico
. Oakland: University of California Press, 2020. [ISBN: 978-0520344020, Hardcover, 230 pages]





Lynching in Mexico and Latin America is a subject of interest that has produced several contesting theories. Most scholars view lynching in Latin America as a recent reaction to increasing perceptions of crime within an environment of unequal access to justice and corruption and unresponsiveness on behalf of state institutions. Gema Kloppe-Santamaría argues that the prevailing literature on lynching has failed to note the complex political, cultural and long-term underpinnings of the practice. Kloppe-Santamaría, an associate professor of Latin American history at Loyola University Chicago, writes this book to fill the void. The author argues that lynching is a social control tool that reflects people's attempts to safeguard the political, economic and religious status quo of their communities. The text examines the sources of legitimation of lynching and the actual participants to present a complex understanding of the practice of lynching.


The Structure of the Inquiry


In the Vortex of Violence
is thematically organized. It contains four chapters: an introduction at the beginning and a conclusion, notes, and an index. The chapters cover dozens of lynching cases from the 1930s through the 1950s, drawing on the various sources of legitimation that made lynching acceptable. The first two chapters follow a standard chronological order. Chapters three and four follow a more thematic narrative. The first chapter (Between Civilization and Barbarity Lynching and State Formation in Post-Revolutionary Mexico) follows the impact of state formation in Mexico on the legitimacy and persistence of lynchings. The author analyses how central elites' modernizing and centralization projects encroached on communal life and caused division and discontent. These projects, coupled with abusive public officials, contributed to the occurrence of lynching.


Kloppe-Santamaría identifies three modalities of lynching that contain patterns of resistance and negotiation between communities and the state: resistance, corrective justice and state-sanctioned. Lynching as resistance focuses on the lynching of state actors representing the state's modernizing and secularizing projects onto local communities. Lynching, as corrective justice, focuses on the lynching's targeting officials and power figures that abused their authority or handed out unjust punishments. Still, unlike resistance, it targeted the behavior of specific officials. Finally, lynching as a state-sanctioned activity focuses on state authorities that led to the lynching of so-called criminals or political enemies. This chapter discloses that lynching was a tool used by the poor and the powerful in Mexico as a form of governance and social control and problematizes the image of the Mexican state as a “civilizing” force.


The second chapter (In the name of Christ Lynching and Religion in Post-Revolutionary Mexico) focuses on lynching due to the stealing or desecration of religious images and spaces and the collective attacks against teachers and attacks on Protestants. The author analyses the church's promotion of an ideology that rejected progressive ideologies and how priests shaped their parishioner's predisposition to violence. The chapter expands on how the state would take an anticlerical position and impose laws restricting the church's power and religious practice in public. Teachers in rural areas entrusted with the agrarian reform and taking over the church's role in education made them a target of lynching. Teachers in Mexico would dismantle church's to turn them into public schools, which would anger the community that saw these acts as iconoclasm. The lynching of teachers and the state's violent response to these killings would finally result in the state taking a more moderate approach towards modernizing and secularizing projects. The chapter also examines the priest’s role in determining proper "Catholic behavior" which also led to the persecution and lynching of Protestants seen as foreign actors.


The third chapter (The Lynching of Atrocious Criminals Justice, Crime News, and Extralegal Violence) argues that crime news and the narratives about crimes and criminals presented by the press were central in constructing lynching as an acceptable and even moral response to crime. The lack of justice in Mexico led to the portrayal of lynching due to inadequate or insufficient punishment administered by the state. People demanded swift and harsh punishment to respond to stories of monstrous criminals, but the crimes meriting lynching varied from killings to bloodless crimes. As time passed, citizens would punish bloodless crimes with lynching under the justification that these types of crimes still threatened people's subsistence. The author concludes the chapter by stating that the culture of punishment demonstrates that lynching was not merely a result of impunity.


The fourth chapter (The Lynching of the Wicked Fat Stealers, Bloodsuckers, and witches in Post-Revolutionary Mexico) narrates the role mythical beliefs had in the incidence of mob violence. The author uncovers how mythical thinking combined with real-life concerns such as illness would drive lynching. The community perceived individuals as malicious due to their position as outsiders, and justified their lynching in order to ensure the safety of the whole community. The author also finds cases in which envy or even personal vendettas could also drive lynchings. Overall, Kloppe-Santamaría understands these cases as collective responses to modernization projects.


Conclusion: Out of the Vortex


In the Vortex of Violence
relies on archival research documents to present specific examples of lynching that help develop the authors' claims. The text shows how lynching represents a form of sociologically and historically significant violence propelled by contentious and erratic political processes. The author notes how lynching is neither static nor linear. It evolved throughout the period under study and presented extralegal violence in Mexico as a central feature of coercive tactics used by the state to gain political stability. The author shows that citizens experiencing economic deprivation and a lack of access to institutional channels of justice committed most lynchings. Lynching is thus understood as a form of social control informed by conservative and defensive politics rather than by revolutionary claims.


This research touches on interesting themes, such as the effects of modernization projects on its citizenry, which present valuable insights that support and develop the claims of authors like James Scott in his seminal piece Seeing Like a State [1]. The book also offers a unique understanding of lynching in Latin America that relies on historical evidence to show the evolution and complexity of the practice. The author demonstrates how the legitimation of lynching and its history help illuminate the social, political and cultural motivations behind lynching and the variety of actors involved in the practice. It would have been a valuable uptake to consider an explanation about the time period chosen for the study. The links between criminality and eugenics in Latin America could have provided an interesting contextual background to consider criminality to shape and utilize politically, socially and culturally during another modernization period in Latin America.


In the conclusion, the author connects the history of lynching with Mexico's contemporary challenges of violence and insecurity. She argues that today's violence has deeper roots in the country's trajectory of state-building and citizens' understanding of extralegal violence as a legitimate form of justice. Kloppe-Santamaría also describes how the process of centralization of violence in Mexico was built on a plural and decentralized exercise of violence. The author connects the past and present of lynching by pointing at the state’s inability to provide security and justice and the general acceptability of lynching. The book is an excellent historical piece that presents a complex understanding of lynching and its motivations and organization. It would have been interesting to include an overall number of lynching in Mexico and Latin America to get a general idea of lynching in the area studied. The connection between past and present lynching would have benefitted from a more profound analysis of the current situation and how it connects to these historical trends specifically. The state's development and expansion seem to be an essential part of the history of lynching. It would have been interesting to explore how drug trafficking organizations fit into the dynamics between state and citizenry that continue to produce lynching.


Endnotes


[1] See James Scott, Seeing like a State: How Certain Schemes to Improve the Human Condition Have Failed

. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1999.

About the Author(s)


Daniel Weisz
Daniel Weisz Argomedo
is currently a candidate to PhD at University of California Irvine. He is currently the founder and secretary of the Leonora Carrington Foundation. He holds a Bachelor of Arts in Political Science from the University of Alberta and a Masters of Arts in International Relations from San Diego State University. He can be reached at dweiszar@uci.edu
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
Posted for fair use.....

Once Ravaged by ISIS, Iraq's Sinjar Caught in New Tug-of-War

Saturday, 27 February, 2021 - 10:00

Asharq Al-Awsat

Nearly six years since Iraq's Sinjar region was recaptured from militants, a tangled web of geopolitical tensions risks sparking a new conflict that could prolong the dire situation of minority Yazidis.

The ISIS group overran Sinjar in 2014 and pursued a brutal, months-long campaign of massacres, enslavement, and rape against Yazidis in what the UN has said could amount to genocide.

Sinjar is wedged between Turkey to the north and Syria to the west, making it a highly strategic zone long coveted by both the central government in Baghdad and autonomous Kurdish authorities of the north.

The tensions have terrified the few Yazidis who returned to their ruined towns, only to face the specter of a new displacement.

"We're living in the middle of so many different threats," said one of them, 46-year-old Faisal Saleh.

"Sinjar's people are terrified that clashes will break out," he told AFP as he drove from his hometown in Sinjar into the adjacent Kurdish region to rent an apartment in case he needed to flee an escalation.

Sinjar was retaken from ISIS in 2015 by fighters from the autonomous Kurdistan region's Peshmerga and from Syrian Kurdish units, backed by the US-led coalition.

Iran-backed units from within the Iraqi Hashed al-Shaabi network of militias also took surrounding territory.

This fractious patchwork of forces delayed Sinjar's revival: the federal government had barely any presence there and international aid groups were wary of investing.

In an effort to kick-start reconstruction and get displaced Yazidis home, the Sinjar Agreement reached in October stipulated that the only arms in the area should be those of the federal government.

But it has yet to be implemented.

- 'Explosion at any time' -

"The reality on the ground is stronger than these agreements. No one in Sinjar wants to let go of the influence they've earned there," said Yassin Tah, an analyst based in the region.

"Sinjar today is a zone that brings together all the conflicting agendas and rival parties of the region.

"It's in a very complicated and tense situation -- and that could lead to an explosion at any time," he told AFP.

On the one hand, the autonomous Kurdish regional government (KRG) claims Sinjar is within its zone of control.

The KRG is irked by the presence of the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK), a rival faction operating in north Iraq for decades and whose Syrian branch helped fight ISIS in Sinjar.

The PKK's role also infuriates Ankara, which calls it a "terrorist" group for its decades-long insurgency in Turkey and has crossed into Iraq to bomb the PKK.

"Turkey is watching Sinjar -- and it's seeing the PKK grow more powerful there," said Tah, the analyst.

In January, Ankara upped the ante, bombing a mountainous region close to Sinjar and hinting it could invade.

"We may come there overnight, all of a sudden," warned President Recep Tayyip Erdogan.

Erdogan's veiled threat, in turn, gave an excuse to pro-Iran Hashed factions to insist on staying in Sinjar.

The Hashed swiftly announced sending new fighters to Sinjar while one of its hardline members, Asaib Ahl al-Haq said it would "block any aggressive behavior" by Turkey.

- 'Sinjar is suffering' -

Tah said the quick mobilization was an effort to defend the Hashed's crucial smuggling route between Iraq and Syria, which crosses through Sinjar.

A top Iraqi military official in Nineveh province, where Sinjar is located, even admitted the rivalries, saying Turkey, armed groups, and rival Kurds were all trying to "secure their interests via Sinjar".

Prime Minister Mustafa al-Kadhemi has rushed to defuse the tensions, with a top official in his office telling AFP there was ongoing contact with Turkey to try to hold off an incursion.

If conflict does erupt in Sinjar, Kadhemi would have a lot to lose, wrote Nussaibah Younis, a visiting fellow at the European Council for Foreign Relations.

"It would undermine the political victory that the Sinjar Agreement afforded to Kadhemi (and) burnish the image of the (Hashed) and other militia groups as defenders of Iraq at the central government's expense," Younis said.

It would also "hamper the return of vulnerable displaced Yazidis to Sinjar," she wrote.

Ali Abbas, spokesman for Iraq's migration ministry, told AFP there are 90,000 families from Sinjar who remain displaced, most of them in the KRG-run region.

Among them is Mahma Khalil, the mayor of Sinjar.

"Sinjar is suffering. We need extraordinary efforts to help stabilize it," he told AFP by phone from Duhok, an adjacent area where most of Sinjar's displaced now live.

"You have to find a solution to the stability of Sinjar. You have to learn the lesson of the past."
 

jward

passin' thru
Terrorism Ruling Presents Opportunity to Hold Tehran Accountable

Ted Poe
Ted Poe

|
Posted: Feb 27, 2021 12:01 AM


The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Townhall.com.

Terrorism Ruling Presents Opportunity to Hold Tehran Accountable

Source: Office of the Iranian Supreme Leader via AP

Trending

While working on terrorism-related issues during my congressional career, I soon understood not only that Iran had earned its reputation as the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism, but also that the country’s leadership considered terrorism a viable replacement for standard political and diplomatic statecraft. A recent criminal court ruling in Belgium reinforces this fact.

Since the time of the 1979 revolution, the use of proxies in terror operations abroad afforded the regime some measure of plausible deniability and made it more difficult for the U.S. or its allies to hold Iranian officials directly accountable. Still, it was shocking when all such officials, including the regime’s representatives to foreign nations, evaded that accountability for nearly four entire decades. That streak was mainly attributable to the conciliatory Western policies.
The impunity lasted until the summer of 2018, when German authorities arrested Assadollah Assadi, a top Vienna-based Iranian diplomat, on terrorism charges. Days before his arrest, Assadi was being monitored by multi-national law enforcement authorities when he met with an Iranian-Belgian couple in Luxembourg. There, he handed off an explosive device that he had personally smuggled into Europe from Iran while traveling on a diplomatic passport. Assadi gave his co-conspirators explicit instructions on how to explode the bomb at the June 30 Free Iran rally, organized near Paris by the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI), and to specifically target the event’s keynote speaker, NCRI President-elect Maryam Rajavi.

CARTOONS | Chip Bok
View Cartoon
The Belgian authorities arrested the couple on their way to Paris carrying the bomb. The horrific terror plot was foiled. The Belgian judiciary made the decision to pursue Assadi’s extradition from Germany and then prosecute him. He became the first Iranian official to face charges in Europe for terrorism.

Assadi’s trial was held late last year in Antwerp and the Criminal court on February 4 issued its historic ruling, sentencing Assadi and the mastermind and “operational leader” of the plot, to 20 years in jail and his three Iranian-Belgian accomplices, Nasimeh Naami to 18 years, Amir Saadouni, Naami’s husband, to 15 years, and Mehrdad Arefani to 17 years imprisonment.
The failure of Assadi’s plot, however, is no reason for the U.S. or its allies to consider the matter closed or to downplay the need for broader accountability. The 2018 bomb plot is part of a much larger pattern of behavior aimed at targeting the main Iranian opposition coalition, the NCRI and its principal component, the Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK), for which the regime has so far escaped accountability. In March 2018, a similar failed terror plot was targeting some 2,500 MEK members in their center, Ashraf, in the Balkan nation of Albania. Albania righteously and courageously expelled four Iranian diplomats, including the regime’s ambassador, for plotting terror.


Since 2018, in addition to Assadi’s conviction, seven Iranian diplomats have been expelled by European nations for such terror plots.

I have attended similar events, organized by the Iranian opposition both in Paris and in Albania and have witnessed the magnitude of the crowd, as well as the presence of prominent American, European and Middle Eastern officials, parliamentarians, and dignitaries, who could have fallen victim had these plots succeeded.
I am pleased to report that at least 120 current members of the House of Representatives recently joined in co-sponsoring a bi-partisan resolution, H.Res. 118 that condemns past and present acts of Iran-backed terrorism – most notably the plot to bomb the 2018 Paris Free Iran rally, recognizes the underlying breaches of diplomatic privileges, and endorses the expulsion of diplomats who may come under suspicion of playing a terrorist role akin to Assadi’s.



Recommended
The Thread That Shreds CNN's Fake News idiocy...and This Is Just the Tip of the Iceberg
Matt Vespa

Other such operatives are certainly present on European soil. The investigation into Assadi’s activities found that he had contact with hundreds of assets across at least 11 European countries. Investigations into this network must continue, and they must broaden to look at other Iranian embassies, cultural institutions, and commercial entities, including in the United States, any of which could be harboring sleeper cells as part of a growing infiltration agenda. In 2018, FBI arrested two Iranian agents for spying and plotting against NCRI officials in the United States.

Tehran’s systemic use of diplomatic corps should have been obvious all along to anyone who has been paying attention to the Iranian regime’s commitment to using terrorism as a form of statecraft. In the wake of the Assadi conviction, it should be impossible to ignore this feature. The Belgian court explicitly determined that the 2018 plot had been “developed in the name of Iran at the request of its leadership.” Now it falls to the U.S. to lead the way in demanding accountability for it and all players involved in planning, facilitating and executing the plot. Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei tops the list.

Posted For Fair Use
 

jward

passin' thru
War to Unify Taiwan in One Year? China May Not Be Ready: China Experts


By Nicole Hao
February 26, 2021 Updated: February 26, 2021


An expert said mainland Chinese military leaders told her that they would be ready to unify Taiwan by force in one year, while another China expert told The Epoch Times that Chinese leader Xi Jinping would be too busy maintaining his position as party boss over the next 20 months.

Oriana Skylar Mastro, center fellow at Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies at Stanford University, told the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission (pdf) on Feb. 18, “China can afford to wait until later in Xi’s tenure to make its move [of unification of Taiwan].” Xi’s current term will end in November 2022.
U.S.-based China affairs expert Tang Jingyuan told The Epoch Times on Feb. 25: “I don’t think Xi Jinping will unify Taiwan by force before he can make sure that he will take another term as [Chinese Communist Party (CCP)] boss. Currently, Xi is struggling with other factions within the CCP. It’s too risky for him to take any aggressive action.”

New York-based expert Tang Hao shared a similar view. He said that with support from the United States and its allies in the region, such as Japan and Australia, the “Chinese regime won’t dare to [start] a war in the Taiwan Strait and even the South China Sea in the near future.”
A Chinese missile frigate, the Yancheng, is shown on November 30, 2013, in Qingdao, China, prior to a deployment to the Gulf of Aden. The Chinese regime will now station several warships in the Gulf of Aden. (STR/AFP/Getty Images) The Chinese missile frigate the Yancheng in Qingdao, China, prior to a deployment to the Gulf of Aden, on November 30, 2013. The Chinese regime will now station several warships in the Gulf of Aden. (STR/AFP/Getty Images) Smell the Gunpowder

China’s Eastern Theater Command announced that it conducted military drills in disputed waters close to Taiwan in the South China Sea on Feb. 25, and a large number of warplanes joined the drills.
The Taiwan Defense Ministry said five days ago that 11 Chinese warplanes entered its airspace on the night of Feb. 20, which was the largest scale incursion in February. The ministry said the warplanes included two J-10 fighters, two J-16 fighters, four JH-7 fighter-bombers, two H-6 bombers, and one Y-8 anti-submarine aircraft.
On Jan. 24, or the fourth day after the inauguration of President Joe Biden, 15 Chinese warplanes entered Taiwan airspace, which was the largest-scale incursion in 2021. The day before, 13 Chinese warplanes entered Taiwan’s airspace.
Epoch Times Photo Chinese J-10 fighter jets fly on display over the Yangcun Air Force base of the People’s Liberation Army Air Force in Tianjin on April 13, 2010. (Frederic J. Brown/AFP/Getty Images)

Taiwan is a self-ruled island that is located in the southeast of China. The 110-mile-wide 230-mile-long strait separating the island and continental Asia is Taiwan Strait, which connects the South China Sea and the East China Sea. The narrowest part of the strait is about 81 miles.
The Chinese regime claims the island as its own, despite the fact that Taiwan is a de facto independent country, with its own military, democratically-elected government, and constitution.
Since 1949, China and Taiwan have had independent forms of government, and the two sides fought several times in the 1950s and 1960s. Since that time, while there hasn’t been an armed confrontation across the strait, the situation hasn’t eased either. Instead, it has deteriorated in recent months.

On Jan. 11, 2020, Taiwan President Tsai Ing-wen won against the pro-Beijing KMT candidate Han Kuo-yu and was re-elected president. The Beijing regime then launched more military exercises in the seas close to Taiwan and dispatched warplanes to Taiwan’s airspace.
In December 2020, the mainland Chinese authorities sent the country’s newest carrier, the Shandong, through the sensitive Taiwan Strait, accompanied by four warships to demonstrate its threatening posture towards Taiwan.
Epoch Times Photo Warships and fighter jets of Chinese People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) take part in a military display in the South China Sea on April 12, 2018. (Reuters)

A War?
The question of when China will launch a war to unify Taiwan isn’t new, but became a hot topic after Biden’s inauguration and the development of U.S. policy to Taiwan became unclear.
On Feb. 18, the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission had the hearing on “Deterring PRC (Communist China) Aggression Toward Taiwan” online. Mastro said, “Cross-strait deterrence is arguably weaker today than at any point since the Korean War. Impressive Chinese military modernization, U.S. failure to build robust coalitions to counter Chinese regional aggression, and Xi Jinping’s personal ambition, all coalesce to create a situation in which Chinese leaders may see some aggregate benefit to using force.”

She then cited Chinese officials’ public comments and information she received from China, and said, “Specifically, I believe Xi Jinping will use force to compel Taiwan to unite with the mainland once he is confident in the Chinese military’s ability to succeed in relevant joint operations, like an amphibious attack.”
Tang Jingyuan concurred about the Chinese army preparing for a possible war to unify Taiwan, but disagreed about the timing.
“Xi Jinping uses the term ‘unification’ rather than ‘occupation’ in Taiwan,” said Tang. “Unification includes control of the island and rule of the island. It’s a systematic action, and can’t be solved by a war.”
Epoch Times Photo Chinese J-20 stealth fighters perform at the Airshow China 2018 in Zhuhai, south China’s Guangdong province on Nov. 6, 2018. (Wang Zhao/AFP/Getty Images)

Tang said he believed Beijing wouldn’t launch a war in the Taiwan Strait in the next two years for two reasons.
“Currently, Chinese leader Xi Jinping’s first priority is to protect his position. Although he eliminated the leader’s term limitation by amending the Chinese constitution in 2018, he is facing a challenge to his capability to rule the country from former leaders Jiang Zemin faction and Hu Jintao faction,” he said, adding, Xi doesn’t have enough energy before he ensures “he can take another term at CCP’s 20th national congress in October 2022.”
“The second reason is that the United States, Japan, Australia, India, and other U.S. allies will support Taiwan,” if China initiates the conflict he said. “The Chinese military isn’t ready to face a war with all these countries.”

posted for fair use
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
Posted for fair use.....

Official: 42 abducted from Nigerian school 2 weeks ago freed
February 27, 2021 (Mainichi Japan)

LAGOS, Nigeria (AP) -- An official says 42 people including 27 students who were abducted two weeks ago from a school in northern Nigeria have been freed.

The chief press secretary for the Niger state governor, Mary Noel-Berje, told The Associated Press on Saturday that those released have arrived in the state capital, Minna. "We have received them," she said.

The students, teachers and family members were abducted by gunmen from the Government Science College Kagara.

Their release was announced a day after police said gunmen had abducted 317 girls from a boarding school elsewhere in northern Nigeria, in Zamfara state. One resident said the gunmen also attacked a nearby military camp and checkpoint, preventing soldiers from interfering with the mass abduction.

Several large groups of armed men operate in Zamfara state, described by the government as bandits, and are known to kidnap for money and to push for the release of their members from jail.

Nigerian President Muhammadu Buhari said Friday the government's primary objective is to get all the school hostages returned safe, alive and unharmed.

"We will not succumb to blackmail by bandits and criminals who target innocent school students in the expectation of huge ransom payments," he said. "Let bandits, kidnappers and terrorists not entertain any illusions that they are more powerful than the government."

Nigeria has seen several such attacks and kidnappings over the years, notably the mass abduction in April 2014 by jihadist group Boko Haram of 276 girls from the secondary school in Chibok in Borno state. More than a hundred of the girls are still missing.

In December, 344 students were abducted from the Government Science Secondary School Kankara in Katsina State. They were eventually released.
 

jward

passin' thru
Posted for fair use.....

Official: 42 abducted from Nigerian school 2 weeks ago freed
February 27, 2021 (Mainichi Japan)
Sposed to b a good story n appropriate response from my repertoire is usually "where there is life, there is hope."
but the "there are a whole lot of things worse than death" tape keeps forcing it's way ahead in the playlist.
I dreamnt o' scraggly bunches of children survivors holed up in subbasements, until they were burnt out/forced out of the trapdoors by fire. But that didn't happen here, nor have I seen a similar case, so...???
How often does man "circle back" to the idea that there is something that should preclude the use/destruction of children in war- guess it's an outlying POV thru much o' history- the concept of honour introduced to wield control over the fighting forces as opposed to any actual sense of morality? :(
 

jward

passin' thru
USNS Carson City arrives in Port Sudan
Written by defenceWeb -
26th Feb 2021
93

USNS Carson City.

The US Military Sealift Command (MSC) expeditionary fast transport ship USNS Carson City (EPF 7) arrived in Port Sudan, Sudan on 24 February in the first US Navy ship visit to Sudan since the creation of US Africa Command.
The port visit highlights US engagement that strives to build a partnership with the Sudanese Armed Forces, the US Navy said.

“We are honoured to work with our Sudanese partners in the enhancement of maritime security,” said Captain Frank Okata, commodore, Military Sealift Command Europe and Africa and Commander, Task Force 63.
Carson City’s visit follows the visit by US Africa Command’s Deputy Commander for Civil-Military Engagement, Ambassador Andrew Young, and Director of Intelligence, Rear Admiral Heidi Berg, between 25 and 27 January, “which fostered cooperative engagement and expanded partnership development”.

“We are at a moment of fundamental change in the bilateral relationship between the United States and Sudan, made possible by the efforts of Sudan’s civilian-led transitional government to chart a bold new course away from the legacy of the previous regime,” said Young. “This fundamental change has enabled the partnership between the Sudanese military and US Africa Command to develop and expand.”
Prior to the port visit to Sudan, Carson City operated in the Red Sea.

“This ship’s presence visit to Port Sudan is a demonstration of our commitment to strengthening the relationship between the United States and Sudan as the Sudanese people seek a democratic future,” said US Embassy Khartoum Chargé d’Affaires, Brian Shukan. “This visit in turn helps to promote peace, security, and preserve freedom of the seas.”
Like all EPFs, Carson City conducts overseas operations, and supports logistics and humanitarian aid. The ship is crewed by nearly 35 US Navy Sailors and civil service mariners.
MSC operates approximately 125 naval auxiliary civilian-crewed ships, replenishes US Navy ships, strategically prepositions combat cargo at sea, and moves military cargo and supplies used by deployed US forces and coalition partners around the world.
Posted For Fair Use
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
Hummm......

Posted for fair use.....

Jihadist Groups In Sub-Saharan Africa: Assessing The Threat – Analysis

February 27, 2021 Published by the Foreign Policy Research Institute 0 Comments

By Published by the Foreign Policy Research Institute

By Colin P. Clarke and Jacob Zenn*

(FPRI) — As the Biden administration surveys the litany of foreign policy challenges that exist—Iran, China, Russia, and North Korea, to name a few—counterterrorism in sub-Saharan Africa likely falls outside of its top priorities. Throughout the Trump administration, there were high-level discussions on troop redeployments and how best to transition away from counterterrorism operations in order to prepare for great power competition. Sub-Saharan Africa was expected to be deprioritized more than any other region by these redeployments, despite the area becoming fertile ground for jihadist groups affiliated with the Islamic State and al-Qaeda.

Special operations forces (SOF) were deemed too valuable for American force projection to be utilized in security cooperation efforts in Africa. In December 2020, then-President Donald Trump ordered the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Somalia, which was completed in January 2021 when they moved to Kenya, even though United States Africa Command (AFRICOM) warned of al-Qaeda-affiliated al-Shabaab’s resilience and adaptability in the face of U.S. counterterrorism operations. Al-Shabaab has remained aggressive, demonstrating the capability to launch spectacular attacks, including an operation against a U.S. base in Kenya as the relocation was underway, killing three U.S. Department of Defense personnel. French President Emmanuel Macron, too, has publicly questioned France’s commitment to keeping troops in West Africa, where it has long maintained a sizeable military presence.

The timing of these decisions could not be worse. The consideration given to drawing down Western military forces from sub-Saharan Africa during 2021 is occurring while many of the jihadist groups active in the Sahel, the Horn of Africa, and southern and central Africa are surging, as demonstrated by their increased attack tempo, growing control of territory, and releases of propaganda videos highlighting battlefield gains. Both al-Qaeda and the Islamic State command a network of affiliates and franchise groups from Mali to Mozambique.

U.S. security cooperation programs in countries like Chad are critical for building the capacity of partner forces tasked with counterterrorism operations in the region. But after nearly two decades of non-stop deployments, the Pentagon is now grappling with how and where to reallocate resources, and sub-Saharan Africa is not viewed as essential. Without high levels of Western assistance, including intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) support, many of the security forces operating in the Sahel risk being overmatched. Porous borders, poor governance, and the ubiquity of the illicit economy are structural factors that favor violent non-state actors.

Even when progress has been made against terrorist groups in Africa, short-term gains have often been tenuous and easily reversed. For example, Nigeria is notorious for announcing that it “defeated” Boko Haram by capturing its hideouts and removing the group from territories it conquered, but, time and again, the group has returned stronger than before. France, too, retook virtually all jihadist-controlled territory in Mali in 2013, but, less than a decade later, the jihadists are entrenched in Mali as well as neighboring Niger and Burkina Faso. For its part, al-Shabaab was driven from Mogadishu years go, but it still maintains the capacity to carry out highly lethal attacks in the city.

Western policymakers have repeatedly declared both al-Qaeda and ISIS weak and defeated without factoring in that reducing their core territories in South Asia and the Middle East, respectively, does not necessarily have a decidedly negative impact on regional branches. While it is true that the core leadership of both organizations suffered a series of setbacks in 2020, their affiliate groups in sub-Saharan Africa have grown stronger. Jama’a Nusrat ul-Islam wa al-Muslimin (JNIM) in the Sahel and al-Shabaab in Somalia have accelerated their operational tempo, demonstrating an impressive range of operational and organizational capabilities. ISIS affiliates Islamic State in the Greater Sahara (ISGS), Islamic State West Africa Province (ISWAP), and Islamic State Central Africa Province (ISCAP) were progressively featured more frequently in core ISIS propaganda last year according to a report by the United Nations published in mid-February 2021.

On February 24, an attack killed Luca Attanasio, Italy’s ambassador to the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), when a UN convoy was ambushed by rebels. The attack was not attributed to ISCAP, which is active in the DRC, but it demonstrated the ability of non-state actors to operate in failed states with relative impunity. In Nigeria, on February 23, ISWAP launched multiple operations against Nigerian security forces in Borno, including suicide attacks, claiming to kill and wound dozens. ISWAP also captured a Nigerian military base for the first time in several years just days earlier.

In fact, one of the curious aspects of ISWAP and ISCAP’s recent successes, including the latter’s October 2020 jailbreak in Congo freeing more than 1,000 inmates and capturing a key Mozambican port weeks earlier, is that ISWAP has not released photosets or videos of some of its major attacks, whereas previously it would be expected to do so. In Mozambique, ISCAP has significantly decreased its propaganda production in recent weeks. One explanation for this change is that these two groups are aware of U.S. and allies’ destruction of ISIS’s “caliphate” in Syria and Iraq and are being more cautious about revealing the extent of their territories in sub-Saharan Africa to avoid drawing back U.S. attention when it is focused elsewhere. ISIS propaganda was critical to leading the United States to intervene in Syria and Iraq, especially when Americans were killed. The recent decision by ISWAP and ISCAP to limit propaganda output could be a deliberate attempt to keep Western militaries at bay.

Al-Qaeda in Africa, like ISIS, seeks to eventually control territory, and, in significant parts of the Sahel and Somalia, al-Qaeda’s affiliates have already achieved this goal. In contrast to ISIS, JNIM is attempting to call for negotiations that would involve foreign forces, primarily France, to withdraw from the Sahel. These demands appear to be based closely on the model for negotiations being pursued by the Taliban in Afghanistan. If JNIM achieves this, then it would not be unforeseeable for al-Shabaab to follow its—and therefore the Taliban’s—lead. The result would be several regions where jihadists make significant gains in governance, although as noted above, jihadist groups are more cautious about openly holding territory and featuring it in propaganda for fear of increased counterterrorism pressure. Where they do seek to hold territory, they are doing so incrementally. Likewise, even when they have flirted with negotiations, jihadists have been careful to avoid any actions that would make them appear to legitimize the international community.

The success enjoyed by jihadist groups in sub-Saharan Africa is juxtaposed with struggles encountered by al-Qaeda and ISIS affiliates elsewhere. Overall, their core leaderships have been weakened. Because of that, both organizations have sought to rely more on the momentum of their respective affiliates. One thing is clear: Al-Qaeda and ISIS are ascendant in sub-Saharan Africa, and they both want the United States and its allies to remain focused elsewhere.

Western countries have grown complacent with the threat posed by jihadist groups in Africa because, for the most part, these groups have been consumed by local rivalries and are content to focus on parochial issues. Attacks have not been launched beyond the immediate regions where they operate. However, as the July 2019 arrest of an al-Shabaab member in the Philippines charged with plotting a 9/11-style attack in the United States demonstrates, the calculus of some of these groups could change. If other African jihadist groups also seek to shift focus to external operations, then the United States and its allies will regret their growing indifference to the enduring nature of the threat posed by JNIM, al-Shabaab, and the range of ISIS affiliates active in the region.

The views expressed in this article are those of the authors alone and do not necessarily reflect the position of the Foreign Policy Research Institute, a non-partisan organization that seeks to publish well-argued, policy-oriented articles on American foreign policy and national security priorities.
*About the authors:
  • Colin P. Clarke is a non-resident Senior Fellow in the National Security Program at the Foreign Policy Research Institute and is the Director of Policy and Research at The Soufan Group and a Senior Research Fellow at The Soufan Center.
  • Jacob Zenn is editor of The Jamestown Foundation’s Terrorism Monitor and adjunct assistant professor at Georgetown University’s Security Studies Program.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
Posted for fair use.....

  1. Politics
Feb 28, 2021, 8:27 PM

Taliban military commission deputy killed in Afghanistan

Afghan Ministry of Defense said in a statement on Sunday that Qari Zahidullah Deputy Head of Taliban's military commission of the Taliban group has been killed in an operation by Afghan security forces in Baghlan province, Anadolu news agency reported.

The statement added that two other members of the group were killed during the operation while four others were wounded.

MA/5158482
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
Posted for fair use.....

  1. Politics
Feb 27, 2021, 5:04 PM

US convoy targeted in southern Iraq

A security source told Al-Sumaria TV network news website that a bomb exploded on the road.

The source added that the attack did not result in any casualties.

According to Iraqi sources, the "Qasim al-Jabarin" faction claimed responsibility for the attack.

In recent months, convoys carrying logistics equipment for US troops stationed at various military bases in Iraq have been targeted by roadside bombs.

These convoys enter Iraq mainly from the Syrian border in the west or the Kuwaiti border in the south.

Many Iraqi groups consider the US forces present in the country to be occupiers and emphasize the immediate withdrawal of these forces from their country.

HJ/FNA13991209000743
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
Posted for fair use.....

Erdogan triggering new alignments to achieve his aims

February 28, 2021

NEW DELHI — New alignments are emerging within a rapidly evolving geopolitical context in the Mediterranean and South Asia, with Turkey’s ambitious President Recep Tayyip Erdogan forging a strategic alliance with Pakistan in order to realize many of his aims.

His move, however, has thrown up a counterweight with Greek analysts calling for an Indo-Greek alliance, such that India and Greece formulate a new doctrine of cooperation that could counter the Turkish President’s dreams.

Speaking in a webinar titled “Indo-Greek Cooperation: Countering the Turkey-Pakistan Nexus” organized by Red Lantern Analytica, Andreas Mountzouroulias, editor-in-chief, Pentapostagma, Greece, called for an Indo-Greek alliance in the wake of Turkey supplying nuclear missile technology to Pakistan. He argued that to counter this alliance, India and Greece should consider joint production of weapons.

In addition, Jonathan Spyer of Jerusalem Post also explained why the alliance between Pakistan and Turkey is coming into being in a rapidly shifting strategic landscape. The old post-Cold War US-led security architecture, and the assumptions that surrounded it can no longer be relied upon.

In the major events of the region over the last decade — the Syrian civil war, and the competition over gas resources in the Eastern Mediterranean — the US has been notably absent as it recalibrates its priorities and modes of engagement.

As a result of this absence, new connections and new power nexuses are emerging. From this point of view, the coming together of two states seeking major revisions of the current power balance in their respective neighborhoods, in their favor, makes logical sense.

Both Turkey and Pakistan had indicated the ties would develop in every sphere with Erdogan, stressing during the last visit for the HLSCC meeting, that Turkey will extend all help in Pakistan’s socio-economic development, according to Pakistan’s leading newspaper Dawn in a February 2020 report.

Dawn reported that Erdogan had said: “Turkey is ready to provide all support in transport, energy, tourism, healthcare, education, and law-enforcement, which will help in socio-economic development of Pakistan.” The paper also quoted Erdogan as saying that defense cooperation was the “most dynamic element” of the bilateral cooperation.

In light of this statement and growing synergy in defense, the two nations are bringing about new dynamics in their respective area of influence. They have already shown interest in arms purchasing while also holding joint drills.

A recent joint military exercise dubbed “Ataturk XI-2021,” involving Turkish and Pakistani Special Forces, was held in Pakistan’s Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Province, which borders Afghanistan. It is the latest manifestation of an emergent strategic alliance of these two countries, said the Jerusalem Post report.

Pakistan is in the process of purchasing four Turkish-built MILGEM corvette ships from the Turkish state-owned defense contractor ASFAT. It has also placed an order for 30 T-129 ATAK helicopters. The total cost of orders placed by Pakistan for the purchase of Turkish weapons systems is now in excess of $3 billion.

The report also indicated the growing closeness was also reflected in the diplomatic sphere. Pakistani senior officials have expressed support for Turkey in its disputes over gas exploration in the Eastern Mediterranean. A series of joint naval exercises in the Mediterranean, involving the navies of both countries and including violations of Cypriot and Greek territorial waters and airspace, took place over the last year. Similar joint exercises have also been held in the Indian Ocean.

Turkey, in turn, in a development causing concern in New Delhi, has begun to support Pakistani claims in Kashmir. Erdogan said in February 2020 that the issue was as important to Turkey as it is to Pakistan. Referencing the events of the Turkish War of Independence, Erdogan said, “And now, we feel the same about Kashmir today. It was Çanakkale yesterday and Kashmir today; there is no difference between the two.” Turkey raised the issue of Kashmir at the UN General Assembly in September 2019, shifting from a policy of non-interference on an issue that India regards as an internal matter.

The strategic partnership between Ankara and Islamabad is also raising concerns in the nuclear realm. Pakistan is a nuclear power. Erdogan, in a September 2019 speech quoted by Reuters, said, “Some countries have missiles with nuclear warheads, not one or two. But [they tell us] we can’t have them. This, I cannot accept.” He continued, “We have Israel nearby, as almost neighbors. They scare [other nations] by possessing these. No one can touch them.”

Turkey's plan to rope in Pakistan in suspected development of atomic weapons shows aggressive intent as Ankara is already protected by a nuclear umbrella on account of its membership of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).

Suspicions about Pakistan's covert support for Turkish nukes has been aroused by a recent meeting of the Turkey-Pakistan High-Level Military Dialogue Group (HLMDG). The assemblage took place on Dec. 22-23. Pakistan's Defense Secretary Lt. Gen. (Retd.) Mian Muhammad Hilal Hussain led the delegation from Islamabad, while Deputy Chief of Turkish Army Gen, Selcuk Bayraktaroglu headed the Turkish delegation, said an article published by the website zeenews.india.com.

There were other indications that the delegation held discussions about nuclear delivery systems. The visitors from Islamabad met top Turkish Army generals and bureaucrats dealing with missile production and aerial know-how. The report also indicated that transfer of nuclear missile technology to Turkey could have far-reaching ramifications for regional stability and security.

In addition Economic Times in an opinion piece had stated, “Though Turkey strongly pursues its nuclear program citing the need for energy, its real intention is to acquire nuclear weapons which can enhance its bargaining capability. It is in this context, to beef up his image, Erdogan has resorted to acquiring nuclear weapons.”

Erdogan, with these provocative moves, hopes to emerge as a pre-eminent leader. Turkey is banking on Pakistan to make it go nuclear. Both Turkey and Pakistan have a large standing army, with considerable air and naval assets.

In addition, Turkey has been supporting terror groups in various parts of the Middle East. Hamas operates its cyber-warfare from Turkey, which also supports the Muslim Brotherhood. The Brotherhood has been a key ally of Turkey in Syria, Libya and other Middle Eastern hotspots.

Both the countries have been leading smear campaigns against Europe for being anti-Islamic. Erdogan has been in the forefront of leveling personal charges against French President Emmanuel Macron. Similarly, when UAE decided to establish diplomatic relationship with Israel, Turkey campaigned against UAE and its allies, while Pakistan did not take a clear stand.

Pakistan’s participation in the Armenia-Azerbaijan clash, despite reservations at home, is a clear sign of its alliance with Turkey is growing stronger. And, Turkey has been quick to please its strategic partner by supporting it at the FATF meeting and on the Kashmir issue.

With the new axis furrowing their own path, while also supporting each other in their bid to achieve their aims, it will be adding a new dimension to the complicated geopolitical global chessboard with each region already having their unique problems. This is sure to kindle another round of regional problems that could develop into a global issue, threatening peace and stability. — Agencies

February 28, 2021
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
Posted for fair use.....

Thousands flee rebel violence in Central African Republic

By ADRIENNE SURPRENANT
an hour ago

BANGASSOU, Central African Republic (AP) — Monique Moukidje fled her home in Central African Republic’s town of Bangassou in January when rebels attacked with heavy weapons, the fighting killing more than a dozen people.

“I ran away because the bullets have no eyes,” the 34-year-old said sitting in the shade while waiting for water purification tablets, a tarp, and other supplies to help her in Mbangui-Ngoro, a village where she and hundreds of other displaced people are sheltering.

She is among an estimated 240,000 people displaced in the country since mid-December, according to U.N. relief workers, when rebels calling themselves the Coalition of Patriots for Change launched attacks, first to disrupt the Dec. 27 elections and then to destabilize the newly-elected government of President Faustin Archange Touadera. The rebels’ fighting has enveloped the country and caused a humanitarian crisis in the already unstable nation.

Hundreds of thousands of people are also left without basic food or health care, and with the main roads between Central African Republic and Cameroon closed for almost two months, prices have skyrocketed leaving families unable to afford food.

The rebels control nearly two-thirds of the country, making it difficult to deliver humanitarian aid. Aid delivery was stopped for nearly a month in some zones.

“The most pressing needs are on the axis (the main roads),” says Marco Doneda, project coordinator for Doctors Without Borders based in Bangassou, on the country’s southeastern border with Congo.

When rebels left Bangassou in mid-January, after an ultimatum from the United Nations peacekeeping force, some established their bases in nearby towns, like in Niakari, about 17 kilometers (10 miles) from Bangassou. Doctors Without Borders has been trying to reach the populations there with mobile clinics since then, but they have been prevented by the possibility of military action or unpredictable fighting between the rebels and the army.

Along the main supply road from Cameroon to Bangui, Central African Republic’s capital, and in Bambari and Bossangoa, the government forces and its Rwandan and Russian allies have led drives against the rebel forces in the past two weeks.

The impact of violence and the lack of humanitarian access is visible in Siwa, a camp for internally displaced people, a few kilometers (miles) from Bangassou.

Hundreds of people must rely only on filthy brown water to drink, cook, and clean. They are living in makeshift shelters made of leaves and branches from palm trees. No toilets have been built and food distribution only arrived six weeks after the camp was created.

A displaced man hopes his wife will receive treatment and psychological support after she was raped by armed men.

“I didn’t have the strength to defend my wife,” he said. “I’m a farmer. I don’t have the means to bring her to Bangassou for treatment, but I’m worried, I can’t leave her like this. Her body is not wounded, but in her mind, she is not all right.” The Associated Press does not name victims of sexual violence.

Central African Republic’s instability erupted into fighting in Bangui in 2013 when the Seleka rebels coming from the north seized power from then-President Francois Bozize.

Later that year, the Seleka government was challenged by a militia group that formed in response and called themselves the anti-Balaka. Fighting spiraled, with targeted attacks that left thousands dead in the capital and displaced hundreds of thousands more.

The newly formed rebel coalition includes armed groups from both the ex-Seleka and anti-Balaka.

The Seleka rebel president eventually stepped aside amid international pressure and an interim government organized democratic elections in 2016, which Touadera won.

Touadera won re-election to a second term in December with 53% of the vote, but he continues to face opposition from forces linked to ex-president Bozize, who was disqualified from taking part in the presidential vote. Much of the recent violence began after the courts rejected his candidacy before the Dec. 27 elections.

Residents of Central African Republic are discouraged by the country’s years of violence and insecurity.

“We really moved backward,” said Pierrette Benguere, prefect of the Mbomou area that includes Bangassou. “It is discouraging to see my country having to start over again with the negotiations we’ve been holding on and off since 2003.”
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
Posted for fair use.....

Nigerian families await news of 300 kidnapped schoolgirls

By IBRAHIM MANSUR
yesterday

JANGEBE, Nigeria (AP) — Families in Nigeria waited anxiously for news of their abducted daughters after more than 300 schoolgirls were kidnapped by gunmen from a government school in the country’s north last week, the latest in a series of mass school kidnappings in the West African nation.

Worried parents on Sunday gathered at the school, guarded by police. Aliyu Ladan Jangebe said his five daughters aged between 12 and 16 were at the school when the kidnappers stormed in. Four were taken away but one escaped by hiding in a bathroom with three other girls, he told The Associated Press.

“We are not in (a) good mood because when you have five children and you are able to secure (just) one. We only thank God ... But we are not happy,” said Jangebe.

“We cannot imagine their situation,” he said of his missing daughters. Residents of a nearby village said the kidnappers had herded the girls through the town like animals, he said.

One resident said the gunmen also attacked a nearby military camp and checkpoint, preventing soldiers from responding to the mass abduction.

Nigerian President Muhammadu Buhari said the government’s priority is to get all the hostages returned safe and unharmed. Police and the military have begun joint operations to rescue the girls, said Mohammed Shehu, a police spokesman in Zamfara state.

The girls’ abduction has caused international outrage.

Pope Francis decried the kidnapping and prayed for the girls’ quick release, during his public address in St. Peter’s Square on Sunday.

“I pray for these girls, so that they may return home soon ... I am close to their families and to them,″ Francis said, asking people to join him in prayer.

Last week, U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres strongly condemned the abductions and called for the girls’ “immediate and unconditional release” and safe return to their families. He called attacks on schools a grave violation of human rights and the rights of children, U.N. spokesman Stephane Dujarric said.

Nigeria has seen several such attacks and kidnappings in recent years. On Saturday, 24 students, six staff and eight relatives were released after being abducted on February 17 from the Government Science College Kagara in Niger state. In December, more than 300 schoolboys from a secondary school in Kankara, in northwestern Nigeria, were taken and later released. The government has said no ransom was paid for the students’ release.

The most notorious kidnapping was in April 2014, when 276 girls were abducted by the jihadist rebels of Boko Haram from the secondary school in Chibok in Borno state. More than 100 of those girls are still missing.

Boko Haram is opposed to western education and its fighters often target schools. Other organized armed groups, locally called bandits, often abduct students for money. The government says large groups of armed men in Zamfara state are known to kidnap for money and to press for the release of their members held in jail.

Nigeria’s criminal networks may plot more such abductions if this round of kidnappings go unpunished, say analysts.

“While improving community policing and security in general remains a mid-to-long-term challenge, in the short term authorities must punish those responsible to send a strong message that there will be zero tolerance toward such acts,” said Rida Lyammouri, senior fellow at the Policy Center for the New South, a Moroccan based think tank.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
Hummm...........

Posted for fair use.....

China said to speed up move to more survivable nuclear force

By ROBERT BURNS
today

WASHINGTON (AP) — China appears to be moving faster toward a capability to launch its newer nuclear missiles from underground silos, possibly to improve its ability to respond promptly to a nuclear attack, according to an American expert who analyzed satellite images of recent construction at a missile training area.

Hans Kristensen, a longtime watcher of U.S., Russian and Chinese nuclear forces, said the imagery suggests that China is seeking to counter what it may view as a growing threat from the United States. The U.S. in recent years has pointed to China’s nuclear modernization as a key justification for investing hundreds of billions of dollars in the coming two decades to build an all-new U.S. nuclear arsenal.

There’s no indication the United States and China are headed toward armed conflict, let alone a nuclear one. But the Kristensen report comes at a time of heightened U.S.-China tensions across a broad spectrum, from trade to national security. A stronger Chinese nuclear force could factor into U.S. calculations for a military response to aggressive Chinese actions, such as in Taiwan or the South China Sea.

The Pentagon declined to comment on Kristensen’s analysis of the satellite imagery, but it said last summer in its annual report on Chinese military developments that Beijing intends to increase the peacetime readiness of its nuclear forces by putting more of them in underground silos and operating on a higher level of alert in which it could launch missiles upon warning of being under attack.

“The PRC’s nuclear weapons policy prioritizes the maintenance of a nuclear force able to survive a first strike and respond with sufficient strength to inflict unacceptable damage on an enemy,” the Pentagon report said.

More broadly, the Pentagon asserts that China is modernizing its nuclear forces as part of a wider effort to build a military by mid-century that is equal to, and in some respects superior to, the U.S. military.

China’s nuclear arsenal, estimated by the U.S. government to number in the low 200s, is dwarfed by those of the United States and Russia, which have thousands. The Pentagon predicts that the People’s Liberation Army Rocket Forces will at least double the size of its nuclear arsenal over the next 10 years, still leaving it with far fewer than the United States.

China does not publicly discuss the size or preparedness of its nuclear force beyond saying it would be used only in response to an attack. The United States, by contrast, does not rule out striking first, although President Joe Biden in the past has embraced removing that ambiguity by adopting a “no first use” policy.

Kristensen, an analyst with the Federation of American Scientists, said the commercial satellite photos he acquired appear to show China late last year began construction of 11 underground silos at a vast missile training range near Jilantai in north-central China. Construction of five other silos began there earlier. In its public reports the Pentagon has not cited any specific number of missile silos at that training range.

These 16 silos identified by Kristensen would be in addition to the 18-20 that China now operates with an older intercontinental ballistic missile, the DF-5.

“It should be pointed out that even if China doubles or triples the number of ICBM silos, it would only constitute a fraction of the number of ICBM silos operated by the United States and Russia,” Kristensen wrote on his Federation of American Scientists’ blog. “The U.S. Air Force has 450 silos, of which 400 are loaded. Russia has about 130 operational silos.”

Nearly all of the new silos detected by Kristensen appear designed to accommodate China’s newer-generation DF-41 ICBM, which is built with a solid-fuel component that allows the operator to more quickly prepare the missile for launch, compared to the DF-5′s more time-consuming liquid-fuel system. The DF-41 can target Alaska and much of the continental United States.

China already has a rail- and road-mobile version of the DF-41 missile.

“They’re trying to build up the survivability of their force,” by developing silo basing for their advanced missiles, Kristensen said in an interview. “It raises some questions about this fine line in nuclear strategy,” between deterring a U.S. adversary by threatening its highly valued nuclear forces and pushing the adversary into taking countermeasures that makes its force more capable and dangerous.

“How do you get out of that vicious cycle?” Kristensen asked.

Frank Rose, a State Department arms control official during the Obama administration, said recently there is little prospect of getting China to join an international negotiation to limit nuclear weapons. The Trump administration tried that but failed, and Rose sees no reason to think that will change anytime soon.

“They’re not going to do it out of the goodness of their heart,” he said, but they might be interested in talking if the United States were willing to consider Chinese concerns about related issues like U.S. missile defenses.

Rose says China’s main interest is in building up its non-nuclear force of shorter- and intermediate-range missiles, which, combined with a cyberattack capability and systems for damaging or destroying U.S. satellites, could push the United States out of the western Pacific. This would complicate any effort by the United States to intervene in the event Beijing decided to use force against Taiwan, the semi-autonomous democracy that Beijing views as a renegade province that must eventually return to the communist fold.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
Posted for fair use.....

Ep. 45 — President Biden’s Decision Points

By Thomas Joscelyn & Bill Roggio | March 1, 2021 | billroggio@gmail.com |


Hosts Tom Joscelyn and Bill Roggio explain why President Biden should be clear-eyed when it comes to making decisions about the U.S. troop presence in Afghanistan and Iraq. Some argue the U.S. should stay in Afghanistan to further the “peace process,” but there is no evidence that such a “process” even exists.



Powered by RedCircle
Take a look around the globe today and you’ll see jihadists fighting everywhere from West Africa to Southeast Asia. They aren’t the dominant force in all of those areas, or even most of them. But jihadism has mushroomed into a worldwide movement, with al-Qaeda, the Taliban, ISIS and other groups waging guerrilla warfare and launching terrorist attacks on a regular basis.
Each week Generation Jihad brings you a new story focusing on jihadism around the globe. These stories will focus not only on Sunni jihadism, but also Shiite extremist groups. We will also host guests who can provide their own unique perspectives on current events.

Bill Roggio is a Senior Fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and the Editor of FDD's Long War Journal. Thomas Joscelyn is a Senior Fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and the Senior Editor for FDD's Long War Journal.
 

jward

passin' thru
Jihadists attack UN base in Nigeria, trapping 25 aid workers
  • Nigeria
  • For more than a decade Nigeria's military has battled Islamist insurgencies that have devastated the northeast, killing at least 36,000 people and displacing more than two million
1 / 2
Jihadists attack UN base in Nigeria, trapping 25 aid workers
Nigeria
Mon, March 1, 2021, 3:33 PM·2 min read


Jihadists linked to the Islamic State have attacked a UN base and overrun a humanitarian hub in northeastern Nigeria, trapping 25 aid workers, security and humanitarian sources said.
Scores of Islamic State West Africa Province (ISWAP) fighters invaded the town of Dikwa in restive Borno state, dislodging troops from the military base and torching the humanitarian hub, a military source told AFP on Monday.
"We have 25 staff sheltering in the bunker which is under siege by the militants... but so far no staff has been affected," a humanitarian source said, speaking on condition of anonymity.

Military reinforcements, including fighter jets and a helicopter gunship, had been deployed to help repel the attackers, the military source said.
A spokesman for UN chief Antonio Guterres confirmed only that there was a "security incident", but gave no further details.
For more than a decade, Nigeria's military has battled an insurgency by the Islamist group Boko Haram that has devastated the northeast, killing at least 36,000 people and displacing more than two million.
The ISWAP group split from Boko Haram in 2016 and has become a dominant threat in the region, attacking soldiers and bases while killing and kidnapping passengers at bogus checkpoints.
The violence has spread into neighbouring Niger, Chad and Cameroon, prompting a regional military coalition to fight the militants.

The latest attack comes after Nigerian President Muhammadu Buhari replaced his four top military commanders after months of pressure over his government's failure to end the Islamist insurgency.
The latest assault in Dikwa comes three years to the day after ISWAP fighters attacked a UN humanitarian hub in the remote northeastern town of Rann, killing three aid staff and abducting a female worker.
On Friday, ISWAP fighters in trucks fitted with machine guns raided Dikwa, sending residents fleeing.
The town, 90 kilometres (55 miles) from the Borno state capital Maiduguri, is home to more than 130,000 people, including 75,000 who had already fled from other parts of the region and were living in camps where they rely on food handouts from aid agencies.
Posted for fair use
 

jward

passin' thru
Australia's Loyal Wingman Air Combat Drone Has Flown For The First Time
Boeing Airpower Teaming System is set to revolutionize how the Royal Australian Air Force fights and the drone's export potential continues to grow.
By Tyler Rogoway March 1, 2021

Tyler Rogoway View Tyler Rogoway's Articles

Known as the Airpower Teaming System (ATS), Boeing Australia's new loyal wingman drone for the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) has taken to the sky for the first time. It's not clear exactly when the flight took place, but it occurred at the high-security RAAF Base Woomera and its surrounding range complex. The flight was originally supposed to occur around the end of 2020, but it was pushed back due to a number of factors.
The ATS, which is a modular design capable of having its entire nose section swapped out quickly, is seen as a landmark program for Australia and the RAAF. It is the first clean-sheet aircraft Boeing has brought to fruition outside the U.S. and the first military aircraft Australia has independently produced in over half a century. ATS is meant to work in combination with the RAAF's fleet of F/A-18F Super Hornets, EA-18G Growlers, and E-7 Wedgetails, as well as F-35s, acting as loyal wingmen by providing additional offensive and defensive capabilities to these existing combat aircraft. Really, that's an understatement. ATS has the potential to totally revolutionize the RAAF's air combat tactics playbook. You can read all about this promising program and the ATS's stated capabilities in this in-depth War Zone feature.

A Boeing press release reads, in part:

“The Loyal Wingman’s first flight is a major step in this long-term, significant project for the Air Force and Boeing Australia, and we’re thrilled to be a part of the successful test,” said Air Vice-Marshal Cath Roberts, RAAF Head of Air Force Capability. “The Loyal Wingman project is a pathfinder for the integration of autonomous systems and artificial intelligence to create smart human-machine teams.

“Through this project we are learning how to integrate these new capabilities to complement and extend air combat and other missions,” she said.
Following a series of taxi tests validating ground handling, navigation and control, and pilot interface, the aircraft completed a successful takeoff under its own power before flying a pre-determined route at different speeds and altitudes to verify flight functionality and demonstrate the performance of the Airpower Teaming System design.
“Boeing and Australia are pioneering fully integrated combat operations by crewed and uncrewed aircraft,” said Boeing Defense, Space & Security President and CEO Leanne Caret. “We’re honored to be opening this part of aviation’s future with the Royal Australian Air Force, and we look forward to showing others how they also could benefit from our loyal wingman capabilities.”
With support from more than 35 Australian industry teams and leveraging Boeing’s innovative processes, including model-based engineering techniques, such as a digital twin to digitally flight-test missions, the team was able to manufacture the aircraft from design to flight in three years.
This first Loyal Wingman aircraft is serving as the foundation for the Boeing Airpower Teaming System being developed for various global defense customers. The aircraft will fly alongside other platforms, using artificial intelligence to team with existing crewed and uncrewed assets to complement mission capabilities.
Additional Loyal Wingman aircraft are currently under development, with plans for teaming flights scheduled for later this year.


Beyond Australia's borders, the ATS could become a massive export windfall for the country and Boeing Australia, one that is not dictated by the United States' strict export controls. Demand for loyal wingman drones, especially those with low-observable (stealthy) characteristics, is set to explode in the coming years as air arms plus-up their air combat fleets. Pairing loyal wingmen with existing tactical jet types is emerging as a potentially promising and economical way to provide some of the capabilities that would only be offered by far more expensive stealth fighters. For those air forces that already have stealth fighters, loyal wingmen could broaden their combat aircraft capacity and drastically enhance the capabilities and overall flexibility of those existing fighters. The U.S. is actively pursuing similar capabilities in the form of its Skyborg program, as well as other parallel initiatives. Boeing Australia's design could even factor into that program in the near future.

From design to first flight in three years. #LoyalWingman—the first Australian-designed, developed and manufactured military aircraft in over 50 years—has completed its first flight at Woomera Range Complex.

Release: Boeing Loyal Wingman Uncrewed Aircraft Completes First Flight pic.twitter.com/Es6EnUY7VA
— Boeing Australia (@BoeingAustralia) March 2, 2021

As for what comes next, three ATS demonstrators are being fielded that are said to be very close to representative of follow-on production vehicles. Considering how fast this program is moving—it was only announced just two years ago—flight testing will likely ramp up quickly, with all three test vehicles eventually joining up alongside other assets in the air. Much of the basic command logic that will drive the ATS has already been tested on subscale flying demonstrators.
There is no doubt about it, what you are looking at in this video is a major part of the future of air combat. We will update this post when more information comes available.
Contact the author: Tyler@thedrive.com

posted for fair use
 

jward

passin' thru
More Good News.

Nigeria school abduction: Hundreds of girls released by gunmen
Published
12 minutes ago


Image shows buses carrying the girls

image copyrightTwitter / @BelloMattawalle1
image captionThe state governor tweeted this image of the girls being transported

A group of nearly 300 girls who were kidnapped from a school in north-western Nigeria last week have been released, a local official says.

The girls were abducted by unidentified gunmen from their boarding school in Jangebe, Zamfara state, on Friday and taken to a forest, police said.
But on Monday, the state's governor said the group had been freed and the girls were now safe.
Dozens of the girls were seen gathered at a government building in Zamfara.
"It gladdens my heart to announce the release of the abducted students... from captivity", Governor Bello Matawalle wrote on Twitter.
"This follows the scaling of several hurdles laid against our efforts," he added. "I enjoin all well-meaning Nigerians to rejoice with us as our daughters are now safe."

Map

1px transparent line

The authorities said 279 girls had been freed, saying a figure given last week by police that 317 were kidnapped was inaccurate.
Related Topics
More on this story


________________________






AFP News Agency
@AFP

2h

Replying to
@AFP
#UPDATE All 279 Nigerian students kidnapped from their boarding school in Zamfara state have been released and are back on government property, the governor says. "I am happy to announce that the girls are free," Dr. Bello Matawalle told an@AFP journalist
1614669941740.png
All 279 kidnapped Nigerian students have been released: governor. Nigeria has been rocked by four mass abductions of students in less than three months, sparking widespread anger against the government http://u.afp.com/UpLw
1614669982640.png
VIDEO: Kidnapped Nigerian students released. After being released, hundreds of students who had been kidnapped from their boarding school in northern Nigeria, gathered at Zamfara state government premises
View: https://twitter.com/AFP/status/1366647278891458561?s=20
 
Last edited:

Zagdid

Veteran Member
Two stealth fighter jets, long retired, seen flying over California (chron.com)

Two stealth fighter jets, long retired, seen flying over California

Katie Dowd, SFGATE
Feb. 28, 2021Updated: Feb. 28, 2021 1:56 p.m.

One of the world's most reclusive aircraft is back in the air: A pair of F-117 Nighthawks, retired since 2008, have been seen flying in the Los Angeles area in recent days.

Although the stealth fighters were officially grounded 13 years ago, they've been seen sporadically in the California sky over the last year. The most recent sighting was captured by freelance news photographer Matt Hartman near LAX on Feb. 19. Two F-117s can be seen trailing a KC-135R, an Air Force refueling tanker.

EuuyA3qVgAEboff


The single-seat F-117A Nighthawk was the world's first stealth warplane, built to sneak past enemy radar and drop laser-guided bombs. It was highly classified until the Air Force confirmed its existence in the 1980s.

According to declassified military documents obtained by The Drive, the Air Force approved refueling for F-117s in January.

"This serves as additional evidence that the F-117's post-retirement operations are becoming more widespread and far less reclusive in nature," The Drive reported. "The F-117s, some of which have remained flying for the vast majority of the type's official retirement, at least to a limited degree, have drastically expanded their operational footprint in recent years and are now actively acting in the operational test and development support role and as stealthy dissimilar aggressors."

In short, this may mean something interesting for plane enthusiasts: The stealth jets may be role-playing as enemy aircraft in military wargames. So keep an eye out in California and you might just see this secretive jet. They've occasionally been seen flying from Edwards Air Force Base in Kern County and Travis Air Force Base in Fairfield.
 

jward

passin' thru
The Air Force Is Having To Reverse Engineer Parts Of Its Own Stealth Bomber
Twenty-one years after the last Spirit was delivered, the Air Force is working out how to build the exotic spare parts the bomber requires.
By Thomas Newdick March 1, 2021


Thomas Newdick View Thomas Newdick's Articles
@CombatAir


In a surprising turn of events, the United States government is calling upon its country’s industry to reverse engineer components for the Air Force’s B-2 Spirit stealth bomber. An official call for this highly unusual kind of assistance was put out today on the U.S. government’s contracting website beta.SAM.gov.
Mark Thompson, a national-security analyst at the Project On Government Oversight, brought our attention to the notice, which seeks an engineering effort that will reverse engineer key parts for the B‐2’s Load Heat Exchangers. While it is not exactly clear what part of the aircraft’s many complex and exotic subsystems these heat exchangers relate to, the bomber has no shortage of avionics systems, for example, which could require cooling.



message-editor%2F1614640536540-6512125.jpg

USAF

B-2 Spirit refueling at sunset.

The notice does provide details of what it expects engineers do to support the upkeep of the silver-bullet stealth bomber fleet:
“This engineering effort is to reverse engineer the core of the B‐2 Load Heat Exchangers, develop disassembly process to remove defective cores, develop a stacking, vacuum brazing, and welding process to manufacture new heat exchanger cores and to develop a welding process to install the new cores on existing B‐2 Load Heat Exchangers. The requirement includes reverse-engineering the re‐core process for the B‐2 Load Heat Exchangers. The B‐2 Load Heat Exchanger (NSN 1660‐01‐350‐8209FW) uses air and Ethylene Glycol Water (EGW) liquid to produce cold air for the cooling system.”

“The deliverables will include all technical data related to the heat exchanger disassembly, all technical data related to the cores, all technical data related to the stack up, vacuum brazing, and installation of the cores on existing units. The deliverables will also include all technical data related to the tooling needed for disassembly, core stack up, core vacuum brazing, post braze processing, core installation. Two (2) government B‐2 Sink Heat Exchangers will be provided as government-furnished property (GFP) to prototype this effort. The two (2) prototype units will be delivered at the completion of the contract to return the GFP. The final design shall meet the testing qualifications specified in the government technical orders (TO). Finally, a qualified source of repair shall be provided that is capable of remanufacturing the B‐2 Load Heat Exchangers per the aforementioned deliverables.

Raise your hand if you remember when “reverse engineering” was how the Chinese stole U.S. technology. Looks like the U.S. now has to do it on itself—on a $2.4 billion bomber. Maybe we didn’t get the blueprints from Northrop?beta.SAM.gov pic.twitter.com/wHiDZx3Loq
— Mark Thompson (@MarkThompson_DC) March 1, 2021

The second paragraph makes it abundantly clear that this is a classic reverse engineering effort, in which the technology required to be copied is supplied for analysis before the procedures involved in their original production are replicated.

This Rising B-2 Stealth Bomber's Intricate Belly Is Positively Otherworldly Looking By Tyler Rogoway Posted in The War Zone

The B-2 Bomber Is Still Getting "Game-Changing" Upgrades As Focus Shifts To The B-21 By Joseph Trevithick Posted in The War Zone

The B-2 Bomber Looks Positively Alien In These Images By Tyler Rogoway Posted in The War Zone

New Mobile Operations Center Used To Support B-2 Stealth Bomber Deployment To Diego Garcia By Joseph Trevithick Posted in The War Zone

Look Back At The Birth Of The B-2 Spirit Stealth Bomber In This Intimate New Video Series By Tyler Rogoway Posted in The War Zone


While it’s hard to say exactly why this approach is being taken now, it indicates that the original plans for these components are unavailable or the manufacturing processes and tooling used to produce them no longer exists. This could be the result of them having been so secretive that, at some point, they were inadvertently destroyed altogether. They could also have been simply misplaced, or the parts may have been produced by a smaller contractor that has long since disappeared, taking the bespoke tooling with it.


message-editor%2F1614639224124-100226-f-1333s-007.jpeg

U.S. Air Force/Senior Airman Jessica Snow

A B-2 sits on jacks at Whiteman Air Force Base, awaiting airmen from the 509th Maintenance Squadron to perform checks.


This should also be seen in the context of the unique requirements of sustaining the B-2 fleet, 19 of which are combat-coded and only 20 exist, in total. In this previous feature, The War Zone looked at how the bombers each undergo a programmed depot maintenance cycle every nine years, including a general overhaul and a complete reapplication of the aircraft’s special radar-absorbing material skin and paint job. It’s a process that already makes use of innovative processes, such as robotic systems to help install parts and apply coatings, to help improve quality control and reduce the frequency of depot visits.

Of course, recent developments in technology potentially make the process of reverse engineering much quicker and more reliable, too. Earlier this year, it was reported that the Air Force’s Rapid Sustainment Office (RSO) was looking to industry for a “cutting-edge, automated 3D scanning system,” specifically intended to replicate aircraft parts that are no longer in production, including at maintenance depots.



U.S. Air Force/R. Nial Bradshaw

A 574th Aircraft Maintenance Squadron maintainer performs depot maintenance on an F-22 at Hill Air Force Base, Utah. The 574th installed the first metallic 3D printed part on an operational F-22 in December 2018.

In the case of the B-2 scenario, we might imagine how a 3D scanner would be used to scan the original parts and produce a virtual model. From this, at least in part, would then be derived a new set of blueprints that could be reproduced by machine processes and other current manufacturing techniques, yielding a new source of heat exchangers required for ongoing sustainment

One of the B-2’s stablemates in Air Force Global Strike Command, the veteran B-52H Stratofortress, has also benefitted from reverse engineering. In this case, Mission Support Inc. received an Air Force contract to overhaul the aircraft’s engine bypass ducts. With insufficient technical data, the company turned to modern computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) technology to ensure the new components fitted correctly.
Similar initiatives are already underway within the Air Force. The 402nd Electronic Maintenance Group Reverse Engineering Avionics Redesign and Manufacturing team, or REARM, is found at Warner Robins Air Logistic Complex (ALC) at Robins Air Force Base, Georgia. Its role is to ensure spare parts supply for older weapons systems.


message-editor%2F1614637558789-200917-f-ed303-1001.jpg

U.S. Air Force/ Joseph Mather

Damon Brown, 402nd Electronic Maintenance Group Reverse Engineering, Avionics Redesign and Manufacturing chief, with a circuit board for a B-52 that is team redesigned, replacing five circuit cards inside the Cold War-era bomber.

“The first part of reverse engineering is to do an obsolescence study,” Damon Brown, 402nd EMXG REARM chief explained in an Air Force press release. “If we cannot get or find the parts to fix a piece of equipment or replace it, then we go back to the customer or the supply chain with this item and ask them what they want us to do.”

Working on behalf of the Air Force Sustainment Center, similar REARM teams are also found at Oklahoma City ALC at Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma, and at Ogden ALC at Hill Air Force Base, Utah.
Indeed, as the average age of the Air Force fleet continues to increase, there are only likely to be more such requirements for parts that are long out of production. Before he stood down, the former Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, Will Roper, told Air Force Magazine of his desire for a “digital representation of every part in the Air Force inventory.”

message-editor%2F1614637720910-200929-f-zz999-2001.jpg

Alan Radecki/Northrop Grumman

The B-2 “Spirit of Pennsylvania” during a programmed depot maintenance stay at Plant 42 in Palmdale, California.

During his tenure, Roper was also keen to increasingly leverage commercial industry practices into this kind of military sustainment, with a view to driving down sustainment costs.
“We want to reverse-engineer parts that we may not have the designs for anymore,” Roper said. “We want to look at repeatability of parts so that we’re not critically coupled to an individual printing machine. And we want to look at the entire process of what it takes to get a novelty manufactured part onto a critical mission airplane or satellite.”
The Rapid Sustainment Office’s Advanced Manufacturing Olympics last October saw plenty of 3D printing, but also called upon reverse engineering. In one event, teams had to replicate as many parts as possible from a box of components using reverse engineering and modeling.

All in all, the search for reverse-engineered components for the B-2 fleet is keeping with the Air Force’s current trend of moving toward the latest digital engineering and manufacturing techniques to help ensure its aircraft can be sustained not just easier and more cheaply, but in some cases, possibly at all. Above all else, it underscores how America's tiny fleet of aging stealth bombers, which were largely built on highly experimental technology at the time of their fielding, is a uniquely obvious candidate for using reverse engineering to keep it flying. For something as critical as a heat exchanger, which is essential to keeping the jet in the air, these new processes and techniques may have come just in time.
Contact the author: thomas@thedrive.com

Posted For Fair Use
 

jward

passin' thru
Submarine Detection and Monitoring: Open-Source Tools and Technologies

Nicknamed the “Silent Service,” submarines are considered the most survivable nuclear weapons-delivery platform. They can stay submerged for weeks or even months at a time, and move relatively undetected while on patrol. The United States, Russia, China, North Korea, India, and Pakistan have or are developing submarines capable of carrying nuclear weapons systems. An equal number of countries are developing and testing new nuclear-armed submarine-launched ballistic and cruise missiles. [1] Such programs have already had a negative impact on stability in several areas of the globe. For example, the United States, its NATO allies, and Russia have ramped up Cold War-esque cat-and-mouse submarine hunts in the North Atlantic. [2] Of additional concern is the submarine arms race occurring between India and Pakistan, as well as North Korea’s pursuit of diesel-electric ballistic missile submarine (SSB) capabilities. [3]

Given the integral deterrence role submarines play in the relationships between nuclear-armed countries, understanding the tools and technologies available for submarine monitoring is strategically important. Advancements in submarine detection have the potential to affect the survivability of submarines as nuclear delivery platforms. Submarine detection and monitoring was traditionally the exclusive domain of highly classified military units specializing in naval anti-submarine warfare (ASW). Military ASW employs technologies such as magnetic anomaly detectors (MAD), which detect tiny disturbances to Earth’s magnetic field caused by metallic submarine hulls, passive and active sonar sensors that use sound propagation to detect objects underwater, as well as radar and high-resolution satellite imagery to detect surfaced submarines. Recent advances in commercial tools and technologies now give open-source researchers some ability to monitor submarine fleets. With commercial satellite imagery, synthetic aperture radar (SAR), hydro-acoustic sensors, and even social media analysis, open-source researchers can better understand the size and composition of countries’ submarine fleets, monitor construction of submarines and submarine bases, and potentially learn about patrol patterns and behaviors.

Detecting Submarines by JamesMartinCNS on Sketchfab
Explore further with this 3D model that highlights parts of submarines vulnerable to detection by social media, satellite imagery, and other sensors.
Commercial Satellite Imagery

Readily accessible high-resolution commercial satellite imagery is one of the most important tools for open-source analysis of submarine activity. Imagery enables researchers to monitor naval shipyards and bases for activity visually, such as those in China and North Korea.

For example, over the years, researchers have used satellite imagery to glean important information about China’s efforts to expand and modernize its fleet of nuclear submarines. In 2007, just as several of China’s new Jin-class (Type 094) SSBs were commissioned, Federation of American Scientists analyst Hans Kristensen began using Google Earth imagery to count the number of operational Jin-class submarines at various bases and shipyards around the country, and later to study the expansion of China’s submarine infrastructure (a network of shipyards, naval bases, underground facilities for missile storage, and submarine demagnetization facilities). [4] Imagery of construction at Longpo Naval Base—the home of China’s southern SSBN fleet—revealed interesting clues about China’s SSBN program. For example, Kristensen observed the installation of China’s first submarine demagnetization facility, which strips submarine hulls of residual magnetic fields, pointing to Chinese efforts to deploy less detectable submarines. [5]

Catherine Dill of the Center for Nonproliferation Studies (CNS) published an article revisiting efforts to count China’s operational Jin-class submarines, but unlike Kristensen, she did so using high frequency satellite imagery from Planet Labs. [6] High frequency imagery has revolutionized open-source analysis because it is characterized by a high revisit rate. Often, Planet Labs prioritizes frequent imaging of the same sites (up to twice daily) to enable rapid change detection, as well as comparison of images across multiple sites over the same time periods. Dill captured images of two critical Chinese submarine facilities—the Bohai shipyard and the Longpo Naval Base—on the same day. This enabled her to count Chinese SSBNs more accurately; when using images from different dates, there is a risk of double counting or other errors.
Bohai Shipyard

Two Jin-class submarines at the Bohai Shipyard, November 16, 2018. Image courtesy of Catherine Dill and © 2018 Planet Labs, Inc.
Longpo Naval Base

Three Jin-class submarines at Longpo Naval Base, November 16, 2018. Image courtesy of Catherine Dill and © 2018 Planet Labs, Inc.

North Korea maintains one of the largest submarine fleets in the world, estimated at between 64 and 86 submarines. The fleet is comprised primarily of conventionally-armed submarines; however, satellite imagery analysis in recent years has uncovered North Korean efforts to build a class of diesel-electric SSBs and submarine launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs). [7] In 2014, open-source analysts spotted North Korea’s first Gorae-class (aka Sinpo-class) ballistic missile submarine at the Sinpo South Naval Shipyard. [8] At the same time, analysts watched the development and testing of a solid-fueled SLBM that could potentially arm Gorae-class submarines. [9]

Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR)
Synthetic aperture radar (SAR) is a type of space-based imaging that uses radar echoes to create very high resolution 2- or 3-dimensional representations of landscapes, bodies of water, buildings, and other objects. [10] SAR sensors can pick up tiny changes to landscapes—such as vehicular and foot traffic—that optical sensors cannot detect. SAR imagery first became commercially available in 1995, however companies did not launch high-resolution SAR sensors until 2007. It’s relative newcomer status in the commercial sector means it is less accessible than optical imagery and often prohibitively expensive. [11]
Punggye-ri nuclear test site

SAR images of the nuclear test site at Punggye-ri showing the subsidence of Mount Mantap due to North Korea’s sixth nuclear test. Images source: Airbus Defence and Space, © DLR e.V. 2017 and © Airbus Defence and Space GmbH 2017.

SAR sensors routinely image the ocean for a variety of environmental, scientific, and law enforcement applications. SAR sensors can also detect the wakes of large surface ships. However, SAR’s ability to detect submarine wakes for anti-submarine warfare (ASW) purposes remains inconclusive.

SAR’s ability to enable analysts to detect even tiny changes makes the technology potentially useful for monitoring submarine construction at naval shipyards. For example, SAR imagery could help analysts to monitor North Korea’s Sinpo South Naval Shipyard, and any construction on North Korea’s expanding SSB fleet, by imaging materiel movement. Additionally, SAR sensors could be used to monitor China’s Bohai for frequent updates on the construction of additional Jin-class SSBNs.

Hydroacoustic Monitoring
Submarines must operate quietly in order to evade enemy sensors because water is a highly efficient conductor of sound. [12] The main source of noise from a submarine comes from its propulsion system. Thus, the design and quality of the propeller blades matter greatly in ensuring the survivability of a country’s sea-based nuclear deterrent. [13] China’s Jin-class SSBN is reportedly very noisy, providing one possible reason why Chinese submarines rarely stray from coastal to deeper waters. [14] Countries like the United States and China have built networks of hydroacoustic sensors, which use sonar technology to detect submarines that navigate close to their coastal borders and strategic military locations. [15]
Hydroacoustic Monitoring Map
Click map for full-view
Map of hydroacoustic monitoring stations in the CTBTO’s international monitoring system (IMS). Map source: Preparatory Commission for the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty Organization, www.ctbto.org/map.


Traditionally, hydroacoustic monitoring has been the domain of national governments. However, in the civilian and scientific sector, the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty Organization (CTBTO) operates a network of eleven hydroacoustic monitoring stations as part of the International Monitoring System (IMS) for detecting nuclear explosions. The data collected by the CTBTO’s hydroacoustic stations is accessible, by request, for research purposes such as tracking whale migration patterns and developing tsunami warning systems. [16] In late 2017, IMS hydroacoustic data was used to locate the last known position of the ARA San Juan, an Argentine submarine that disappeared and sadly sank off the coast of Argentina. [17] Open-source researchers could use similar data to isolate the acoustic signatures of submarines and subsequently assess their movements. Analysts could also use this data to analyze SLBM tests by North Korea and other countries developing SLBMs. While open-source researchers have used data from IMS infrasound stations (which track sound waves undetectable to the human ear) to monitor missile and rocket launches on land, hydroacoustic data has not been utilized in a similar fashion. [18]

Social Media
The rise of social media through platforms such as Facebook, Twitter, Snapchat, and Instagram, as well as crowd-sourcing websites (e.g., www.liveuamap.com) and fitness trackers (e.g., Strava), has made maintaining operational security far more difficult for militaries. In recent years, a number of seemingly harmless Tweets and Instagram pictures have revealed themselves as major security breaches. [19] In January 2018, a student at Australian National University discovered that user activity posted on Strava, a fitness app that allows individuals to map their running and biking routes, had unwittingly exposed the locations and perimeters of sensitive military facilities around the world, as well as so-called “patterns of life” of military personnel stations at such facilities. [20] Among the facilities profiled was HM Naval Base Clyde in Faslane, Scotland, where the United Kingdom’s nuclear submarine force is berthed. Pictures posted on Twitter show clear heat signatures around the base’s perimeter, indicating either a running route or perimeter patrol. [21] Potential “patterns of life” risks with naval personnel include identifying a submariner on Strava and then using their logged exercise locations to map SSBN movements.
Tweet

Twitter post of Strava heat map data logged around HM Naval Base Clyde, the home of the U.K.’s SSBN fleet.
“Patterns of life” research isn’t specific to fitness trackers—a simple scan of other social media platforms shows just how much material open-source researchers can access for similar analyses. Naval personnel tend to have active digital lives, much like their civilian counterparts. On Instagram, a simple queries result in images and videos taken by members of various navies while in home or foreign ports. If someone were to tag their location while in full uniform with identifying patches exposed, that could be enough information to identify what ship, surface or submarine, that individual is on, as well as its movements.

Interestingly, searches on Twitter and Instagram reveal a large number of individuals who “sub spot” as a hobby. One individual monitors military vessels, including submarines, that transit the Bosphorus Strait in Turkey. [22] Once, a Dutch Naval Commander tweeted a picture of a Russian Krasnodar submarine after it passed his ship in the Bosphorus. Resulting analysis deemed the submarine was likely headed to the port of Tartus, Syria, to aid Russian military operations in the country. [23] Other accounts publish images or videos taken by average citizens who just happen to see a giant submarine cruise past them. Still others repost digital media related to submarines published by military accounts.
Russian submarine

A photo taken by a Dutch Naval Commander of a Russian Krasnodar submarine as it passes his ship in the Bosphorus Strait in Turkey.

Summary
Commercial satellite imagery, SAR, social media, and hydroacoustic monitoring are just a few of many new tools that have transformed open-source analysis in the nonproliferation field. As the United States, Russia, China, North Korea, India, and Pakistan build up and modernize the sea-based leg of their nuclear arsenals, these tools will remain important to open-source assessments of their programs.

Sources:
[1] Tim Fish, “First Nuclear Deterrence Patrol Marks Major Step for Indian Submarine Force,” USNI News, 12 November 2018, https://news.usni.org; Ankit Panda, “The Risks of Pakistan’s Sea-Based Nuclear Weapons,” The Diplomat, 13 October 2017, thediplomat.com.
[2] Christopher Woody, “Russia Has ‘Stepped on the Gas’ with Its Submarine Fleet – and NATO is on Alert,” Business Insider, 28 April 2018, www.businessinsider.com.
[3] Tim Fish, “First Nuclear Deterrence Patrol Marks Major Step for Indian Submarine Force,” USNI News, 12 November 2018, https://news.usni.org; Ankit Panda, “The Risks of Pakistan’s Sea-Based Nuclear Weapons,” The Diplomat, 13 October 2017, The Diplomat – The Diplomat is a current-affairs magazine for the Asia-Pacific, with news and analysis on politics, security, business, technology and life across the region..
[4] Hans M. Kristensen, “New Chinese Ballistic Missile Submarine Spotted,” Federation of American Scientists, 5 July 2007, https://fas.org; Hans M. Kristensen, “Two More Chinese SSBNs Spotted,” Federation of American Scientists, 4 October 2007, https://fas.org; Hans M. Kristensen, “China SSBN Fleet Getting Ready – But for What?”, Federation of American Scientists, 25 April 2014, Striving For A Safer World Since 1945.
[5] Hans M. Kristensen, “China SSBN Fleet Getting Ready – But for What?” Federation of American Scientists, 25 April 2014, Striving For A Safer World Since 1945.
[6] Catherine Dill, “Counting Type 094 Jin-Class SSBNS with Planet Imagery,” Arms Control Wonk, 21 November 2018, www.armscontrolwonk.com.
[7] “North Korea Submarine Capabilities,” Nuclear Threat Initiative, 4 October 2018, www.nti.org.
[8] “North Korea Submarine Capabilities,” Nuclear Threat Initiative, 4 October 2018, www.nti.org.
[9] “North Korea Submarine Capabilities,” Nuclear Threat Initiative, 4 October 2018, www.nti.org.
[10] C.R. Jackson and J.R. Apel, “Synthetic Aperture Radar Marine User’s Manuel,” National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, www.sarusersmanual.com.
[11] David Germroth, “Commercial SAR Comes to the U.S. (Finally!),” Apogeo Spatial, Spring 2016, Apogeo Spatial | Home Page.
[12] “Hydroacoustic Monitoring,” CTBTO, www.ctbto.org.
[13] Kyle Mizokami, “What Makes Submarines So Quiet,” Popular Mechanics, 15 August 2017, www.popularmechanics.com.
[14] Hans M. Kristensen, “China’s Noisy Nuclear Submarines,” Federation of American Scientists, 21 November 2009, https://fas.org; Jeffrey Lewis, “China’s Noisy New Boomer,” Arms Control Wonk, 24 November 2009, www.armscontrolwonk.com.
[15] Joseph Trevithick, “China Reveals It Has Two Underwater Listening Devices within Range of Guam,” The Warzone, 23 January 2018, www.thedrive.com.
[16] CTBTO, “Hydroacoustic Monitoring.”
[17] “CTBTO Hydroacoustic Data Used to Aid Search for Missing Submarine ARA San Juan,” CTBTO Information Centre, 24 November 2017, www.ctbto.org/press-centre.
[18] Bharath Gopalaswamy, “Observing Missile Launches Using Infrasound Technology,” Trust and Verify VERTIC Newsletter, Issue 127 (October-December 2009), www.vertic.org.
[19] Max Seddon, “Does This Soldier’s Instagram Account Prove Russia Is Covertly Operating in Ukraine?” BuzzFeed News, 30 July 2014, www.buzzfeednews.com.
[20] Jeremy Hsu, “The Strava Heat Map and the End of Secrets,” WIRED, 29 January 2018, www.wired.com.
[21] Brian Donnelly, “Fear of Security Breach at Faslane from Soliders Using Fitness App,” The Herald, 29 January 2018, www.heraldscotland.com.
[22] Bosphorus Naval News, https://twitter.com.
[23] Kramer, Rob, Twitter Post, 5 May 2017, 5:51 AM.

 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
Hummm.......

Posted for fair use.....


Biden must keep all nuclear options on the table

2 Mar 2021 | Adam Cabot

The US Navy’s new low-yield submarine-launched ballistic missile, produced rapidly by the National Nuclear Security Administration, is intended to provide a proportional response to US adversaries’ concepts of ‘coercive, limited nuclear escalation’.

Proposed in the Trump administration’s 2018 nuclear posture review, the SLBM incorporates a variant of the W76-1 warhead called the W76-2 and lowers the explosive yield from 90 kilotons to an estimated 5 kilotons. The missile has been deployed on Ohio-class ballistic missile submarines.

Concern over Russia’s potential to use non-strategic or tactical nuclear weapons against NATO members demands that the US have a response other than high-yield weapons.

Until now, the US’s options were limited. Responding to Russian threats to use low-yield non-strategic nuclear weapons with a 90-kiloton nuclear warhead would be disproportionate and an adversary might well consider it not to be credible. Although the US fields the B61 low-yield gravity bomb and recently developed the B61-12, the aircraft carrying these non-strategic weapons would need to navigate advanced Russian integrated air defences to reach their targets. That raises doubts that high-yield warheads are a viable option.

Credible deterrence that reduces the risk of use of nuclear weapons requires credible responses. The low-yield SLBM is an additional deterrence measure designed to prevent war, not make it more likely.

President Joe Biden has inherited a situation where great-power competition will have significant global consequences and appropriate signalling to potential adversaries is critical for preventing war. During the election campaign, Biden signalled that he believed the deployment of the low-yield SLBM was a ‘bad idea’. He has also publicly supported a ‘no first use’ nuclear policy. A key presidential adviser, Bonnie Jenkins, has also advocated no first use. Jenkins has been nominated as Biden’s undersecretary of state for arms control and international security, which would place her in a strong position to influence this policy.

The increasingly aggressive behaviour of China and Russia, the risk that Iran will develop a nuclear arsenal and North Korea’s possession of intercontinental ballistic missiles make the world more dangerous and volatile. Biden needs to signal that all options are on the table when it comes to defending the US, its allies and its interests and that these options are dynamic, versatile and fit for purpose.

In the face of China’s nuclear modernisation, the US can’t afford to take options off the table and signal a weakness of resolve. In her 2016 book on Chinese nuclear proliferation, Susan Turner Haynes says China is moving away from a minimum deterrence nuclear strategy to one of limited deterrence. Her analysis is based on Chinese military documentation and the quantitative and qualitative modernisation of China’s nuclear structure, which suggests a progression to a warfighting nuclear capability.

The study also casts doubt on the likelihood of China adhering to a true no-first-use policy. Beijing’s long-term commitment to this policy has also been questioned by analysts including retired People’s Liberation Army major general Zhenqiang Pan, who stated: ‘China’s new strategic goal of achieving a most influential world power status by the mid-twenty-first century may envisage a greater role of its military force, including the role of nuclear weapons, and perhaps the need to revisit its no-first-use policy.’

Turner Haynes describes a number of differences between minimum deterrence and limited deterrence, but one distinction goes to the heart of the issue. She says that ‘minimum deterrence is achieved by having the ability to strike back after a first strike’, while ‘limited deterrence is achieved by increasing nuclear options’. For Biden to signal an intention to decrease the US’s nuclear options such as the low-yield SLBM in the face of determined nuclear modernisation by great-power competitors sends a dangerous signal.

His comments may prove to be rhetoric intended to appeal to his base, which includes nuclear abolitionists and the arms-control community, and the president may leave the nuclear policies and structure in place. But the issue is the power of the message.

With a new president signalling that nuclear weapons are not an option, aggressive dictators looking to exploit power vacuums and weakness may conclude that the time is right to push the envelope and invade Taiwan or close the South China Sea, invade the Baltic States or attack South Korea.

US nuclear policies and strategies have helped prevent great-power conflict through appropriate signalling and a robust, evolving nuclear posture. Now is not the time weaken our resolve when bullies are seeking to exploit global fear and hardship and gain an advantage. Let’s not be blindly idealistic to the point of weakening solid defence structures. There’s too much at stake.

Biden needs to signal to potential adversaries that the US has developed and produced flexible options for a reason, and that these options can and will be used proportionally.

Author
Adam Cabot has a master’s in international relations and is currently researching nuclear strategy. Image: US Department of Defense.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
Posted for fair use.....

SpaceX wins Air Force manufacturing research contract for hypersonic vehicle thermal shields
by Sandra Erwin — March 1, 2021

AFRL is researching advanced manufacturing technologies for hypersonic air and space vehicles.

WASHINGTON — The Air Force Research Laboratory awarded SpaceX an $8.5 million contract to investigate advanced materials and manufacturing techniques for heat shields that protect hypersonic vehicles in flight.


Heat protection is a critical technology to shield hypersonic vehicles from the intense heat experienced when flying at more than five times the speed of sound.


The contract was from the AFRL Materials and Manufacturing Directorate for a project called “multipurpose thermal protection systems for hypersonics.”


An AFRL spokesman said this was a competitive program with multiple bidders. The contract was awarded in December but was made public Feb. 26. News of the award was first reported by @AviationWeek


“The objective is to refine thermal protection system manufacturing technologies to enable low-cost, high volume production of next generation thermal protection systems,” said the notice of the award.


AFRL for years has been developing technologies in support of Defense Department, Air Force and Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency hypersonic vehicle programs.


AFRL is researching advanced manufacturing technologies such as additive manufacturing for hypersonic air and space vehicles. The lab will test these techniques for the production of heat protection materials that hypersonic vehicles need to fly in extreme environments like ballistic reentry.


SpaceX has developed advanced heat shielding systems to protect the Dragon human spaceflight capsule and its next-generation Starship space exploration vehicle as they reenter the Earth’s atmosphere.
 

jward

passin' thru
The Changing Military Dynamics of the MENA Region

March 2, 2021

Download the Report



The Burke Chair is issuing a comprehensive survey of the changing military dynamics in the Middle East North Africa region. It addresses the shifts by each MENA country as well as subregion, the role of outside powers, and the full range of new military and civil pressures that are changing regional security efforts and the role of outside security assistance.


This survey is entitled The Changing Military Dynamics of the MENA Region. It is available on the CSIS website at https://csis-website-prod.s3.amazon...Dynamics.pdf?aFbaUdiB0knUgNbAmZ_SEJOABTSDemZ7. It is being circulated for comment as a working paper. Please send any comments to Anthony H. Cordesman at acordesman@gmail.com.


The analysis focuses on the fact that the U.S. faces major challenges in its security relations with each state in the Middle East and North Africa as well as from nations outside the MENA region. It still is the dominant outside power in the region, but the security dynamics of the Middle East and North Africa have changed radically over the last decade and will continue to change for the foreseeable future.


At the beginning of 2011, most MENA nations were at peace and seemed to be relatively stable. North African countries were at peace under authoritarian leaders. The Arab-Israeli conflicts were limited to low-level clashes between Israel and Palestine. Egypt acted as a stable major regional power. Iraq’s Islamic extremists seemed to be defeated. Iran was a weak military power dependent on low-grade and dated weapons. The other Arab Gulf states appeared to be unified in a Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC). Yemen was poor and could not meet the needs of many of its people, but it still seemed stable. Military spending and arms purchases were high by global standards, but they only presented a limited to moderate burden on local economies.


Today, none of those things are true. Regional rivalries, extremism, and the series of political uprisings and conflicts that were once called the “Arab Spring” have turned the MENA region into a fragmented mess. What appeared to be a relatively stable pattern of national security developments and outside support before the political upheavals that began in 2011, has now become the scene of local power struggles; internal conflicts; new battles with extremist movements; and major civil wars in Iran, Libya, Syria, and Yemen.


Instead of a shift towards democracy, many regimes have become more repressive and authoritarian. Efforts at reforming governance and the economy have fallen far short of the needs of most states. Iran has emerged as a far more serious military threat in the Gulf. The U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003, as well as its fight to defeat extremists and end factional struggles in Iraq that seemed to be ending in 2011, have led to a new struggle with ISIS and two decades in which security assistance meant direct U.S. participation in active combat and combat support of partner forces.


Non-state actors like the Hezbollah, Iraqi Popular Mobilization Forces (PMFs), and Houthis have become significant threats while the U.S. has used security assistance – and newly created Security Force Assistance Brigades – to create its own non-state actors in Syria. Other powers like Russia have provided support, combat troops, and mercenaries to support non-state actors in Libya and Syria. More broadly, Iran, the Assad forces in Syria, the Lebanese Hezbollah, the pro-Iranian Popular Mobilization Forces in Iraq, and the Houthis in Yemen have created a coalition of hostile powers that threaten both U.S. interest and U.S. strategic partners.


There have been other important changes in the role of outside powers. European powers remain active in the Mediterranean and North Africa. Britain and France still play a role in the Gulf, but their roles have been tentative, and their power projection capabilities have continued to slowly decline. Russia has reasserted itself as a major power and competitor with the U.S. and Europe, and it plays a major security role in Libya and Syria as well as a provider of arms. China has emerged as a major global power and potential competitor in the MENA region, and there are reports that it may play a major security role in Iran. Turkey is playing an active military role in Libya, Syria, and Iraq.


All of these changes are still in play, and the Biden administration must now deal with restructuring both security assistance and the entire U.S. force posture in the MENA region at a time when the U.S. has so far failed to find either a broad strategy or an approach to security assistance that offers security and stability in any given area.


At the same time, the military and security forces in every country in the Middle East and North Africa continue to change in size, structure, and force posture. Each MENA country has to create its own approach to creating new systems of command and control, battle management, secure communications, and dependence on space systems. There are advances in military software and uses of artificial intelligence as well as in all the other aspects of what the U.S. has come to call joint/all-domain operations.


So far, most of the more advanced U.S. security partners – Morocco, Tunisia, Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Kuwait, Bahrain, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE – depend on very different degrees of support from the U.S. – and particularly support from the U.S. commands and fleets in the MENA region to support the modernization of their forces for active support in peacetime exercises and operations as well as for advanced operations and interoperability if combat occurs.


Even with U.S. support, the advanced versions of such efforts radically increase the cost and complexity of military and security forces, which involve efforts that most countries are too small or too poor to deploy and afford. There are only three major outside powers – the U.S., Russia, and China – that can provide the full range of capabilities needed to allow interoperable MENA forces to operate at this level.


The end result is that major changes are still taking place in the military and internal security forces of all MENA countries and in every aspect of outside support and security assistance. Moreover, while many MENA countries still spend massive amounts of money on modernizing and expanding their military forces and their major weapons, they have greatly expanded their focus on counterextremism, counterterrorism, and internal security. As a result, their dependence on the U.S., Russia, China, and other outside forces is steadily increasing and will continue to do so indefinitely into the future.


As this analysis explores in detail, these changes impose new demands on U.S. security assistance efforts. Many MENA states have focused on acquiring advanced ballistic and cruise missiles, a wide range of precision-guided weapons, integrated mixes of land-based air and missile defenses, and a wide range of other developments in military technology and tactics. Gray area operations and hybrid warfare have become added sources of change in the military character of the region, as has the support of rebel and other separatist factions in neighboring states. Many U.S. strategic partners have generally needed added security assistance in restructuring; equipping; intelligence; and operations for their counterterrorism, counterextremism, and counterinsurgency forces.


This report has the following Table of Contents:

210302_Cordesman_TOC.PNG

Anthony H. Cordesman holds the Arleigh A. Burke Chair in Strategy at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, D.C. He has served as a consultant on Afghanistan to the United States Department of Defense and the United States Department of State.

Posted For Fair Use

 

jward

passin' thru
Golden Horde Swarming Munitions Program Back On Target After Second Round Of Tests
Four specially adapted Small Diameter Bombs were released by an F-16 near Holloman Air Force Base in New Mexico.
By Thomas Newdick March 3, 2021


The Air Force’s new swarming air-launched munitions program, Golden Horde, has been put to the test for a second time. The latest mission that we know about took place on February 19 and involved a two-seat F-16D Viper fighter jet from the 40th Flight Test Squadron, based at Eglin Air Force Base, Florida, dropping four of the specially configured Collaborative Small Diameter Bombs (CSDB).
Although details remain limited, the Defense Visual Information Distribution Service (DVIDS) today released four photos of the test, in which the jet is seen circling the target after “successfully dropping four CSDBs for the second Golden Horde test mission near Holloman Air Force Base, New Mexico,” according to the captions. The CDSBs are Small Diameter Bombs modified to incorporate networked swarming technology.



message-editor%2F1614797278414-inlineusairforcegoldenhorde.jpg

40th Flight Test Squadron / Public Domain

The F-16D circles as the four collaborative munitions hit their targets, leaving telltale puffs of smoke on the right.

While the aerial imagery from the February 19 test clearly shows four puffs of smoke and dirt where the CSDBs impacted in close proximity, we don’t know for sure how successful the entire test was, or what kinds of parameters were involved. Still, the official photo release implied that they hit their mark.

The Age Of Swarming Air-Launched Munitions Has Officially Begun With Air Force Test By Thomas Newdick and Joseph Trevithick Posted in The War Zone

Air Force Close To Test Firing Low-Cost Cruise Missile As Work On Swarming Munitions Progresses By Joseph Trevithick Posted in The War Zone

USAF Wants To Network Its Precision Munitions Together Into A 'Golden Horde' Swarm By Joseph Trevithick Posted in The War Zone

USAF Wants Swarms of Cheap "Gray Wolf" Cruise Missiles That Can Overwhelm Enemy Defenses By Joseph Trevithick Posted in The War Zone

RAF Tests Swarm Loaded With BriteCloud Electronic Warfare Decoys To Overwhelm Air Defenses By Joseph Trevithick Posted in The War Zone


This Golden Horde test mission follows the first test, which took place on December 15 of last year but was only announced in early January, and which you can read all about here. On that occasion, the two CSDBs launched subsequently failed to impact the simulated high-priority targets due to an “improper weapon software load,” which meant “the collaboration guidance commands were not sent to the weapon navigation system.”
In that first test, the weapons had been provided with pre-defined Rules of Engagement (RoEs) and determined that a GPS jammer was not the highest priority target. At this point, the weapons then collaborated to identify the two highest priority targets, although they ended up impacting a fail-safe target location as a result of the software failure.
Another two CSDB flight tests were planned for early this year, using four rather than two collaborative weapons in each mission.



message-editor%2F1614801682584-topshot-air-force-golden-horde-scaled.jpg

40th Flight Test Squadron / Public Domain


It certainly seems as though the Air Force is steadily making progress with its ambitions to realize networked glide bombs that are able to work together collaboratively to prioritize and destroy targets independently of the launch aircraft.
The Air Force Research Laboratory’s (AFRL) Golden Horde program aims to develop artificial intelligence-driven systems that could allow the networking together of various types of precision munitions into an autonomous swarm. While the adapted Small Diameter Bomb has been utilized for these first tests, the Air Force doesn’t seem to have any plans to field the CSDB as an operational weapon. Instead, the technology that Golden Horde is pioneering could find its way into the AGM-158 Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile (JASSM), or the ADM-160 Miniature Air-Launched Decoy, for example.



message-editor%2F1614799340606-afrl-golden-horde-csdb.jpg

AFRL / PUBLIC DOMAIN

A four-round Collaborative Small Diameter Bomb launcher.


In these previous articles, The War Zone has looked at how these “networked, collaborative, and autonomous” weapon capabilities, once perfected, could revolutionize the way aircraft attack their targets. But there are significant challenges involved, not least ensuring the weapons can sense and react to changes in the battlespace in real-time as well as “talk” to each other to optimize their attack profiles.



message-editor%2F1614797257249-210219-f-ay943-004.jpg

40th Flight Test Squadron / Public Domain


A missile strike by a weapon such as the AGM-158 already presents a hostile air defense network with significant problems, but these would be compounded significantly if the same weapons were able to operate as a networked swarm, responding to changes in target priority, including those threats that appear once the missiles are in flight. Indeed, a swarm of missiles could be launched even before any particular targets had been identified, loitering and then attacking targets as they present themselves. In the same way, decoys, including electronic warfare jammers, could be added to the mix to bring further disruption to the enemy and better protect the launch aircraft.

The latest Golden Horde test shows that the era of the air-launched swarming munition is growing closer to reality, although there will likely be more hurdles to come as the Air Force works to optimize this potentially ground-breaking addition to its arsenal.
Contact the author: thomas@thedrive.com

Posted For Fair Use
 

jward

passin' thru
U.S. ‘Not Prepared To Defend Or Compete’ With China On AI According To Commission Report
A new report issued to Congress and the President lays bare the threats posed by foreign AI weapons and issues a stern warning to American leadership.
By Brett Tingley March 2, 2021
The War Zone



The National Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence, or NCSAI, issued a report on Monday, March 1, 2021, which offers a stark warning to the leadership of the United States. According to the thorough 756-page report, China could likely soon replace the U.S. as the world’s leader in artificial intelligence, or AI, and that shift will have significant ramifications for the U.S. military at home and abroad. The full text of the report is listed on the NCSAI website.

The NCSAI was established by the John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019 and was established to consider the methods and means necessary to advance the development of artificial intelligence, machine learning, and associated technologies to comprehensively address the national security and defense needs of the United States.” Google CEO Eric Schmidt chaired the NCSAI alongside researchers, executives from private industry, and scientists from academia, Silicon Valley, the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, and the Department of Defense. A full list of the NSCAI commissioners can be found here.



message-editor%2F1614719224344-levelsofconflict2.jpg

NSCAI

Various threats posed by different types of AI weapons and tools cited in the report.

In the opening letter to the NSCAI report published this week, Schmidt and Vice Chair Robert Work, Former Deputy Secretary of Defense, issued the stern warning that “America is not prepared to defend or compete in the AI era,” adding that it will take many different sectors working together to confront America’s lack of preparedness and expertise:

This is the tough reality we must face. And it is this reality that demands comprehensive, whole-of-nation action. Our final report presents a strategy to defend against AI threats, responsibly employ AI for national security, and win the broader technology competition for the sake of our prosperity, security, and welfare. The U.S. government cannot do this alone. It needs committed partners in industry, academia, and civil society. And America needs to enlist its oldest allies and new partners to build a safer and freer world for the AI era.


There is already progress being made in terms of integrating AI into the national security arena and the U.S. military, but significant institutional roadblocks remain. The NSCAI report states that despite the progress being made in the private sector in terms of AI tools, “visionary technologists and warfighters largely remain stymied by antiquated technology, cumbersome processes, and incentive structures that are designed for outdated or competing aims.” In order to be prepared to confront an AI-driven global battlespace in the future, the report writes, the Department of Defense (DoD) must embrace a near-paradigm shift in terms of its institutional culture:

The obstacles to integrating AI are many. DoD has long been hardware-oriented toward ships, planes, and tanks. It is now trying to make the leap to a software-intensive enterprise. Spending remains concentrated on legacy systems designed for the industrial age and Cold War. Many Departmental processes still rely too much on PowerPoint and manually driven work streams. The data that is needed to fuel machine learning (ML) is currently stovepiped, messy, or often discarded. Platforms are disconnected. Acquisition, development, and fielding practices largely follow rigid, sequential processes, inhibiting early and continuous experimentation and testing critical for AI.

The DoD, and the USAF in particular, have been developing AI tools in recent years with a focus on use in sensors and navigation, autonomous UAV resupply missions, and potentially even unmanned combat aerial vehicles. Last year, an AI-controlled virtual F-16 defeated a top Air Force fighter pilot in each of five rounds of virtual dogfighting, while the USAF also awarded Boeing, General Atomics, and Kratos with contracts to build the autonomous “loyal wingman” drones that will soon fly alongside human airmen. These are far from the only types of uses of AI the DoD is eyeing, and in fact, they represent only a small segment of the potential applications of AI on the battlefield.

message-editor%2F1614719315725-aiincontext.jpg

NSCAI
As noted in this graphic from the report, AI comes in a wide variety of forms, tools, and applications.

The NSCAI report specifically cites AI-enabled and autonomous weapon systems of all types, not just autonomous aerial vehicles, noting that “the global, unchecked use of such systems could increase risks of unintended conflict escalation and crisis instability.” In particular, the report cites increasingly sophisticated cyberweapons, commercial drones armed with AI software “smart weapons” that can wreak havoc on infrastructure, and AI-enabled “weapons of mass influence” designed to sow discord among the U.S. populace.
While the authors of the report note that competition can be a positive force when it comes to technological innovation, American leadership should be wary of Chinese advances in AI due to the fact that “the AI competition is also a values competition.” The report notes that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is already using artificial intelligence as a “tool of repression and surveillance” both at home and abroad and that “China’s plans, resources, and progress should concern all Americans.” The report notes that although Russia does not attempt to steal U.S. technologies and intellectual property on the same scale as China, the Russian government remains an "aggressive and capable collector of technologies" that could field AI weapons just rapidly as its Chinese counterparts.

America's two main adversaries are just as keenly aware of how AI supremacy could lead to battlefield supremacy and are making just as much investment into AI as the new NSCAI report recommends America does. In 2017, the Chinese government issued a statement that technological advances, including in AI, would make China the global leader by 2030. “By 2030, our country will reach a world-leading level in artificial intelligence theory, technology and application and become a principal world center for artificial intelligence innovation,” the CCP claimed. That same year, Russian President Vladimir Putin made similar comments, claiming that the path to global supremacy is paved with AI. “Artificial intelligence is the future, not only for Russia, but for all humankind,” Putin said. “It comes with colossal opportunities, but also threats that are difficult to predict. Whoever becomes the leader in this sphere will become the ruler of the world.” Both Russia and China are developing their own unmanned combat aerial vehicles, and both have been accused of leveraging AI-powered cyberattacks or misinformation campaigns against the United States.

Among the many recommendations the report makes, in order to counteract this rising foreign AI threat, one is bolstering the U.S. talent base through a new National Defense Education Act, scaling up digital talent in government, and establishing a domestic manufacturing base for microelectronics. Currently, the U.S. is almost entirely reliant on foreign-made electronics to power most of its technologies, both in the defense and consumer sectors. This has become an ever-worrying national security issue, as addressed in a January 2021 Executive Order aimed at mitigating the threats posed by foreign-made drone technologies or even foreign-made subsystems used in drones.

message-editor%2F1614719412173-futuredefense.jpg

NSCAI


The commission advises the U.S. government to more than double the amount of money it invests in AI R&D by 2026, aiming for $32 billion a year. The authors also recommended a huge boost in funding to institutions like the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) in order to sponsor research projects that address emerging AI threats and ways to mitigate them; establishing a Steering Committee on Emerging Technology, tri-chaired by the Deputy Secretary of Defense, the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the Principal Deputy Director of National Intelligence; and adding an additional $17.5 million to the DoD budget to support “innovative concept development.” In addition, the report recommends that the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) pay a much closer watch to foreign investments in American technology research.

The report’s key takeaway is that the Department of Defense and the U.S. Intelligence Community (IC) must be “AI-ready” by 2025, and that a significant talent deficit in those organizations is among the chief roadblocks in terms of U.S. preparedness for an AI-driven battlefield and future. This AI-readiness includes a widespread integration of AI tools throughout the DoD and IC and a significant focus on training, recruiting, and retaining the best talent from all related industries.


message-editor%2F1614719394133-2025.jpg

NSCAI


While wars have for centuries been largely decided by which side possesses the best hardware, we are entering a brave new future in which software will hold the key to global supremacy. As we have noted with many other topics in our previous reporting, the laborious slow pace of procurement and innovation among the DoD has left the United States lagging behind in terms of its preparedness to face AI threats. Whether or not the NSCAI’s recommendations can help correct that course will no doubt be seen in the next international conflict that sees American AI-enabled tools face off against those of its peer rivals.
Contact the author: Brett@TheDrive.com

Posted For Fair Use
 

jward

passin' thru
Biden Secretly Limits Counterterrorism Drone Strikes Away From War Zones
Requiring higher-level approval is a stopgap measure as officials review whether to tighten Trump-era targeting rules and civilian safeguards.


merlin_184513146_286f79fd-78e9-4026-a85a-02a3edbf081a-articleLarge.jpg


New temporary restrictions quietly issued by the Biden administration require the military and the C.I.A. to obtain White House permission before carrying out drone strikes in regions with few American troops on the ground.Credit...John Moore/Getty Images
Charlie Savage Eric Schmitt
By Charlie Savage and Eric Schmitt
  • March 3, 2021
WASHINGTON — The Biden administration has quietly imposed temporary limits on counterterrorism drone strikes and commando raids outside conventional battlefield zones like Afghanistan and Syria, and it has begun a broad review of whether to tighten Trump-era rules for such operations, according to officials.

The military and the C.I.A. must now obtain White House permission to attack terrorism suspects in poorly governed places where there are scant American ground troops, like Somalia and Yemen. Under the Trump administration, they had been allowed to decide for themselves whether circumstances on the ground met certain conditions and an attack was justified.
Officials characterized the tighter controls as a stopgap while the Biden administration reviewed how targeting worked — both on paper and in practice — under former President Donald J. Trump and developed its own policy and procedures for counterterrorism kill-or-capture operations outside war zones, including how to minimize the risk of civilian casualties.
The Biden administration did not announce the new limits. But the national security adviser, Jake Sullivan, issued the order on Jan. 20, the day of President Biden’s inauguration, said the officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations.

Any changes resulting from the review would be the latest turn in a long-running evolution over rules for drone strikes outside conventional battlefield zones, a gray-area intermittent combat action that has become central to America’s long-running counterterrorism wars that took root with the response to the attacks on Sept. 11, 2001.

Counterterrorism drone warfare has reached its fourth administration with Mr. Biden. As President Barack Obama’s vice president, Mr. Biden was part of a previous administration that oversaw a major escalation in targeted killings using remote-piloted aircraft in its first term, and then imposed significant new restraints on the practice in its second.
While the Biden administration still permits counterterrorism strikes outside active war zones, the additional review and bureaucratic hurdles it has imposed may explain a recent lull in such operations. The United States military’s Africa Command has carried out about half a dozen airstrikes this calendar year in Somalia targeting the Shabab, a terrorist group affiliated with Al Qaeda — but all were before Jan. 20.

Emily Horne, a spokeswoman for the National Security Council, acknowledged that Mr. Biden had issued “interim guidance” about the use of military force and related national security operations.
“The purpose of the interim guidance is to ensure the president has full visibility on proposed significant actions into these areas while the National Security Council staff leads a thorough interagency review of the extant authorizations and delegations of presidential authority with respect to these matters,” Ms. Horne said.

Though Mr. Trump significantly relaxed limits on counterterrorism strikes outside war zones, fewer occurred on his watch than under Mr. Obama. That is largely because the nature of the war against Al Qaeda and its splintering, morphing progeny keeps changing.
In particular, during Mr. Obama’s first term, there was a sharp escalation in drone strikes targeting Qaeda suspects in the tribal region of Pakistan and in rural Yemen. Mr. Obama broke new ground by deciding to approve the deliberate killing in 2011 of an American citizen, Anwar al-Awlaki, a radical Muslim cleric who was part of Al Qaeda’s Yemen branch.

Then, after the Islamic State arose in Iraq and Syria, its “caliphate” became a magnet for jihadists during Mr. Obama’s final years and much of Mr. Trump’s presidency. But the region ISIS controlled was considered a conventional war zone, so airstrikes there did not raise the same novel legal and policy issues as targeted killings away from so-called hot battlefields.
The Biden administration’s review of legal and policy frameworks governing targeting is still in preliminary stages. Officials are said to be gathering data, like official estimates of civilian casualties in both military and C.I.A. strikes outside of battlefield zones during the Trump era. No decisions have been made about what the new rules will be, Ms. Horne said.
“This review includes an examination of previous approaches in the context of evolving counterterrorism threats in order to refine our approach going forward,” she said. “In addition, the review will seek to ensure appropriate transparency measures.”

Among the issues said to be under consideration is whether to tighten a limit intended to prevent civilian bystander casualties in such operations. The current rules generally require “near certainty” that no women or children are present in the strike zone, but the Trump team apparently permitted operators to use a lower standard of merely “reasonable certainty” that no civilian adult men were likely to be killed, the officials said.
Permitting that greater risk of killing civilian men made it easier for the military and the C.I.A. to meet the standards to fire missiles. But it is also routine for civilian men to be armed in the kinds of lawless badlands and failed states for which the rules are written.

Among the trade-offs under discussion, officials said, is that intelligence-gathering resources are finite. For example, keeping surveillance drones over a potential strike zone for a longer period to watch who comes and goes means rendering them less available for other operations.
Biden administration officials are also discussing whether to write general rules that are more strictly applied than the Trump-era system sometimes was in practice. They discovered that the Trump system was very flexible and allowed officials to craft procedures for strikes in particular countries using lower standards than those laid out in the general policy, so that administration’s safeguards were sometimes stronger on paper than in reality.


merlin_183238167_e493e499-d118-4c0e-a880-fce27f9859dc-articleLarge.jpg

Image
Jake Sullivan, President Biden’s national security adviser, issued the new limits on drone strikes the day Mr. Biden was inaugurated.Credit...Stefani Reynolds for The New York Times
Officials are also confronting a broader philosophical issue: whether to return to the Obama-era approach, which was characterized by centralized oversight and high-level vetting of intelligence about individual terrorism suspects, or maintain something closer to the Trump-era approach, which was looser and more decentralized.
Under the previous rules, which Mr. Obama codified in a 2013 order known as the P.P.G., an acronym for Presidential Policy Guidance, a suspect had to pose a “continuing and imminent threat” to Americans to be targeted outside a war zone. The system resulted in numerous interagency meetings to debate whether particular suspects met that standard.
Mr. Obama imposed his rules after the frequency of counterterrorism strikes soared in tribal Pakistan and rural Yemen, prompting recurring controversies over civilian deaths and a growing impression that armed drones — a new technology that made it easier to fire missiles at presumed enemies in regions that were difficult to reach — were getting out of control.

But military and intelligence operators chafed under the limits of the 2013 rules, complaining that the process had become prone to too much lawyering and interminable meetings. In October 2017, Mr. Trump scrapped that system and imposed a different set of policy standards and procedures for using lethal force outside war zones.
His replacement centered instead on crafting general standards for strikes and raids in particular countries. It permitted the military and the C.I.A. to target suspects based on their status as members of a terrorist group, even if they were merely foot soldier jihadists with no special skills or leadership roles. And it permitted operators to decide whether to carry out specific actions.

During the presidential transition, Mr. Sullivan and Avril D. Haines, who oversaw development of Mr. Obama’s drone strike playbook and is now Mr. Biden’s director of national intelligence, raised the prospect of tightening the Trump-era rules and procedures to reduce the risk of civilian casualties and blowback from excessive use of drone strikes, but not necessarily going all the way back to the Obama-era system, one official said.
Since Mr. Biden took office, the ensuing interagency review has been primarily overseen by Elizabeth D. Sherwood-Randall, his homeland security adviser, and Clare Linkins, the senior director for counterterrorism on the National Security Council.
The Biden team is also weighing whether to restore an Obama-era order that had required the government to annually disclose estimates of how many suspected terrorists and civilian bystanders it had killed in airstrikes outside war zones. Mr. Obama invoked that requirement in 2016, but Mr. Trump removed it in 2019. The military separately publishes some information about its strikes in places like Somalia, but the C.I.A. does not.

While The New York Times reported on Mr. Trump’s replacement rules in 2017, the Trump administration never released its drone policy or publicly discussed the parameters and principles that framed it, noted Luke Hartig, who worked as a top counterterrorism aide in Mr. Obama’s White House.
Asserting that there was good reason to believe the government did not publicly acknowledge the full range of strikes carried out under Mr. Trump, Mr. Hartig said it was appropriate for the Biden team to gather more information about that period before deciding whether and how to change the system that governed it.
“There is a lot the administration needs to do to reinstate higher standards after the Trump administration, but they shouldn’t just snap back to the Obama rules,” he said. “The world has changed. The counterterrorism fight has evolved.”

Posted For Fair Use
 

jward

passin' thru
UN: 38 died on deadliest day yet for Myanmar coup opposition
Myanmar security forces were seen firing slingshots at protesters, chasing them down and even brutally beating an ambulance crew in video showing a dramatic escalation of violence against opponents of last month’s military coup
ByThe Associated Press
March 3, 2021, 9:54 PM
• 5 min read

On Location: March 4, 2021


Copy and paste to share this video

Copy and paste to embed this video


3:19
On Location: March 4, 2021
Catch up on the developing stories making headlines.
The Associated Press
YANGON, Myanmar -- Myanmar security forces were seen firing slingshots at protesters, chasing them down and even brutally beating an ambulance crew in video showing a dramatic escalation of violence against opponents of last month’s military coup.
A U.N. official speaking from Switzerland said 38 people had been killed Wednesday, a figure consistent with other reports though accounts are difficult to confirm inside the country. The increasingly deadly violence could galvanize the international community, which has responded fitfully so far.

“Today it was the bloodiest day since the coup happened on Feb. 1. We have today — only today — 38 people died. We have now more than over 50 people died since the coup started" and more have been wounded, the U.N. special envoy for Myanmar, Christine Schraner Burgener, told reporters at U.N. headquarters on Wednesday.
Demonstrators have regularly flooded the streets of cities across the country since the military seized power and ousted the elected government of leader Aung San Suu Kyi. Their numbers have remained high even as security forces have repeatedly fired tear gas, rubber bullets and live rounds to disperse the crowds, and arrested protesters en masse.
The intensifying standoff is unfortunately familiar in a country with a long history of peaceful resistance to military rule — and brutal crackdowns. The coup reversed years of slow progress toward democracy in the Southeast Asian nation after five decades of military rule.

The Democratic Voice of Burma, an independent television and online news service, also tallied 38 deaths. A toll of at least 34 was compiled by a data analyst in Yangon, Myanmar's biggest city, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he feared for his safety. He also collected information where he could on the victims’ names, ages, hometowns, and where and how they were killed — an effort he said he had made to honor those who were killed for their heroic resistance.
The Associated Press was unable to independently confirm most of the reported deaths, but several square with online postings.
According to the data analyst's list, most were in Yangon, where 18 died. In the central city of Monywa, which has turned out huge crowds, eight deaths were reported. Three deaths were reported in Mandalay, the country’s second-biggest city, and two in Salin, a town in Magwe region. Mawlamyine, in the country’s southeast, and Myingyan and Kalay, both in central Myanmar, each had a single death.

As part of the crackdown, security forces have also arrested hundreds of people, including journalists. On Saturday, at least eight journalists, including Thein Zaw of The Associated Press, were detained. A video showed he had moved out of the way as police charged down a street at protesters, but then was seized by police officers, who handcuffed him and held him briefly in a chokehold before marching him away.

He has been charged with violating a public safety law that could see him imprisoned for up to three years.
The escalation of the crackdown has led to increased diplomatic efforts to resolve Myanmar’s political crisis — but there appear to be few viable options. It's not yet clear if Wednesday's soaring death toll could change the dynamic.
The U.N. Security Council is expected to hold a closed meeting on the situation on Friday, council diplomats said, speaking on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to make the information public before the official announcement. The United Kingdom requested the meeting, they said.
Still, any kind of coordinated action at the United Nations will be difficult since two permanent members of the Security Council, China and Russia, would almost certainly veto it. Some countries have imposed or are considering imposing their own sanctions.

The U.N. special envoy, Schraner Burgener, who supports sanctions, said she receives some 2,000 messages per day from people inside Myanmar, many “who are really desperate to see action from the international community.”
The 10-member Association of Southeast Asian Nations, which includes Myanmar, issued a statement after a teleconference meeting of foreign ministers Tuesday that merely called for an end to violence and for talks on how to reach a peaceful settlement. ASEAN has a tradition of non-interference in each other's internal affairs.
Ignoring that appeal, Myanmar’s security forces have continued to attack peaceful protesters.

In addition to the deaths, there have been reports of other violence. In Yangon, a widely circulated video taken from a security camera showed police in the city brutally beating members of an ambulance crew — apparently after they were arrested. Police can be seen kicking the three crew members and thrashing them with rifle butts.
Security forces are believed to single out medical workers for arrest and mistreatment because members of the medical profession launched the country’s civil disobedience movement to resist the junta.
In Mandalay, riot police, backed by soldiers, broke up a rally and chased around 1,000 teachers and students from a street with tear gas as gun shots could be heard.
Video from the AP showed a squad of police firing slingshots in the apparent direction of demonstrators as they dispersed.
———
Associated Press writer Edith M. Lederer at U.N. headquarters in New York contributed to this report.
———
This story has been updated to correct that there has been a report of one death in Myingyan, not two.

Posted For Fair Use:
 

jward

passin' thru
Great-Power Competition Is Coming to Africa
The United States Needs to Think Regionally to Win
By Marcus Hicks, Kyle Atwell, and Dan Collini
March 4, 2021

RTR3GXJR.JPG

A U.S.-led international training mission for African militaries in Diffa, Niger, March 2014
Joe Penney / Reuters

Under President Donald Trump, the United States withdrew troops and resources from Africa as part of a broader national security shift from counterterrorism to great-power competition. The Trump administration used the euphemism “optimization” to describe the pivot away from Africa that began around 2018, but a more accurate term would be disengagement. It pared back efforts to fight jihadis in Cameroon, Niger, and Nigeria, downsizing the U.S. military footprint in some of the continent’s most volatile regions. And in the final months of Trump’s presidency, his administration withdrew nearly all U.S. troops from Somalia.

The shift in U.S. strategy toward Africa reflects an assumption—shared by many in Washington—that counterterrorism and other long-standing U.S. priorities in Africa will diminish in importance as competition between the United States, China, and other significant powers intensifies. But that assumption is wrong. In fact, far from being a distraction from great-power competition, Africa promises to become one of its important theaters. And if anything, great-power competition will increase the need for the United States to battle terrorists and safeguard democracy, trade, and free enterprise in Africa—but to do so with particular attention to limiting the malign influence of Russia and China.

President Joe Biden’s administration needs a new strategy that pursues these ends together, sustainably, and at an acceptable cost. For as long as the United States has had an Africa policy, it has run day-to-day operations through its ambassadors, tailoring its approach to each of the continent’s 54 countries individually. But today’s most pressing issues—terrorism, climate change, pandemics, and irregular migration, for instance—would be better served by regional coordinators whose authority transcends national borders. To safeguard its interests on the continent and to limit the influence of its rivals, the United States must start thinking regionally instead of nationally.

Devising such a policy is a matter of some urgency. As current and former military officers, one of whom led the U.S. Special Operations Command for Africa from 2017 to 2019, we believe that the United States must position itself as the partner of choice for African countries in the era of great-power competition. Failure to do so will imperil U.S. interests on the continent—and possibly U.S. security at home.
PARTNER OF CHOICE

Like it or not, a twenty-first century “scramble for Africa” is underway. Russia and China in particular are ramping up economic and military activity on the continent at the same time as the United States is scaling back. Both countries see opportunities to build economic relationships, secure access to natural resources and rapidly growing markets, forge political alliances, and promote their own illiberal models of government.

Russia has dramatically expanded its footprint in Africa in recent years, signing military deals with at least 19 countries since 2014 and becoming the top arms supplier to the continent. Just days after the United States announced its plans to withdraw from Somalia in December 2020, Russia said it had reached an agreement to establish a new naval base in Port Sudan. Its mercenary companies, including the Wagner Group, which fought a deadly firefight against U.S. Special Operations Forces in Syria in 2018, now operate across the continent, from Libya to the Central African Republic to Mozambique.

China, too, is angling for influence in Africa. It established its first overseas military base in Djibouti in 2017 and spends vast sums on infrastructure projects to secure access to resources and to buy goodwill and votes in international organizations such as the United Nations. China’s leaders have promoted their country’s authoritarian bureaucratic system as a model for African leaders seeking to expand their economies without allowing democratic reforms. Their attractive lending practices and noninterference policy regarding human rights, market liberalization, and corruption give them additional influence over poor African governments.

Increased Russian and Chinese activity is already transforming Africa into a theater of competition with the United States—just as Soviet and U.S. jockeying made the continent a venue for Cold War rivalry. In the second half of the twentieth century, the United States, the Soviet Union, China, Iran, and North Korea provided military assistance to governments and rebels across Africa. These countries became embroiled in proxy wars, sometimes even sending their own troops into combat. Russia and Cuba, for instance, sent tens of thousands of soldiers to fight in the Ogaden War between Ethiopia and Somalia and in the Angolan civil war.
Like it or not, a twenty-first century “scramble for Africa” is underway.
The United States might prefer to avoid becoming embroiled in African proxy wars during this new era of great-power competition, but it must be prepared for such conflicts nonetheless. Already, Libya has become a theater for proxy warfare between Russia, Turkey, and other countries backing opposite sides in an increasingly bloody civil-turned-proxy war. The United States has played a peripheral role in that conflict, but that did not stop Russia from allegedly shooting down a U.S. drone over Libya in 2019.

The United States cannot simply withdraw from Africa without leaving its interests exposed. Salafi jihadi insurgencies, political instability, and authoritarianism still threaten U.S. businesses and commercial interests as well as the security of U.S. partners. Like the Afghan Taliban in the 1990s, insurgent groups in Africa are mostly motivated by local and regional concerns. These groups draw recruits from the continent’s large and rapidly growing population, which is particularly vulnerable to radicalization due to persistent poverty, environmental degradation, and all too often, poor governance.

But many of the groups’ leaders have links to al Qaeda and the Islamic State, also known as ISIS, and are increasingly aligned with transnational Salafi jihadi causes. At the direction of al Qaeda’s senior leadership, al Qaeda franchises in the Sahel have conducted attacks against high-profile Western targets in Algeria, Burkina Faso, Mali, and Niger in recent years. And the Somali insurgent group al Shabab has attacked Western targets in Kenya and Somalia and even plotted to hijack a commercial airplane and fly it into a building in the United States, as the U.S. Justice Department revealed in a recent indictment. Moreover, Salafi jihadi groups create political instability that in turn degrades governance, depresses economic activity, allows transnational crime to flourish, unleashes refugee flows, and invites health crises such as the 2014–16 Ebola pandemic in West Africa. In an interconnected world, what happens in Africa does not stay in Africa.

Fortunately, the United States and African countries share a common interest in countering Salafi jihadi groups. By offering sustained and effective counterterrorism assistance, the United States can become the partner of choice for African countries, encouraging them to develop their economies and political systems in accordance with Western norms. Successful great-power competition in Africa hinges on the United States’ ability to win over African governments with a holistic counterinsurgency strategy, one that addresses the root causes of terrorism and lays the political, economic, and developmental groundwork for future stability and prosperity.
FOCUS ON THE STATE

The standard U.S. approach to Africa relies on ambassadors to be the primary decision-makers. The Department of State’s regional bureaus give ambassadors varying degrees of support and direction, but the individual chiefs of mission coordinate most closely with their host governments. This approach has the advantage of putting career diplomatic professionals in the driver’s seat—a clear benefit when dealing with country-specific issues and crises. Unfortunately, ambassadors have neither the staff nor the incentive to look beyond the borders of their host countries to engage with regional organizations or address transnational problems, such as Salafi jihadi insurgencies.

The al Qaeda– and ISIS-affiliated groups in Africa are not confined to any one state. Jamaat Nusrat al-Islam wal-Muslimin and ISIS-Greater Sahara, two of the most potent jihadi groups in the Sahel, move freely across the region to carry out attacks. Boko Haram and ISIS-West Africa do the same across four countries in the Lake Chad region, while al Shabab ranges far outside Somalia’s borders into Kenya and Uganda. Population growth, environmental degradation, and tensions between nomadic and settled populations fuel conflicts that these groups can exploit. As a result, any U.S. strategy to degrade jihadi insurgent groups and address the root causes of the instability that drives them must be transnational in nature.

The United States must also address the interstate coordination issues that allow insurgents to escape military pressure simply by crossing international boundaries. Rather than seeking sanctuary in rough or difficult-to-access geographical terrain, insurgent groups simply exploit interstate coordination problems to roam freely in border regions. Often, they do so along borders between states that have tense diplomatic or military relations. For instance, Boko Haram operates on the border between Cameroon and Nigeria, which have a history of conflict.

The country-by-country approach to Africa not only fails to address coordination issues but can also serve to entrench them. For instance, Congress approves funds for military activities based on its assessment of individual partner countries—not based on the regional dynamics of the threat. As a result, lawmakers may approve a program to train and equip a partner force in one country to address a regional threat but restrict the use of U.S. equipment and the activities of U.S. advisers to within that country’s borders. Such inconsistency not only hampers counterinsurgency efforts but fuels the perception that the U.S. military is an unreliable partner.
THINKING REGIONALLY

Critics of the current country-by-country approach have called for an overarching continental strategy. And indeed, both the Obama and Trump administrations published strategies for continent-level engagement, but neither spelled out specific ends or means. As a result, various levels of government were free to interpret the strategies as they saw fit, and the country-by-country approach endured in practice. The Obama and Trump documents were useful insofar as they offered broad frameworks for engagement, but the truth is that Africa’s needs are too diverse and too complex to be addressed by a single strategy, except at a very superficial level.

What the United States needs is not an overarching continental strategy but one tailored to specific regions. African countries have begun to take such an approach themselves. For instance, in response to al Qaeda– and ISIS-affiliated jihadi activities across the Sahel, five African countries established the G5 Sahel group to coordinate military activities, enable cross-border joint operations, and solicit aid from international backers. Similarly, the Multinational Joint Task Force in the Lake Chad basin coordinates military activities between Cameroon, Chad, Niger, and Nigeria to counter Boko Haram. The African Union Mission in Somalia likewise coordinates the efforts of Burundi, Ethiopia, Kenya, Uganda, and other nations to battle al Shabab.

France has taken a similar approach to insecurity in West Africa and the Sahel. In 2014, it established Task Force Barkhane, a roughly 5,000-soldier operation centralizing security policy and administrative functions across Burkina Faso, Chad, Mali, Mauritania, and Niger.
The United States cannot simply withdraw from Africa without leaving its interests exposed.
Governance failures in these countries and abuses by their security forces have undercut Barkhane’s effectiveness, as has France’s overreliance on counterterrorism tactics at the expense of population-centric counterinsurgency efforts. But the regional approach has clearly eliminated cumbersome bureaucratic hurdles and helped maintain pressure on the militants.

The United States should articulate similar regional strategies for the Sahel, the Lake Chad region, the Horn of Africa, and southeastern Africa—each with clearly defined goals, however generational the timelines for achieving them might be. The strategies should draw on mostly nonmilitary means and aim to improve governance and security, thereby addressing the root causes of radicalization. For example, the United States should reinvigorate USAID, along with other developmental and governance initiatives, so as to better position itself as the partner of choice to African nations. But it must also make the necessary military investments, in particular in synchronizing its advising, training, and equipping activities as well as its tactical and operational support for partner militaries. Military and nonmilitary support alike must be coordinated regionally and aligned against regional threats. Each regional strategy must also be developed with input from Congress and clearly explained to the American people, so as to ensure popular as well as bipartisan support.

To implement its regional strategies, the United States will need empowered regional officials who are authorized to coordinate activities within their areas of responsibility. Regional coordinators, or envoys, have been used to coordinate responses to transnational issues in the past, but they have typically answered to the secretary of state rather than to the president. As a result, they have lacked the authority to compel cooperation from the U.S. military or from individual U.S. embassies or to adjudicate their divergent priorities. Regardless of their exact title, or whether they are civilian or military, the officials in charge of regional strategies for Africa must have the president’s support in order to effectively coordinate the various instruments of American power at their disposal.

The return of great-power competition does not mean that the United States can turn its attention away from Africa. On the contrary, increased Russian and Chinese activity on the continent will necessitate deeper U.S. engagement. To promote stability, good governance, and economic openness in Africa while countering the illiberal influence of competing powers, the United States will need a regional strategy that is capable of addressing transnational threats. Anything short of that will cede the advantage to the United States’ adversaries on a continent where opportunities and risks are set to grow in the coming decades.

Posted For Fair Use
 

jward

passin' thru
Davidson: Aegis Ashore on Guam Would ‘Free Up’ 3 Navy Destroyers
By: Mallory Shelbourne
March 4, 2021 6:21 PM



The Missile Defense Agency (MDA) and U.S. Sailors manning the Aegis Ashore Missile Defense Test Complex (AAMDTC) at the Pacific Missile Range Facility (PMRF) at Kauai, Hawaii, successfully conducted Flight Test Integrated-03 (FTI-03). MDA photo

Building an Aegis Ashore facility on Guam would relieve three guided-missile destroyers from missile defense work and make them available for Navy tasking, the head of U.S. Indo-Pacific Command said Thursday.
Speaking at a virtual event hosted by the American Enterprise Institute, Adm. Phil Davidson made the case for building a homeland missile defense system on Guam, which he has said is his top priority, to protect the U.S. territory from Chinese missiles.

“The Guam defense system brings the same ability to protect Guam and the system itself as the three DDGs it would otherwise take to carry out the mission,” Davidson said. “We need to free up those guided-missile destroyers, who have multi-mission capability to detect threats and finish threats under the sea, on the sea and above the sea, so that they can move with a mobile and maneuverable naval forces that they were designed to protect and provide their ballistic missile defense.”

The Aegis Ashore system pairs the same radar found on the Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyers along with a vertical launch system in a ground-based station.
The 360-degree defense system for Guam appeared on INDOPACOM’s list of investment priorities for both Fiscal Year 2021 and Fiscal Year 2022. USNI News recently reported that INDOPACOM is seeking $4.68 billion in FY 2022 for the recently established Pacific Deterrence Initiative, which Congress created to address a Pentagon strategy focusing on the military threat from China. The investment blueprint calls for $22.69 billion from FY 2023 through FY 2027 for INDOPACOM to achieve its goals.

“It’s return on investment,” Davidson said when arguing for the missile defense system.
“For the cost it takes to build that facility and flesh it out, I free up at least three ships in conflict and probably more ships in crisis. You know, in the deterrence phase they keep up a rotation and do all that kind of stuff going forward,” he added, referring to the oft-cited notion that it takes three ships total to keep one deployed forward due to the cycle for maintenance, training and operations.
The INDOPACOM chief emphasized that Guam’s current use of the Army’s Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) system paired with an Aegis destroyer is not sufficient to address the threat posed by China.
“It doesn’t provide for a 360-degree defense necessarily,” he said. “It’s really designed to defend against a rogue shot from North Korea.”

Davidson pointed to China’s submarines and surface ships circumnavigating the Northern Mariana Islands and Guam, arguing these actions show that China’s ballistic missiles, cruise missiles and potential anti-ship ballistic missiles pose “a 360-degree threat” to Guam.
“We must evolve the critical defense of our people, our platforms and our posture initiatives, and it begins in Guam. Now, a highly capable, fully adaptable and proven system like Aegis – established in a fixed location like Guam – will deliver persistent, 360-degree integrated air and missile defense from the second island chain,” he said.
“In addition to defending U.S. citizens and American soil, this Guam defense system will also be capable of conducting the full spectrum of the detect-to-engage sequence, the sensing, the networking and the delivery of fires to support our maneuver. And that is indeed key to our joint force integration.”

Davidson noted that Aegis is a capability that already exists – it’s on the Navy’s ships and ashore in Europe, and other nations are also purchasing the system. He reasoned that building a missile defense system on Guam sends a message to other countries in the Indo-Pacific region.
“That posture – that assurance of our allies and partners that we’re here to stay and the deterrence capability that signals we’re not going to let Guam go without a fight – is critically important,” he said.
“We’re going to have to be able to fight for it, and missile defense in the region is critical,” Davidson continued.
“And our allies and partners – who are increasing their investments in their defense in the region – recognize the same thing for their territories.”

Posted For Fair Use
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
Posted for fair use.....



US Special Forces train in Serbia, where China and Russia have strengthened military ties









Maj. Gen. David Tabor, left, head of U.S. Special Operations Command Europe, looks at diving equipment during a visit to Serbia this week.

FACEBOOK/U.S. SPECIAL OPERATIONS COMMAND EUROPE


By JOHN VANDIVER | STARS AND STRIPES Published: March 5, 2021


STUTTGART, Germany — A contingent of Green Berets arrived this week in Serbia, where U.S. military commanders are looking to strengthen ties even as Belgrade deepens its connections with rivals China and Russia.

The Special Forces team, based out of Stuttgart, will be in Serbia for one month, training alongside elite Serbian counterterrorism units.

“Because they are sitting there at a crossroads, it is a vulnerable point for Europe as a whole,” Maj. Gen. David Tabor, head of U.S. Special Operations Command Europe, said of Serbia.

It’s the first time that U.S. special operators have been in the country since the coronavirus began sweeping through Europe last year.

U.S. troops are focused on building up Serbian capabilities to deal with threats that include potential efforts by Islamic militants to transit from the Middle East into Europe via Serbia, said Tabor, who was in Belgrade earlier in the week for talks with his military counterparts.

“We have a vested interest in sensing those terrorist threats as soon as possible,” Tabor told Stars and Stripes in an interview.

But if counterterrorism is the focus at the tactical level for the Green Berets, the return of U.S. troops to Serbia also comes amid concern about Belgrade’s increasingly close ties with Beijing and Moscow.


Green Berets and Serbian forces stand in formation at a training site near Belgrade, where U.S. troops are on a one-month mission in March to train with Serbian counterterrorism units.
SERBIAN INTERIOR MINISTRY

Last year, Serbia became the first country in Europe to receive Chinese military aviation equipment — CH-92A combat drones armed with laser-guided missiles.
“Beijing’s export of drones is motivated by the desire to penetrate the European defense market and promote China as a rising power,” wrote security expert Vuk Vuksanovic, an analyst for the London-based Royal United Services Institute think tank.

Belgrade has also traditionally maintained close ties to Moscow, which has donated to Serbia its used MiG-29 fighters and sold Pantsir S1 short-range air defense systems.
Serbian President Aleksandar Vucic frequently boasts of his personal ties with Russia’s leader Vladimir Putin, whom he has met a number of times.

China also has invested heavily in Serbia, pouring money into rail and energy projects and also offering coronavirus vaccines to help the country contend with the pandemic.

Vucic has described his country as China’s “most significant and closest friend” in Europe and has called President Xi Jinping his “brother.”

In a sign of deepening cooperation, in 2021 Serbia also became the first European customer for China’s new FK-3 air defense system — described as roughly equivalent to the U.S. Patriot missile system.


article continues below


related articles







The increasingly close economic and military ties have gotten the attention of U.S. commanders.

“China has emerged as an alternative patron, engaging in both economic and defense support matters,” U.S. European Command’s Gen. Tod Wolters said in his annual 2020 posture statement.

Tabor said he wants his operators to be more involved in the Balkans going forward, and that Serbia is a key part of that effort.

“Flashpoints are just about everywhere you turn down there. There is a long history with long memories,” he said.

So far, Tabor said he sees China’s influence in Serbia, and elsewhere in region, as economic-based.

“That is a concern for us,” Tabor said.

Serbia, a neutral country in a “tough neighborhood,” has historically faced a “a pull and tug” between larger powers in the East and West, Tabor said. Over the long-term, Tabor thinks the pull of the West will be stronger.

“They really do see their future in the EU,” Tabor said.

vandiver.john@stripes.com
Twitter: @john_vandiver
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
Hummm......

Posted for fair use.....

Editors' Pick|Mar 4, 2021,10:49am EST|6,158 views
Is The Pentagon Preparing To Fight The Wrong War?
Michael Krepon
Contributor

Aerospace & Defense
I'm the Co-founder of the Stimson Center, a Washington think tank.

Missile Test


An unarmed Minuteman 3 intercontinental ballistic missile launches during an operation test at ... [+]

ASSOCIATED PRESS
U.S. military planners and troops are overburdened. The Biden administration has declared that it will not permit Iran to acquire nuclear weapons as Tehran moves closer to this threshold. North Korea, like Iran, wants relief from sanctions and gets Washington’s attention by poking and prodding. U.S. forces remain in Afghanistan, Syria and Iraq where they need backup. U.S. ties with Russia are badly frayed. China’s military capabilities are growing. Potential crises lie ahead in the South China Sea and across the Taiwan Strait. Dangerous military practices are on the rise.


As large as the Pentagon’s budget is, priorities still matter. All of these contingencies have one thing in common: U.S. forces need useful and usable military capabilities when placed in harm’s way. Nuclear weapons are not useful on battlefields; they obliterate the best laid plans. This is why President Biden will recoil from pressing the proverbial nuclear button. He has a well-grounded fear of uncontrolled escalation. Other leaders share this concern, which helps explain why nuclear weapons have not been used in warfare for seven decades.


Nuclear weapons are an expensive insurance policy that no leader wants to cash in because the costs of doing so are far, far greater than the premiums. So why is the Pentagon planning to fight a war using both conventional and nuclear weapons?


The short answer is that an adversary might cross the nuclear threshold first, and U.S. forces need to plan for this eventuality. The current Pentagon buzzword for this is “conventional-nuclear integration.” Deterrence strategists believe that rivals are thinking this way, so the Pentagon must, as well.


U.S. planning for the combined use of conventional and nuclear weapons isn’t new. In the 1950s this was called “pentomic warfare." Back then, Army units would carry nuclear weapons with them into battle. Miniature atomic bombs could be fired from the Davy Crockett, a recoilless rifle with a range of one meager mile. Special forces carried nuclear backpacks. These plans didn’t make any sense at the tactical or operational levels of warfare, so they were scuttled. The new strategy of conventional-nuclear integration incorporates nuclear weapons delivered from longer ranges. At a practical level, the same problems still arises: Deterrence dies after the first use of nuclear weapons. War plans do, too.


MORE FOR YOU
The Pentagon Fears That Deadly Microwave Weapons Are Undetectable
The U.S. Air Force Just Admitted The F-35 Stealth Fighter Has Failed
‘Siri, Find Me A Russian Submarine,’ U.S. Navy Asks

Limiting the level of damage in nuclear warfare depends on escalation control. Without it, the use of nuclear weapons with relatively low yields is a losing proposition for both adversaries. But how do you control nuclear escalation against a well-armed foe if one of the combatants seeks to achieve dominance, or at least advantage and one’s foe is determined not to be dominated? None of the brilliant strategic analysts who conceptualized how nuclear weapons might be used in warfare have provided a convincing answer to this question.


Escalation control assumes that considerable nuclear firepower spring-loaded for use remains holstered once the nuclear threshold is crossed. This is conceivable if first use and retaliatory use are extremely limited, but this assumes that lines of communication between adversaries poised at the nuclear abyss remain functional, and that chains of command remain intact once mushroom clouds appear. Escalation control also assumes that both sides are on the same page and can live with the same outcome after being unable to avoid war and the first battlefield use of nuclear weapons since 1945.


Because all of these assumptions are truly heroic, adding nuclear detonations to conventional warfare is fraught with the great risk of losing everything a leader holds dear, including cities that are reduced to smoldering, radioactive ruin. Leaders, regardless of nationality, understand that the most effective form of nuclear escalation control is not to go first.


Chinese and Soviet leaders, including those with severe personality disorders like Mao Tse-tung and Joseph Stalin, have understood this. No national leader since Harry Truman has decided to cross the nuclear threshold. Truman did so to end a world war in which perhaps 75 million people died, most of them civilians.


The norm of non-use has been sustained even when losing wars, facing painful stalemates, or when fighting against a country that couldn’t retaliate in kind. Given this long history, now seven decades old, why is there now a resurgence of thinking about the mixed use of conventional and nuclear weapons?


Yes, we live at a time of competition between major powers, but when hasn’t there been? And yes, there are now two major powers competing with the United States, but their leaders, like the U.S. president, have societies to lose by crossing the nuclear threshold.


Part of the answer is that we must plan for nuclear nightmares. We also need to think sensibly and creatively about how to avoid them. Admiral Charles Richard, the head of the Strategic Command, warns us that a regional crisis involving Beijing or Moscow “could escalate quickly to a conflict involving nuclear weapons, if they perceived a conventional loss would threaten the regime or state.” This is surely true for North Korea, as well. But this analysis begs the question of why U.S. forces would execute conventional military campaigns that would invite Armageddon.


Crises do, indeed, lie in our future and plans are needed—even those that President Biden will try mightily to keep in locked safes. The plans that Biden will find most useful are ones that strengthen his hand while keeping a prudent distance from the nuclear threshold. Conventional and cyber capabilities can affect the outcome of crises. Scrimping on these capabilities to pay for nuclear weapons and their means of delivery is an unwise idea.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
Hummm......

Posted for fair use.....

International Law
Why states undermined their sovereignty by signing NPT?

Published
2 days ago on March 4, 2021
By Asma Tanveer


Nuclear weapons are known as brawny and cataclysmic weapons. The source of the energy of such weapons is fission and fusion of atoms. Such weapons release huge amount of radiation which can cause “radiation sickness”. Nuclear weapons were used once in a history in 1945. 80000 people were killed in Hiroshima and 70000 in Nagasaki. Due to the evidence of catastrophic impact, they have not been used in any war till today. The proliferation of nuclear weapons is a subject of concern in the international system. There are nine states which possess nuclear weapons: United States, United Kingdom, Russia, France and china. Proliferation is a spread of nuclear weapons both horizontally and vertically. In order to deal with the proliferation, NPT was introduced and still working globally.

NPT:
NPT is known as “treaty on the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons”. It thwarts the states from acquiring nuclear weapons’ technology or developing fissile material for nuclear weapons. The NPT is a multilateral treaty which was opened for signature on July 1st 1968 and entered into effect on March 5th 1970. Its signatory parties are 186 which joined it either by ratification or accession. Russia, UK and US are its depositaries. According to this treaty the states which have manufactured nuclear explosives prior to January 1st 1967 are legal nuclear states which include US, UK, Russia, France and china also known as de-jure states whereas Pakistan, India, North Korea and Israel are de-facto nuclear states. There three main pillar of NPT:
  • “Prevention of spread of nuclear weapons and nuclear technology.
  • Promotion of co-operation in peaceful uses of nuclear energy.
  • Achievement of nuclear as well as general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control”.
Since the formation of these contraptions, a lot of gloomy predictions were made like in 21st century 20 states would acquire nuclear weapons but only nine states have been observed as nuclear weapon states till today. However, 65 years ago almost 39 states were engaged in nuclear program but sooner or later they gave up their ambition. From the second half of the 1980, the states which were indulge in the nuclear activities were relatively low. This is because of the 186states have signed NPT as a non-nuclear weapon state and condemned proliferation. The question arises here is what motivate states to not acquire nuclear weapons. There are many theories from the past decade to answer this question are grouped into four overarching groups:
  • Capability
  • Security
  • International norms and perception
  • Domestic political context
These are elaborated below:
The capability of any state regarding formation of nuclear weapons comprises on:
  • Technological capability
  • Economic capability
Development of nuclear weapon is not facile. Production of facile material is the most challenging and expensive, scientifically and technologically both. The transformation of that material into a deliveryweapon and development of the delivery system require technological and financial capabilities and which has become an effective obstacle for the less developed countries. As those countries don’t have advanced scientific and technological infrastructure and are not financially strong to afford the investment needed to start its own nuclear program. So, capabilities became a stumbling block for less developed states due to which they sign NPT as a non-nuclear state. But this is not only the decisive factor in taking decision whether to forgo nuclear weapons or not. Political willingness also play a crucial role in it because it devote a considerable share of states’ resources to military sector or public sector e.g. Pakistan and north Korea are poor states with less capabilities but they have developed nuclear weapons. So, it also depends upon the psychology of the leaders too. This point is concluded by saying:

“More highly developed countries proliferate more readily, less highly developed counters do so less readily”.

Security
is the dominant theory to explain both questions: why states go nuclear and why not? Security is very appealing factor for the states to acquire nuclear weapons but acquiring nuclear weapons is not always the best way to ensure security. As this world is anarchic and states are rational unitary actor, so for the security, states go for self-help. But sometimes, acquiring nuclear weapons poses a greater threat than to forgo them because it may cause more distrust and tension among the adversaries. Due to the distrust one state may attempt pre-emptive strikewhich can cause nuclear war and end of the both states. So, to avoid this situation, state opted to go non-nuclear because in this condition it has not that’s much adversaries and can focuses on the other public sectors. According to the “prudential realism: “nations under certaincircumstances mayprudently forgo military capabilities that is threatening because states and security-conscious entities”. States which are involve in low intensity conflict would likely to go non-nuclear by signing NPT. Alliances also play an important role in security according to neo-liberalism. States are likely to go in alliance with any nuclear state in order to avoid the risk, cost and difficulties of nuclear weapon programs e.g. NATO countries are in alliance with US. But that nuclear state must give a guarantee of “positive and negative assurance security” so those states chose to sign NPT as a non-nuclear states.

International norms and perceptions also assist states in deciding whether to sign NPT as a non-nuclear weapon state or not. The norms of international system highly influence the perceptions of the states especially norms in the international treaties like NPT. States have a lust of prestige and status in international system. On the basis of non-proliferation norms, states perceive that their status and prestige would be increased by forgoing nuclear weapons. According to Jacques Hymans: “ most states think of themselves as, and want to be seen as , good international citizens and good international citizens don’t build nuclear arsenals”. Due to this reason, majority of thestates don’t acquire nuclear weapons. Constructivism is the basis of international norms and perceptions which have made normative situation for the states in general. NPT have changed the normative environment and situation got changed due to which many states forgo nuclear weapons. Cost-benefit analysis got changed by the non-proliferation norms. It has made nuclear weapon program technically, financially and politically expensive. It has also change the assumption of appropriate state behavior. So to maintain the good self-image in international system states have signed NPT as a non-nuclear weapon states.

The factors of domestic political context have many dimensions. In this cluster, types of governmental systemplay a crucial role for the states to sign NPT as a non-nuclear states. According to some researchers, democracies are less likely to engage in conflicts than autocracies. Democracies obey international laws at greater level to become a good citizen of internal system due to which the chances of democracies to become nuclear states are less. From the lens of political-ideology if a system aims for the economic growth that it would not go for nuclear weapons. According to Solingen “the nuclear programs are less likely to emerge in countries where the political culture is in general sympathetic to economic openness, trade liberalization, foreign investments, and international economic integration” e.g. Saudi Arabia. Psychology of domestic actor also play a crucial role in influencing the decision regarding nuclear weapons and societal groups too. In short, it depends upon the national political circumstances and dynamics that effect the decision of perusing or forgoing nuclear weapons.

Conclusion:
Nuclear free zone or weapons of mass destruction free zone is a great disincentive for the states if combined with the credible pledges by the US and other nuclear states to provide positive and negative assurance security to the non-nuclear weapon states. Like in Middle East only Israel has acquired nuclear weapons which can be equalized by the security given by US or other nuclear state in order to make Middle East nuclear-free zone. As NPT is known as bargaining treaty which offer economic incentives to the states and compel other states to sign NPT. All the above factors showed the reasons of the will of states but some states sign NPTbecause of the fear of the sanction because none of the state survive if it becomes isolated from the whole world e.g. economic sanctions upon Iran. Many under developed countries are unable to resist the pressure of the developed stays and for their survival, they need their support. So, in return, they obey the orders of developed states and don’t go for nuclear weapons. Ukraine, Kazakhstan and Belarus dismantle their nuclear arsenals because of the incentive of the positive assured security. Whereas, the nuclear programs of Brazil and Argentina were dissuaded by the regional security arrangement. South Africa gave its nuclear weapons for the sake of its development. Under developed countries focus on the development of health, education sectors etc. due to which they dismantle their nuclear weapons and got economic assistance. In a nutshell, NPT played a crucial role in resisting nuclear proliferation but at the same time it is monopolizing the power of nuclear states.
 
Top