Arguments about weapons systems tend to be circular and hard to win. The discussion about close air support, the retirement of the aging A-10 Thunderbolt II and the entry of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter along with the relevance of the recent Light Attack Experiment continue to swirl. But one thing that cannot be argued is the lethality and spectacle of the A-10’s GAU-8 Avenger 30mm, seven-barrel Gatling-type cannon.
This video was released on Jan. 24, 2018 from the U.S. Air Force Central Command Public Affairs office. It is credited to the 94th Airlift Wing which, oddly enough, is primarily an airlift wing. The Defense Video Imagery Distribution System (DVIDS) gave no reason why this video was released through an airlift wing, but it is likely due to logistics.
The video, shot from an unknown camera platform, shows an Air Force A-10 Thunderbolt II conducting a strike on a Taliban vehicle fleeing the scene of an attack in Kandahar province on Jan. 24, 2018. The insurgents in the vehicle were armed with a DShK 12.7 mm heavy machine gun, which had been used moments earlier during the attack on Afghans.
The video is relevant to the close air support discussion for a number of reasons. Firstly, it showcases the accuracy of the GAU-8 weapons system, at least in this single instance. You can see that two 30mm rounds penetrate the hood of the vehicle, then one penetrates the roof of the driver’s compartment and a fourth round goes through the roof of the passenger area of the vehicle. Considering the speed of the vehicle and that the A-10 was, of course, moving also, this is a noteworthy degree of accuracy.
Needless to say more than rounds left the cannon, and there appears to be two separate firing passes shown in the video.
The video also suggests an interesting scenario where, if the A-10 attacked from above 5,000 feet or even much higher (especially if required to remain outside the envelope of anti-aircraft systems like MANPADS), this imagery may have been collected from another aircraft, not the A-10 conducting the strike. A likely candidate would be a remotely piloted aircraft providing intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) and then maybe even target designation for the attacking aircraft. While we do not know if this was the case with this video, it is a common enough practice to suggest in this instance.
While it’s unlikely proponents on either side of the “Save the A-10” movement will be swayed by videos like this one, and these videos date back to the A-10s first operational deployment of the A-10 in 1991, they remain compelling. During its first operational deployment in the Gulf War the A-10 was credited with destroying approximately 900 Iraqi tanks, 2,000 non-armored military vehicles and 1,200 artillery pieces according to a 1993 report.
Troy, New York — In the earliest days of 1945, the infantrymen of the 42nd Infantry Division, now a part of the New York Army National Guard, spent their first days in desperate combat against German tanks and paratroopers during Hitler’s final offensive in Western Europe.
Operation Nordwind, sometimes called “the other Battle of the Bulge” kicked off on New Year’s Eve 1944 in the Alsace region of France. The American and French armies fought desperately to halt the attack and hold onto the city of Strasbourg, the capital of Alsace.
Three regiments of 42nd Infantry Division soldiers, who had been hurried to France without the rest of their divisional support units, had arrived in Strasbourg, France just before Christmas 1944. They expected to spend time in a quiet sector to learn the ropes of combat.
They could not have been more wrong.
The 42nd Infantry Division had been made up of National Guard troops during World War I and nicknamed “the Rainbow Division” because it contained elements from 26 states.
In World War II the division was reactivated but filled with draftee soldiers. With a desperate need for infantry troops in Europe, the soldiers of the 222nd, 232nd, and 242nd Infantry Regiments had been pulled out of training in the United States and shipped to southern France.
The three regiments were named Task Force Linden, because they were commanded by the division’s deputy commander Brig. Gen. Henning Linden. They were committed to battle without the artillery, armor, engineers and logistics support the rest of the division would normally provide.
The attack came as a shock to the newly arrived infantrymen, explained Capt. William Corson in a letter to a 42nd Division reunion gathering in 1995. Corson commanded Company A in the 1st Battalion, 242nd Infantry.
“The green, inexperienced troops would occupy a small town named Hatten since the Germans had nothing more than small patrols in the area. At least that was the information given at a briefing, but someone forgot to tell the enemy,” he wrote.
German paratroops and panzer forces with tanks and self-propelled guns crossed the Rhine River 12 miles north of Strasbourg and clashed with the thinly stretched Rainbow Division infantry at Gambsheim on January 5.
For the next three weeks, the three regiments defended, retreated, counterattacked and finally stopped the Germans.
The first week of was a frenzied effort to halt the German advance, with companies and battalions moved around the front like firefighters plugging gaps, Corson said. The fighting was so desperate that the 42nd Division even threw individual rifle companies into the fight whenever they became available.
“Officers knew little more than the GI,” Corson said. “One morning my company moved to a barren, frozen hillside with orders to dig defensive positions covering an area about three times larger than we were capable of adequately defending. After four hours of chipping away at the frozen ground, we were told that this position would not be defended, so we moved to another frozen spot about ten miles away and started digging again.”
At Gambsheim the odds were too great for the American infantry. The majority of its defenders from the 232nd Infantry Regiment were captured or killed.
In a failed January 5-7 counterattack at Gambsheim, units from all three regiments were combined in a patchwork force that was ultimately repulsed.
Dan Bearse, a rifleman with the 242nd Infantry in the counterattack, recounted the events in an oral history.
“They had tanks and heavy artillery, endless infantry troops,” Bearse recalled. “We were outnumbered two or three to one. So we were quickly repulsed. Lost lots of people, killed, wounded and captured. And we were thrown back immediately,” he said of the January 6 battle. “We were badly mauled and it was very demoralizing. That was our baptism of fire. And it was a loser.”
At Hatten, on January 10, 1945, the 242nd Infantry Regiment and a battalion from the 79th Division tried to stop the German tanks and paratroopers again. The defenders were overrun.
Capt. Corson was wounded and captured with dozens of his Soldiers.
But one soldier from the 242nd Infantry, Master Sgt. Vito Bertoldo decided to stay. Bertoldo, who was attached from Corson’s Company A to the battalion headquarters, volunteered to hold off the Germans while other soldiers retreated.
Bertoldo drove back repeated German attacks for 48 hours. He was exposed to enemy machine gun, small arms and even tank fire.
US Army soldiers of the 42nd Infantry Division’s Task Force Linden prepare a defensive position at their log and dirt bunker near Kauffenheim, France, January 8, 1945.
Moving among buildings in Hatten to fire his machine gun, at one point Bertoldo strapped it to a table for stability. He fired on approaching German tanks and panzer grenadiers, repeatedly defeating the German attacks and killing 40 of the enemy. For his actions, he was awarded the Medal of Honor.
“On the close approach of enemy soldiers, he left the protection of the building he defended and set up his gun in the street,” his Medal of Honor citation states, “There to remain for almost 12 hours driving back attacks while in full view of his adversaries and completely exposed to 88-millimeter, machine gun and small arms fire.”
“All I did was try to protect some other American soldiers from being killed,” Bertoldo would tell newspapers back home after the war. “At no time did I have in mind that I was trying to win something.”
The 1st Battalion, 242nd Infantry paid a heavy price for its defense of Hatten. At the beginning of the battle there were 33 officers and 748 enlisted men in the battalion. Three days later there were 11 officers and 253 enlisted men reporting for duty.
The Germans launched their final assault just seven miles from the fight at Hatten on January 24, looking to cut American supply lines back to Strasbourg in the town of Haguenau.
They attacked straight into the 42nd Division.
Troops of the 222nd Infantry were dug in inside the nearby Ohlugen Forest, with thick foliage and dense fog concealing both American and German positions.
The regiment had two battalions in the defense, covering a frontage of 7,500 yards, three times the normal frontage for a regiment in defense, according to the “42nd “Rainbow” Infantry Division Combat History of WWII.”
Facing the Americans were elements of a German tank division, a paratroop division and an infantry division.
During the fighting, 1st Lt. Carlyle Woelfer, commanding Company K in the 3rd Battalion, 222nd Infantry, captured a German officer with maps detailing the German attack. The officer and another prisoner were put on an M8 Greyhound armored car for transport to the rear. But the German officer signaled for other Germans to come to their aid.
Three Germans moved on the vehicle, killing one American Soldier, but were then killed in turn by Woelfer.
The back and forth fighting continued through the rest of the night as the 222nd fought to contain the German breakthrough towards Haguenau. The regiment earned a Presidential Unit Citation for its actions.
The 232nd Regiment was brought up from reserve to help in the defense. The defense had held as reinforcements from the divisions which had been fighting in the Battle of the Bulge arrived to push the Germans back.
By mid-February 1945 the rest of the 42nd Infantry Division arrived in France and the infantry regiments were rebuilt. The division then went on the attack against German units that had been severely ground down by the Nordwind attack.
For the Rainbow Division, their attack would lead into Germany and capture the cities of Wurzburg, Schweinfurt, Furth, Nuremberg, Dachau and Munich before the war ended in May of 1945.
A hundred years ago in a blinding fog, a U.S. Coast Guard ship was sailing off the coast of Southern California when it smashed into a passenger steamship.
The USCGC McCulloch sank within 35 minutes and lingered on the ocean floor undisturbed by people for a century.
On the 100th anniversary of the vessel’s June 13, 1917, disappearance, the Coast Guard announced that it found the shipwreck — not far from where it went down. And officials plan to leave it there.
Strong currents and an abundance of sediment would make moving the delicate ship too difficult, officials said in detailing the discovery of the San Francisco-based USCGC McCulloch. They also paid tribute to its crews, including two members who died in the line of duty, but not in the crash.
Coast Guard Cmdr. Todd Sokalzuk called the ship “a symbol of hard work and sacrifice of previous generations to serve and protect our nation” and an important piece of history.
The ship sank shortly after hearing a foghorn nearby and then colliding with the SS Governor, a civilian steamship. The McCulloch’s crew was safely rescued and taken aboard the steamship.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the Coast Guard discovered the wreck last fall during a routine survey.
Researchers focused on the area of the shipwreck 3 miles (5 kilometers) off Point Conception, California, after noticing a flurry of fish. Sunken ships offer a great place for fish to hide. The site is about 150 miles (240 kilometers) northwest of Los Angeles.
Commissioned in the late 1800s, the McCulloch first set out to sea during the Spanish-American War as part of Commodore George Dewey’s Asiatic Squadron in the Battle of Manila Bay.
Cutters based in San Francisco in the late 1800s and early 1900s represented American interests throughout the Pacific. They also played important roles in the development of the Western U.S.
After the war, the cutter patrolled the West Coast and later was dispatched to enforce fur seal regulations in the Pribilof Islands off the coast of Alaska, where it also served as a floating courtroom in remote areas.
The archaeological remains, including a 15-inch torpedo tube molded into the bow stem and the top of a bronze 11-foot propeller blade, are draped with white anemones 300 feet (90 meters) below the surface, officials said. A 6-pound gun is still mounted in a platform at the starboard bow.
In this episode of the Mandatory Fun podcast, Blake, Tim, and O.V. talk with stand-up comedian and Marine veteran Mitch Burrow about a Communist Army cadet and a cannibal dictator, and they make a smooth segue into Ken Burns’ Vietnam documentary.
General Idi Amin dethroned the government of Milton Obote and declared himself president of Uganda. During his eight years of ruthless leadership, it’s estimated he massacred approximately 300,000 civilians.
Then it’s rumored the Ugandan president was a closet cannibal and liked munch on human remains.
Mitch is a Marine Corps veteran that served in Operation Iraqi Freedom in 2003. He then started a career in manufacturing before realizing that it sucked. Now, Mitch has found his true calling in acting silly on a stage in front of strangers on a nightly basis.
To follow Mitch or check out one of his shows visit his website: Mitchburrow.com.
If all 24 hour news networks can have “Breaking News” scrolling across their screens, then this applies.
Most internet fitness gurus are purposely misleading you, because they’re trying to sell you something. They want you to feel bad about yourself, so that you dedicate your whole life to the gym, so that they put more of your money in their pocket.
The truth is that you only need to train enough to get stronger. When your body is getting stronger it is growing, and growth is synonymous with progress.
So how many times a week is it actually necessary to hit the gym?
Contrary to popular belief, it doesn’t actually take much time to gain strength. In fact, three days a week is enough for most people.
I bet you thought you needed to be in the gym 6-7 days a week to see any real gains in strength or size.
Grow. If you aren’t moving forward the world is passing you by.
Your requirement is to get stronger. If you aren’t getting stronger in one way or another, you are getting weaker. That’s a fact of life.
Getting stronger doesn’t mean deadlifting 3 times your body weight. That’s just an idealized standard.
Getting stronger simply means being able to do a little more than you used to. Maybe that means one more body weight squat, or 1 lb added to your bench press. Those are both positively trending markers.
You can consider strength gains as your measure in the fight against death. In order to live the most healthy life possible you don’t need to add 30 lbs to your lifts overnight, you just need to add a fraction of a lb each day.
Bodybuilders and competitive strength athletes have no edge over everyone else just because they’re strong. If strength worked like that all the oldest people would be the strongest and biggest, that is clearly not how the world works.
Frequency is a function of volume.
A recent meta-analysis came to the conclusion that the frequency of your workout sessions only really matters if it affects how much weight you move over the course of the week (your total volume).
12 sets of 10 reps of bench press at 100 lbs on Monday and then nothing else the rest of the week is the same as doing 2 sets of 10 reps of bench press at 100 lbs each day Monday to Saturday.
They are both 12,000 lbs moved. That 12,000 lbs is the main predictor of how much stronger you get.
Of course, these two scenarios are extreme ends of the spectrum. There are plenty of much more reasonable ways to break up all of this work.
Not to mention, it would be difficult to ensure that you don’t get too tired to get all the required reps if you try to fit it all in one workout. That’s why we break up our workouts across the whole week.
If you have 4 hours to train one day a week, this might be a good option for you. Most normal people can only carve out 45-90 minutes 3-4 times a week. Luckily that’s plenty of time to get in our total volume.
That’s right, my fine reader, you should choose the frequency of your workouts based on your schedule and then fit in the total volume you require however you see fit.
Just get stronger.
The amount of volume you require is obviously unique to you, and what you are currently doing. As a general rule of thumb:
You want to be training just enough to be getting stronger. No more, no less, this is your minimum effective dose. If you aren’t getting stronger, add more volume, that could mean more weight on the bar, another rep on the last set, more reps on all the sets, or a whole additional set. It depends on you.
If you are working out 2 times a week and getting stronger, in the way in which you want to be getting stronger, then keep training that way until you aren’t getting stronger anymore. Once you plateau start adding volume. Once those 2 workouts start to get too long for you to bear, add a third day.
I’m sure you see how you could continue progressing like this indefinitely.
By simply doing a little more than you were previously doing, you will see gains in strength and performance.
This is why 3 days is enough. You can fit a lot of work into three 60-90 minute gym sessions. Remember to look at the total volume you are doing each week, that’s the real predictor of progress.
MIGHTY FIT is making big moves to put out content that you not only want to read but also want to live. Take 2 minutes and let us know here what you’d like to see from MIGHTY FIT.
Army scientists, working with officials from the National Football League, have developed a wearable device that helps reduce head and neck injuries.
The Rate-Activated Tether, is a flexible strap that connects a helmet to shoulder pads or body armor, said Shawn Walsh of the Weapons and Material Research Directorate at Army Research Laboratory.
“What happens is if that when head is exposed to adverse acceleration, this RAT strap will basically transition into a rigid device that will transmit the load to the body, and it has been proven to significantly reduce acceleration,” Walsh told defense reporters at a recent roundtable discussion sponsored by Program Executive Office Soldier.
Over the years, the Defense Department has partnered with the NFL and the National Collegiate Athletic Association to research brain injuries. For example, the Army beginning in 2007 put blast sensors into tens of thousands of helmets to monitor head injuries from roadside bombs in Afghanistan. And the Pentagon and NCAA in 2014 announced a joint study into concussions.
Army scientists are not sure if the device will eliminate Traumatic Brain Injury or concussions, but “we can say with some confidence that there is some benefit to reducing adverse acceleration,” Walsh said.
The device could help to prevent head injuries sometimes experienced by paratroopers, Walsh said.
“It is a known fact that paratroopers do experience head injuries,” he said. “They are trained to land very carefully, but sometimes at night, in the rain or in irregular terrain and something goes just a little off, they can land on their head,” he said. “There is some very real Army applications associated with that as well.”
Army officials also discussed more long-term science and technology initiatives such as a project to design robots that could one day deploy shields to protect soldiers in a firefight.
“Part of our job at the research center is to kind of try to push the Army out of its comfort zone,” Walsh said. “One of the things we are exploring now is robotics.”
An effort known as Robotic Augmented Soldier Protection is designed to shadow soldiers and deploy a protective shield when an attack occurs, Walsh said.
“A lot of people associate robotics with lethality, but what we are looking at is can we use robotics in a purely protective mode?” Walsh said. “Can we use these robotics to deploy protective mechanisms … that can work to protect a human?”
What is lacking right now is the science, Walsh said, adding that the Army is trying to work with the academic community on the effort.
Army officials that develop soldier requirements at the Army’s Maneuver Center of Excellence at Fort Benning, Georgia are also interested in the concept, said Col. Curt “Travis” Thompson, director of the Soldier Division at Training and Doctrine Command’s Capability Manpower – Soldier.
“We are the closest touchpoint to the soldiers who are out in the field … but that doesn’t mean that we are the closest touch point to the realm of the possible or where we should be going,” he said. “We absolutely rely on ARL to kind of inform us to what is possible.”
The service’s leadership has shown interest in the effort, Walsh said.
“The Army is encouraging us; we were actually down at Fort Benning,” Walsh said. “They want to see more prototyping. They want to be introduced to these concepts as soon as possible.”
While still a fledgling effort, ARL does have a working prototype, he said.
“We are not saying that every soldier would have one,” Walsh said. “This is only useful in certain scenarios.”
Stealth is becoming more and more common — but just because you designed an invisible (to radar) plane doesn’t mean the job is done. Far from it, to be very blunt. In fact, the job’s only half done.
You see, the plane isn’t the only thing that the radar waves bounce off of. They also will reflect very well off of the missiles your F-35 carries. All the stealth tech does no good if the stuff you intend to drop on the bad guys is seen on radar while you’re still minutes — or even an hour — away.
At SeaAirSpace 2017, mock-ups of a number of new missiles in development were displayed, so more can be carried internally on the F-35 and other stealthy jets (like the B-21 and B-2, for instance). In essence, this is taking concealed carry to a whole new level.
For instance, one such weapon being displayed was the Advanced Anti-Radiation Guided Missile – Extended Range. The AARGM-ER is a development of the AGM-88E AARGM, in essence: a vastly upgraded HARM. AARGM is already in service with the Navy, with more being produced, and it is used on the F/A-18C/D/E/F Hornet and Super Hornet airframes on their pylons, easily the most capable anti-radar missile they have ever carried.
But with the F-35, there is a problem — those big-ass fins on the AARGM. That means AARGM has to be carried externally, which means the F-35 will be seen. If the F-35 is seen, an enemy will shoot at it. And when the enemy shoots at a F-35, they could hit it — and if the plane is hit, it could be shot down. That’ll ruin everyone’s day.
Where AARGM-ER, though, seeing the F-35 becomes much, much harder. Why? The answer is what you don’t see. The big fins in the middle of the AARGM aren’t there. The tail fins have also been pared back. This means the missile can now fit in the internal weapons bay.
In other words, the F-35 now can get closer — and the AARGM-ER will not only fit in the weapons bay, it can also be fired from twice as far as the current AARGM. It’s as if this missile has been designed to put down the Russian S-400 surface-to-air missile system, also known as the SA-21 Gargoyle.
AARGM-ER isn’t the only missile at SeaAirSpace 2017 designed for internal carriage. Kongsberg’s Joint Strike Missile is also being designed for internal carry on the F-35. In short, the F-35 will be practicing a very potent form of concealed carry.
John Lee Dumas is a former Army officer and Iraq War veteran. One day, he was driving his car, in his normal morning routine when the last podcast on his iPod ended. He realized in that moment the car was like the prison of his life. Luckily, he also realized what would be his escape from that prison.
“I saw podcasting as an opportunity where an amateur like myself could make connections, learn a lot, and improve my public speaking and interview skills along the way,” he said in an interview with Forbes. “I always saw the value in podcasting as it was a form of media that could be consumed while doing something else like driving a car, exercising, folding laundry.”
His show, Entrepreneur On Fire, is a show for the aspiring business owner, serial entrepreneur, or side-entrepreneur. To date, there are more than a thousand episodes of EOF, each featuring an inspirational interview with a budding business founder.
Dumas’s business relies on two streams of income which generate over seven figures in annual revenue, his Podcast Sponsorships and Podcasters’ Paradise. He even posts those figures on his website, EoFire.com. Part of this success is due to his epic production schedule. His show,puts out a new podcast every single day.
“After eight years as an Army officer, I learned at an early age the benefit of ‘batching’ your work,” Dumas says. “In order to run a 7-day a week podcast without getting burned out, I schedule eight interviews every Tuesday. This allows me to put my game face on for one day a week and execute 8 interviews at the highest level I am capable of. This batching ensures that I make the most efficient use of my ‘studio time’ so I can focus on other areas of my business the remaining six days in the week.”
Dumas is also the author of a how-to podcasting book, Podcast Launch, which give a 15-step tutorial in launching one’s own successful podcast, in his own words, using his own theories on growing an audience and monetizing it. He is currently working on a new book, The Freedom Journal: Accomplish Your Goal in 100 Days, a day-by-day companion to setting goals and planning how to reach them.
“My audience has grown to know, like, and trust the fact that every day, a fresh episode of EntrepreneurOnFire awaits. Another is that every day, my guest shares their interview that just went live with their audience, driving massive numbers of people to EntrepreneurOnFire who have never heard of the show before, and a certain proportion of which will subscribe and become listeners. With this happening seven days a week, the snowball effect is amazing.”
A rocket narrowly missed the US Embassy compound in Kabul, Afghanistan, on Sept. 11, 2019, during the first few minutes of the 18th anniversary of 9/11.
Loudspeakers inside the office broadcast a warning that “an explosion caused by a rocket has occurred on compound,” The Associated Press reported.
No one was injured, the nearby NATO mission told the AP.
A US State Department official told Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty: “We can confirm there was an explosion near the US Embassy in Kabul. US mission personnel were not directly impacted by this explosion.”
Nosrat Rahimi, a spokesman for the Afghan Ministry of the Interior, told Gulf News that the rocket hit a wall at the defense ministry and that no one was hurt.
The news came amid heightened tensions between the US and the Taliban, the insurgent group that rules over large swathes of Afghanistan.
US and Taliban officials were due to meet at Camp David in Maryland on Sept. 8, 2019, to discuss a peace process and an end to the US military presence in Afghanistan, but President Donald Trump abruptly canceled the talks the day before.
About 14,000 US troops remain in the country, a situation that has angered Trump. Last month, the US and the Taliban reached a provisional agreement to remove several thousand troops.
Here’s how China would respond if the US were to attack the Hermit Kingdom.
China has interests in preserving the North Korean state, but not enough to start World War III over.
China may not endorse North Korea’s nuclear threats towards the US, South Korea, and Japan, or its abysmal human rights practices, but Beijing does have a vested interest in preventing reunification on the Korean peninsula.
Still, China’s proximity to North Korea means that the US would likely alert Chinese forces of an attack — whether they gave 30 minutes or 30 days notice, the Chinese response would likely be to preclude — not thwart — such an attack.
China sees a united Korea as a potential threat.
“A united Korea is potentially very powerful, country right on China’s border,” with a functioning democracy, booming tech sector, and a Western bent, which represents “a problem they’d rather not deal with,” according to Tack.
The US has more than 25,000 troops permanently stationed in South Korea, but no US asset has crossed the 38th parallel in decades. China would like to keep it that way.
And without North Korea, China would find itself exposed.
For China, the North Korean state acts as a “physical buffer against US allies and forces,” said Tack.
If the US could base forces in North Korea, they’d be right on China’s border, and thereby better situated to contain China as it continues to rise as a world power.
Tack said that China would “definitely react to and try to prevent” US action that could lead to a reunified Korea, but the idea that Chinese ground forces would flood into North Korea and fight against the West is “not particularly likely at all.”
Overtly backing North Korea against the West would be political suicide for China.
For China to come to the aide of the Kim regime — an international pariah with concentration camps and ambitions to nuke the US — just to protect a buffer state “would literally mean that China would engage in a third world war,” said Tack.
So while China would certainly try to mitigate the fall of North Korea, it’s extremely unlikely they’d do so with direct force against the West, like it did in the Korean War.
Any response from China would likely start with diplomacy.
Currently, the US has an aircraft carrier, nuclear submarines, F-22s, and F-35s in the Pacific. Many of the US’s biggest guns shipped out to the Pacific for Foal Eagle, the annual military exercise between the US and South Korea.
But according to Tack, the real deliberations on North Korea’s fate aren’t going on between military planners, but between Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and the Chinese diplomats he’ll be meeting with.
Even after decades of failed diplomacy, there’s still hope for a non-military solution.
“There’s still a lot of diplomatic means to use up before the US has no other options but to go with a military option,” said Tack. “But even if they decide the military option is going to be the way to go — it’s still going to be costly. It’s not something that you would take lightly.”
While no side in a potential conflict would resort to using force without exhausting all diplomatic avenues, each side has a plan to move first.
According to Tack, if China thought the US was going to move against North Korea, they’d try to use force to pressure Pyongyang to negotiate, lest they be forced to deal with the consequences of a Western-imposed order in what would eventually be a reunified Korea.
“China could bring forces into North Korea to act as a tripwire,” said Tack.
Soldiers with the People’s Liberation Army at Shenyang training base in China, March 24, 2007. | DoD photo by Staff Sgt. D. Myles Cullen, U.S. Air Force.
“The overt presence of Chinese forces would dissuade the US from going into that territory because they would run the risk of inviting that larger conflict themselves.”
For the same reason that the US stations troops in South Korea, or Poland, China may look to put some of its forces on the line to stop the US from striking.
Chinese forces in North Korea would “be in a position to force a coup or force Kim’s hand” to disarm, said Tack.
“To make sure North Korea still exists and serves Chinese interests while it stops acting as a massive bullseye to the US,” he added.
That would be an ideal result for China, and would most certainly preclude a direct US strike.
But even if China does potentially save the day, it could still be perceived as the bad guy.
Chinese leaders wants to avoid a strong, US-aligned Korea on its borders. They want to prevent a massive refugee outflow from a crushed North Korean state. And they want to defuse the Korean peninsula’s nuclear tensions — but in doing so, they’d expose an ugly truth.
If China unilaterally denuclearized North Korea to head off a US strike, this would only vindicate that claim, and raise questions as to why China allowed North Korea to develop and export dangerous technologies and commit heinous human rights abuses.
So what happens in the end?
For China, it’s “not even about saving” the approximately 25 million living under a brutal dictatorship in North Korea, but rather maintaining its buffer state, according to Tack.
China would likely seek to install an alternative government to the Kim regime but one that still opposes the West and does not cooperate with the US.
According to Tack, China needs a North Korean state that says “we oppose Western interests and we own this plot of land.”
If China doesn’t exert its influence soon, it may be too late.
Professional wrestling is a crazy world of gimmicks, pageantry, and explosions, and only that last one fits in with most people’s view of the military. However, wrestling caters to a very patriotic crowd and this, obviously, goes hand-in-hand with the armed services.
WWE has honored the United States Military on many occasions, giving back to the troops through multiple charity efforts. Unfortunately, that doesn’t make up for these five stupid storylines, which mocked the military far more than they paid tribute.
5. Corporal Kirchner
After future WWE Hall of Famer Sgt. Slaughter left for the AWA in the mid 1980’s, WWE hoped to mimic his success by creating a new military character in Corporal Kirchner. The blatant Slaughter knockoff claimed to be a former member of the 82nd Airborne Division and a present member of what they called the “3V Division,” standing for vigilance, vengeance, and victory.
Kirchner showed up covered in lame camouflage and used the word patriot repeatedly (as if that made him one). The combination of an actual army division with something so patently cartoonish and made-up made a joke of the military instead of paying tribute.
4. Sgt. Craig Pittman and Cobra
WCW used to compete with WWE tooth-and-nail and they had their share of stupid military references as well. WCW’s first military gimmick was Sgt. Craig Pittman, an angry drill sergeant-type bad guy, who feuded with Cobra. Cobra was one of Pittman’s apparently rankless and nameless fellow soldiers, who Pittman abandoned in the Gulf War before joining the ranks of professional wrestling.
The two wrestled a quick match at WCW Fall Brawl 1995 and both disappeared shortly thereafter. While the other items on this list may actually offend real servicemen, this one just leaves us scratching our heads and wondering what the point was. The idea of a sergeant abandoning his men at war is too serious of a crime to be tossed off and forgotten.
3. The Misfits in Action
While minor stars, like Sgt. Craig Pittman, appeared on WCW Saturday Night for years, the military appeared as a centerpiece in WCW storylines when Hugh Morrus turned into Hugh G. Rection and formed the “Misfits in Action” along with Booker T, Chavo Guerrero, and a few others.
The actual military influence of the gimmick was relegated to the M.I.A. wearing fatigues and the wrestlers being renamed with silly, offensive stereotypes (Guerrero became “Lt. Loco,” Booker T was “G.I. Bro,” and do we need to repeat, “Hugh G. Rection?”). Like many things in WCW, this not only managed to offend the military crowd to whom it was supposed to appeal, but found shocking new ways to offend people completely unconnected to it in any way.
2. The Steiner-Nowinski Iraq War debate
The War in Iraq has always been highly controversial — especially closer to its inception. A very popular notion in the United States at the time was to support the troops, but not the war. Although a sensible and understandable position for many conflicted over a war with no clear end in sight, Vince McMahon and WWE felt otherwise, vehemently supporting the war effort at all costs.
Although their hearts were likely in the right place, this particular attempt at sharing their patriotism has got to be ranked as one of the lowest moments in the history of WWE Monday Night Raw. A debate was held over the merits of the war, between actual Harvard graduate Christopher Nowinski and actual walking-billboard for steroid abuse, Scott Steiner. In the most poorly thought out part of their plan, Steiner was arguing for the War and was expected to get cheered, despite the fact that his “arguments” seemed to imply he didn’t know which war they were talking about.
Flustered, Steiner resorted to screaming nonsensical Rambo quotes, threatened to beat up the Dixie Chicks, and then told everyone who disagrees with him to go to France. It made WWE and anyone who supported the war effort look like a misinformed blowhard, probably the exact opposite of their intention.
1. Sgt. Slaughter turns traitor on America
Sgt. Slaughter is a WWE Hall of Famer, and his stern, drill-sergeant character reached beyond the squared circle and into pop culture history by appearing on G.I. Joe. His patriotism and military service were always the focus of his character, leading to immense popularity in the 1980’s.
Unfortunately, the peak of Slaughter’s fame was a short-lived turn as an Iraqi sympathizer in 1991. Teaming with former enemies, Colonel Mustafa (The Iron Sheik) and General Adnan, Slaughter turned his back on America and vocally supported the efforts of Saddam Hussein, winning the WWE World Championship shortly after doing so.
Everyone knows pro wrestling is just entertainment, but rumor has it this move actually lead to Bob Remus, the real man behind the character, receiving death threats. Of course, we don’t support that, but it isn’t super surprising — having a lifelong patriot become an actual traitor is a bit much, even for wrestling.
US and Philippine troops have reportedly been training for a potential island invasion scenario, which is a real possibility as tensions rise in the disputed South China Sea.
On April 10, 2019, US and Filipino forces conducted a joint airfield seizure exercise on a Lubang Island, located adjacent to the sea, in what was a first for the allies, Channel News Asia reported April 11, 2019.
The drill was practice for a real-world situation in which a foreign power has seized control of an island in the Philippines, taking over the its airfield, GMA News reported.
“If they [the Filipinos] were to have any small islands taken over by a foreign military, this is definitely a dress rehearsal that can be used in the future,” Maj. Christopher Bolz, a US Army Special Forces company commander involved in planning the exercises, told CNA.
“I think the scenario is very realistic, especially for an island nation such as the Philippines,” Bolz added.
US Marines and Philippine marines land on the beach in assault amphibious vehicles during an exercise in Subic Bay, Philippines, Oct. 3, 2018.
(US Marine Corps photo by Lance Cpl. Christine Phelps)
The Philippines requested this type of training last year. “The Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) must be ready to any eventualities,” Lt. Col. Jonathan Pondanera, commander of the exercise control group with the AFP-SOCOM, explained.
Balikatan exercises are focused primarily on “maintaining a high level of readiness and responsiveness, and enhancing combined military-to-military relations and capabilities,” the Marine Corps said in a recent statement. Balikatan means “shoulder to shoulder” in Tagalog.
Both the US military and the Marines have stressed that the ongoing exercises are not aimed at China, although some of the activities, such as the counter-invasion drills, seem to suggest otherwise.
Thitu Island, known as Pagasa in the Philippines, is the only Philippine-controlled island in the contested South China Sea with an airfield, and the current drills come as Manila has accused China of sending paramilitary forces to “swarm” this particular territory.
“Let us be friends, but do not touch Pagasa Island and the rest,” Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte said in a recent message to China. “If you make moves there, that’s a different story. I will tell my soldiers, ‘Prepare for suicide mission.'”
Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte.
The Philippines lacks the firepower to stand up to China, but it is protected under a Mutual Defense Treaty with the US.
In March 2019, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo reaffirmed US commitment to defend the Philippines, stating that “any armed attack on Philippine forces, aircraft, or public vessels in the South China Sea will trigger mutual defense obligations.”
Chemical illumination has been a useful tool for military operations for years in the form of chem lights or glow sticks. However, glow sticks could be a hindrance to carry around. The Air Force Research Lab has exponentially lightened the load to allow chemical illumination in the form of a crayon, making light accessible, transferable and useful over and over again.