The end of the year is here, which means this is the final blog post I’m going to make. I’ve decided that I’m going to end with a reflection of how my blogs gradually evolved over the nine months in school, and some funny stories regarding blogs. But first off, let’s do some statistics.
28 Blog Posts 18,550 Words Written Lots of pictures Now, at the beginning of the year, I remember not really knowing where I was going to take my blog posts. My scope, quality, and subjects of my blogs went everywhere. I struggled to fill up the required 500 word threshold with whatever came from my mind, often with odd, mismatching sentences that lacked information. And, it doesn’t look like I improved that much, but I think I figured out the direction of my blog after the end of the semester. I began to focus more on defense analysis of current situations, and there’s an interesting story behind it. A couple of my friends were in the school’s parliamentary debate team and they often had to debate on current day military topics. Of course, given their limited previous experience, they would have to rely on “briefs” or reports on their specific topics. Since these briefs, however good they are for giving a quick introduction in the 15 minutes time they have to prepare, don’t often go into extreme detail about the multiple variables that must be taken into account when talking about military actions, many of the final plans wouldn’t actually work in real life. Case in point, in one debate, they were asked to make a plan to militarily intervene in the middle east. Now, no offense to them, but they came up with a pretty bad and impossible plan. Their plan was “The USFG (United States Federal Government) shall execute an EMP (Electromagnetic Pulse) strike on the ISIL communication hub of Mosul.” Now according to their briefs, this would be a smart idea, as it doesn’t risk US troops, ISIL uses Mosul for communications, and there’s no possibility for collateral damage. However, there were a number of flaws with that plan. First of all, the US military doesn’t have a dedicated EMP weapon. In fact, no country officially has an EMP device. Yes, an airburst detonation of a nuclear weapon will create an EMP pulse, but if you’re going to detonate a nuclear warhead over Mosul (creating toxic levels of radiation, inciting international backlash, etc) why not just nuke Mosul. Furthermore, while we have EMP “testers” which are large devices used to test the EMP resistance of our current technology, they have to be wired to the ground and cannot be used in the field. Secondly, there seems to be a preconceived notion that ISIL relies on communication to be working militarily. While ISIL may rely on social media for recruitment, you’ll find that an EMP strike will be detrimental to US-Coalition forces working in support of Operation Inherent Resolve than anything else. It’s a question of command structure. In militaries like the Iraqi military or the US military, communication is key. Technologies like radios, electronic warfare, GPS, and laser designation are all used every day in Iraq. You can’t move a platoon without radioing it in, you can’t ask for more support without radio, you don’t know where you are without GPS, and you can’t effectively coordinate forces without radio. When looking at ISIL combat tactics, the command structure is a lot more individualized. Here’s an example of this. Let’s say the “Golden Division” of the Iraqi Army wants to move into a house and clear it. They realize that there is a mine at the front door. They radio it in and an EOD (Explosive Ordinance Disposal) specialist comes in to disarm it. Then, they receive heavy fire, and ask for armoured backup using communications. When that’s not enough, an “assisting” member from the US Air Force who is qualified to call in airstrikes radios the plethora of close air support assets to drop a bomb on the insurgents. Then consider a ISIL holding strike. One guy with a VBIED (Vehicle Based Improvised Explosive Device) drives into a pack of Iraqi army vehicles acting as a civilian and blows himself up. There’s little to no communications required. Realizing that there is a distinct lack of information in these briefs, I decided to write a long series on different (hopefully timely) military articles (mostly because I already had prior knowledge and took 10 minutes to type up. Also, I always wrote more than 500 words for each blog, which was apparently too much? Who knows. I thank anyone who had the patience to read this blog for stopping by and checking it out. It’s been a blast, so from the bottom of my heart, thank you.
0 Comments
For the past couple weeks, President Trump has made several startling military actions which have captured headlines around the world. However, most of these headlines fail to follow up on these often complex and rapidly developing situations. Since it seems like the dust has finally settled,I think it’s time to clear up misconceptions and truly evaluate the effect of these actions on the international stage.
#1 Cruise Missile Strike on Shayat Air Base In retaliation for Assad using chemical weapons such as Sarin Nerve Gas on his own populace, the United States launched 59 Tomahawk cruise missiles against Shayat Air Base, the AIr base suspected to have launched fighters that launched the chemical attacks. This action, oddly, has been applauded by both sides of the aisle, with both the Democrats and the Republicans lauding the decision and righteous. This, of course was a political boost for the Trump Administration. As these were cruise missiles, it did not risk any assets or American lives and the munitions expenditure is already covered in the yearly defense budget. Militarily however, the effects of such an attack may have been counterproductive. Tomahawk cruise missiles were designed to take out soft unarmored resources while Shayat Air Base had concrete air raid bunkers. If the US really wanted to take Shayat Air Base out of commission, a flight of two B-2 Spirits loaded with 500 or 1000 pound JDAMs and bunker busters would have reduced the air base to rubble. Of course, you would be risking two of the rarest, most expensive, and prestigious bombers in the USAF inventory. Now, Russia has pledged to defend Assad against further air raids, and it is essentially impossible to destroy the chemical weapon stocks now. #2 The Carl Vincent Strike Group This situation stirred much controversy after Trump publically stated in an interview that an “Armada” was being sent to the Korean Peninsula, with “very powerful submarines.” Of course it was later found out that the Carl Vincent Strike Group (CVSG) was sailing toward India. The media was all over this, with CNN running a section on “Keeping Them Honest” making it seem like it was the next watergate. There has been speculation that President Trump is so out of touch with the Department of Defense (DoD) that he is an ineffective commander in chief. Or, it could have been a wondrous feint to distract North Korea. Honestly, Trump was being perfectly truthful, and to understand why, one must understand how Carrier deployments work. There are two main “cruises” that a carrier strike group can undertake when deployed. It is either a Middle Eastern cruise in support of Operation Inherent Resolve (OIR), which is where a carrier group will actually fight a real war. Or, they can take a South China Sea/South Pacific Cruise, which is mostly for training visiting Japan, India, and Korea. It’s much like an itinerary on a civilian cruise, so the CVSG would have eventually gotten to the Korean Peninsula, even if they had to make a stop in India first. #3 MOAB Strike Air Force Special Operations Command executed a MOAB strike on ISIL Forces recently. Now, the MOAB, or Massive Ordinance Air Burst, or better known as the Mother of all Bombs, is the largest non nuclear bomb in the United States Inventory. With each costing $13 million each, and only a dozen or so produced, its use is more psychological than anything else. It was used against an ISIL Fortress, which consisted of a major tunnel system which would be very costly to clear out. Also, there is another reason to use a MOAB, they were last used during the First Gulf War (Operation Desert Storm) and are nearing the end of their service life, or expiration date. It makes more sense to use these awe-inspiring weapons rather than letting them expire and then throwing them away. Now, I live in the Bay Area in California, which means I'm subject to some of the toughest gun laws in the country. While I was a child, I saw massacres like the Newtown shooting and I thought “Wow, we've got to stop these assault weapons from being proliferated.” I saw arguments from Republican senators and I honestly thought they were idiots. However, as I grew, I got introduced to the so called “gun culture” and I realized that the people who owned “assault rifles” were some of the smartest, patriotic, logical people I know. I decided to dig deeper and then I realized that there's a lot more to gun culture and a lot more to “anti-gunners” than both sides understand. I wanted to create this blog post to really shed light to both side's arguments, and my personal opinions about them.
Now out of respect of all folks at ar15.com and calguns.net, I think it's important to define an “assault weapon.” This is the wikipedia definition, and essentially it's any weapons that can go fully automatic. Therefore, 99% of all so called “assault weapons” in the United States aren't really assault weapons at all as they can only fire semi automatic, or one shot per trigger pull. In fact, no modern massacre has ever been conducted with a fully automatic rifle. If you wonder why I left that 1%, there is a very complicated way to own a fully automatic weapon, which are under many rules governed by the NFA, or National Firearms Act. This includes the weapon not being manufactured after 1960, having to be in several levels of NFA classification which includes paying a $1000 annual fee, undergoing multiple background checks and shelling upwards of $40,000 dollars for the rare fully automatic weapon. It's important to understand why people want weapons like the AR-15 in the first place? The Answer? It's not to hunt, or for self defense, or to shoot up a crowd of civilians. It's to shoot at paper targets at a range. There are people with huge gun collections, and they only use to shoot at paper targets. It's important to understand that shooting is a hobby, just like anything else. We haven't out-right banned 120mph cars, or smoking, or building hot-rig computers. Of course, the answer to that is that those things aren't designed to kill people. And sure, maybe they aren't, but they can still do a lot of damage. One only needs to look at the Nice French attacks to see how much damage one person with a truck can do. Of course, I won't subscribe to this thinking, so I wanted to dig deeper to why so many gun owners opposed a ban on assault weapons. And the main reason I found is because an assault weapons ban is stupid. And that's the truth. I'll take for example, California's Assault Weapons Ban which is very similar to New York's SAFE act. They define an assault weapon as any semiautomatic centerfire rifle with one or more of the following features: pistol grip, forward pistol grip, collapsible/retractable stock, and flash hider in conjunction with a detachable magazine. The main issue is that these regulations are purely cosmetic. A “pistol grip” might sound threatening, but it's a piece of plastic. In fact, if I stick a Popsicle stick on the front of my rifle, it'll be considered a pistol grip and the weapon would be banned. Also, I could buy a Springfield M1A rifle. It's not an assault weapon in its stock state, it fires a 7.62x51 NATO/.308 Winchester cartridge in semiautomatic with a detachable magazine. However, if I buy a “Troy Battle Stock” which includes a pistol grip, the rifle is illegal even though it is still exactly the same weapon, shoots the same cartridge, and fires at the same rate. In reality, it's not particularly important and really only makes a difference for the long term comfort and recoil control of a rifle, but a skilled marksman can use all weapons. Case in point, when an Army Reserve Sniper went on a police killing spree, he used a Russian SKS which is not banned in California or any other state. In fact, many people believe it is a simple “hunting” rifle. It is a semiautomatic, but does not detachable magazine (fixed magazine with stripper clips) with a maximum capacity of 10 rounds. So, if the “deadliness” of a semiautomatic weapon doesn't change, why not ban semiautomatic weapons totally. Where there are two issues with that. One, it won't change anything, as shooter would just buy a pump action shotgun and it wouldn't make much of a difference to the victims. Also, it's like asking for the entire gun industry in the United States to die and asking for tens of millions of civilians to turn in hundreds of millions of weapons, which include pistols. So is there a safe answer to keep our children safe? The answer is, maybe, and it'll be a long and slow solution. Let's take for example, Switzerland, which has an incredibly high gun ownership rate and where suppressors and required to be used to protect public hearing during hunting. In America, suppressors require an NFA Tax Form, a $200 tax stamp, 10 months of waiting, or if in California or New York, would have to be approved by the Department of Justice which has a 0.11% chance of happening. It's all about our failing mental health institution. It's not just background checks, it's that we have to treat mentally ill people. We have to have an educated gun culture and an educated anti-gun culture to truly resolve this situation and remove an “us against them” situation. But the truth is, I see no way to stop shootings like the Orlando night club shooting. The terrorist was on the intelligence radar, but they decided he was a non threat and no longer diverted resources to track him. He then passed a gun background check, which for some reason didn't include intelligence agencies, but the same intelligence agencies said that not allowing this terrorist to purchase the rifle would have alerted him. Honestly, I think that's a lot of bogus and the background check should have stopped him and alerted intelligence agencies. The fact of the matter is that it's hard to preserve the second amendment for the majority of gun owners and protect the general populace, much like it is hard to vet Syrian Refugees. I hope this blog post has opened your eyes to another side of the argument you might not have thought of before. Several days ago, United Airlines suffered from a huge embarrassment where a passenger was forcibly removed from a plane and was injured. There has been a lot of misinformation about this incident and I think it's important to clear up the situation and what went wrong. This situation is complex and has many factors, and I think it's been way oversimplified in the media and social media, like Facebook.
Many people believe that overbooking was the main cause of the man's removal from the plane and this incident has reignited the ethics of overbooking. However, this is false, and four passengers had to be removed from the plane because four United Airlines had a time-sensitive priority to get on this plane. Now, United hasn't exactly divulged why they had to shuttle these employees over, but it's probably safe to say it was because another United flight was delayed. The FAA requires that a crew is on shift for only a certain number of hours before they must rest, this is in the interest of safety as an overworked crew is much more prone to mistakes and pilot exhaustion has been the cause of many fatal crashes in the past. Here, I think United Airlines made the right decision to shuffle flight crews if it was to reduce a delay for another flight. When you think about it, it's better to kick four customers off of a flight then continue to delay a flight with hundreds of customers. Furthermore, United Airlines didn't technically do anything wrong by asking customers to leave the flight, at least legally. Whether it was ethically acceptable I won't delve into. However, United did the right thing in first trying to remove individuals rather than separating families. This of course begs the question, who is at fault? United Airlines, the Doctor, or the Police Department. I believe, as these complicated situations go, a little bit of all. Let's do a step by step breakdown of how this situation was created and how it could have been prevented. To begin at the very beginning, there is of course the issue with overbooking, and some airlines, like JetBlue do not overbook, but most other airlines do so to ensure profits. Then, United was forced to quickly transfer multiple crew members on this civilian flight, which is another unavoidable action to reduce delays for another flight. Then, flight attendants asked for volunteers before the flight to not take the flight, offering a $500 credit brochure, but none took it. I think if United decided to offer a better reward, like $500 cash or also cover hotel and other fees, some customers might have taken it. The flight was boarded, then the four United employees had to be transferred into the aircraft, so flight attendants asked four individual travelers to leave the aircraft. The first three accepted, while the last refused, saying he needed to get to patients the next day and the flight attendants were being racist simply because he was Chinese. Now, after the incident, there have been reports that this doctor had in fact lost his license before and had just regained it, but I think this discussion should be about any passenger in this situation. Of course, this incident would have been defused if this passenger had decided to agree with the flight attendants or the flight attendants decided to ask somebody else. At this point, the four United employees that were transferred in were being shamed by other passengers who said things like “You should be ashamed and embarrassed.” Here we see an incredible breakdown of empathy. Imagine yourself as a United employee, who had just gotten transfer orders. You are not responsible for booting four customers off the plane, but are still being treated like criminals. Police were then called in to remove the last passenger from the plane, which, I think is acceptable. Now, usually I'm on the side of Law Enforcement as they have very difficult jobs, but here they handled the situation incorrectly, most likely as a result of improper training. I understand that it is very hard to make an arrest inside an airliner, with narrow aisle and no way to get to the correct seats. The use of a less than lethal weapon, like a taser or pepper spray has the potential of affecting other passengers and would probably get you suspended because of “police brutality.” I honestly see no other way the police could have handled this unless they all got negotiation training, fighting with words instead of blows. This, of course, would have increased the delay on the flight which is exactly the opposite reason why the police were called in the first place. Honestly, however laughable, I think I would agree with a joking tactic suggested by one of my friends here, just to unscrew the chair and carry the passenger off of the plane. So at the end of it all, there is no one party to blame for this. United is to blame because of their poor scheduling, the guests were to blame for not giving up their seat, the situation was to blame for being an incredibly restrictive place for law enforcement to do their jobs, and law enforcement is to blame for not having sufficient training and dropping the passenger. And this is honestly how most complicated situations play out, with many parties making mistakes. It's not a black and white world, and situations like this often get overly simplified. This is much like the 2016 election, the gay-loving, gun grabbing, unemployed, Liberal illegal immigrants working the system who supported Hillary Clinton versus the Redneck, white, misogynistic, gun loving, uneducated Nazis who supported Donald Trump. Oversimplification like this causes this polarization we see in the United States. If we really want to “Make America Great Again” or truly be “Stronger Together” we need to stop oversimplifying the “enemy” and understand what both sides have to say. So I beg of you, the next time a complex situation comes, take all factors and everyone's arguments into account to be truly educated. Ever since the development of nuclear weapons, countries have raced to find a way to defend against nuclear threats. Obviously the different ways to deliver a nuclear warhead need different ways to defend against each part of the nuclear triad. Nuclear equipped bombers today are a easily counterable, with a myriad of anti aircraft missile defense systems, from other fighters or even surface to air missiles. Cruise missiles are similarly easy to shoot down, just like aircraft with interceptor systems. However, one of the most complicated threats to defend against are ballistic missiles.
Let’s start off of what our current BMD (Ballistic MIssile Defense) is designed to defend against. The United States has never stated that it was designed to protect against equal power countries, like the Russian Federation. However, it has been designed to stop an attack from a rogue state, like the DPRK (North Korea) and Iran. These two states maybe only have 20-30 nuclear warheads so it is relatively simple to defend against unlike the Russian Federation, which has hundreds of nuclear ballistic missiles. But why is it so hard to defend against ballistic missiles? It’s relatively simple. Nuclear ballistic missiles often only have a flight time of 20 minutes, which means 20 minutes to detect, track, and kill it. Most of the ballistic missile defenses are designed to kill a missile during the launch-boost phase. This is the point where the ballistic missile is still burning and trying to get enough velocity to hit their target. This is called midcourse defense, as they intercept during the “midcourse” of the flight. After midcourse defense, it is much harder to intercept any warheads since the ballistic missile can deploy “Penetration Aids” which can make it much harder to track the real nuclear warheads to fake ones. For example, a ballistic missile can deploy 8 nuclear warheads and 50 decoys, so in effect making 58 targets to track and kill. Let’s walk through the interception of a ballistic missile. First, a ballistic missile is launched and detected by the US’s SBIRS system (Space Based Infrared System). Specific target and tracking is then provided by a Spy-8 radar from a nearby Aegis Naval Ship or other radar systems. At this point, interception attempts are attempted. If there are any aegis equipped destroyers/cruisers in the immediate vicinity of the launch site (500 Miles) several Aegis interceptors are sent to try to attempt a midcourse intercept. Assuming this doesn’t work and the Ballistic missile is heading toward the continental United States, the Ground Midcourse Missile Defense system is enacted, and an interceptor is launched. If this doesn’t work, and the ballistic missile is at its terminal phase, terminal defenses go to work. Systems like the Patriot system or THAAD is activated. When you are asked about nuclear weapons, what immediately pops into mind? Most likely, you’ll think of images of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and MAD, a Nuclear apocalypse portrayed in movies like Dr. Strangelove and The Day After. Of course, the question after that is why and when nuclear weapons are used.
A common misconception is that the idea behind nuclear warfare is to be able to destroy the major population centers and inflict so many casualties that the other side would be unwilling to fight. However, in truth the doctrine behind nuclear weaponry is simply called counterforce, the idea that two sides could destroy each other’s ability to wage a war. Of course, if military bases are located near major population centers, there would be incredible civilian casualties, however, both the Russian Federation and the United State’s primary targets have always been military installations. Capital cities like Moscow and Washington D.C. are notable exceptions as they play host to major military command and control. Countries with smaller nuclear arsenals, like France and Britain have a similar doctrine, and have publicly stated that they will never instigate a nuclear conflict and will fire in retaliation. Unlike, the US and USSR, which have Nuclear triads, so they can deploy nuclear weapons from sea, land, or air, France and Britain only have strategic nuclear submarines, usually only one on patrol at any time. Due to their close proximity to the USSR, Britain and France may have only 4 minutes of warning so their command structures are designed to operate independently without express authorization from their Prime Minister. In the US however, the the NCA, or National Command Authority has the sole authority to order a nuclear strike. The President is the only person who can authorize a nuclear strike, but the presiding Secretary of Defense must agree. The Secretary of Defense cannot veto, but can stop a nuclear launch. The President, however, could fire the Secretary of Defense and find one that is willing to agree to a nuclear strike. All US nuclear weapons are protected under the Permissive Action Link, which only activated nuclear weapons when the NCA gives the order. Here, we go into the delivery methods of nuclear warheads. At first, there were of course bombers, which could drop their payloads within a couple of hours of being launched. However, as anti air technology progressed, it was realized that bombers could simply be shot down. Then, the ballistic missile was developed. The first iterations of ballistic missiles would have similar ranges to current analogues like Theater Ballistic Missiles, which would have to be stationed near their target to actually hit it. These were like the missiles that caused the Cuban missile crisis. As missile technology developed, it was possible to create missiles that could fly anywhere in the world, and these became known as ICBMs. These missiles were incredibly hard to counteract, however, it would only get harder to counteract. The development of MIRVs meant that a single ICBM could hit up to 10 targets saturating any anti missile defenses. This of course developed to the mentioned Nuclear Triad, aircraft could drop nuclear tipped cruise missiles and bombs, submarines could fire nuclear tipped ICBMs, and missile batteries could fire nuclear tipped ICBMs. Nuclear armed submarines are the most dangerous of this triad, as they could be anywhere in the world and it is incredibly hard to apply the doctrine of counterforce as they are constantly moving. It is rumored that the Russian Federation and the PLA are making nuclear tipped hypersonic gliders which can reenter at over mach 12. In the first of maybe a multi-part series, I’ll endeavor to explore the complex issues behind Nuclear Warfare, exploring why it is an option, the delivery methods, and how we could stop it. All of these blog posts will contain similar advanced acronyms, so I’ll try to quickly define them.
For the purposes of this blog post series, consider that all these missiles are nuclear tipped. WMD: Weapons of Mass Destruction, this is a category that includes chemical/biological weapons, along with nuclear. ICBM: Intercontinental Ballistic Missile (Minimum Effective Range of 5,500 km to wherever in the world) Theater Ballistic Missile: This later replaced IRBMs, MRBMs, and SRBMs for the US and nations with similar missile capabilities, though the DPRK still continues to develop MRBMs. (Effective Range of 300km-3,500km) IRBM: Intermediate Range Ballistic Missile (Effective Range of 3,000-5,500 km) A Subspecies of the IRBM is the LRBM (Long Range Ballistic Missile) which is used to describe missiles between IRBMs and ICBMs. MRBM: Medium Range Ballistic Missile (Effective Range of Less than 3,500km) SRBM: Short Range Ballistic Missile (Effective Range of Less than 1,000 km) SLBM: Submarine Launched Ballistic Missile (Any Ballistic Missile, usually an ICBM capable of being launched from a submarine) BMD: Ballistic Missile Defense. ABM: Anti Ballistic Missile. MDA: Missile Defense Agency, in charge of the USA’s missile defense. DEW: Directed Energy Weapon, i.e. a laser. Interceptor: A missile that can shoot down another missile. SDI: Strategic Defense Initiative: A now defunct 1980s program that aimed to have a system of DEW equipped satellite to shoot down ICBMs. Burn Stage: When a missile is first launched and the motor is burning. Terminal Stage: When the missile’s warhead is about to hit the target. Countermeasure: A highly radar reflective piece that helps “hide” the true warhead. Patriot Missile: A battle tested missile defense system that can shoot down short-ranged missiles in their terminal stage, more specifically SCUDs (Russian Made short ranged non-nuclear missiles) THAAD: Terminal High Altitude Area Defense, similar to the Patriot system. GMD: Ground-Based Midcourse Defense: A Continental US-Based system designed to shoot down ICBMs in their burn stage, 30 deployed in Fort Greely, Alaska and Vandenberg Air Force Base. Aegis BMD (ABMD): Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense, primarily deployed on US Cruisers and Destroyers have limited satellite takedown capability and the ability to shoot down MRBMs while in flight. Aegis Ashore is the land based variant of this system. MAD: Mutually Assured Destruction, or the idea if one side instigates a nuclear exchange, both sides will be able to destroy each other’s ability to wage war, therefore stopping any conflict at all. MIRV: Multi Independently Targetable Reentry Vehicle: A ballistic missile payload containing several warheads that can hit multiple targets, reentering seperatly. Now, before I continue next week on this multipart series, I’d like to dispel some myths on the destructive capabilities of a nuclear exchange to destroy the entire world. Quite simply that is an exaggeration. You might have heard before that we have the ability to destroy the entire world many times over but this is no longer true. Even though the USSR and the US both were able to develop multi-megaton warheads (for comparison, the Hiroshima bomb was 15 kilotons) there are no longer being produced and are being scrapped. Why? This is because these warhead are often heavy, hard to get on target, and in the age of precision computer hardware, the US has the capability to drop a nuclear warhead anywhere in the world within 20 minutes within 200 meters of the designated target. Therefore, precision has won over sheer explosive power. In fact, even though the US had developed 15 megaton nuclear warheads, the current W87 Thermonuclear warheads deployed on Minuteman III ICBMs only have a yield of 300 kilotons (475 unconfirmed, it’s all classified). Furthermore the US and Russia have dismantled over 50,000 nuclear weapons since the peak of nuclear weapons, which mean there are simply not enough nuclear weapons to destroy the entire world. Finally, for comparison the Chisholm Wildfire in Canada released 18 megatons of energy with little climate change, so nuclear weapons most likely wouldn’t either. For more in-depth reading, I suggest you read the highest rated answer here: https://www.quora.com/How-destructive-is-the-Worlds-nuclear-arsenal. (Over 33 reliable sources cited! Sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground-Based_Midcourse_Defense https://mda.mil/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theatre_ballistic_missile https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intercontinental_ballistic_missile https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aegis_Ballistic_Missile_Defense_System Since I have received many requests (one) to cover the current state of the Korean Peninsula, I’ve decided to do a quick writeup on the current military landscape and what I think North Korea is trying to achieve. I’ll also try to dispel some myths about international actions about North Korea. China, the DPRK’s Only Ally Colloquially named the hermit kingdom, the DPRK’s international diplomacy has been...frosty at best. The DPRK really only has friendly diplomatic relations with a handful of countries, and most of these countries wouldn’t get into a war to defend their relationship with North Korea. In fact, most of these countries don’t have the military capability to cross the large geographical gap that prevents them from intervening in the DPRK’s behalf. However, historically and today, the DPRK’s closest ally is the People’s Republic of China, and for good reason. China props the DPRK up because they don’t really have any territorial ambitions to take over the DPRK and they simply don’t want to deal with the refugees. 25 million people live in North Korea, and if they all come spilling over the border at once, China will be faced with a huge humanitarian crisis. Why the US-ROK Won’t Invade North Korea On paper, the United States could easily take on North Korea. North Korea’s military hardware seems straight out of the Korean War, with their newest fighter aircraft being 1980s Mig-29s, and the backbone of their air force being Vietnam War Era Mig-21s. Their military, while taking up 25% of the GDP and boasting over a million people in active service is mostly an empty shell. There has been no evidence to suggest the DPRK has proper logistics, training, or tactics. In various military promotional videos, the standard ground trooper of the DPRK lacks any sort of body armor and don’t seem to get that many bullets to even train. However, as usual, there is more to this story. As covered before, the DPRK could cause severe casualties toward Seoul within a matter of minutes with their thousands of artillery emplacements. Furthermore, even though a military victory against the DPRK would be quick and guaranteed, it would be much like the end of the first gulf war (Operation Desert Storm), a fast military victory but years of insurgency and an unprepared US-ROK force in dealing with the crumble of social stability. Nukes? However, the headlines that dominate today’s headlines are the DPRK’s rapid development of nuclear weaponry. Within a few years, the DPRK have gone from having missiles that blow up instead of flying to having relatively reliable Musudan missiles that can hit Japan. While usually, the development of a country’s nuclear arsenal isn’t too much to be concerned about (Mutually Assured Destruction assures of no nuclear war), when a country is ruled by one man with all the power, who might be possibly deranged, there is no guarantee. However, the US have taken several steps to mitigate the risks from SRBMs (Short Ranged Ballistic Missiles) and MRBMs (Medium Ranged Ballistic Missiles). The DPRK’s Musdan missiles fall under the MRBM category, and so far, the DPRK have not tested any missile that has the ability to strike a the mainland United States, which would be considered an ICBM. THe US has already stationed several Patriot Batteries in the Republic of Korea, and has just stationed the new THAAD system (Terminal High Altitude Area Defense) which could shoot down a Musdan. Furthermore, Japanese Naval ships are often equipped with Aegis missile defense, which could also intercept a Musdan in flight. Finally, if the DPRK develops an ICBM, the US’s GMD (Ground-based Midcourse Defense) batteries could shoot it down, but only to a certain limit of missiles, about 30. For the last 100 years, aircraft carriers have been the symbol of America’s military strength, able to go anywhere in the world and project American firepower without hesitation. Aircraft carriers are the core behind US navy doctrine, with strike groups being built around carriers. However, America’s aircraft carrier fleet and composition has always been a controversial, as we only have 11 aircraft carriers in active duty with only 4 or so at deployment in every time. The US Navy has always subscribed to the doctrine of having large, nuclear powered carriers carrying many tactical aircraft with large supporting fleets providing defense. However, some have called for getting rid of aircraft carriers entirely, some call for less aircraft carriers, and some call for smaller aircraft carriers. With all these options, what is the right choice. #1: Getting Rid of All Aircraft Carriers Proponents of this course of action say that carriers are costly to design, build and operate, and have largely become obsolete thanks to advances in precision cruise missile technology. They believe that carriers will be the first target in event of a symmetrical with another power of similar naval military might, and resources used to protect a carrier would be better spent elsewhere. In some aspects, these people are right. Carriers are usually pretty defenseless against other anti ship cruise missiles, relying primarily on their supporting ships to defend them. Tomahawk cruise missiles can do what an F-18 does dropping a 1,000 pound JDAM. And even in the Cold War, military planners believed that in the event of a conventional war with the Soviet Union, carriers would have to form task groups of 4 carriers to have any chance of surviving. Current US Aircraft carriers, while nuclear powered, need constant resupply for jet fuel. However, there is the flexibility of aircraft carriers that most overlook. Not only can an aircraft carrier provide airstrikes, they can provide humanitarian relief, air superiority, and execute SEAD/DEAD missions. This is a capability that the US can simply not give up, especially in the days of asymmetrical warfare like the War on Terror. Terrorists usually aren’t in possession of advanced anti-ship cruise missiles, and aircraft provide a more economic and surgical way of providing munitions on target. #2: Reducing the Number of Aircraft Carriers Quite simply, I believe this is the worse option of the bunch. While removing aircraft carriers complete could free up funds for more missiles and landing helicopter decks, simply reducing the number of carriers would significantly reduce the Navy air wings but still provide high development and maintenance costs. #3: Making Smaller Carriers This plans call creating medium sized carriers that can hold around 40 aircraft, unlike the current 70, similar to the British Queen Elizabeth class of carriers. This is the most promising of all plans, since it gives us more carriers to be deployed extending the overall reach of the aircraft carriers. The flexibility that comes with aircraft carriers won’t be eliminated, and if a larger task group needs to be formed, two independent carrier task groups can be combined. When the Sony Alpha a6300 launched, it set a benchmark for video quality in a small form factor camera. The body of the camera was tiny, minimally larger than a point and shoot, while offering an APS-C sized sensor with great low light performance (when in 4k mode), comparable to the much more expensive a7sii. It supported 4k 24 fps, and 1080p 120fps downscaling from a 6K sensor at a relatively affordable price point, $1,000. However, there were some serious issues at launch with the a6300. First of all, the higher performance recording in such a small form factor cause serious overheating problems, especially when recording at 4K. Also, the rolling shutter would cause the shot to look like jello when quickly panning from side to side. Furthermore, the battery life was hilariously short. There are a couple ways to fix the overheating and battery life, but rolling shutter will just have to be acknowledged. Overheating: There are a couple ways to cool the a6300. The most popular way is to get a camera cage, which is usually an aluminum metal cage which mounts to the tripod screw mount from the bottom of the camera. The theory is that the metal cage will act as a heat sink for the camera, taking the heat and keeping it away from the battery. These can run from $50 to $300, depending on which company you get it from. To help with transferring the heat, it is usually a good idea to use some computer thermal compound and use it to connect This can usually keep the camera from overheating for another 20-30 minutes when recording 4k. If you’re adventurous, you could try disassembling your a6300. Apparently, by removing the frame of the camera, you could get to the internal components of the camera which is cooled passively by a copper heat sink. From here, it is suggested you add a much larger thermal pad to improve thermal conductivity or add a larger heat sink. This works in the same way as the cage, by trying to dissipate more heat from the internal components. Another way is to use a super fast SD Card, the Lexar 64GB 1000x UHS-II. Various owners of the a6300 report using overly fast UHS-II cards extend recording time by about 20 minutes. Also, a pixel remapping may in fact remove the recording limitation. All of these solutions really shouldn’t work, but owners have reported that these have worked, so try it with a grain of salt. Battery Life There are several ways to improve the battery life of the a6300. First, a battery grip could be installed as there are many 3rd party vendors that make battery grips for the a6300. However, this doesn’t allow a cage to be installed. The cage supports screw holes, so a DIY option would be to buy a seperate USB battery and simply plug the battery bank into the included USB charging port of the a6300. You could get creative with mounting the battery to the cage, some people have used rubber bands, zip ties, velcro, or even duct tape. |
AuthorThis is a school project for English 1A for high school. Archives
February 2017
Categories |