US Army and Marine Corps tanks join Finland Arrow 19 exercise - We Are The Mighty
MIGHTY TACTICAL

US Army and Marine Corps tanks join Finland Arrow 19 exercise

For the second year in a row, US Marines joined the US Army and partner forces in Finland in May 2019 for the Arrow military exercise.

During the two-week Arrow 19 exercise, the Marines again pulled tanks and other equipment from the cave complex in Norway that has been used to store gear since the Cold War.

The exercise allows Marines “to evaluate our ability to offload personnel and equipment, generate combat power across the Atlantic, and then redeploy assets through a known logistically complicated area of operation,” 1st Lt. Robert Locker, a Marine communications officer, said in a release.


Marines from Camp Lejeune in North Carolina and US Army Europe cavalry soldiers took part in the exercise alongside British army armored intelligence unit the Royal Lancers, an Estonian armored intelligence unit, and their Finnish hosts.

US Army and Marine Corps tanks join Finland Arrow 19 exercise

US Marine Corps M1A1 Abrams tanks and Light Armored Vehicles from the caves of Marine Corps Prepositioning Program-Norway at the Port of Pori, Finland, May 2, 2019.

(US Marine Corps photo by Sgt. Devin J. Andrews)

The Marines’ gear came from six caves in central Norway, the exact location of which is not known. Three caves have everything from rolling stock to towed artillery; the other three hold ammunition, officials told Military.com in 2017.

That equipment is drawn from the caves “on a regular basis to support bilateral and multilateral exercises throughout Europe,” Maj. Adrian Rankine-Galloway, a Pentagon spokesman, told Business Insider. The caves and gear there provide “a unique capability that is flexible and scalable to the operational requirements of the Marine Corps and US European Command.”

The Arrow exercise — conducted on arid grassland in southwest Finland at a time of year when the sun is out 21 hours a day — is meant to put platoon- to battalion-size mechanized infantry, artillery, and tank units to the test, including in live-fire exercises.

Below, you can see how this year’s version went down.

US Army and Marine Corps tanks join Finland Arrow 19 exercise

US Marines receive fuel from Finnish soldiers with 2nd Logistics Regiment, Logistics Command, during Arrow 2019 at Niinisalo Garrison, Finland, May 4, 2019.

(US Marine Corps photo by Lance Cpl. Scott Jenkins)

US Army and Marine Corps tanks join Finland Arrow 19 exercise

US Marines inventory gear during Arrow 2019 at Niinisalo Garrison, Finland, May 5, 2019.

(US Marine Corps photo by Lance Cpl. Scott Jenkins)

US Army and Marine Corps tanks join Finland Arrow 19 exercise

Finnish army Sgt. Nora Lagerholm, left, and US Marine Cpl. Jose Rodriguez offload a Humvee during Arrow 2019 at Niinisalo Garrison, Finland, May 3, 2019.

(US Marine Corps photo by Lance Cpl. Scott Jenkins)

US Army and Marine Corps tanks join Finland Arrow 19 exercise

US Marines and British soldiers at a welcome brief during exercise Arrow 2019 at Niinisalo Garrison, Finland, May 3, 2019.

(US Marine Corps photo by Lance Cpl. Scott Jenkins)

US Army and Marine Corps tanks join Finland Arrow 19 exercise

US soldiers from Outlaw Troop, 4th Squadron, 2d Cavalry Regiment during the troop live-fire exercise during Arrow 19, May 15, 2019.

(US Army photo by Sgt. LaShic Patterson)

US Army and Marine Corps tanks join Finland Arrow 19 exercise

Finnish soldiers firing a mortar during Arrow 19.

(Finnish army/Facebook)

US Army and Marine Corps tanks join Finland Arrow 19 exercise

Finnish soldiers start their vehicles during Arrow 19, May 15, 2019.

(US Army photo by Sgt. LaShic Patterson)

US Army and Marine Corps tanks join Finland Arrow 19 exercise

US soldiers drive their Stryker Dragoon vehicles back after the Finnish battalion battle group live-fire exercise, May 17, 2019.

(US Army photo by Sgt. LaShic Patterson)

US Army and Marine Corps tanks join Finland Arrow 19 exercise

US Marines receive ammunition before a live-fire range during Arrow 2019 at Niinisalo Garrison, Finland, May 12, 2019.

(US Marine Corps photo by Lance Cpl. Scott Jenkins)

US Army and Marine Corps tanks join Finland Arrow 19 exercise

US soldiers await their next command during the troop live-fire exercise during Arrow 19, May 15, 2019.

(US Army photo by Sgt. LaShic Patterson)

DISE provides video-game-like playback, with fast-forwarding and rewinding. “With MILES, you get the adjudication of kills and just the basic level of force-on-force support,” Lee said. “However, with DISE, the [after-action review] capability was the biggest gain.”

With DISE, US personnel could also simulate injuries, allowing for scenarios in which soldiers could perform combat lifesaver measures to reset the vests and to add more time to soldiers’ virtual lives.

US Army and Marine Corps tanks join Finland Arrow 19 exercise

A US Marine Corps Light Armored Vehicle and a M1A1 Abrams tank at the firing line during a live-fire range as part of Arrow 2019, May 15, 2019.

(US Marine Corps photo by Lance Cpl. Scott Jenkins)

US Army and Marine Corps tanks join Finland Arrow 19 exercise

Finnish tanks during Arrow 19, May 14, 2019.

(Finnish army/Facebook)

US Army and Marine Corps tanks join Finland Arrow 19 exercise

US Marine Corps Light Armored Vehicles prepare to depart a training area during Arrow 2019, May 15, 2019.

(US Marine Corps photo by Lance Cpl. Scott Jenkins)

US Army and Marine Corps tanks join Finland Arrow 19 exercise

Finnish tanks on the move during Arrow 19.

(Finnish army/Facebook)

US Army and Marine Corps tanks join Finland Arrow 19 exercise

US Marine Corps 2nd Lt. Jake Gesling, a platoon commander, with a Finnish army platoon commander during a force-on-force battle as part of Arrow 2019, May 10, 2019.

(US Marine Corps photo by Lance Cpl. Scott Jenkins)

US Army and Marine Corps tanks join Finland Arrow 19 exercise

US Marine Corps Light Armored Vehicles on a tank range during Arrow 2019, May 15, 2019.

(US Marine Corps photo by Lance Cpl. Scott Jenkins)

US Army and Marine Corps tanks join Finland Arrow 19 exercise

US soldiers inside a Stryker Dragoon vehicle during the troop live-fire exercise during Arrow 19, May 15, 2019.

(US Army photo by Sgt. LaShic Patterson)

US Army and Marine Corps tanks join Finland Arrow 19 exercise

US Marine Corps Maj. Gen. David J. Furness, commander of the 2nd Marine Division, addresses Marines on the second day of the Arrow 19 live-fire exercise in Niinisalo, Finland, May 13, 2019.

(Finnish army/Facebook)

US Army and Marine Corps tanks join Finland Arrow 19 exercise

US Marines fire a Light Armored Vehicle during a live-fire range as part of Arrow 2019, May 13, 2019.

(US Marine Corps photo by Lance Cpl. Scott Jenkins)

US Army and Marine Corps tanks join Finland Arrow 19 exercise

US service members observe a Finnish army Leopard 2L Armored Vehicle Launched Bridge during exercise Arrow 2019 at Pohjankangas Training Area near Niinisalo, Finland, May 7, 2019.

(US Marine Corps photo by Lance Cpl. Scott Jenkins)

US Army and Marine Corps tanks join Finland Arrow 19 exercise

US Marine Corps M1A1 Abrams tanks move into position during a live-fire range as part of Arrow 2019, May 14, 2019.

(US Marine Corps photo by Lance Cpl. Scott Jenkins)

US Army and Marine Corps tanks join Finland Arrow 19 exercise

US Marine Corps M1A1 Abrams tanks with 2nd Tank Battalion, 2nd Marine Division, II Marine Expeditionary Force, fire during a live-fire range as part of exercise Arrow 2019 at the Pohjankangas Training Area near Niinisalo, Finland, May 13, 2019.

(US Marine Corps photo by Lance Cpl. Scott Jenkins)

This article originally appeared on Business Insider. Follow @BusinessInsider on Twitter.

MIGHTY TRENDING

In new plan, US allies would pay the cost of hosting US troops

The Trump administration plans to demand that US allies pay the full cost for hosting American troops, plus 50% more for the privilege of hosting them, Bloomberg News reported March 8, 2019, citing a dozen administration officials and people it said had been briefed on the situation.

The plan targets allies such as Germany and Japan but is expected to extend to any country that hosts US military personnel. With the so-called “Cost Plus 50” plan, some countries could wind up paying as much as six times what they pay now to host US troops.


In January 2019, South Korea agreed to pay just shy of id=”listicle-2631065522″ billion, significantly more than the previous 0 million, to host US troops in country. Bloomberg reports that President Donald Trump demanded “cost plus 50” in recent payment negotiations with South Korea and that it nearly derailed talks.

Trump has long railed against allies for not paying what he considers their fair share for US defense.

“We defend Japan. We defend Germany. We defend South Korea. We defend countries. They do not pay us what they should be paying us,” he said during the first presidential debate in September 2016. “We are providing a tremendous service, and we’re losing a fortune.”

US Army and Marine Corps tanks join Finland Arrow 19 exercise

President Donal Trump.

(Photo by Gage Skidmore)

“Wealthy, wealthy countries that we’re protecting are all under notice,” the president said at the Pentagon in January 2019. “We cannot be fools for others.”

Since he took office, he has repeatedly pressed NATO countries to spend at least 2% of their gross domestic product on defense as some countries pledged to do by 2024.

The Cost Plus 50 plan, according to Bloomberg, has alarmed both the State Department and the Defense Department, with rising concern that such a move could weaken the alliances at a time when the US is again facing great-power competition from rivals like China and Russia.

Countries such as Japan and Germany are already becoming increasingly resistant to the presence of the US military within their borders, and there are concerns that demands for larger payments could make the host countries even more hostile to the idea of hosting US troops.

“Getting allies to increase their investment in our collective defense and ensure fairer burden-sharing has been a long-standing US goal,” the National Security Council spokesman Garrett Marquis told Bloomberg. “The administration is committed to getting the best deal for the American people,” he added, while refusing to comment on ongoing deliberations.

It remains to be seen whether the Trump administration will announce the Cost Plus 50 plan as is or lessen the steep new demands.

This article originally appeared on Business Insider. Follow @BusinessInsider on Twitter.

Articles

Mattis starts his review of US nuclear arsenal

Secretary of Defense James Mattis officially started the U.S. Department of Defense’s review of the country’s nuclear arsenal Tuesday, according to the Pentagon.


President Donald Trump directed Mattis to conduct a review after taking office in January. The full-scope review comes as concerns over the aging nuclear arsenal are growing in both the White House and Congress.

“In National Security Presidential Memorandum 1, dated Jan. 27, the president directed the secretary of defense to conduct a Nuclear Posture Review to ensure the U.S. nuclear deterrent is safe, secure, effective, reliable and appropriately tailored to deter 21st-century threats and reassure our allies,” said Pentagon Chief Spokesperson Dana White in a statement.

Deputy Secretary of Defense Robert Work and Air Force Gen. Paul Selva, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, will lead the review in cooperation with “interagency partners,” according to White. A final report will be issued at the end of the year.

The review comes at a time when the U.S. is facing increased nuclear threats. North Korea continues to advance its nuclear program and has increased missile testing in the last two years. Russia is believed to have violated a decades-old nuclear agreement banning the deployment of intermediate-range ballistic nuclear missiles. The Russian military is engaged in a military modernization program that includes both its strategic and tactical nuclear weapons.

A significant portion of the current U.S. nuclear arsenal is based on designs from the 1960s and 1970s. The Heritage Foundation’s 2017 Index of Military Strength rated the U.S. nuclear arsenal “strong,” just one step down from “very strong,” but leaders within the military, the White House and Congress are concerned over the aging arsenal.

“The United States must greatly strengthen and expand its nuclear capability until such time as the world comes to its senses regarding nukes,” said Trump tweeted in December.

Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

MIGHTY TACTICAL

How Army Apaches actually kill their numerous victims

The Black Death. The Monster. The Rifleman of the Sky.

The Apache is a lethal and feared military monstrosity that rakes its claws across the battlefield and leaves shattered bodies and buckets of gore in its wake. Here’s how it kills you — and anyone nearby. And anyone within a few miles.


US Army and Marine Corps tanks join Finland Arrow 19 exercise

An Apache sits on the airfield in Germany in 2018. The Apaches main armament in the U.S. consists of rockets, missiles, and a chain gun. The chain gun is visible under the cockpit. The missile racks are mounted on either side of the Apache body and the rocket pods are the pieces with the honeycomb pattern mounted on the outside of the wing stubs.

(U.S. Army Charles Rosemond)

First, lets take a look at the Apache armament. While it can be fitted with other missiles and guns, Apaches are usually deployed with three offensive weapons: Hellfire missiles, guided and unguided rockets, and a 30mm chain gun that’s often described as an automatic grenade launcher.

All three of them are highly capable, and all of them kill in their own special way.

First, the chain gun. It’s commonly loaded with M789 High-Explosive, dual-purpose ammunition. When this is fired at personnel on the ground, it does look a lot like they’re getting attacked by an automatic grenade launcher. The weapon is fired in bursts with over two rounds per second striking the ground, all of which explode soon after, shredding the bodies of those targeted.

US Army and Marine Corps tanks join Finland Arrow 19 exercise

A U.S. Army Apache helicopter fires its M203 chain gun during an exercise in Georgia in 2018.

(U.S. Army 1st Lt. Ellen Babo)

The chain gun ammunition is dual-purpose and is designed to penetrate armor at ranges of up to 3 kilometers. Against older tanks, these rounds pierce the hull and blow up inside or nearly pierce it and then explode, turning the remaining armor into shrapnel that flies through the crew compartment. The helicopters carries up to 1,200 of these rounds.

Most modern tanks can survive this onslaught, but they’ll likely lose any externally mounted equipment, potentially including their main gun. For these rugged targets, the Apache will typically turn to its Hellfire missiles.

There isn’t a known tank that the Hellfire missile can’t kill, and the Apache can carry up to 16 of these bad boys if it foregoes rockets. The Apache originally carried laser-guided Hellfires, but now it often carries radar-guided Longbow variants of the missile which the pilot can fire and forget about. It’ll get to the target on its own.

US Army and Marine Corps tanks join Finland Arrow 19 exercise

A U.S. Army Apache helicopter flies over Georgian tanks during a live-fire exercise in Georgia in 2018.

(U.S. Army 1st Lt. Ellen Babo)

While there are now air-to-air and surface-to-air versions of the Hellfire, the Apache is essentially always equipped with the air-to-ground version in the U.S. arsenal. It has a variety of available warheads, including thermobaric, tandem charges, shaped charges, and blast fragmentation.

That basically means that the Apache can use the missile against enclosed structures, any-and-all tanks, and soft vehicles and personnel, but it does have to decide what it will likely be attacking before departing the base.

US Army and Marine Corps tanks join Finland Arrow 19 exercise

An Army Apache helicopter fires rockets during a live-fire range in Korea in 2014.

(U.S. Army Sgt. 1st Class Vincent Abril)

Finally, the Apache carries rockets. Historically, this was the Hydra rocket, a 70mm unguided weapon. But then BAE Systems rolled out the Advanced Precision Kill Weapon System, a kit that gives guidance to dumb rockets. So now, the pilots can send their rockets with warheads between 8 and 15 pounds.

These rockets’ payloads can be high explosive, but they can also be filled with darts called flechettes that zip through human flesh and bones, shredding arteries, nerves, and other flesh, and quickly ending life. Occasionally, the rockets are used with parachuting illumination payloads or CS gas.

So, when Apaches are flying at you, they can choose to kill you with a chain gun, a warhead, or rockets, all of which can explode on impact or carry a variety of other payloads. But what really makes the Apache so dangerous is how far away it can kill you from.

US Army and Marine Corps tanks join Finland Arrow 19 exercise

A U.S. Army Apache helicopter returns from a maintenance test flight in 2018. The disc on top is a radar that allows to Apache to detect and engage targets from up to 3 miles away.

(U.S. Army Charles Rosemond)

The Apache has a super sensitive camera mounted under its nose and a variety of other sensors. One of the most powerful sensors is the radar mounted over the rotor blades.

These sensors and the on-board computers allow the helicopter to track up to 256 targets from up to 3 miles away. That’s further away than the sound of their rotor blades carries, especially if there is vegetation or uneven ground to break up the waves. So, for many people being hunted by an Apache, the first sign of trouble is the sudden sound of high-explosive chain gun rounds landing all around them.

This sound is quickly followed by the noise of the gun firing, since the rounds leave the gun at over Mach 2 at normal temperatures. Around the same time that the sound wave comes, the rounds begin exploding. You likely won’t hear anything else after that.

Unless you’re in a tank! But, then you likely wouldn’t hear any explosive rounds. Instead, you’d just take a Hellfire missile to the turret and be dead from the tandem warhead before you realize anything is wrong. Tandem warheads fire twice. The first explosive opens a gap in your reactive armor. The second pierces the remaining armor and sends you to your maker.

But it might hit you with rockets, shredding you with darts or destroying you with explosives and fragmentation.

So, uh, maybe don’t get caught burying an IED when any of these things are around. It’ll be a bad day.

Articles

8 pieces of gear grunts buy themselves before deploying

Before any service member deploys, they have to visit the supply depot on their station. Now, these supply depots issue out a bunch of items. But for the most part, they’re worn down and look like something a homeless guy would reject.


The fact is — you’re not the first guy or gal to take a nap in that sleeping bag or to load rounds into that M16 magazine. It’s been well used before you even thought about touching it.

Related: 8 things Marines like to carry other than their weapon

After seeing the state of some of this gear, service members typically think about the months of deployment time that lies ahead and remind themselves how much stuff the military doesn’t voluntarily distribute.

So check out our list of things you may want to consider buying before going wheels up.

1. Bungee Cords

Like 550 cord, these elastic straps are strong as Hell and will secure down nearly everything.

If you need to tow it, bungee cord will probably hold it. (images via Giphy)

2. Blow up sleeping pad

Traditionally, supply issues you a ratty foam mat which is like sleeping in a really cheap motel room.

Purchasing a quality air mattress can make all difference. (image via Giphy)  

3. Headlamp

Getting issued a flashlight that’s designed to clip to your uniform (which is what you’ll get) is fine if you’re okay with tripping over everything in the pitch black (because it doesn’t point to where you’re looking).

Get a red-filtered headlamp for combat zones — it could save your life. (images via Giphy)

4. Rite in the rain

Normal paper isn’t meant to repel water. You never know when you need to take notes in the field while it’s pouring down rain. “Rite in the Rain” is waterproof paper you can still jot notes on.

With a “Rite in the Rain” it doesn’t matter if it’s raining, you can still takethose unimportant notes your commanding officer thinks is critical. (images via Giphy)

5. P-Mags

The 30 round magazine that the supply guy handed out has seen better days and has a single compression spring built inside which can increase the chances of your weapon system jamming when you need it the most. The polymer version made by Magpul is much better — so good, in fact, the Marine Corps is issuing it to all Leathernecks.

P-mags are dual spring compressed, decreasing your chances of a weaponsmalfunction. (images via Giphy)

Also Read: 7 things you should know before joining the infantry

6. GPS

People get lost if they spin around one too many times, and most people simply suck at land-nav. Consider purchasing a G.P.S. that fits snuggly on your wrist.

We told you about G.P.S., but you didn’t want to listen. (image via Giphy) 

7. Cooler eye-pro

The military does issue eye protection that has frag resistant lenses, but they don’t make you look cool. Everyone buys sunglasses before a deployment that make you look tough — its an unwritten rule.

Now you look badass. Your eyes won’t be a protected, but who needs them away?(images via Giphy)Note: you still need to protect your eyes.

8. Knife/multitool

This should be self-explanatory. If you want to open up just about anything and your Judo chop won’t cut it.

His worked, but yours may not. (images via Giphy)

MIGHTY HISTORY

Teddy Roosevelt is the reason for military PT tests

You don’t get to be a person of Teddy Roosevelt’s stature in history by being lazy. The President who could barely breathe as a youngster never took his body for granted. He was an avid outdoorsman, athlete, and boxer. When he became President in 1901, he was appalled at the lack of fitness among Navy sailors at the time. As Commander-In-Chief, he set out to do something about it.


US Army and Marine Corps tanks join Finland Arrow 19 exercise

Roosevelt loved boxing, climbing, hiking, horseback riding, polo, rowing, tennis, swimming, weightlifting, and even jiu-jitsu. The President might have been the first potential MMA fighter in history, if he had so chosen. When he took the White House, he moved in all the equipment necessary to maintain his physical fitness regimen. By 1908, he told Secretary of the Navy Truman Newberry that the Navy should test its sailors to ensure they met the fitness standards of the U.S. military. Newberry and the Navy’s Chief of Medicine and Surgery developed a plan for the new Navy.

After being cleared to take the test by a Navy Medical Board, sailors had three options:

  • A fifty-mile walk within three consecutive days and in a total of twenty hours;
  • A ride on horseback at a distance of ninety miles within three consecutive days; or
  • A ride on a bicycle at a distance of 100 miles within three consecutive days.

For the first time, officer promotions became dependent on passing the PT test.

US Army and Marine Corps tanks join Finland Arrow 19 exercise

“This [order] will give the corpulent sea fighters who have long occupied swivel chairs an opportunity to get into fit condition for the ordeal,” said one newspaper. No joke.

He implemented standards for the Army as well and even led the Army General Staff in its first-ever “fun run” of sorts. In November 1908, after an address at the Army War College, the Commander-in-Chief led the Army’s top brass in an expedition through dense forests, deep streams, and even climbing a 200-foot pitch in what Roosevelt called a “bully walk.” The brass said it left officers “nursing their tired muscles…and wondering if they will escape pneumonia.”

At first, ranking members of the Navy pushed back, complaining that the test would cause depression and hurt general readiness. Instead, they thought golf courses, bowling alleys, and tennis courts were a better answer to fitness. Somewhere in the middle, the Navy decided to open gymnasiums for its sailors to exercise. In the end, the order was revised at almost the moment Roosevelt left office. The new orders applied to Marines as well, but only called for a 25-mile walk over two days. Two years later, it was modified to ten hours a month. By 1917, the order was suspended entirely.

MIGHTY TRENDING

The US threatens Iran with an oil blockade

The United States and Iran have traded warnings over U.S. efforts to block Iran’s oil exports, with Tehran suggesting that it could retaliate by blocking oil tankers from leaving the Persian Gulf.

The exchange began on July 4, 2018 when Iranian President Hassan Rohani, while visiting with Austria’s leader in Vienna, hinted that Tehran will block shipments of oil from neighboring Persian Gulf countries such as the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, and Iraq in response to the U.S. sanctions plan.



“The Americans say they want to reduce Iranian oil exports to zero…. It shows they have not thought about its consequences,” Rohani said.

That comment prompted a senior Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps commander to praise Rohani and say the elite military group is ready to carry out his policy.

“I kiss your hand for expressing such wise and timely comments, and I am at your service to implement any policy that serves the Islamic republic,” Major General Qassem Soleimani said in a letter to Rohani published by state news agency IRNA.


US Army and Marine Corps tanks join Finland Arrow 19 exercise

Major General Qasem Soleimani

Rohani was responding to a U.S. warning that Washington has told countries around the world that they must halt all imports of Iranian oil when U.S. sanctions against Iran go into effect on November 4, 2018, or face the possibility of U.S. financial penalties.

Rohani did not elaborate on his remarks, but Iranian officials have in the past threatened to block the Strait of Hormuz, a waterway at the tip of the Persian Gulf through which a large share of the world’s oil shipments pass, in retaliation for any hostile U.S. action against Iran.

The Pentagon responded to the Iranian rhetoric with a vow to keep the critical waterway open.

Captain Bill Urban, a spokesman for the U.S. military’s Central Command, told the Associated Press on July 4, 2018, that the U.S. Navy and regional allies “stand ready to ensure the freedom of navigation and the free flow of commerce wherever international law allows.”

Rohani while in Vienna called the U.S. effort to block Iran’s critical oil exports — which are the economy’s main driver and source of revenues — along with other looming U.S. sanctions “crime and aggression,” and he called on European leaders to resist them.

US Army and Marine Corps tanks join Finland Arrow 19 exercise

President Hassan Rohani

Rohani warned that European leaders must “guarantee” that Iran continues to enjoy the benefits of its nuclear deal with world powers — including the freeing up of Iranian oil exports after global sanctions were lifted in 2016 — or Iran may walk away from the deal like the United States did in May 2018.

The leaders of Germany, Britain, and France — the three European signatories to the nuclear deal — have vowed to keep honoring the deal, but they have said that the looming U.S. sanctions make it difficult for them to give Tehran guarantees.

The United States also is pressuring Japan and other major buyers of Iranian crude oil in Asia to stop such imports.

But Kyodo news agency reported on July 4, 2018, that Tokyo has informed Washington that it cannot further cut or halt crude imports from Iran without harming Japan’s economy.

At the same time, Kyodo reported that Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe has abandoned his plans to visit Iran this summer in light of Washington’s sanctions push against Iran.

This article originally appeared on Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty. Follow @RFERL on Twitter.

popular

When bayonet fighting was an Olympic sport

The Olympics we know today began with the first meeting of the International Olympic Committee in Paris in Jun. 1984. The first official games were held in 1896 in Athens. Before that there were a number of Olympic games and festivals hosted by national and international athletic clubs. The National Olympic Association held an Olympic Festival in 1866 that drew 10,000 people and featured a sport most people wouldn’t recognize today: bayonet fencing.


 

Instructions and guides for bayonet fencing were aimed more at the military than most fencing guides, specifically calling for simplified instructions that even the “dullest recruit” could comprehend.

The experts of the day recommended that someone fencing with the bayonet aim for one of five prescribed cuts:

1. Striking and drawing the blade along the left side of the enemy’s head.

2. Striking diagonally downward on the right side of the head while drawing back to ensure a “deep” cut.

3. Striking upward against the outside of the left knee.

4. Striking the inside of the knee with an upwards cut.

5. Cutting the enemy’s head with a perpendicular slash, parallel to the marching surface.

 

US Army and Marine Corps tanks join Finland Arrow 19 exercise
Photo: Wikipedia

 

Today, bayonet fencing continues as a niche sport, but it has never been embraced by the International Olympic Committee. Some military forces still require bayonet training, including the U.S. Marine Corps, which also trains recruits on the use of fighting sticks.

MIGHTY TACTICAL

‘Missile barges’ could be America’s secret weapon in the Pacific

In recent years, the United States has begun to shift its military focus away from counter-terror operations and back toward the possibility of a large-scale conflict with near-peer opponents like China. Unfortunately, nearly two straight decades of the Global War on Terror has left the American defense apparatus on the wrong footing for such a war. In some important respects, America now finds itself playing catch up; working to close capability gaps that have presented themselves in Europe and the Pacific.

While America retains the largest military on the planet, it also has further reaching obligations than any other force on the planet as well. In every corner of the globe, America’s military serves in a variety of capacities, from providing a stabilizing presence, to training foreign militaries to defend themselves, to enforcing international norms on the high seas. As we’ve discussed in some depth before, America’s Navy may be huge for this era of relative global stability, but it would find itself significantly outnumbered in a Sino-American war in the Pacific. That issue becomes even more clear when you consider that the U.S. Navy couldn’t deploy the entirety of its fleet to any one waterway without leaving a number of other important interests un-guarded.


When you combine China’s rapidly growing Navy with its well-armed Coast Guard and its maritime militia, you get a positively massive 770-ship Chinese presence in the Pacific. For context, the massive U.S. Navy currently boasts only around 293 ships–and while President Trump has pushed for growth to reach a 355-ship Navy, no real plans to get there have yet to materialize. That means the U.S. Navy would be left to face China’s massive sea fairing presence while outnumbered at least two to one.

US Army and Marine Corps tanks join Finland Arrow 19 exercise

(U.S. Navy)

When the most powerful military in the world isn’t enough

Having a massive fleet alone isn’t enough to win a 21st century conflict on the high seas–It’s equally important that you have the right kinds of ships to leverage for specific roles.

Over the years, advancing technology has enabled the United States to move away from the massive fleets of ships and aircraft it maintained during the Second World War, and toward a lower number of assets that are capable of filling multiple roles. Ships like the Arleigh Burke-class guided missile destroyers, just like multi-role aircraft like the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, are properly outfitted to serve in a number of capacities. This mindset has allowed the United States to expand its capabilities while reducing its personnel requirements and the overhead costs of maintaining far more assets with far more specialized roles.

But there are downsides to America’s love affair with “multi-role” platforms: They dramatically increase the cost of research and acquisition, and that increased cost forces purchases in fewer numbers. It also forces military assets into positions that don’t fully leverage their broad capabilities.

US Army and Marine Corps tanks join Finland Arrow 19 exercise

Three Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyers, the USS McCampbell (DDG 85), USS Lassen (DDG 82) and USS Shoup (DDG 86) steam in formation during a photo exercise. (U.S. Navy photo by Chief Photographer’s Mate Todd P. Cichonowicz)

For some useful context into how more advanced technology has enabled the U.S. to increase capability while decreasing volume, consider that America’s military apparatus wielded a whopping 6,768 ships and an astonishing 300,000 combat airplanes at its peak during World War II. As America poured money into better military technology throughout the Cold War, it transitioned to an era of valuing technology and capability over volume, and today the U.S. Navy boasts just 293 ships, and America maintains a comparatively paltry 13,000 military aircraft.

With so many fewer platforms to utilize, these multi-role ships and airplanes are left doing a wide variety of work that has to be prioritized. Despite being capable of filling multiple roles, these platforms can often only fill one role at a time — making them more effective for strategic posturing, but less effective in a combat situation. Arleigh Burke-class guided missile destroyers are incredibly powerful ships, equipped with a variety of guns, missiles, and torpedoes, but are often relegated to simplistic missile defense operations because of their role within the Aegis missile defense apparatus. These destroyers serve as a shining example of how a ship with a number of uses may get stuck in a single defensive role during large scale conflict.

As former Chief of Naval Operations Admiral John Richardson put it, BMD (ballistic missile defense) ships are restricted to very confined operating areas that he refers to as “little boxes.”

A cargo ship packed with missiles? Really?

If the United States were to find itself on a collision course with China, one of the nation’s first priorities would be finding ways to rapidly expand both America’s military presence and strategic capabilities in the Pacific. China owns a positively massive ballistic missile stockpile (including hypersonic anti-ship missiles), which would mean missile defense would be considered a significant priority for America’s Aegis destroyers. Unfortunately, that would limit the ability for America’s destroyers to operate in a more offensive capacity, as they steamed in circles around their area of responsibility, waiting to intercept any missiles lobbed their way.

US Army and Marine Corps tanks join Finland Arrow 19 exercise

Left to right, the guided missile cruiser USS Vicksburg (CG 69), and the guided missile destroyers USS Roosevelt (DDG 80), USS Carney (DDG 64) and USS The Sullivans (DDG 68) launch a coordinated volley of missiles during a Vandel Exercise (VANDALEX). (US Navy photo)

This would be a significant waste of destroyers, which would in turn limit the capability of other battle groups that couldn’t rely on the offensive power of these warships. In a real way, America would simply need more vertical launch missile tubes (commonly referred to as VLS cells, or Vertical Launch System cells) in the Pacific to bolster both offensive and defensive operations — and it would be essential to get them as quickly and as cheaply as possible.

That’s where the idea for missile barges, or missile ships, comes into play. In a 2019 article in the U.S. Naval Institute’s Proceedings, five experts, including a retired Navy captain and a retired Marine Corps colonel, offered their suggestion for rapidly procuring and equipping commercial cargo ships for combat operations.

“The Navy should acquire and arm merchant ships, outfitting them with modular weapons and systems to take advantage of improving technology and shipping market conditions while providing capability more rapidly and less expensively than traditional acquisition efforts.”
-Captain R. Robinson Harris, U.S. Navy (Ret.); Andrew Kerr; Kenneth Adams; Christopher Abt; Michael Venn; and Colonel T. X. Hammes, U.S. Marine Corps (Ret.)
US Army and Marine Corps tanks join Finland Arrow 19 exercise

(Pixnio)

The premise behind missile barges has been around for some time; after all, at its most simplistic levels, this idea boils down to “just stick a bunch of missiles on a ship you have laying around,” but what differentiates this modern missile barge concept from past iterations is the technology of our day. America has long possessed “containerized” missile platforms that would sit comfortably on the deck of large cargo ships. Further, with data-fusing supercomputers like the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, America has also already demonstrated the capability of engaging targets with surface-based weapons via targeting data relayed by nearby aircraft.

Put simply, we already have modular weapon systems that would work when operated off the decks of cargo ships, and we’ve already proven that weapons of that sort can be leveraged to engage targets identified by aircraft… That means this concept would require very little in the way of infrastructure building or development–which equates to both cost and time savings.

US Army and Marine Corps tanks join Finland Arrow 19 exercise

(PXHere)

Procuring the hulls

The first step to building a fleet of missile barges would be procuring the hulls of commercial cargo ships, which would likely be a fairly easy endeavor if a war in the Pacific were to occur. It’s estimated that as much as 1/3 of all global commerce sails across the South China Sea on an annual basis, and a conflict between the United States and China would curtail a majority of these trips–due to both the drop in trade between these two economic power houses and the perceived danger of sending commercial ships through what would effectively be the site of the greatest naval conflict in all of recorded history. As a result, purchasing these vessels would likely come at a significantly reduced cost.

Purchasing a new commercial double hulled cargo ship would normally run the United States between and million dollars, but cargo ships that are already in use can be procured on websites like NautiSNP for pennies on the dollar, with some vessels currently on the market for just over id=”listicle-2647023060″ million.

US Army and Marine Corps tanks join Finland Arrow 19 exercise

Again, a significant drop in trade through the Pacific would likely result in even greater cost savings as firms liquidate their assets in the region to recoup some of their losses.

Modifying commercial ships into missile barges

Once the U.S. Navy had procured the ships themselves, it could begin the relatively significant task of refitting them for service as missile barges. This can be accomplished in one of two ways.

The Navy could utilize containerized missile and drone assets stacked on the ship, which would make it more difficult to discern from traditional cargo vessels while dramatically reducing the actual work required to convert each ship. While the vessels would have to be marked as U.S. Navy ships and flagged as such, the similar profile to commercial ships would force the Chinese Navy to positively identify each vessel before engaging, as many weapons systems rely on inverse synthetic-aperture radar that assesses targets through little more than low-resolution profiling.

LORA Weapon System Operational Demonstration

www.youtube.com

That front-end investment could be further curbed by relying on external assets like nearby Aegis destroyers for command and control, relying on the warship’s radar, targeting, and command apparatus for what is effectively little more than an arsenal ship or “floating magazine.” In this regard, missile barges would effectively serve as a supplement to a destroyer’s existing weapons loadout.

Conversely, these vessels could be modified to carry traditional VLS tubes just like those employed by America’s guided missile destroyers today. A container ship could be modified to carry a slew of vertical launch tubes carrying Tomahawk missiles in as little as three to six months. The costs would be higher, but the trade off benefit would be utilizing the same basic systems found on other Navy ships, reducing the required training and logistical concerns associated with standing up a different weapon system.

US Army and Marine Corps tanks join Finland Arrow 19 exercise

Gunner’s Mate 2nd Class Charles Coleman inspects missile cell hatches on one of two Vertical Launching Systems (VLS) aboard the guided missile cruiser USS Hue City (CG 66). The VLS is capable of launching numerous missiles including the Tomahawk Land Attack Missile and SM-2 Standard Missile. (U.S. Navy photo by Photographer’s Mate 2nd Class Charles E. Hill)

As the proposal in Proceedings suggests, it would be important for the Navy to carefully consider how many missile barges they intended to build, and how many missiles they intend to keep on each.

While it’s possible to place more than a hundred VLS tubes and associated missiles on one of these vessels, that would represent both a massive expense and a massive target for the Chinese military. Instead, the proposal suggests converting 10 to 15 cargo ships into missile barges, each carrying between 30 and 50 Tomahawk missiles. That would limit the potential losses if such a vessel were lost, while giving it enough firepower to benefit the Navy’s overarching strategy.

US Army and Marine Corps tanks join Finland Arrow 19 exercise

(U.S. Navy photo by Photographer’s Mate Airman Jimmy C. Pan)

The hybrid-crew model

Of course, another shortfall we have yet to discuss in a Pacific conflict could very well be trained Sailors. As the U.S. Navy rapidly procured and modified ships into missile barges, it would also have to rapidly staff these vessels — which likely wouldn’t be feasible leveraging a traditional Navy recruiting pipeline. Instead, the hybrid crew model proposed by Navy Captain Chris Rawley seems most logical.

Each missile barge would have a crew comprised of both U.S. Navy officers and civilian sailors that have experience operating these commercial vessels. By recruiting from the private sector, the U.S. Navy could rapidly field these ships with crews that are already trained and proficient at the tasks they’d be assigned, while placing Naval officers in command of the vessel and in other essential combat roles.

By using a military command element, operating missile barges in war with a crew made up in part of civilians would still be legal under international law. Indeed, this model is already in use aboard some specific Naval vessels, like the recently decommissioned USS Ponce amphibious transport dock.

These missile barges could be crewed with as few as 30 people, split between U.S. Navy and civilian personnel. Because the missile payloads would not come close to these ship’s total capacity, they could also utilize buoyant cargo sealed in the hull to help make these ships more survivable in the event of an attack.

It’s possible that these ships could be crewed by even fewer people in the near future, as the Navy has already earmarked 0 million in the 2020 budget for the development of two large unmanned surface ships. The Navy’s Medium Displacement Unmanned Surface Vessel dubbed “Sea Hunter” has already successfully traversed the open ocean between San Diego and Hawaii all on its own, demonstrating the capability for unmanned Navy ships to come.

US Army and Marine Corps tanks join Finland Arrow 19 exercise

Are missile barges actually realistic?

Although the U.S. Navy is in the early stages of what may come to be a transformative era, it seems unlikely that the United States would shift away from its current love affair with high-cost, multi-role platforms any time soon. The new USS Gerald R. Ford-class aircraft carriers serve as a good example of how the U.S. military prefers new, shiny, and expensive hardware over old, rusty, and more cost efficient options. While some within the Defense Department are questioning the future of America’s supercarriers, the alternative posited is usually something akin to smaller, but still rather large and expensive Lightning Carriers built for short-take off, vertical landing F-35Bs.

However, it’s important to note that the Navy of today is a product of the past fifty years of foreign policy posturing, but that may not be the right Navy to see us through a return to large scale conflict. Today, war with China remains a distant threat, but as that threat looms closer, we may see a transition in the Navy’s mindset similar to that of the Air Force’s recent push for “attritable” aircraft to bolster our small volume of high-capability assets.

Attritable, a word seemingly designed to give copy editors stress wrinkles, is the term used by the U.S. Air Force to describe platforms that are cheap enough to be used aggressively, with some degree of losses considered acceptable. This has led the Air Force to investing in drones like the Kratos Valkyrie, which is a low-observable drone capable of carrying two small-diameter bombs for ground strikes while costing only a few million dollars a piece.

US Army and Marine Corps tanks join Finland Arrow 19 exercise

Kratos Valkyrie (Air Force photo by Senior Airman Joshua Hoskins)

While it would cost more than a few million dollars to field each missile barge, the price may still be discounted enough to be considered attritable when compared to billion behemoths like the Ford. As unmanned ships become more common, and as a result, more affordable, it may become even more cost effective to leverage existing commercial hulls as a means of offsetting China’s huge numbers advantage in the Pacific.

Does it seem likely that the U.S. Navy would start strapping missiles to old container ships any time soon? The answer is a resounding no, but if America and China continue on this collision course, America’s defense apparatus may find itself being forced to make some hard decisions about just how much capability it can squeeze out of America’s already massive defense budget. If that day comes, missile barges may represent one of the most cost effective force multipliers America could leverage.

This article originally appeared on Sandboxx. Follow Sandboxx on Facebook.


MIGHTY HISTORY

This is the most decorated woman in military history

When Milunka Savić’s brother got the notice that he was to be drafted to serve in the Second Balkan War against Bulgaria, Milunka instead cut her hair and went to serve in his place. It was the first act of bravery and defiance that would come to define her life and her service. By the end of three wars – in all of which she served with distinction – she would be the most decorated female combatant in military history.


US Army and Marine Corps tanks join Finland Arrow 19 exercise

The history of women serving in combat is relatively new. Before the mid-20th Century (depending on which army), women were relegated to non-combat roles and medical fields. There are many examples of women who served in combat, however, they just had to hide their true gender, lest they be drummed out of the service. No matter how skilled or valuable, once discovered, they were invariably let go. Not so for Milunka Savić.

Once mobilized, Savić deployed to the front lines an amazing ten times before she was wounded fighting the Bulgarians. It was on her tenth trip to the front that she was wounded in a sensitive area, her chest. Once the medical men got to her, they discovered her secret, and she was sent before her commander. This man wanted to send a very competent soldier to the nursing corps, but Milunka Savić stood at attention for a full hour while he tried to wait her out. Luckily for Serbia, he relented and sent her back to the war.

US Army and Marine Corps tanks join Finland Arrow 19 exercise

After returning to duty, she managed to capture 23 Bulgarian prisoners while earning a promotion to Corporal. By the time World War I rolled around Milunka Savić was still in the Serbian Army. The one-woman wrecking crew fought the Great War from the very beginning in 1914, quickly earning a Karađorđe Star with Swords, which was the highest military honor the Kingdom of Serbia could bestow upon its troops at the time – and Savić earned two of them. This wasn’t the only honor she would earn.

During World War I, she managed to rack up two French Légions d’Honneur, Russian Cross of St. George, British medal of the Most Distinguished Order of St Michael, Serbian Miloš Obilić medal. She was also the only female recipient of the French Croix de Guerre. When World War II rolled around, she was no longer in the military, but she chose to keep fighting in her own way. She ran an infirmary for partisans fighting the Nazi occupation.

US Army and Marine Corps tanks join Finland Arrow 19 exercise

After the end of World War II, Savić settled down in Belgrade where she lived the rest of her life with three adopted children. She lived on a small government pension but she never stopped watching the door – just in case some Bulgarian tried to come back for revenge.

popular

This unit received 21 Medals of Honor and 4,000 Bronze Stars while dealing with America’s mistrust

After Pearl Harbor, Hawaii did not see widespread internment, unlike the mainland where there was a great deal of distrust towards Japanese residents in the face of possible invasion from Imperial Japan. The local Japanese population was too key to Hawaii’s economy to simply round up, but there was still deep fears they posed a sabotage threat, especially since the fears of an invasion by Imperial Japan were very real.


These fears extended to military personnel of Japanese descent. More than 1,300 soldiers of Japanese origin from the Hawaiian National Guard were pulled from their regiments and were formed into the 100th Infantry Battalion (Separate) or “One Puka Puka.” They were sent to Camp McCoy in Wisconsin, as much as to remove them as a security risk as to train them.

The 100th performed well in training, and the War Department decided to form a Japanese-American combat unit, the 442nd Regimental Combat Team. Nisei men, composed of the children of immigrants who had American citizenship, could sign a loyalty questionnaire and be registered for the draft, though many refused and hundreds spent time in federal prison.

US Army and Marine Corps tanks join Finland Arrow 19 exercise
(Photo: U.S. Army)

The vast majority of the volunteers came from Hawaii, but over 800 were recruited from the internment camps on the mainland. The 100th and the volunteers joined at Camp Shelby, Miss., and formed the 442nd, designed as a self-sufficient combat unit with its own artillery and logistics.

It was almost a given that the 442nd or any other Japanese-American unit would not see service in the Pacific, since there were still widespread suspicions concerning their loyalty, but many of the recruits were assigned to the Military Intelligence Service. They were then trained in language and intelligence skills, and were assigned as an interpreters, interrogators, and spies in the Pacific theatre, playing a crucial intelligence role.

While the rest of the unit trained in Mississippi, the 100th departed to join the 34th Infantry Division in North Africa, which was preparing for the invasion of Italy. After joining the Italian Campaign at Salerno, the 100th participated in the terribly bloody fighting at Monte Cassino in early 1944, site of a famous Benedictine monastery that was destroyed by Allied bombing. The battalion took such heavy casualties that some war correspondents starting referring to them as the “Purple Heart Battalion.” By the time the battalion was pulled of the line, some of the platoons were down to less than 10 men. The 100th later received its first of four presidential unit citations.

US Army and Marine Corps tanks join Finland Arrow 19 exercise
(Photo: U.S. Army)

Following further intense fighting at Anzio and assisting in the capture of Rome, the 100th was joined there by the rest of the 442nd, though the 100th was still considered a quasi-separate unit due to its distinguished record. Entering combat together on June 26, 1944, they faced a series of bloody actions conquering Italian towns and strong points, including major actions at Belvedere, Castellina Marrittima, and Hill 140. After months of grinding combat, they were sent to Marseilles in southern France, and the most celebrated episode in the 442nd’s history occurred with the rescue of the “Lost Battalion.”

The 442nd was sent north into the Vosges mountains to seize the city of Bruyere, whose surrounding hills had been heavily fortified by the Germans. They succeeded in taking the city after a bloody series of attacks and enemy counterattacks, but received almost no rest before being sent to the rescue of the 1st Battalion, 141st Infantry Regiment, originally part of the Texas National Guard. It had been cut off and surrounded by German forces after a failed attack near the town of Biffontaine, and all attempts to resupply it by air or break it out had failed.

Faced with heavy fog, steep terrain, dense forests, and heavy enemy artillery, the 442nd saw their most intense combat of the war, suffering more than 800 casualties before linking up and relieving the 211 besieged survivors of the 141st. After the rescue, they continued to press on to Saint-Die until being pulled off the line on Nov. 17. In a little over three weeks, the 442nd had suffered more than 2,000 casualties. The 100th alone was down from a strength of over 1,400 a year prior to less than 300 men. When the commander of the 36th Division called an inspection of the 442nd later, he grew angry over what he saw as soldiers missing formation, only to be told that those present were all that were left.

The 442nd would go on to see further action in France, Italy, and Germany and scouts from the unit were among the first to locate and liberate the German concentration camp of Dachau. By the time the unit was deactivated after the war ended, it was awarded 21 Medals of Honor, more than 4,000 Bronze Stars, and over half of the 14,000 men who had served in the unit had been wounded, making it by far the highest decorated unit of its size in U.S. history.

MIGHTY TRENDING

Everything you need to know about NATO as it turns 70 this week

Since its Cold War inception, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization has been keeping Russian aggression in check as an increasingly fragmented Europe has shifted and moved over 70 years. Founded in 1949, the alliance started off with 12 members but has grown over the years to 29 member states. Even as the Soviet Union gave way to the Russian Federation, the alliance has cemented its status as the bulwark that keeps Western Europe free.


A lot has happened over 70 years. Political shifts in member countries caused members to rethink their role in the alliance. Russian threats kept many members out for a long time – and still does. And the mutual defense clause, Article V, was invoked for the first time ever.

US Army and Marine Corps tanks join Finland Arrow 19 exercise

There were 12 founding members.

Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, the United Kingdom, and the United States founded NATO on April 4, 1949, as a hedge against growing Soviet power in the east. The centerpiece of the alliance is Article V, which obliges member states to consider an attack on a NATO ally as an attack on itself and respond with armed forces if necessary.

The alliance is more than a bunch of disparate parts, it has a unified military command that guides its strategy, tactics, and training on land, on the oceans, and in the air, complete with its own installations and command structure.

US Army and Marine Corps tanks join Finland Arrow 19 exercise

You might know of the first Supreme Allied Commander.

An American is always at the top.

The alliance is organized almost like the United States’ command structure. A Chairman of the NATO military committee advises the Secretary General on policy and strategy. The second highest position is the Supreme Allied Commander, always an American general, who heads the operations of the alliance in Europe.

The United States, Britain, and France are currently the most powerful members of NATO, but after the U.S., only Greece, the United Kingdom, Estonia, Poland, and Romania met NATO spending standards. Greece and Estonia are the second-highest spenders as a percentage of GDP.

US Army and Marine Corps tanks join Finland Arrow 19 exercise

“Paix en quittant.”

Countries actually left NATO.

Many balked at the idea of the United States leaving the alliance, as then-candidate Trump threatened to do while running for President of the United States. While the U.S. withdrawing from NATO would be a disaster for everyone, a member country leaving NATO isn’t unprecedented.

France left NATO between 1966 and 2009 because President Charles DeGaulle resented the idea that France wasn’t on an equal military and nuclear footing with the United States and wanted more independence for French troops. Greece left between 1974 and 1980 because of a conflict with NATO ally Turkey.

US Army and Marine Corps tanks join Finland Arrow 19 exercise

This is as close as they get. Right after this photo, they raided English coastal towns. Because tradition.

One member doesn’t have an Army.

Iceland doesn’t have a standing army (it has a Coast Guard though!) but is a member ally to NATO anyway. The island nation actually does maintain a peacekeeping force of troops who are trained in Denmark, but Iceland joined the alliance on the condition that it wouldn’t have to establish a standing army – NATO wanted Iceland because of its strategic position in the Atlantic Ocean. The island is protected by the Canadian Air Force.

US Army and Marine Corps tanks join Finland Arrow 19 exercise

Poland will no longer be taking Russia’s sh*t. Ever again.

Former enemies have joined NATO.

With the fall of the Soviet Union came a slew of countries who were much smaller than their former Soviet benefactor. Many of these countries were once members of the Warsaw Pact, the USSR’s answer to the West’s NATO. In order to keep former Soviet Russia from meddling in their newly-independent domestic affairs, many Warsaw Pact countries who trained to fight NATO then joined it, including Albania, Bulgaria, Estonia, Croatia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Montenegro, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, and (after the unification of Germany) East Germany.

US Army and Marine Corps tanks join Finland Arrow 19 exercise

Pictured: Why Georgia wants to join NATO.

New NATO members could trigger the war it was designed to prevent.

The alliance is always courting new members to counter the threat posed by Russia. This means eventually NATO had to start looking east to find new partners – and many were willing. Unfortunately, pushing eastward puts NATO troops on Russia’s doorstep and there are certain countries that Russia considers a national security threat were they to go to NATO. Two of those, Ukraine and Georgia, have seen Russian invasions of their territory in the past few years in an attempt to thwart their eventual membership.

Russia warned NATO of a “great conflict” should either of them join the alliance.

Do Not Sell My Personal Information