Cold War - Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association

Cold War bomber enhances China’s ability to strike U.S. bases

David Lague | Reuters — Wed, 13 Nov 2024 22:42:40 +0000

HONG KONG (Reuters) – In a series of war games in the seas and skies around Taiwan last month, China deployed some of its newest strike aircraft, warships and missile forces. However, one of the most menacing weapons used in the drills: an updated version of a bomber that first flew in the early years of the Cold War.

Like America, which still relies on upgraded versions of the B-52, a bomber from the same era, China has successfully modernized its jet-powered H-6 to carry on flying deep into the 21st Century.

These bombers were shown on China’s state-controlled media taking off for missions designed to intimidate Taiwan as part of the war-game drills. Dubbed Joint-Sword 2024B by China’s military, the maneuvers were a “stern warning” to people on Taiwan seeking independence, the Chinese military said.

Continue reading HERE

source: https://www.yahoo.com/news/cold-war-bomber-enhances-china-061128035.html

[Disclaimer]

The post Cold War bomber enhances China’s ability to strike U.S. bases first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.

What weapons could North Korea give to Russia?

Hyung-jin Kim and Kim Tong-hyung | AP — Thu, 08 Sep 2022 15:31:19 +0000

SEOUL, South Korea — North Korea is apparently moving to sell millions of rockets and artillery shells — many of them likely from its old stock — to its Cold War ally Russia.

Russia has called a U.S. intelligence report on the purchasing plan “fake.” But U.S. officials say it shows Russia’s desperation with the war in Ukraine and that Moscow could buy additional military hardware from North Korea.

The ammunitions North Korea reportedly intends to sell to Moscow are likely copies of Soviet-era weapons that can fit Russian launchers. But there are still questions over the quality of the supplies and how much they could actually help the Russian military.

What will North Korea supply?

Slapped by international sanctions and export controls, Russia in August bought Iranian-made drones that U.S. officials said had technical problems. For Russia, North Korea is likely another good option for its ammunitions supply, because the North keeps a significant stockpile of shells, many of them copies of Soviet-era ones.

North Korea “may represent the single biggest source of compatible legacy artillery ammunition outside of Russia, including domestic production facilities to further supplies,” said Joseph Dempsey, research associate for defense and military analysis at the International Institute for Strategic Studies.

Continue reading HERE

Source: https://www.marinecorpstimes.com/global/asia-pacific/2022/09/07/what-weapons-could-north-korea-give-to-russia/

____________________________________________________________________________________________________

[Disclaimer]

The post What weapons could North Korea give to Russia? first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.

The Leopard II Tank Is Europe’s Finest

Caleb Larson - National Interest — Thu, 25 Mar 2021 08:15:54 +0000

Following the Yom Kippur War, West Germany decided to upgrade their Leopard I to a new standard—the Leopard II.

Here’s What You Need to Remember: The Leopard II is slated to serve the German Bundeswehr around 2030. Regardless of what replaces it, the Leopard II has served with distinction.

In the 1970s, it became apparent that anti-tank warfare had progressed far beyond the capabilities of 1950s and 1960s era armor. West Germany went back to the drawing board and came up with a winning design—the Leopard II.

Aging Armor

The Yom Kippur war in 1973 showed the limitations of 1950s and 1960s tank design when faced with 1970s anti-tank missiles. Israel armor had struggled at the beginning of the conflict, and lost a large number of American M48 Pattons, British Centurions, and other armor to Soviet-supplied anti-tank missiles.

European observers were startled—and realized that advances were needed in armor, quickly. West Germany decided to upgrade their Leopard I to a new standard—the Leopard II.

The Leopard II entered service in 1979, and had a number of improvements and upgrades compared to the Leopard I, its predecessor.

American-German Improvements

Initially the United States and West Germany planned on jointly creating a tank that would equip both of their armies, the MTB-70. The MTB-70 was incredibly advanced for the time. However doubts concerning some of the tank’s technical advancements, like the redesigned main gun and finicky gas-turbine engine arose, and the entire project was rapidly shelved.

West German designers returned to their current main battle tank, the Leopard I. Their initial goal was to upgrade the Leopard I to try and get close to the capabilities offered by the MTB-70.

Designers took some of the MTB-70’s better qualities—good mobility and effective armor—and created a prototype that had spaced turret armor that was steeply sloped. The prototype’s suspension and transmission were improved as well.

A computerized fire control system for greater hit probabilities at 2,000 meters, or 6,500 feet was added, as was a fully electric turret drive and automatic stabilization.

Ammunition was stored in blow-out compartments too—in case of ammunition “cooking off” after taking a hit. This meant that any resulting explosion would be pushed outwards away from the crew, rather than exploding internally.

Another upgrade meant that, with minimal preparation, the Leopard II can ford thirteen-foot deep bodies of water using a quick-deploy snorkel. With no prep, it can ford over three feet of water.

The Leopard II was born.

Incremental Upgrades

Throughout the life of the Leopard II, incremental upgrades have steadily been incorporated, resulting in many versions of the tank.

To protect against IEDs, improvements to underbelly armor protection has been added to some models, as well as a thicker spall liner to protect the crew. Additionally, a heavy ballistic skirt was added to protect the Leopard’s tracks.

Due to German political sensitivities, the Leopard today does not make use of depleted uranium armor. Instead, the tank relies on steeply sloped armor to defeat projectiles, though it has smoke projectiles along the turret.

The Leopard II was picked up by a number of NATO member countries, including notably by Canada, Austria, and the Netherlands, who contributed Leopard II variants to their respective missions in Afghanistan.

Today

The Leopard II is slated to serve the German Bundeswehr around 2030. Regardless of what replaces it, the Leopard II has served with distinction. The Leopard’s website proudly states: “The Leopard 2A7 + was developed and qualified for the new tasks of the German Armed Forces. The system components, optimized to protect the crew, prove their worth.”

Caleb Larson is a Defense Writer with The National Interest. He holds a Master of Public Policy and covers U.S. and Russian security, European defense issues, and German politics and culture. This article first appeared last year.

Image: Reuters

Source: https://nationalinterest.org/blog/reboot/leopard-ii-tank-europe%E2%80%99s-finest-180941

[Disclaimer]

The post The Leopard II Tank Is Europe’s Finest first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.

Revealed: Russia’s Plan To Destroy U.S. Navy Aircraft Carriers In a War

Kyle Mizokami — Sat, 12 Oct 2019 17:49:49 +0000

Designed during the Cold War.

Key point: Like the Soviet Union, Russia knows that aircraft carriers are force multipliers for the U.S. military.

In the event of World War II, the Soviet Union planned to go after the U.S. Navy’s fleet of aircraft carriers in a big way. The carriers were a flexible and powerful weapon that could operate at the peripheries of Soviet power, doing everything from supporting land operations to launching nuclear strikes. The Soviet Navy and Air Force
built battlecruisers, cruisers, submarines and bombers armed with formidable anti-ship missiles to destroy these America’s carriers and ensure victory in Western Europe.

During the Cold War, the United States Navy maintained a large and robust carrier fleet. In 1984 it operated thirteen carriers, a mix of conventional and nuclear-powered ships with air wings upwards of 85 aircraft. The carrier of 1984 fielded a diverse air wing, including the F-14 Tomcat fleet interceptor, F/A-18 Hornet multirole fighter, A-6 Intruder bomber, A-7 Corsair attack aircraft, and a variety of anti-submarine and support planes.

One of the missions the Soviets feared the most was a multi-carrier surge into the Norwegian Sea, where they could threaten Soviet air and naval bases. From there carriers could stage air raids against military targets across the northwestern USSR, hampering the ability of Soviet forces to dominate the North Atlantic and beyond. Alternately they could attack Soviet ballistic missiles submarines operating in the so-called “bastion” in the Barents Sea. Soviet missile submarines, concentrated near the homeland for protection, would be hunted down and destroyed.

But perhaps the gravest threat from Moscow’s perspective were the nuclear weapons regularly stationed on U.S. carriers. The prospect of one or more enemy aircraft carriers operating off the coast of the USSR, constantly on the move and each with up to ten nuclear bombers on her flight deck was a serious concern to the Soviet leadership.

U.S. carrier battle groups justifiably became a fixation for Soviet air and naval forces, and both evolved to stop them. Using a combination of surface warships, submarines, long-range bombers, and perhaps even nuclear weapons, the Soviet Union planned to take out America’s carriers quickly and decisively, removing the threat to the homeland. Destroying these capable anti-submarine platforms would greatly benefit the Soviet Navy submarine campaign to isolate Western Europe.

The emphasis on aircraft carriers, what the U.S. Navy called Anti-Carrier Warfare, led to the Soviet Navy fielding a formidable force of guided-missile cruisers and battlecruisers. The three Slava class guided missile cruisers were 186.4 meters (611 feet long), displaced 12,000 tons, and were capable of speeds of up to 32 knots–an important consideration when attempting to intercept nuclear-powered aircraft carriers.

The three cruisers each carried sixteen P-500 Bazalt anti-ship missiles. The size of a small aircraft, the P-500 flew at speeds of Mach 2.5 and carried either a 1,000 kilogram (2,200 pounds) high explosive warhead or 350 kiloton nuclear warhead. The missile had a maximum effective range of 340 miles, with a circular error probable (CEP) of 300 to 700 meters (984 to 2,296 feet). That level of accuracy made actually hitting a 1,000-foot ship with a conventional warhead an iffy proposition, suggesting that Bazalt missiles would have been armed with nuclear warheads from the outset.

Another major surface platform that would stalk American carriers were the Kirov-class battlecruisers. The largest non-carrier surface combatants built by any country since World War II, the Kirov class was 827 feet long, nuclear powered, and displaced 28,000 tons fully loaded. The Kirovs carried 20 P-700 Granit missiles. Similar to the Bazalt missiles, Granit missiles had a slightly longer range of 388 miles and carried a slightly smaller 750 kilogram (1,633 pounds) high explosive warhead. On the other hand, it carried a larger 500 nuclear warhead. Unlike the Slava class, the Kirovs had formidable air defenses capable of defending the ship from a carrier’s air wing.

Soviet preparations for Anti-Carrier Warfare stretched into the submarine realm. The Soviet Navy built 14 Oscar-class guided-missile submarines, undersea leviathans that at 14,000 tons displaced more water than a Slava-class cruiser. Also nuclear powered, the Oscar submarines each carried 24 P-700 anti-ship missiles. Oscar submarines were plentiful enough to be assigned to both the Soviet Northern and Pacific Fleets, where they could threaten American carriers in both the Atlantic and Pacific.

Finally, Soviet Naval Aviation operated a large force of bombers and maritime patrol aircraft meant to search for and then destroy carrier task forces. The USSR assigned 120 Tu-22M “Backfire” supersonic bombers, 240 Tu-16 “Badger” bombers with AS-2, AS-5, and AS-6 missiles, and 35 Tu-22 “Blinder” bombers with gravity bombs to Soviet Naval Aviation, giving it enough punch to launch mass attacks against U.S. carrier battle groups.

Together all three arms of the Soviet Navy, surface, subsurface, and naval aviation, would relentlessly hunt down carrier battle groups, destroying them whenever possible. A surprise attack with nuclear-tipped anti-ship missiles could have caused terrible damage to America’s carrier fleet. Without the use of nuclear weapons Soviet forces might have staged several smaller uncoordinated attacks from all directions, wearing down the carrier task force’s defenders and depleting their ammunition reserves before launching a final, all-out attack.

From the American perspective, the threat of mass missile attacks was sufficient to develop a number of specialized weapon systems, including the Aegis Combat System, combining the SPY-1 radar and SM-2 surface-to-air missile into a potent fleet defender. Another countermeasure, particularly against Soviet bombers, was the F-14 Tomcat fleet air defense fighter, each of which had the powerful AWG-9 radar and carried six AIM-54 Phoenix missiles with a range of 100+ miles.

The Soviet Union was a land power, and the Soviet Navy was third in line for national resources. Yet even as the Red Army dashed for the Pyrenees in a future conflict NATO navies–particularly American aircraft carriers–could not be ignored. Ultimately destruction of U.S. aircraft carriers supported the ground offensive into Western Europe, where the Soviets believed the war would be won or lost.

Kyle Mizokami is a defense and national-security writer based in San Francisco who has appeared in the Diplomat, Foreign Policy, War is Boring and the Daily Beast. In 2009 he cofounded the defense and security blog Japan Security Watch. You can follow him on Twitter: @KyleMizokami. This article first appeared earlier this year.

Source: https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/revealed-russias-plan-destroy-us-navy-aircraft-carriers-war-87286

[Disclaimer]

The post Revealed: Russia’s Plan To Destroy U.S. Navy Aircraft Carriers In a War first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.

Germany: Merkel urges EU to reduce dependence on White House

Banco del Alba News — Wed, 11 Sep 2019 00:57:17 +0000

German Chancellor calls out EU: “Time to take their fate into their own hands” | Photo: Reuters

Germany’s Angela Merkel says Europe shouldn’t rely on U.S. directives and create its own sovereignty.

Angela Merkel once again talked about the need to reduce Europe’s dependence on the United States, at least in terms of foreign and defense policy on Wednesday during a federal budget debate in the nation’s Bundestag, or legislator.

In her own words, it’s time for European nations “to take their fate into their own hands” referring to creating greater European Union sovereignty. The German chancellor told lawmakers in Berlin that the end of the Cold War 30 years ago revealed “a new narrative of global power distribution.”

She also added that the U.S. and EU must strengthen diplomatic relations and move towards spending two percent of GDP on defense, the amount prescribed by the Trump administration for Germany and other NATO allies.

Also during her Wednesday speech, Merkel said the trade war between the United States and China was hitting Germany, which has traditionally relied on exports to propel its economy.

“The U.S.-China trade conflict … is of course having an impact on an export nation like Germany,” the chancellor said Sept. 11. The Trump-initiated conflict was officially kicked off in June 2018 and the U.S. has applied US$550 billion in tariffs onto Chinese imports, while China has placed US$185 billion in tariffs on the North American country, according to China Briefing.

Source: https://www.telesurenglish.net/news/Merkel-Urges-EU-to-Reduce-Dependence-on-White-House–20190911-0033.html

[Disclaimer]

The post Germany: Merkel urges EU to reduce dependence on White House first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.

WW3 THREAT: Vladimir Putin’s Russia now a ‘SERIOUS PROBLEM’ for the West, warns UK MP

Jamie MacWhirter — Tue, 26 Jun 2018 07:08:26 +0000

WORLD WAR 3: Britain and NATO missed their chance to contain the threat posed by Vladimir Putin and Russia, MP Crispin Blunt has warned, arguing they are now a “very serious problem.”

Russia has stoked World War 3 fears in recent years after aggressively annexing Crimea and allegedly interfering in the US presidential elections.

Crispin Blunt, the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee, appeared on the BBC’s Daily Politics to discuss UK defence spending and policy.

He told host Jo Coburn that Britain and its allies had missed their chance to contain the Russian threat, and that Vladimir Putin was now a “serious problem” for the West.

He said: “There was a strategic question for the nations of the West when the Soviet Union ended.

Getty•BBC – Crispin Blunt warned that Putin’s Russia was now a “very serious problem” for the West

“I would argue that in that period of the 1990s we were too triumphalist and we failed to engage the interests of Russia properly post the end of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War.

“We missed our opportunity there, then the oil price rose.

“That gave Putin the opportunity to reboot the Russian economy, to reboot Russia’s defence capabilities, and to give Russia some sense of national pride and nationalism.

“And that, together with this organised kleptocracy surrounding Putin, has created a serious problem now for the West because Russia is no longer within our sphere of influence.

“That, I would argue, is one of our failures of the Cold War.”

Mr Blunt added that Britain was committed to meeting its NATO military spending obligations of two percent of GDP, but refused to say whether it would increase to three percent.

Defense Secretary Gavin Williamson reignited the debate over military spending over the weekend after a Sunday newspaper reported he had threatened to “crush” the Treasury and bring down Theresa May if the Ministry of Defense did not receive a £20 billion cash boost.

Mr Williamson allegedly boasted: “I made her – and I can break her.”

Chancellor Philip Hammond responded by declaring that there was no money left for extra military spending.

Source: https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/979840/WW3-Vladimir-Putin-Russia-serious-problem-UK-NATO

[Disclaimer]

The post WW3 THREAT: Vladimir Putin’s Russia now a ‘SERIOUS PROBLEM’ for the West, warns UK MP first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.

A New Cold War Is Not Inevitable

James Stavridls — Tue, 27 Mar 2018 16:37:28 +0000

Top NATO and Russian military commanders have agreed to meet. Here’s what they need to discuss.

Coming to a negotiating table near your. Photographer: Sergei Grits/AFP/Getty Images

When I served as Supreme Allied Commander at NATO from 2009 to 2013, I developed a friendly relationship with the head of the Russian armed forces, General Nikolai Makarov. He was a short, barrel-chested man with a congenial personal style, and given my own somewhat compact physique, I could at least tell my boss, Secretary of Defense Bob Gates, that I literally saw things “eye to eye” with my Russian counterpart. Our meetings occurred both in Moscow and several times in Brussels at NATO headquarters. I also had him over to my official residence in Mons, Belgium, where too much vodka was drank but we continued to have meaningful conversations (at least in the early parts of the evening).

QuickTakeCool War

We argued about a variety of things from the Russian invasion of Georgia to an appropriate strategy in Afghanistan, but it was an open, sensible and pragmatic relationship. Probably the greatest disagreement we had involved the U.S. desire to install a missile defense system in Europe — intended not to oppose Russian strategic systems but to defend against Iranian ballistic missiles.

We also developed a series of cooperative programs, from counter-piracy off the Horn of Africa to information-sharing on narcotics flowing from Afghanistan. Overall, that kind of military-to-military engagement is very helpful in defusing tension and avoiding unintended clashes. It matters at the tactical, operational and strategic levels.

Given the subsequent invasion of Ukraine, annexation of Crimea, intrusion into U.S. elections, and Russian support for the war criminal Bashar al-Assad in Syria, those sorts of top-level relationships have been dormant for some time. I was therefore heartened by recent reports that the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Joe Dunford, and the current Supreme Allied Commander, Army General Curtis Scaparrotti, are in serious discussions with the current head of the Russian armed forces, Valery Gerasimov.

Phone conversations are occurring with some regularity, and most importantly, Scaparrotti and Gerasimov have tentatively scheduled a face-to-face meeting in Europe. This is an important element if we are to avoid stumbling backward into a full-blown Cold War with Russia.

What should be on the agenda when these two seasoned military leaders meet?

Tactically, the two generals need to create an effective regime to avoid unintended confrontations between NATO and the Russians. In several instances over the past 12 months, NATO and Russian aircraft and ships have been on collision courses in the Baltic, Black and Mediterranean Seas. While the details would be classified, there have probably also been close and dangerous interactions under the ice in the Arctic.

The two leaders should see that their staffs confer on ways to reduce the potential for high-stakes accidents. This can include technical signals to use in operations, setting “stand-off” distances at air and sea, and tactical hotlines to keep each side informed of patrols.

Operationally, the conversations should look at where forces are being assigned broadly. The Russians are extremely unhappy with increased NATO military presence on their borders. NATO, on the other hand, is justifiably critical of Russian troops in southeastern Ukraine. While neither side will immediately change deployments, a good starting point would be for each side to brief the other about current deployments and plans at a very broad, generic, unclassified level. Let the Russians explain what they are doing in Ukraine; and have the NATO commander defend the development and deployment of the new NATO Rapid Reaction Forces. There may be small compromises that could be suggested up the respective chains of command to reduce obvious areas of tension.

In terms of operational exercises, more transparency and visibility would be good. There are existing mechanisms here, such as the Open Skies agreement, allowing some overflight and reconnaissance during another nation’s military exercises. Additionally, the huge training programs run by both Russia and the U.S. could allow on-the-ground observers in portions of the exercise as a confidence-building measure. Naval exercises in the Baltic and Black Seas could include a component with both sides working together practicing humanitarian operations or counter-narcotics.

Finally, at the strategic level, there is much to discuss. While these senior military officers are not in charge of their nations’ strategies, they can certainly illuminate them for each other. Scaparrotti should be prepared to discuss the Donald Trump administration’s new National Security Strategy (largely drafted by the departing National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster). Gerasimov should be able to help the West understand why President Vladimir Putin is launching a series of new, dangerous weapons — including a nuclear torpedo.

In addition to working through challenges and tensions, the two generals should think together about possible areas of cooperation. Some to consider include counterterrorism, search-and-rescue in the Arctic, counter-piracy, and a return to cooperation in Afghanistan (where both nations have shared interests in reducing narcotics and stabilizing the region).

Of course, none of this will immediately defuse all the tensions between NATO and Russia. There will be challenges aplenty in the relationship, including the most recent one — an attack on British soil using an outlawed nerve agent. But by taking an approach that says we should confront where we must, but cooperate where we can, these two leaders can propose intelligent and realistic zones of collaboration in the current sea of confrontation.

This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.

To contact the author of this story:
James Stavridis at jstavridis@bloomberg.net

To contact the editor responsible for this story:
Tobin Harshaw at tharshaw@bloomberg.net

Source: https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-03-27/russia-and-nato-talking-their-way-out-of-another-cold-war

[Disclaimer]

The post A New Cold War Is Not Inevitable first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.

Los Angeles Times: Russian Revolution still echoes 100 years later

Omaha World-Herald — Thu, 09 Nov 2017 17:05:28 +0000

Communist party supporters carry portraits of Soviet founder Vladimir Lenin, left, and Soviet dictator Josef Stalin during a demonstration marking the 100th anniversary of the 1917 Bolshevik revolution in Moscow, Russia, Tuesday, Nov. 7, 2017. Thousands of Communist demonstrators marked the centennial of the 1917 Bolshevik revolution Tuesday by marching across downtown Moscow. (AP Photo/Alexander Zemlianichenko)

A band of political radicals seized the reins of power in post-tsarist Russia a century ago this week, installing Vladimir Lenin as their first leader and setting in play some of the forces that made the 20th century the bloodiest in human history.

It’s hard, in fact, to imagine just how different today’s world would be had Lenin and his comrades failed in their coup and had the Soviet Union never been established.

World War I likely would have ended about the same way, but the politics of Europe would have played out much differently, especially after the murderous Josef Stalin succeeded Lenin.

These are subjects for idle speculation since, obviously, Stalin did succeed Lenin, and the Soviet Union persevered until 1991. Despite its inherent flaws as a political system, communism spread globally. Mongolia was first (aided by Russian troops) in 1921 but was followed over time by China, Vietnam, North Korea, Angola, Congo and Cuba, among others.

Throughout, communism enabled brutal totalitarians — Stalin’s reign of terror killed millions through forced collectivization of agriculture and ethnic cleansing programs, as well as the execution of perceived rivals, political heretics and resisters.

How else do the Bolsheviks echo today? Through the communist regimes that remain (in various forms), from Cuba to Vietnam to China. And in Americans’ almost Pavlovian distrust of government-led communal action, left over from the Cold War. Never mind that such things as pooled-risk insurance, the national park system, Interstate freeways and all manner of other government services we rely on are born of the recognition that shared risk and shared wealth can in many instances provide broad benefits for all without threatening individual liberty.

But the Bolsheviks also echo through the anguished screams of the executed, the whimperings of the starving, the remembered betrayals of neighbors and relatives for the sake of the party. And they echo in the reminder that democracy lives and dies on the faith and willingness of the people to embrace and sustain it. As Hitler’s political rise in a democratic Germany taught us, even democracy is not safe from totalitarianism. So maybe the rise of the Bolsheviks echoes loudest in its warning of how precarious democracy can be.

Source: http://www.omaha.com/opinion/los-angeles-times-russian-revolution-still-echoes-years-later/article_e832b72f-095e-50c7-9734-7304c1ab214b.html

[Disclaimer]

The post Los Angeles Times: Russian Revolution still echoes 100 years later first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.