Armed forces have always used a wide array of weapons. From the first days of fighting over water holes and hinting grounds, human fighters have simultaneously carried and used clubs and sticks, as well as rocks, slings and bows and arrows. As the eons wore past, those tools changed with technology, organization and experience, but the case remained that humans going out to fight always carried a variety of killing implements with them.
Late in the 19th Century, a new class of weapons appeared – the machine gun. As we covered back in 2022, these weapons were originally classified as “light artillery”, as they were large and heavy enough to require horse-drawn carriages to haul them around, and had to be “laid” like a light cannon. With the advent of the Maxim Gun, however, that quickly began to change.
Russian WWI tachanka captured by Germans troops, on display in Berlin, c.1918. Public Domain.
Machine guns became the dominant weapon of the infantry in World War 1. But, as that conflict developed, weapons with longer ranges and heavier projectiles were needed. In America, the task fell to the legendary gun designer John Moses Browning…and the result was, indeed, legendary.
This week, we are going to talk about the Browning M2HB machine gun, in the first of a two-part series, which will be followed up with a look at the M2’s competitor, the Soviet/Russian DShK.
Few weapons have maintained operational relevance for as long as the Browning M2 Heavy Barrel machine gun. Designed in the final months of World War I and still in front-line service today, the “Ma Deuce” represents a remarkable century-long saga of American military engineering, being the second-oldest continuously-deployed weapon in US military service, after the M1911A1 .45ACP handgun, which is also a Browning design.
The M2’s origins trace back to General John J. Pershing’s request for a heavy machine gun with greater range and penetration than existing infantry weapons. The legendary firearms designer John Moses Browning answered this call, initially adapting his successful M1917 .30 caliber machine gun to fire a much larger cartridge. Working alongside Winchester Repeating Arms, Browning developed the powerful .50 BMG (Browning Machine Gun) cartridge with a 12.7mm projectile that could penetrate the armor of early tanks and aircraft.
Although the original weapon came too late for World War I, the early 1920s saw continuous refinement as the Army sought to maximize such a versatile weapon system. The breakthrough came with the M2 Heavy Barrel (M2HB) variant adopted in 1933. This air-cooled, belt-fed, recoil-operated machine gun featured a quick-change barrel system and could be mounted on vehicles, aircraft, ships, or ground tripods. Its 850-1000 round-per-minute cyclic rate and effective range exceeding 2,000 meters made it extraordinarily versatile.
M16 MGMC half-track, armed with 4 M2 Machine Guns. Location unknown, c.1945. Coast Artillery Journal, 1945, US Army Signal Corps. Public Domain.
World War II saw the M2 achieve legendary status across all theaters. American bombers like the B-17 Flying Fortress carried multiple M2s for defense, while infantry units used them against light armor, aircraft, and personnel. The naval variant became critical in defending against Japanese aircraft, with battleships and destroyers bristling with M2 mounts. Some of the war’s most famous aces, including Francis Gabreski, scored their first aerial victories using M2s mounted on P-47 Thunderbolts, as well as being used as the main battery of early ground attack planes, like the B-25H.
B-25H “Barbie III” with nose canopy open, showing the four .50 cal Browning feeds, and 75mm M5 gun. Stuart airshow 2011. Photo by Ssaco. CCA/3.0
Unlike many weapons that faded into obsolescence after World War II, however, the M2 thrived during the Cold War era. During the Korean War, M2s mounted on vehicles proved essential against human wave attacks. In Vietnam, the weapon was mounted on everything from river patrol boats to helicopter gunships. Army gun trucks in Vietnam typically carried multiple M2s, providing convoy security against ambushes.
The M2’s durability and simplicity contributed to its longevity. With proper maintenance, an M2 can fire hundreds of thousands of rounds before requiring major component replacement. The basic operation — pulling back the charging handles, adjusting headspace and timing, and engaging the bolt latch — remains largely unchanged since the 1930s, allowing generational knowledge transfer among military personnel.
Modern conflicts have only reinforced the M2’s value. During Operation Desert Storm, M2s mounted on Humvees and Bradley Fighting Vehicles proved devastatingly effective against Iraqi positions. The weapon’s long range proved particularly valuable in Afghanistan’s mountainous terrain, where Taliban fighters often found themselves under accurate fire from distances beyond the reach of their own weapons.
Today’s M2A1 variant, introduced in 2010, represents the most significant upgrade in the weapon’s history, featuring a fixed headspace and timing system that eliminates the dangerous and time-consuming manual adjustments previously required. This modification has substantially reduced training requirements while improving safety and reliability.
The M2’s use on light vehicles in modern “low-intensity conflicts” offers both regular and irregular forces with a real force-multiplication weapon: even if the M2 may no longer perform well against modern helicopters and attack aircraft, there are few unarmored vehicles that can withstand its powerful rounds, and few structures offer even minimal protection. This is doubly true at sea, where even modern warships have to be wary of light, high-speed boats mounting weapons like the M2.
US Navy Fire Controlman aboard the guided missile cruiser USS Normandy (CG 60), fires twin-mounted M2 .50 caliber machine guns during a Pre-Action Calibration Fire (PACFIRE) exercise in the Gulf of Aden. 14 May 2005. US Navy photo. Public Domain.U.S. Navy photo by Photographer’s Mate First Class Robert R. McRill
After more than a century since its development, the M2 remains standard equipment across all branches of the U.S. military and in at least 90 countries worldwide. Military historians frequently cite it as the most successful heavy machine gun ever designed, a testament to John Browning’s engineering genius and the fundamental soundness of its design.
Just because a weapon may be older than your grandparents, which does not necessarily mean that it is no longer useful…especially when no one has come up with a better system.
The Freedomist — Keeping Watch, So You Don’t Have To
With all the continuous bombardment from all quarters about political-this, and war-that, sometimes, we need to step back, take a breath and consider something completely different. There are more things in theworld than politics, war or even high-tech-that-really-isn’t.
And this week, we’re going to revisit something that people don’t like thinking about, because they have been taught that they can do nothing about them, and neither can their governments…Like most things in this arena, though, that is not really true. So, this week, we’re going to talk about the “End of the World“.
While this was quite a popular topic about fifteen years ago, that is over a century in both dog and TV years…but the subjects still remain…Earth’s history includes numerous catastrophic events that dwarf anything in human experience. While rare, these “megadisasters” remain possible future scenarios that scientists actively study and monitor.
Megatsunamis represent a particularly dramatic threat, dwarfing regular tsunami waves. While typical tsunamis might reach heights of 30 feet, megatsunamis can tower over 100 feet tall. The most dramatic example in recent geological history occurred 66 million years ago when the Chicxulub asteroid impact generated waves possibly reaching heights of several thousand feet. More recently, in 1958, Alaska’s Lituya Bay experienced a megatsunami reaching 1,720 feet – the highest wave ever recorded – when a magnitude 7.8 earthquake triggered a massive landslide.
The 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami, while devastating with waves up to 100 feet high and causing over 230,000 deaths across multiple countries, pales in comparison to true megatsunamis. This event, triggered by a magnitude 9.1 earthquake, demonstrates the destructive power of “conventional” tsunamis, but megatsunamis operate on an entirely different scale.
The 1958 Lituya Bay megatsunami in Alaska remains the benchmark for these extreme events. When a magnitude 7.8 earthquake triggered a massive landslide, 90 million tons of rock plunged into the narrow bay. The resulting wave stripped vegetation off slopes up to 1,720 feet high – more than three times the height of the Washington Monument. Remarkably, despite its immense power, the wave’s effects were largely contained within the bay’s unique geography.
However, scientists are particularly concerned about the Cumbre Vieja volcano in La Palma, Canary Islands. Studies suggest that a massive flank collapse of this volcano could trigger a megatsunami affecting the entire Atlantic Basin, including the eastern seaboard of the United States and canada. Models indicate that such an event could generate initial waves over 3,000 feet high, which, while diminishing over distance, could still reach the American East Coast with heights of 15-25 meters (50-80 feet). Cities from Miami to Boston could face devastating impacts hours after the initial collapse. While some researchers debate the likelihood and potential scale of such an event, the geological evidence of previous collapses in the Canary Islands suggests this scenario deserves serious consideration in long-term disaster planning.
La Palma Island, home of the Cumbre Vieja volcano, running along the spine of the island. USGS image, via Landsat 8, 2016. Public Domain.
So-called “supervolcanoes” pose an even more comprehensive global threat. These massive volcanic systems, like Yellowstone in Wyoming or Toba in Indonesia, contain magma chambers many times larger than conventional volcanoes. The last super-eruption occurred approximately 26,500 years ago at Lake Taupo, New Zealand. A Yellowstone super-eruption would eject thousands of cubic kilometers of ash into the atmosphere, potentially triggering a “volcanic winter” lasting several years. The resulting climate disruption could devastate global agriculture and ecosystems. The 1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo, in the Philippines, which destroyed Clark Air Base, lowered global temperatures by an estimated 0.5°C.
The June 12, 1991 eruption column from Mount Pinatubo taken from Clark Air Base. Photo by R.P. Holitt, USGS. Public Domain.
But Pinatubo was small compared to Tambora. The Mount Tambora eruption of 1815, in modern day Indonesia was so massive, it caused the “Year Without A Summer“, in 1816. Global temperatures dropped almost a full degree in Fahrenheit. Among the effects, were near-total crop failures across the globe, leading to the last time widespread famine was observed in North America.
Modern supervolcano monitoring has revealed these sleeping giants are far more dynamic than previously thought. Yellowstone’s massive magma chamber “breathes,” causing the ground to rise and fall by several inches over decades. These movements, while fascinating to scientists, often trigger public anxiety about an imminent eruption – fears that experts generally consider premature.
The last truly massive super-eruption transformed global climate during the Stone Age. Indonesia’s Toba volcano erupted approximately 74,000 years ago, ejecting an estimated 2,800 cubic kilometers of material – enough to cover the state of Texas in 15 feet of ash. Some researchers suggest this event created a global volcanic winter that may have reduced the early human population to just a few thousand individuals, though this hypothesis remains debated.
Today, there are about 20 known supervolcanoes worldwide. Besides Yellowstone, significant ones include California’s Long Valley Caldera, New Zealand’s Taupo Volcanic Zone, and Bolivia’s Cerro Galan. Each presents unique monitoring challenges. The Campi Flegrei supervolcano near Naples, Italy, poses particular concern due to its location near a major metropolitan area. Recent ground deformation there has led authorities to raise alert levels, though immediate danger remains low. Scientists emphasize that supervolcano systems typically provide warning signs months or years before major eruptions.
But perhaps the most dramatic potential megadisaster comes from space. Large asteroid impacts, like the Chicxulub event that contributed to the dinosaurs’ extinction, can fundamentally alter Earth’s climate and ecosystems. The Chicxulub impactor, estimated at 6-10 miles wide, released energy equivalent to 10 billion Hiroshima bombs. The impact created a crater 93 miles wide and triggered global wildfires, acid rain, and years of darkness from atmospheric debris.
The threat of cosmic impacts moved from scientific theory to witnessed reality during the 2013 Chelyabinsk event in Russia. The meteor, only about 20 meters across, exploded in an air burst with the force of roughly 400-500 kilotons of TNT, damaging thousands of buildings and injuring about 1,500 people. Most injuries came from broken glass as the shock wave blew out windows across the region. Remarkably, this relatively small object released energy equivalent to about 26-33 Hiroshima bombs.
Arizona’s Barringer Meteor Crater stands as America’s best-preserved impact site, offering crucial insights into cosmic collisions. Created approximately 50,000 years ago by a nickel-iron meteor only about 160 feet across, the crater’s nearly mile-wide diameter demonstrates the immense energy released in even moderate impacts. The meteor struck with the force of about 10 megatons of TNT, equivalent to a significant thermonuclear weapon.
The Burckle Impact Event, believed to have occurred around 3000 BCE in the Indian Ocean, may represent a crucial link between cosmic impacts and human history. Some researchers suggest this oceanic impact could have generated massive tsunamis affecting early civilizations, potentially inspiring various flood myths found in multiple cultures’ histories. While controversial, this theory highlights how impacts might have influenced human development.
The 1994 collision of Comet Shoemaker-Levy 9 with Jupiter provided scientists their first opportunity to observe a major impact in real-time. The fragmented comet’s pieces, some over a mile wide, slammed into Jupiter over several days, creating Earth-sized dark spots in the gas giant’s atmosphere. This event served as a cosmic wake-up call, demonstrating that large impacts aren’t merely historical events but ongoing phenomena in our solar system.
A NASA Hubble Space Telescope (HST) image of comet Shoemaker-Levy 9, taken on May 17, 1994. When the comet was observed here, its train of 21 icy fragments stretched across 1.1 million km (710 thousand miles) of space, or 3 times the distance between Earth and the Moon. The image was taken in red light. Image from NASA. Public Domain.
These various events highlight different aspects of the impact threat: Chelyabinsk showed how even relatively small objects can cause significant damage, Barringer demonstrates the long-lasting evidence of impact events, Burckle suggests potential historical implications, and Shoemaker-Levy 9 proved that large impacts continue to occur in our cosmic neighborhood. Modern detection systems now track over 95% of potentially hazardous asteroids larger than 1 kilometer, but smaller objects – still capable of causing regional devastation – remain more difficult to catalog comprehensively.
Modern science provides both warning systems and potential mitigation strategies for these threats. NASA’s Planetary Defense Coordination Office actively tracks potentially hazardous asteroids. The DART mission in 2022 successfully demonstrated humanity’s ability to alter an asteroid’s trajectory. Volcanic observatories worldwide monitor supervolcano systems using seismic networks, ground deformation measurements, and gas emissions analysis. Coastal regions increasingly incorporate megatsunami scenarios into their disaster planning.
However, these events remain statistically rare. The odds of a civilization-threatening impact in any given century are estimated at less than 0.01%. Supervolcano eruptions occur on timescales of hundreds of thousands of years. Still, understanding these phenomena helps contextualize humanity’s place in Earth’s broader history and highlights the importance of maintaining technological capabilities that might help prevent or mitigate such disasters.
That said, these threats are always a possibility. And chances are very good that when they do happen, you are likely going to survive…initially, at least. As the recent disasters of Hurricane Helene and the fires that have incinerated large swaths of the Los Angeles Basin have demonstrated, you are on your own. Government might eventually get to you, and your family, friends and neighbors might make it, as well, but they are likely to be in the same condition as you – you need a plan. It is neither paranoid nor silly to take precautions, whether with supplies, an evacuation plan or both.
As in most things in the human experience, you are on your own. Make a decision on your future for something other than your finances.
The Freedomist — Keeping Watch, So You Don’t Have To
As we roll into February of 2025, it has certainly been a heck of a ride, so far. No matter whether you love President Donald J. Trump or hate him, he has certainly been kicking over a lot of apple carts. While many people are definitely up in arms over his wielding of Elon Musk’s hammer to trim the government’s budget, the silver lining is that there is going to be a lot more money available for things that actually benefit society as a whole, as happened before, and the “Big Kahuna” is a real ‘return to space’. (But not for Mars…like, seriously.)
Instead, this week we are not going to focus on US politics, nor on the international military scene. Instead, we’re going to revisit warfare in space. Our previous article from August of 2024 focused mainly on the tactical side of warfare in space – focusing on G. Harry Stine’s “Confrontation in Space” – here, we are going to expand on those ideas, looking into how true combat operations in space are inherently derived from concepts in naval warfare in the Age of Sail…So yes, all of those who are heavily invested in historical naval strategy…and pirates…congratulations – you may have a new career ahead of you as a space-war advisor…and maybe even a real combat spacecraft captain.
In this, as you should have noted from the title of this article, we’re going to talk about a man most people have never heard of: Sir Julian Corbett. Corbett, although not a naval officer, authored some of the most influential texts on naval strategy in the 20th Century, rivaling the breadth of his contemporary, the United States Navy Admiral Alfred Thayer Mahan, which both theories actually compliment each other, rather than compete. Corbett’s best-known work on naval warfare, “Some Principles of Maritime Strategy“, were so influential that the United States Navy War College approved a paper, titled “Corbett In Orbit” in 2004.
However, when those works were written, there was a lot more about space mechanics that were unknown, and the most significant of those was the discovery of the ITN…which is going to require a brief digression into the “Egg Head Realm” of real science.
The Interplanetary Transport Network(ITN), formally identified in the early 2000s, represents a breakthrough in our understanding of efficient space travel. This network consists of gravitationally determined pathways through the solar system, created by the complex interactions of gravitational fields between celestial bodies. These pathways, sometimes called low-energy transport routes, allow spacecraft to move through space with minimal propulsion requirements, though at the cost of longer transit times.
The ITN’s theoretical foundation lies in the mathematics of dynamic systems and the solutions to the “three-body problem” in orbital mechanics. While the gravitational interactions between two bodies (like Earth and a satellite) are relatively straightforward to calculate, adding a third body creates complex dynamics that can be leveraged for efficient space travel. These dynamics create a network of pathways that connect various gravitationally significant points throughout the solar system.
Key to understanding the ITN are Lagrange points – positions in space where gravitational forces and orbital motions interact to create areas of relative stability. These points serve as natural “nodes” in the network, particularly useful for positioning space stations or other infrastructure. The L4 and L5 Lagrange points are especially significant as they are naturally stable, requiring minimal energy expenditure to maintain position. L1, L2, and L3 points, while less stable, still require significantly less energy for station-keeping than arbitrary points in space.
The Lagrange points, it is vital to understand, are both close-in to Earth, as described by Stine, but also exist in the Sun-Earth system, with the Earth taking the place of the Moon in relation to the Sun. Likewise, the Lagrange point system, both planetary-lunar and Sun-planet scales, is duplicated with every planet in the Solar System. Per Stine, the terms for these areas are “cis-Lunar space” (the area inside the Earth-Moon system), and “trans-Lunar space” (the area beyond the Moon).
In a functional sense, this means that the ITN resembles a network of freeways on a map, but practically speaking, the ITN is more akin to the wind and ocean currents, with the Lagrange points acting like islands and atolls.
The practical implications of the ITN are substantial. Spacecraft using these pathways can dramatically reduce their fuel requirements compared to traditional transfer orbits. This efficiency comes at the cost of longer transit times, as vessels must essentially “coast” along these gravitational corridors. However, for many space operations, particularly those involving cargo or infrastructure, the trade-off between time and fuel efficiency often favors using the ITN over trying to “bull through” under constant thrust.
The network becomes particularly relevant as humanity expands its presence in space. The ITN’s pathways naturally connect regions of space that are gravitationally significant, including many resource-rich areas. Near-Earth asteroids, the lunar environment, and even the outer solar system become more accessible through these low-energy corridors. This accessibility has profound implications for space resource utilization and the establishment of permanent space infrastructure.
Space stations or bases positioned at ITN junctions, particularly near Lagrange points, would require minimal station-keeping fuel while maintaining access to multiple transport pathways. This positioning creates natural locations for refueling depots, trading stations, and other infrastructure necessary for expanding space operations. The efficiency of the ITN makes such installations more economically viable by reducing their ongoing operational costs.
The strategic implications of the ITN mirror historical patterns of maritime commerce and naval operations. Just as terrestrial shipping lanes developed along routes determined by ocean currents and prevailing winds, space commerce would naturally tend to follow these efficient pathways. This creates predictable routes that become strategically significant, similar to how maritime choke points have historically shaped naval strategy and commerce protection.
Current technology allows for practical utilization of the ITN, particularly with advances in autonomous navigation and precision orbital mechanics. Modern spacecraft can maintain position along these pathways with minimal correction burns, making them increasingly attractive for both commercial and government space operations. As launch costs continue to decrease and space activity increases, understanding and utilizing the ITN becomes increasingly crucial for efficient space operations.
The identification and mapping of the ITN represents a fundamental shift in how we approach space travel and infrastructure development. Rather than fighting against the complex gravitational environment of space, the ITN allows us to work with natural gravitational dynamics. This approach, while requiring longer transit times, offers substantial benefits in terms of fuel efficiency and operational sustainability.
So…What does all this have to do with Julian Corbett, Mahan, and naval strategy under sails?
In brief, wars – video games aside – are never fought “just because”. They are always fought for some tangible goal to the initiator of the conflict. Whether that goal is territory, resources, or “national image”, the initiator has a reason for engaging in warfare. How does this strategic model apply in space?
Humans, as a species, are long past going to space as a stunt. If governments – or companies – want to get the money necessary to go to space, they need to offer tangible benefits for doing so. And, just as on Earth, those “tangible benefits” are going to be resources like water and mineral wealth, or control of the movement of those resources.
While people may want – and justifiable so – to use space peacefully, for good or ill, that is not the normal scope of human behavior: we will almost certainly see warfare in space, and war has rules. The ITN is the dominant feature of the “high ground” of trans-Lunar space: control of, and movement along, the ITN is the “make or break” aspect of commerce in space, and thus, will be the focus of “War in the Black”.
The ITN offers both cheap avenues of movement, but also points of control. Short of science-fiction “technobabble” solutions to space propulsion and artificial gravity, coasting along the ITN routes is how we are going to expand off of Earth. And militarily, the ability to accelerate, then coast, enhances a warship’s stealth, as it is not under constant thrust, allowing it to fade into the background. As long as extreme speed is unnecessary, this is the perfect balance, allowing ships to speed along to a base at an ITN Lagrange point, to refuel and reprovision; to “park” a Battle of the Atlantic-style “wolfpack” at those points, or to make sudden shifts into planetary Lagrange systems.
The sky, as they say, is the limit in what the ITN allows for.
Looking forward, the ITN will play a crucial role in the development of cis-Lunar space and beyond. As humanity establishes a permanent presence beyond Earth, these natural pathways will shape the pattern of space development, influence the positioning of infrastructure, and determine the most efficient routes for commerce and exploration. Understanding and utilizing the ITN will be essential for any serious long-term space operations, whether commercial, scientific, or strategic in nature.
And someone is eventually going to fight over it.
The Freedomist — Keeping Watch, So You Don’t Have To
North Korea’s Strategic Pivot: Abandoning Reunification for Military Partnership
Amid the hysteria of the 2024 US Presidential election – seen by many on the world as a pivotal event in the world’s direction for the next generation, at least – there is an increasing amount of talk concerning North Korea’s increasingly militant actions. Most alarming among these is its deployment of combat troops to Ukraine, to aid the Russian war effort there, as that conflict grins through its third year.
The failure of the 2019 Hanoi Summit between then-US President Donald Trump and Kim Jong Un marked more than just another setback in US-DPRK relations. It represented a crucial turning point in North Korea’s strategic outlook, leading to its current role as a military supplier to Russia and its apparent abandonment of the long-held dream of peaceful reunification with South Korea.
The reasons for these cascading failures go back as far as 2003, and are the result of a warped view of ‘realpolitik‘, driven by open and naked profit motives which are completely divorced from reality.
The Pyongyang government’s abysmal mismanagement of the nation has resulted in a brutal prison state, routinely wracked by famines, and whose industrial base remains firmly in the 1970’s, if that. In addition, North Korean intelligence has been routinely kidnapping Japanese citizens since the 1970’s, to train their foreign intelligence operatives (i.e., “spies”) how to act as citizens of western countries.
However, in two critical area’s, the almost obscenely resource-rich North Korea has spared no expense: its nuclear weapons and space launch programs.
While derided by many for their technological backwardness, poor national management, and cultural isolation, in these two critical areas, North Korean capabilities are nothing to be laughed at.
Bolton’s astoundingly bad judgement is what caused Trump’s failure in Hanoi, a decision-tree so bad, it could be seen as a deliberate act of sedition. North Korea’s nuclear strategy has been fundamentally shaped by the fate of other authoritarian leaders who gave up their WMD programs. The overthrow and subsequent deaths of Saddam Hussein in Iraq (2003) and Muammar Gaddafi in Libya (2011), among others, provided “Supreme Leader” Kim Jong Un with compelling evidence that nuclear weapons are the ultimate guarantee of regime survival.
The Hanoi Disaster
The 2019 Hanoi Summit failed largely because of fundamentally different expectations. The Trump administration, abysmally advised by the hysterical chickenhawk, then-National Security Advisor John Bolton, then-US President Donald Trump was led to believe that North Korea could be “persuaded” to follow a “Libya model” of denuclearization. This profound misreading of Kim’s priorities doomed the talks before they began.
Kim arrived in Hanoi seeking a gradual approach: partial denuclearization in exchange for significant sanctions relief. The American position – complete denuclearization before any meaningful sanctions relief – was a non-starter for a regime that had learned harsh lessons from history: Kim Jong Un, North Korea’s youthful leader, is well aware of the vicious, gruesome and bloodthirsty cackle of then- (2011) US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on the death of Libyan dictator Muammar Gadaffi: “We Came, We Saw, He Died”…after the Libyan dictator had completely caved to Western pressure to abandon his “weapons of mass destruction” programs nerly a decade before, only to have the United States and NATO openly destroy his regime. Muammar Gadaffi was one of the foulest excuses for a human being in modern history, but the West made an agreement with him, then happily broke it at the first opportunity.
Kim Jong Un may be a lot of things, but an idiot, he most certainly is not.
Strategic Reassessment
The Hanoi summit’s collapse triggered a comprehensive reassessment in Pyongyang of North Korea’s strategic position:
Nuclear Strategy
– Nuclear weapons development needed to be accelerated
– Its missile testing program needed rapid expansion
– It needed to publicly acknowledge its nuclear status
Diplomatic Posture
– Reduced emphasis on US negotiations
– Strengthened ties with China and Russia
– Dismissal of South Korean outreach
North Korea’s military-industrial complex, while technologically stalled in the 1970’s for the most part, maintains a massive production capacity for basic weapons systems. Its ability to manufacture artillery ammunition using Soviet-era specifications has made it an ideal supplier for Russia’s war effort, allowing Russian industry the ability to slow its own production to refine and retool, even as western arms industries remain stalled in their production of the same supplies. This partnership offers multiple benefits to Pyongyang:
Economic Advantages
– Hard currency earnings
– Technology transfer opportunities
– Sanctions circumvention
Military Benefits
– Combat experience for troops
– Modern battlefield observations
– Testing of equipment in actual combat
Strategic Gains
– Stronger ties with a permanent UN Security Council member
– Reduced international isolation
– Leverage against US pressure
Of these points, the second – giving its troops modern combat experience – is the most valuable to North korea in the short term. It it very difficult for a military that has not actually fought a war in decades to know what new tools and techniques it should try to implement; armed forces around the world are notoriously conservative (to the point of being hidebound) for a reason, although rarely to the level of North Korea.
Whatever the reality of the fighting in Ukraine, “blooding” North Korean troops there could give them a significant advantage over their South Korean adversaries in a future fight, as South Korean troops have not had any experience in the kind of war currently being fought in Ukraine, despite having a significant technological advantage over their northern opposition.
Abandoning Reunification
The shift away from even theoretical peaceful reunification represents a significant change in North Korean policy. Since the Korean War armistice in 1953, both Korea’s have maintained reunification as an official goal, though with vastly different visions of how it would occur.
This policy shift serves several purposes:
Solidifies Kim’s domestic position
Justifies increased militarization
Enables closer alignment with Russia and China
Reduces diplomatic constraints on aggressive actions
The successful satellite launches demonstrate North Korea’s growing mastery of several critical ICBM technologies, particularly multi-stage rocket separation and long-range guidance systems. The primary technical hurdle remaining for effective ICBM capability is reentry vehicle technology – protecting a nuclear warhead during its hypersonic return through the atmosphere. Russian assistance in this area likely on Kim’s shopping list for providing weapons and troops to Russian leader Vladimir Putin, as Russia possesses some of the world’s most advanced reentry technologies.
Hwasong-17 intercontinental ballistic missile, 2024. Public Domain Photo from the Government of North Korea.
By early 2024, North Korea had already demonstrated progress in multiple independently targetable reentry vehicle (MIRV) development through tests of the Hwasong-17 ICBM, which appears designed to carry multiple warheads. Their March 2024 test of a new solid-fuel ICBM suggested further advances in this capability. MIRV technology would allow a single missile to carry multiple nuclear warheads, each capable of hitting different targets. This dramatically increases both first-strike capability and the ability to overwhelm missile defense systems.
The combination of proven satellite launch capabilities, potential Russian reentry assistance, and advancing MIRV technology could enable North Korea to deploy a credible nuclear triad system, fundamentally altering the strategic balance in Northeast Asia.
Regional Implications
This strategic realignment has profound implications for Northeast Asian security:
South Korea
– Increased military tension
– Reduced diplomatic options
– Stronger US alliance imperative
Japan
– Enhanced missile defense urgency
– Strengthened US security ties
– Increased military spending justification
China
– Complicated regional balance
– Reduced influence over DPRK
– New strategic calculations needed
The acquisition by North Korea of a credible strategic nuclear capability would represent a catastrophic shift of world power.
Looking Forward
North Korea’s evolution from a state theoretically seeking peaceful reunification to an active military supplier in global conflicts represents a significant shift in Northeast Asian security dynamics. This transformation, rooted in the failures (whether accidental or deliberate) of past diplomatic initiatives and Kim Jong Un’s determination to ensure the survival of his regime, suggests a more militarily active and less diplomatically constrained North Korea in the years ahead.
As this article goes to press, the United States is some four days away from the 2024 Presidential election. There is no way to know what will happen if Donald Trump wins on November 5th – but the outcome of a Harris victory is starkly and painfully clear, because any response they make to Kim’s new course will be either completely incoherent, or wildly overblown.
Choose wisely.
The Freedomist — Keeping Watch, So You Don’t Have To
In the realm of military technology, few developments are as controversial or potentially game changing as autonomous weapons systems. These are weapons that can seek out, select and engage targets without human intervention, using artificial intelligence to make literal life-and-death decisions on the battlefield. As nations race to develop these systems, we find ourselves at a crossroads, weighing the strategic advantages against profound ethical concerns.
Defining Autonomous Weapons Systems
Autonomous weapons systems (AWS) range from AI-powered drones to robotic sentries and even potential future systems that could operate entirely independently of human control. The key feature is their ability to use sensors and algorithms to identify, target, and engage enemies without direct human authorization. This marks a significant shift from remote-controlled or semi-autonomous systems that still rely on human decision-making for lethal actions.
Significantly, the key difference between a drone or missile and an AWS is not hardware, but software – any sufficiently capable, computer-controlled platform can be loaded with an AWS algorithm, and no one would be the wiser, unless the unit was captured.
Strategic Advantages
The potential military benefits of AWS are significant:
Reduced Risk to Human Personnel: By replacing human soldiers in dangerous situations, AWS could significantly reduce military casualties.
Enhanced Speed and Precision: AI can process information and react much faster than humans, potentially increasing the speed and accuracy of military operations.
24/7 Operation: Unlike human soldiers, autonomous systems don’t need rest, allowing for continuous operation.
Cost-Effectiveness: Over time, AWS could potentially reduce the personnel costs associated with maintaining large standing armies.
Overcoming Human Limitations: AWS wouldn’t be subject to human failings like fear, fatigue, or emotional decision-making in combat situations.
Ukrainian bomb-armed “octocopter”. Photo Credit: General Staff of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, via armyinform.com.ua. CCA/4.0 Int’l
Ethical Dilemmas
However, the development of AWS raises serious ethical concerns:
Lack of Human Judgment: Can an AI truly understand the context and nuances of a combat situation? There are fears that AWS might not be able to distinguish between combatants and civilians in complex scenarios. While this has always been a concern in relation to artillery and air strikes, both of those combat avenues have a presumably responsible human operator[s] at the top of the decision-making tree.
Accountability Issues: If an autonomous weapon makes a mistake, who is held responsible? The programmer, the manufacturer, or the military commander who deployed it?
Lowered Threshold for Conflict: With reduced risk to personnel, nations might be more willing to enter into armed conflicts, potentially increasing global instability.
Potential for Escalation: The speed of AI decision-making could lead to rapid escalation of conflicts before humans have a chance to intervene.
Hacking and Misuse: There are serious concerns about the potential for AWS to be hacked or fall into the wrong hands, with catastrophic consequences. Note that this potential is not limited to national entities, but can easily extend to non-governmental groups and individualsm as AWS algorithms are, at their core, simply computer programs, which can be endlessly duplicated and sent around the world via the internet, human couriers or just conventional “snail mail” services. The distinct danger out uncontrollable proliferation is not something to be blithely dismissed.
The Global Debate
The international community is grappling with how to approach AWS. Some nations and organizations are calling for a preemptive ban on “killer robots”, arguing that the risks outweigh any potential benefits. Others advocate for regulation and careful development, believing that AWS are inevitable and it’s better to shape their development than to futilely try to prevent it.
The United Nations has been a focal point for these discussions, with several meetings of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW) dedicated to debating potential regulations or bans on AWS. However, reaching a consensus has proven challenging, with major military powers often resistant to strict limitations.
Current State of Development
While fully autonomous weapons systems are not yet deployed in combat, many nations are actively developing precursor technologies. For example:
The US Navy’s Sea Hunter, an autonomous ship designed for anti-submarine warfare
Israel’s Harpy drone, which can autonomously detect and attack radar systems
Russia’s claimed development of AI-controlled missiles
‘Sea Hunter’ autonomous anti-submarine drone sails in formation during Rim of the Pacific (RIMPAC) 2022, July 28. U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 3rd Class Aleksandr Freutel. Public Domain.
While not fully autonomous, these systems represent significant steps toward AWS and demonstrate the ongoing interest in this technology among world powers.
Central to these concerns is the Kargu-2. Now combat-proven in the wreckage of Libya, in the hands of both Turkish “peacekeepers” and their local allies, the Kargu – despite official denials by Turkey, has shown that AWS systems are capable of performing lethal strikes with full autonomy is certainly possible.
STM Kargu-2, a portable rotary wing kamizake drone produced in Turkey. Photo credit: Armyinform.com.ua. CCA/4.0 Int’l
The Human Element
One of the core debates surrounding AWS is the role of human judgment in warfare. Proponents argue that removing human emotions like fear and anger from combat decisions could lead to more ethical outcomes. Critics counter that human empathy and moral reasoning are essential in making complex battlefield decisions.
The concept of “meaningful human control” has emerged as a potential middle ground, suggesting that while systems may have some autonomous functions, humans should retain ultimate control over lethal decisions. This is not an academic debate, because of the fundamental reality of all computer systems: Computers do not “care“, and neither does Artificial Intelligence. An AI combat system’s job is to attack what it can identify as an “enemy“, and if the last c.150 years of warfare have taught us anything, it is that every single person, regardless of gender or age, is a potential threat to be dealt with.
War is bad enough, as it is. We don’t need to allow it to be worse.
Future Implications
The widespread adoption of AWS could fundamentally change the nature of warfare. Some potential implications include:
Shifts in military strategy and tactics to account for the capabilities and limitations of AWS
Changes in the global balance of power, as nations with advanced AI capabilities gain military advantages
Potential arms races in AI and autonomous systems
New forms of conflict, including potential battles between opposing autonomous systems
The need to develop military training, techniques and procedures (TTP’s) to address the certainty that AWS algorithms will proliferate into the hands of terror groups.
Conclusion
Autonomous weapons systems represent both a remarkable technological achievement and a profound ethical challenge. As we stand on the brink of a new era in warfare, the decisions we make about the development and use of AWS will have far-reaching consequences for global security, international law, and the very nature of armed conflict.
The path forward will require careful consideration, robust international dialogue, and a commitment to balancing technological progress with ethical responsibility. As AWS continue to evolve, it’s crucial that policymakers, military leaders, ethicists, and the public engage in public and informed discussions about how to navigate this complex landscape.
Ultimately, the question we face is not just about the capabilities of machines, but about our own humanity – what role do we want human judgment to play in matters of life and death, and how can we ensure that the pursuit of military advantage doesn’t come at the cost of our ethical principles?
The Freedomist — Keeping Watch, So You Don’t Have To
In the ever-evolving landscape of modern warfare, a seemingly new player has emerged, that has been punching well above its weight class: the small, unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV), or “drone”. These compact, agile, and increasingly affordable devices are revolutionizing battlefield tactics, offering capabilities that were once the domain of larger, more expensive military assets.
The Rise of the Miniature Air Force
Gone are the days when drones were solely the purview of well-funded militaries. While unmanned, remotely-piloted military drones are certainly nothing new, having been used in combat as far back as World War 2, and while used on a large scale as recently as the six-week long Nagorno-Karabakh War in 2020, it is important to realize that many of the recent uses of drones were not “revolutionary” in any way. In fact, Azerbaijan’s use of drones was essentially a copy of the US and Coalition air force’s campaign against Saddam Hussein’s capital in Baghdad, in 1991.
A Naval Forces of Ukraine Bayraktar TB2 from the Turkish company Baykar Defense; CCA/4.0 Int’l
Today, however, it is the comparatively cheap, off-the-shelf commercial drones, often modified specifically for military use, which have become almost ubiquitous on battlefields around the world. From the conflict in Ukraine to the wars in the Middle East, small drones began making their presence felt as early as 2015.
These miniature flying machines come in various shapes and sizes, from hand-launched fixed-wing craft to multi-rotor copters that can take off and land vertically. What they lack in size, they make up for in versatility and sheer numbers. This is driven by their low cost (as low as $40, as of late 2024), and ease of use, as their control interfaces are based on either popular video game controllers, or on smartphone app interfaces, again often mimicking video game apps.
Drone hand controller unit, 2022. Photo Credit: South Carolina Air National Guard. Public Domain.
Revolutionizing Reconnaissance
While “kamikaze” and bomb-dropping drones are certainly newsworthy, perhaps the most significant impact of small drones repurposed for military use has been in the realm of reconnaissance. Traditionally, gathering intelligence on enemy positions often required putting soldiers in harm’s way or relying on expensive satellite imagery. Now, a soldier as far down as the squad level (8-13 troops) can launch a drone from a safe position and get real-time video feedback of enemy locations, fortifications, and movements.
This capability has significantly democratized battlefield intelligence. Now, even small units can now have their own “eye in the sky,” providing unprecedented situational awareness. The psychological impact is also significant – the constant buzz of drones overhead can be deeply unnerving for opposing forces, never knowing when they’re being watched…or targeted.
South Carolina Air National Guard Conducts Drone Fly Over of Runway Construction, 2022. Photo Credit: South Carolina Air National Guard. Public Domain.
From Eyes to Claws: The Weaponization of Small Drones
While reconnaissance remains a primary function, small drones are increasingly being weaponized. In some conflicts, commercial drones have been modified to drop small explosive payloads, usually modified hand grenades or rocket-propelled grenade (RPG) rounds, and do so with surprising accuracy. This last has, in fact, been used frequently on Ukrainian battlefields to counter the threat posed by main battle tanks. This has allowed for precise (if small scale) strikes on localized high-value targets without risking pilot’s lives or using expensive guided missiles.
A significant factor in this, is the timeliness of engagement, as a local unit with armed drones can act to engage a target far faster than it could using the old methods of calling back to an artillery or missile base, in order to adjust and coordinate fires; while that can – and is – still done with more conventional artillery, the weaponized drone – under the command of a leader literally shoulder to shoulder with the operator – can engage a group of targets much faster than before.
The low cost and expendable nature of these drones also enable swarming tactics. A swarm of small, explosive-laden drones, whether operating as kamikaze’s or under positive control, can overwhelm older, conventional defenses designed to counter larger, conventional threats. This asymmetric capability allows smaller forces to challenge larger, better-equipped opponents.
Leveling the Playing Field
Perhaps the most profound impact of small drones is how they’re leveling the playing field in asymmetric conflicts. Non-state actors and smaller military forces can now possess capabilities that were once the exclusive domain of major powers. A few thousand dollars worth of drones can now threaten millions of dollars worth of military hardware, and can frighten and demoralize professional troops who lack the knowledge, skills, training or equipment to effectively deal with this type of threat.
This democratization of air power is forcing a rethink of traditional military doctrine. Heavy armor, once the king of the battlefield, is increasingly vulnerable to drone-spotted artillery or direct drone attacks; current ad hoc armor strategies to counter drone strikes have only “sort of” worked. Air superiority, traditionally achieved through fighter jets and large drones, now also requires countering swarms of much smaller, harder-to-detect UAV’s. If anything, this threat is much harder for conventional armies to deal with.
The Counter-Drone Challenge
As small drones reshape offensive tactics, they’re also spawning a new field of counter-drone technology. Militaries around the world are racing to develop effective countermeasures, from electronic warfare systems that can jam drone controls to directed energy weapons that can shoot them out of the sky. Some novel approaches include training eagles to intercept drones, using large nets to capture them, or deploying “hunter-killer” drones to pursue and neutralize hostile UAV’s. Obviously, these advanced systems – while they may work for the moment – are breathtakingly expensive for the threats they are envisioned to be deployed against.
The challenge is significant – how do you economically counter a threat that might cost only a few hundred dollars per unit?
The Counter-Rocket, Artillery, Missile (C-RAM) gun fires flares during a weapons test at Joint Base Balad, Iraq, Jan. 31, 2010. USAF Photo by Senior Airman B. Bateman. Public Domain.
While conventional systems such as the combat-proven C-RAM and the venerable ZSU-23-2 can be fitted with proximity-fuzed warheads and self-destruct systems to help prevent “friendly fire” incidents, the dollar gap – something that always looms large in the conduct of war – is still far too wide for these systems to be truly cost-effective in combat. Likewise, conventional rifles are nearly useless against drones, as their projectiles – while perfectly suitable against a human-sized target – are nearly impossible to use against a fast-moving target roughly the size of a human hand.
A salvo from the ZU-23-2 anti-aircraft gun, 2021. Photo by: Ministry of Defense of Russia via mil.ru. CCA/4.0
Is there a better option?
Shotguns vs. Drones: A Low-Tech Solution to a High-Tech Threat
While militaries and defense contractors pour millions into developing advanced counter-drone technologies, one surprisingly effective tool has emerged from a much older era of warfare: the conventional shotgun.
The oldest model of personal firearm in history, shotguns have been continuously used in combat since the invention of gunpowder. As early as the 1980’s, if not before, conventional 12-gauge pump-action shotguns were mounted under the barrels of rifles such as the M-16, usually as supplementary weapons for police SWAT units to use in blasting open locked doors during raids; in fact, a Mossberg 500 was mounted under an M-16 look-alike in the 1987 movie “Predator“. Although terribly front-heavy, this sort of “combination weapon” does have its uses, when in trained hands.
The KAC MasterKey mounted under the barrel of an M4 assault rifle. 2009 photo by DrBaker of M4Carbine.net. Public Domain.
Militaries around the world have used shotguns for both combat and recreation. The shooting sports of “trap” and “skeet” are particularly relevant here, as both are based on hitting very small, fast moving targets with little lead-time.
Boatswain’s Mate Seaman Alonzo Bender, left, fires a 12-gauge shotgun during a skeet shoot on the flight deck of the amphibious dock landing ship USS Pearl Harbor (LSD 52), in 2010. U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class Michael Russell. Public Domain.
Shotguns offer several advantages in countering small drones:
Widespread Availability: Most military and law enforcement units already have shotguns, making them an immediately accessible solution.
Ease of Use: Soldiers are often already trained in shotgun use, and even if they are not, only minimal additional training is required.
Wide Dispersal Pattern: The ever-widening spread of shotgun pellets after they leave the muzzle increases the likelihood of hitting a small, fast-moving target.
Cost-Effective: Compared to expensive electronic warfare systems or laser weapons, shotgun shells are incredibly cheap.
Low Collateral Damage: Unlike missiles or explosives, shotgun pellets have a limited range, reducing risks to surrounding areas.
Real-World Applications
Several militaries have already employed shotguns against drones. U.S. forces in Syria and Iraq have used them to down small ISIS drones, while developments continue to seek out solutions to develop anti-drone ammunition for conventional weapons. Meanwhile, in Ukraine, Russian companies are developing specialized anti-drone shotguns for the battlefield. And all the while, the inability of most military forces to convince their civilian-staffed governments – most of whom have no military experience at all – that going back to older designs continues to leave expensively trained and equipped troops vulnerable on the battlefield.
Despite their advantages, shotguns are not a perfect solution:
Limited Range: Effective range is typically less than 100 meters, requiring the threat to be relatively close.
Manual Targeting: Unlike automated systems, shotguns require a human operator to spot and shoot the drone.
Multiple Shots: Often, multiple shots are needed to down a drone, especially if it’s a larger or more robust model.
Environmental Factors: Wind, obstacles, and poor visibility can significantly affect accuracy.
Escalation Risks: In some scenarios, using firearms against drones could be seen as an escalation, particularly in sensitive diplomatic situations.
Still, shotguns do at least offer a fast solution to the close-range defense problem, when the alternatives are foot-long autocannon rounds or worse, anti-aircraft missiles to deal with what is essentially a lethal child’s toy.
Conclusion: Small Size, Big Shift
While the proliferation of small drones on the battlefield represents a significant shift in military tactics and strategy, they are like most developments: there is a lot of flash and thunder early on, but military forces that are actually competent will quickly adapt, and find countermeasures. All the same, these diminutive devices are rewriting the rules of military engagement, challenging long-held assumptions about military power, and forcing a reevaluation of everything from equipment procurement to tactical doctrine.
As technology continues to advance, making drones smaller, smarter, and more capable, their impact on warfare is only likely to grow. The military forces that can best adapt to this new reality – leveraging the strengths of small drones while effectively countering their threats – will hold a significant advantage on the battlefields of the future.
In the grand chess game of global conflict, the smallest pieces on the board are proving that size isn’t everything. The age of the small drone has arrived, and with it, a new era of warfare where the tiny can have a truly outsized impact.
The Freedomist — Keeping Watch, So You Don’t Have To
In the vast chess game of global politics, naval power has long been a deciding factor for centuries. In the modern day, the aircraft carrier has reigned supreme since World War 2 as the ultimate symbol of maritime dominance; we discussed this back in August of this year. But…what if the rules of the game are changing? What if smaller nations, or even non-state actors, could suddenly challenge the naval superpowers – the United States, Britain, France, India and China – with their own fleets of makeshift aircraft carriers?
While this might sound like the plot of a bad conspiracy movie, it isn’t. The future of naval warfare might be closer to a DIY project than you’d think.
Historically, the concept of aircraft carriers revolutionized naval warfare. In World War II, after the twin strikes on the Italian fleet at Taranto, and the attack on Pearl Harbor (which used Taranto as its base model). The strike on Pearl Harbor left the US Navy without the force it had planned to use to fight Japan, leaving only its aircraft carriers to hold the line until the nation could fully mobilize. These floating airfields – now holding up to 70 attack aircraft – has allowed nations to project significant combat power far beyond their shores, changing the very nature of maritime strategy. Fast forward some eighty years, to the early 21st Century, and carrier battle groups are still the backbone of naval power for the United States, and those states trying to join in.
Aerial view of the Mar Piccolo anchorage of Taranto, Italy, showing Italian cruisers preparing to get under way, 12 November 1940 following the attack. Photo from the collection of C. Oliver, via the Australian War Memorial. Public Domain.
But – there’s a catch: traditional aircraft carriers are expensive. Really expensive. Multiple billions of dollars expensive. This high cost, along with serious and complex technical issues, has kept carrier capabilities out of reach for most nations.
Until now.
The emergency conditions of World War 2 sparked a need to both transport aircraft to a distant theater of war without having to actually fight until they got there, and/or escort convoys of slow-moving, mostly defenseless, civilian merchant ships. The answer to this problem was the concept of the “escort” carrier – a comparatively small ship, capable of transporting fewer than 30 aircraft. These types of vessels filled the gap, allowing the US and British Royal Navies to both escort convoys, protecting the ships from enemy submarines, and delivering combat aircraft ti the battle area…and sometimes, actively engaging the enemy, even though not equipped to do so, as happened in the three-day Battle of Leyte Gulf, in 1944.
Following World War 2, the United States maintained carriers as its primary fleet element. And the carriers became the linchpin of a new method of power projection. No one has seriously contended with US naval dominance in the 80-odd years since World War 2 ended. To be sure, the tensions of the Cold War saw the Soviet Union present a serious threat to US naval power with its huge and very capable submarine force, but no country ever attempted to match the US Navy’s carrier fleet.
But, as time advanced onward, so did technology. In 1969, Britain aircraft designer Hawker Siddeley came up with something new: the Harrier. Unlike conventional jets, the Harrier was designed to take off and land vertically, a system known as V/STOL. As a subsonic aircraft, the Harrier could not seriously contend with the high speed, supersonic interceptors of its time, but it carried a useful weapons payload, and did not require the complicated launch and recover system, known as “CATOBAR“, that conventional fighters needed to launch from a rolling and pitching deck.
F/A-18C Hornets assigned to the “Stingers” of Strike Fighter Squadron (VFA) 113 launch from the Nimitz-class aircraft carrier USS Ronald Reagan (CVN 76), November of 2008. U.S. Navy photo by MC2 Joseph M. Buliavac. Public Domain.
However, the Harrier was an outgrowth of an abandoned Hawker Siddeley project: the P.1154. Designed for a NATO requirement for a supersonic V/STOL fighter-bomber, the P.1154 fell victim – publicly, at least – to “mission creep” and bureaucratic infighting…Maybe. We’ll come back to that.
During the Cold War, with NATO’s desperate need to guard the GIUK Gap against it being closed by the Soviet Union during the critical opening phases of World War 3, in a manner similar to Nazi Germany’s U-Boat strategy of World War 2, one of the ideas to maximize the use of old, mothballed carrier hulls came in the form of the “helicopter carrier“. As the name suggests, this type of vessel was intended to only carry helicopters. In response to NATO needs, the idea was to pack the ship full of helicopters carrying air launched anti-submarine weapons and detection systems, which would allow the ship to protect convoys carrying war material to defend Europe against a Warsaw Pact invasion, from attack the very real threat of Soviet submarine forces. Clearly, a supersonic V/STOL would have been a great asset to ships like this in carrying out their mission.
But, the helicopter carrier concept was ultimately seen as wasteful, and it was eventually ended. The US Navy was happy with its upcoming LHA and LHD classes of amphibious warfare ships, which could operate Harrier’s for protection, and that was deemed sufficient.
But then, History intervened. During the Falklands War of 1982, the British suddenly found that the Royal Navy – after near-lethal budget cuts had left them with only two helicopter-type carriers – was forced to convert civilian cargo ships impressed for the war into makeshift aircraft carriers by the simple expedient of welding a solid landing platform on top of a base of shipping containers, and lashing Harriers and CH-47 helicopters to the deck. Ultimately the ship, the SS Atlantic Conveyor, would embark some five CH-47’s and six Westland Wessex helicopters, and then embarked fourteen Harriers as well, during the reorganization of the fleet at Ascension Island. Her sister ship, the SS Atlantic Causeway, would be fitted out to carry twenty-eight helicopters. (The Atlantic Conveyor was sunk by Argentinean Exocet anti-ship missiles on May 25th, 1982, taking most of her helicopter cargo down with her…the Harriers, however, had been flown off beforehand, significantly aiding the British war effort.)
It wasn’t pretty, but it worked.
SS Atlantic Conveyor approaching the Falklands, c.19 May 1982. A Westland Wessek Helicopter is seen near the bow. Photo credit: D.M. Gerard. CCA/2.5
Clearly, the notion of V/STOL fighters taking off from converted cargo was well grounded in realism. In fact, it was reinforced a year later in 1983, in the “Alraigo Incident“, when Royal Navy Sub-Lieutenant Ian Watson – unable to locate his carrier after a flight systems failure, made an emergency landing on the Spanish container ship “Alraigo” in mid-Atlantic before crashing from running out of fuel.
Enter the world of the 21st Century.
The “People’s Republic of China”, desperate to strengthen its flagging position in the world, is attempting to claim essentially all of the South China Sea, international arbitration be damned. However, the cold fact remains, that China has nothing to counter the firepower of even one US Navy carrier battlegroup…or, does it?
Aside from accelerating development of anti-ship ballistic missiles, the so-called “carrier killers”, the PRC has been trying to float their own aircraft carriers, without much success. The main problem comes down to CATOBAR systems and training. The launch and recovery system for fixed-wing aircraft is highly specialized, and requires extensive training and years of crew experience to work effectively. The US Navy has had over 70 years to perfect its own CATOBAR operations, and it shows in the low accident rates and relatively smooth operational pace on all US carriers.
With the deployment of the F-35B & C models – the “naval” variant – is being heralded as the solution to turn amphibious assault ships into “mini-carriers”; whether that is true or not remains to be seen. However, the US, along with Australia and Norway, are developing air-launched anti-ship missiles for the F-35B.
A British Lockheed Martin F-35B Lightning II (registration ZM148) of No. 617 Squadron RAF lands aboard the Royal Navy aircraft carrier HMS Queen Elizabeth (R08) in the Atlantic Ocean on 17 October 2019. U.S. Navy photo by MC3 Class Nathan T. Beard. Public Domain.
These weapons are designed to take out large, expensive supercarriers, especially if fired in swarms, to overcome a carrier’s anti-missile defenses. Ultimately, though, if enough missiles are fired at once, at least a few are bound to get through. The loss of a “supercarrier” like the USS Theodore Roosevelt or the new USS Gerald R. Ford would be a catastrophic blow to US confidence and foreign policy…But what about a smaller carrier? That’s a much harder target to hit, and a much less catastrophic loss if one is sunk.
More to the point, what if a country operating V/STOL fighter-bombers capable of launching anti-ship missiles suddenly converts a number of seized container ships and/or oil tankers into improvised aircraft carriers? Let’s take a hypothetical (and admittedly unlikely) scenario involving Australia or Indonesia.
Australia, with its vast coastline and strategic position, could theoretically convert some of its large merchant ships into makeshift carriers. Equipped with STOVL aircraft armed with anti-ship missiles, these DIY carriers could dramatically alter the balance of power in the South Pacific and Indian Ocean.
Or consider Indonesia, an archipelagic nation with a growing economy and increasing regional influence. If Indonesia were to suddenly develop a fleet of converted carriers, it could potentially control key maritime choke points and challenge established naval powers in the region.
Map of Southwest Pacific region. Image courtesy of Open Street Maps. ODbL.
Neither of these scenarios are likely to happen tomorrow, if ever. Both Australia and Indonesia are stable countries with good relations with major powers, including the United States. But in our rapidly changing world, what might happen in a decade or two? Recall that Iran went from a close U.S. ally to a sworn enemy practically overnight.
The point is, the potential for rapid, fundamental shifts in naval power is now here, and it’s something that traditional naval powers need to consider. In fact, this author has a suspicion that this very circumstance was the real reason for killing the Hawker Siddeley P.1154: the admirals of the late-1960’s and early-1970’s were all well-versed in carrier operations against other carrier forces in active combat as many, if not most, had been in combat against enemy carriers in World War 2 as junior officers, and would have wanted to limit the spread of functional carrier forces to small – and highly unstable – nations. Now, however, those veterans are gone, and navies have spent so long without a major naval war, the “institutional memory” of combat in this realm has been lost.
The only bright light in this darkness is the fact that there are very few V/STOL fighters out there, and none that can match the theoretical performance of the F-35B. The closest aircraft is the ancient YAK-38 of the Soviet era, an airplane that was plagued with problems from the start. In the modern day, the PRC has been trying to get its own V/STOL aircraft, the “J-18”, off the drawing boards for years. So far, they have failed to get it to work.
Yak-38 fighter landing aboard the aircraft-carrying cruiser Novorossiysk, part of the Red Banner Pacific Fleet, September, 1984. Phot credit: Vladimir Rodionov. CCA/3.0
But what if that changes? What if the Communist designers make a breakthrough, and create a missile-carrying V/STOL fighter-bomber that can at least operate at sea? Without a need for CATOBAR systems, such an event could seriously alter the nature of naval operations, especially if coupled to more exotic – but proven – projects.
So – what does this mean for the future of naval warfare? For one, it could lead to a more distributed form of naval air power. Instead of a few large carrier battle groups, we might see more numerous, smaller carrier groups. This could make naval forces more flexible and resilient, but also potentially more unpredictable.
It could also change the calculus of naval combat. Anti-ship missiles launched from converted tankers lurking among civilian shipping could pose a serious threat to traditional naval forces. The line between civilian and military vessels could become blurred, complicating rules of engagement. Moreover, this trend could democratize naval air power. Countries that could never afford traditional carriers might suddenly find themselves able to project power far beyond their shores. This could lead to increased regional conflicts, but it could also create new deterrents against aggression by larger powers.
SS Atlantic Conveyor loaded with Harrier V/STOL fighters and a Chinook helicopter in the lower-right corner. Shipping containers act as a wind break for flight and maintenance crews. Photo Credit: U.S. Naval Institute Photo Archive. Public Domain.
For major naval powers like the United States, this trend presents both challenges and opportunities. On one hand, it could erode the dominance of traditional carrier battle groups. On the other, it could open up new avenues for cooperation with allies and partners who adopt these capabilities.
While the reign of the supercarrier is far from over, the future of naval warfare might be more diverse and unpredictable than we now imagine. The potential for DIY carriers and distributed naval air power could reshape maritime strategy in the coming decades.
One thing is clear: the nations and leaders who can adapt to these changes will be the ones who shape the future of naval power. The game is changing, and it’s time for everyone to rethink their strategies.
The Freedomist — Keeping Watch, So You Don’t Have To
In the shadowy world of conflict financing, a new player has emerged: cryptocurrency. As digital currencies like Bitcoin – once derided by many as useless money pits – increasingly gain mainstream acceptance, they are also becoming a tool for those operating outside the law, including insurgent groups, terrorist organizations, and sanctioned states. This technological shift is reshaping the economics of modern warfare and challenging traditional methods of tracking and interdicting illicit funds. Money makes serious violent conflicts and wars possible, and cryptocurrencies are increasingly the preferred go-to for all non-state actors in conflicts…and major nations are not far behind.
The Rise of Crypto in Conflict Zones
Cryptocurrency’s key features – decentralization, anonymity, and borderless transactions – make it an attractive option for groups operating in conflict zones. Unlike traditional banking systems, which can be easily monitored and controlled by governments, cryptocurrencies offer a degree of financial autonomy that’s unprecedented in the digital age. It also holds the potential to radically expand the democratization of warfare, a subject we touched on last week.
In recent years, there have been several high-profile cases of cryptocurrency being used in conflict zones. In 2019, Hamas – the militant group controlling Gaza, responsible for the October 7, 2023 assault into Israel – turned to Bitcoin to solicit donations, bypassing international restrictions on its financing. Similarly, in the ongoing conflict in Ukraine, both sides have leveraged cryptocurrencies: volunteers supporting Ukrainian forces have raised over $200 million in crypto donations, while some Russian-backed separatist groups have also turned to digital currencies to evade sanctions.
Terrorism Financing Goes Digital
The shift from traditional financing methods to cryptocurrency is particularly evident in terrorism financing. Al-Qaeda, ISIS, and other terrorist groups have increasingly turned to Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies to fund their operations. These groups often use social media platforms to solicit donations, providing Bitcoin addresses where supporters can send funds anonymously.
The ease of creating online fundraising campaigns with cryptocurrency has led to a new phenomenon: the crowdfunding of terror. In 2019, a website linked to Al-Qaeda-affiliated groups in Syria raised Bitcoin donations for weapons and training. The campaign, which ran on the dark web, promised donors anonymity and the ability to support jihad from anywhere in the world.
This has extended into Asia, as well, as extensive NFT networks have been employed to both raise and transfer cryptocurrencies into fungible cash. Part of this fallout comes in the form of Afghanistan coming to the fore as a clearinghouse for crypto transfers to terror groups, as the lax controls of the ruling Taliban – who returned to power after the bungled and disastrous withdrawal of United States forces from the country in 2021 by the Biden-Harris administration – effectively closing off surveillance and enforcement efforts within the pariah state.
Challenges for Law Enforcement
This new landscape of crypto-enabled conflict financing poses significant challenges for law enforcement and intelligence agencies. Tracking and intercepting cryptocurrency transactions is a complex task, requiring specialized skills and technologies that many agencies are still developing. A major part of this is the reality of the “dark web“, and its associated “darknet markets“. Outside of cryptocurrency transfers, these markets allow all manner of criminal activity, including human trafficking and child pornography, as well as illicit drug trades, all of which terror groups have no issue leveraging such tools.
The catch for law enforcement and intelligence agencies in tracking terrorists and other criminals through the “dark web” lays in the fact that although the core operating principle of the ‘dark web’ – so-called “onion routing” – was developed and patented by the US Navy in 1998, the very nature of the system developed to secure US military and government communications networks means that forcing access remotely is virtually impossible. In fact, the arrest by the FBI of the founder and main operator of the notorious “Silk Road” darknet market in 2013 (which led to his life sentence in 2015) did not involve traditional methods of hacking, but involved an agent infiltrating the “Silk Road” site as an administrator, and using “social engineering” techniques to narrow down Ulbricht’s location, and using his personal security mistakes to finally locate him…”Hacking” really had nothing to do with the takedown of the “Silk Road“, because it cannot be taken down by conventional methods of “hack-attack“.
The pseudonymous nature of most blockchain transactions using the “non-fungible token” protocol that makes cryptocurrencies viable, provides a veneer of anonymity, though it’s not impenetrable. Agencies like the FBI have had some success in tracing Bitcoin transactions related to ransomware attacks and other cybercrimes. However, newer “privacy coins” like Monero offer even greater anonymity, making them increasingly popular among those seeking to avoid detection.
Legal and jurisdictional issues further complicate matters. As cryptocurrency transactions usually cross international borders, questions are raised concerning which agencies have authority to investigate and prosecute any “criminal activity” based on a computer physically located in their countries, not least because a specific instance of criminal activity in one country is not necessarily such in another country, as was demonstrated in 2012, when Hungarian scam artists attempted to run an insurance fraud scheme in the wake of the Costa Concordia disaster. The lack of consistent regulations across countries creates loopholes that bad actors can exploit.
The Humanitarian Dilemma
Interestingly, the same features that make cryptocurrencies attractive for illicit financing also make them valuable for delivering humanitarian aid to conflict zones. In areas where traditional banking systems have broken down, or where governments restrict the flow of funds, cryptocurrencies can provide a lifeline for aid organizations.
For example, during Venezuela’s economic crisis, some aid groups turned to cryptocurrency to deliver assistance, bypassing the country’s dysfunctional financial system and strict currency controls. Similarly, in Afghanistan, some NGOs have explored using cryptocurrencies to continue operations after the Taliban takeover restricted traditional financial channels.
However, this humanitarian use of cryptocurrencies presents its own risks. The same channels used to deliver aid could potentially be exploited by militant groups to divert funds. This creates a complex balancing act for aid organizations and regulators alike, not least as crypto-financing is increasingly being seen as a negative, since it is a “hidden” method of finance.
Looking to the Future
As cryptocurrencies continue to evolve, so too will their impact on conflict financing. The development of central bank digital currencies (CBDCs) and the increasing sophistication of decentralized finance (DeFi) platforms will likely create new opportunities and challenges in this space.
Regulators and international bodies are scrambling to keep up. The Financial Action Task Force (FATF), a global money laundering and terrorist financing watchdog, has issued guidelines for regulating virtual assets. However, the effectiveness of these measures remains to be seen, especially given the rapid pace of technological change in the crypto world.
The impact of cryptocurrencies on global power dynamics is also worth considering. As digital currencies potentially weaken the effectiveness of economic sanctions, traditional forms of financial warfare may become less potent. This could lead to a shift in how nations project power and influence on the global stage.
Conclusion
The rise of cryptocurrency in conflict financing represents a significant shift in the landscape of modern warfare. While it offers new opportunities for bad actors to fund their activities, it also presents potential benefits in terms of delivering aid and fostering financial inclusion in unstable regions.
As we move forward, the challenge will be to develop adaptive policies and technologies that can mitigate the risks of crypto-enabled conflict financing while preserving the innovative potential of blockchain technology. This will require unprecedented cooperation between governments, financial institutions, and the tech sector.
The genie of cryptocurrency is out of the bottle, and its impact on conflict financing is here to stay. The responses to this challenge will shape the future of global security in the digital age.
The Freedomist — Keeping Watch, So You Don’t Have To
As humanity’s presence in space grows, so too does the potential for conflict. The militarization of space – “space war”, if one prefers – was once the realm of science fiction, but is rapidly becoming a reality that promises to reshape global security dynamics in the 21st century.
The concept of space as a military domain is not new. Since the launch of Sputnik in 1957, nations have recognized the strategic importance of space. Early military applications focused on reconnaissance and communication satellites, which have played crucial roles during the Cold War, and the wars of the 21st century. However, recent years have seen a dramatic acceleration in the development and deployment of military space capabilities.
Confrontation In Space
As far back as 1981, author G. Harry Stine, one of the founders of model rocketry in the United States, and a notable author of hard science and technology writings, as well as science fiction, laid down the basics of warfare in space in his book “Confrontation In Space“, defining the basic shape and dimensions of the battlespace, the most likely weapons that will be used, and outlining the early concepts of how combat in space would be waged.
There is no science fiction in this book, and no technobabble, just the hard realities of applying warfare “in the Black”, to reference a certain TV show, to the real world. Given the general nature of some of the space-war musings of the time that have since been declassified by official sources, Stine is a refreshingly sane and soberingly realistic voice.
The extent to which Stine’s work has influenced modern space battle planning is open to question; it should be a fundamental text, but given the current mission statement of the United States Space Force (USSF), that seems unlikely.
Today, the major players in space militarization are the United States, China, and Russia, with other nations like India and Japan also expanding their capabilities. These countries are investing heavily in a wide range of space-based military technologies. The United States, however, long one of the main innovators of space exploration, only established the USSF in 2019 as a separate branch of its armed forces, signaling the growing importance of space in military doctrine.
Current military space capabilities go far beyond simple reconnaissance. They include the creation and servicing of advanced communication networks (which underpins the basic operation of the internet), precision navigation systems like GPS and early warning systems to detect ballistic missile launches. However, in recent years, China, Russia, and the United States have all demonstrated anti-satellite (ASAT) weapons capabilities, raising fears about the vulnerability of critical space infrastructure, demonstrating the ability of national actors to destroy satellites at will.
An artist’s illustration of the Soviet-era Istrebitel Sputnikov ASAT system, c.1986. US Government image. Public Domain.
Technological advancements are driving this new space race. The miniaturization of satellites has made it easier and cheaper to launch large constellations of small satellites, enhancing resilience and coverage, as well as opening the potential for true “surge capacity”, to rapidly launch replacement satellites to replace combat losses. In addition to rapid reconstitution of a damaged communications network, the need to replace combat-lost GPS satellites is a key function of satellite surge capacity, because most military vehicle and targeting systems rely on GPS for navigation in addition to combat. Reusable launch vehicles, pioneered by companies like Elon Musk’s SpaceX, have dramatically reduced the cost of accessing space, which has lowered the barrier to entry for military space programs.
Throwing Rocks
Fundamental to actual warfare in space is the development of dedicated weapons for use in the theater. While actual weapons have been fired in space, these weapons go far beyond lasers, high-powered microwave systems, or even the darling of recent science fiction shows, the “particle accelerator“. In fact, the most lethal weapons in space will likely be rocks: “mass drivers“, essentially an electromagnetic catapult, can accelerate iron-rich space rocks (as small as pebbles) to very high velocities, far faster than conventional bullets or cannon rounds. A hit from a very high-speed projectile of any nature could be a catastrophic damage source to any spacecraft, as current launch systems severely limit the weight of spacecraft, which in turn limits the amount of armor a vessel can carry, assuming that current armor would even be effective. While still largely theoretical, such weapons could revolutionize space warfare, and require careful thought and planning to employ.
In response to these emerging threats, nations are working to develop countermeasures and defensive strategies; most of these, it much be noted, are ‘passive’ in nature, as active countermeasures are currently ill defined. The strategies currently in development include hardening satellites against attacks, improving space situational awareness to detect threats, and developing rapid launch capabilities to quickly replace damaged or destroyed satellites.
Bright Light Boom
There is also the possibility – perhaps “likelihood” – that someone will eventually detonate a nuclear weapon as part of an actual battle in space. The main considerations in using these weapons in space begin with exactly where they are detonated. If a large enough warhead were detonated at a suitable altitude above the surface, it could – in theory – generate an electromagnetic pulse (EMP) sufficient to overload and shutdown, if not outright destroy, any large-scale power grid. This phenomenon was first recognized in 1962 during the Starfish Prime test, when an unexpected EMP wave from the detonation knocked out power to parts of the city of Honolulu, Hawaii.
Photo of the Starfish Prime detonation in the skies over Honolulu, Hawaii, 1962. US Government photo. Public Domain.
Aside from the well-known, at least in a broad sense, radiation effects (which would likely be magnified in space, without an atmosphere to absorb them) and EMP concerns, the main damage-causing mechanism of a nuclear blast on Earth – blast effect, caused by the compression of the atmosphere by the detonation wave – would not be present, as there is no atmosphere in space that can be compressed into a destructive force.
For all that, however, work on “bomb-pumped lasers” and other exotic warhead designs such as Project Casaba-Howitzer (which used a nuclear weapon to create a shaped charge from material vaporized into plasma by the blast), largely came an end – at least publicly – at the end of the 1980’s, as it was clear that the Soviet Union was dying, and that the prospect of all-out nuclear war had rapidly begun to fade.
Pulse propulsion unit of project Orion vehicle, used as the basis for the Casaba-Howitzer warhead concept, 1964. NASA image. Public Domain.
As the possibility of actual open warfare in space continues to rear its head, it is a near-certainty that many of these old programs are being reexamined, using fresh data and better computer modeling…The possible side effects, however, remain.
Combat Logistics in Space Warfare
One of the most challenging aspects of space militarization is the issue of combat logistics. Unlike terrestrial warfare, where supply lines can be established and maintained relatively easily, space presents unique challenges for sustaining military operations.
The primary hurdle is the enormous energy requirement to launch materials into orbit. Every kilogram of supplies, whether fuel, ammunition, or replacement parts, comes with a very high price tag (over $2,000 per kilogram) and significant challenges to logistical load planning, in both loading and unloading at point of delivery. This makes traditional resupply methods impractical for sustained operations in-theater, as we understand the idea.
To address these issue, military planners are exploring several approaches. One concept is the development of in-orbit refueling capabilities. This would involve specialized “tanker” satellites capable of transferring fuel to other spacecraft, extending their operational lifespan and maneuverability.
A contour plot (not drawn to scale) of the effective potential of a two-body system, showing the 5 Lagrange points. NASA image. Public Domain.
Another area of focus is in-space manufacturing. Advanced 3D printing technologies – currently capable of making conventional ammunition-using select-fire weapons a factor in infantry combat – could allow for the production of spare parts or even small satellites directly in orbit, reducing the need for launches from Earth. Different avenues of research are exploring the possibility of mining asteroids or the Moon for resources, which could provide a sustainable source of materials and fuel for space-based operations.
Robotic servicing missions represent another potential tool in the box. These would involve unmanned spacecraft under direct, if remote, control, or completely autonomous systems guided by artificial intelligence, which would be capable of repairing, refueling, or upgrading other satellites or spacecraft, potentially extending their useful life and reducing the need for replacement of complete craft.
The concept of staging pre-positioned orbital depots is also being considered. These would be stockpiles of fuel, spare parts, and other critical supplies placed in strategic orbits, such as the Lagrangian points, ready to support military space operations as needed. In form, these might take the form of the old Skylab design, as – being the size of a 3-bedroom house – the design could hold a significant amount of material.
Artist’s concept illustration of the Skylab with the Command/Service Module docked to the Multiple Docking Adapter. 1972. NASA photo.
These logistical challenges and their potential solutions will play a crucial role in shaping the nature of future space warfare. The side that can most effectively sustain its space-based capabilities may gain a significant strategic advantage in any potential conflict extending into the space domain.
The Future
The future of space militarization remains uncertain, but several scenarios seem plausible. One possibility is the outbreak of a limited conflict in space, perhaps involving the destruction of key military or civilian satellites. This could have cascading effects on terrestrial military operations and civilian infrastructure.
Another scenario envisions the deployment of space-based weapons capable of striking targets on Earth. While technically challenging and currently prohibited by international treaty, such systems could offer significant strategic advantages.
A third possibility is the integration of space-based capabilities with terrestrial, air, and naval forces to create a seamless, multi-domain military force. This could enhance military effectiveness but also increase reliance on potentially vulnerable space assets.
As we look to the future, it’s clear that space will play an increasingly important role in military affairs. The challenge for the international community will be to balance the legitimate use of space for national security with the need to prevent a destabilizing arms race in orbit. Failure to do so could turn the final frontier into the next battlefield.
Earlier this week, the United States accelerated the deployment of the USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN-72) and its carrier battle group to the Middle East – an operation which was already in progress to relieve the USS Theodore Roosevelt (CVN-71) and its own battle group of escorting warships, who have been on station in the region for months – in response to signs that the increasingly unstable regime in Iran may attempt to significantly widen its proxy war against the state of Israel which began on October 7 of last year.
The Good Ol’ Days
The origin of the aircraft carrier battle group takes its origins from the world-spanning naval warfare of World War II, primarily from its operations in the Pacific Ocean. The devastating Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, on December 7th, 1941, demonstrated the power of carrier-based aviation and the vulnerability of battleships, marking a fundamental shift in naval strategy, as the Imperial Japanese Navy destroyed the United States Navy’s main battle force in the attack. The United States Navy – stripped of its battleship fleet by the sneak attack on its Hawaiian base, and whose Asiatic Fleet was functionally neutralized in the opening stages of the war by staggeringly unbelievable levels of incompetence and mismanagement – was forced to continue the fight with only three aircraft carriers, something it had never seriously considered as a possibility.
Photograph taken from a Japanese plane during the torpedo attack on ships moored on both sides of Ford Island shortly after the beginning of the Pearl Harbor attack. IJN photo, via the US Navy. Public Domain.
As the war raged on, the U.S. Navy quickly adapted, forming diverse, multi-ship task forces centered on its massive aircraft carriers. The battles of the Coral Sea and Midway in 1942 proved the effectiveness of this approach, with American carriers dealing a decisive blow to the Japanese fleet, while remaining largely protected by much smaller destroyers and destroyer-escorts, which both shot down attacking Japanese aircraft, and sometimes absorbed bombs and torpedoes meant for the carriers. As the war progressed, these carrier task forces became increasingly sophisticated, with hard-learned doctrine and techniques using destroyers primarily for anti-submarine warfare and cruisers studded with heavy automatic cannons for air defense, even at close range.
Bofors 40 mm anti-aircraft guns on a Mk 12 quadruple mount firing on board USS Hornet (CV-12), circa February 1945, probably during gunnery practice. Photo credit: Lt. Cmdr. Charles Kerlee, USN. Public Domain.
Into the Cold
In the post-war era, the advent of jet aircraft and guided missiles led to further refinements to both aircraft carriers themselves, but also in their organization and tactics. The introduction of the angled flight deck and steam catapults (these are now being replaced with electromagnetic catapults on the new Gerald R. Ford-class carriers) in the 1950s enhanced carrier operations, while the development of guided missile destroyers and cruisers improved the group’s air defense capabilities, at least in theory. Modern navies, however, would get a severe reality check in 1982, as the very modern British Royal Navy was badly hammered by the second-tier air force of Argentina in the savage (especially allowing for its relatively small size) Battle of San Carlos, causing a sobering reassessment by all navies of their own capabilities and tactics. (On a historical side note, the Falklands War also saw the destruction of the ARA General Belgrano, the former USS Phoenix (CL-46), a Brooklyn-class cruiser from World War 2, which had survived the Pearl Harbor attack, to be sunk by a British attack submarine some forty years later.)
A Standard Missile-3 is launched from the Japanese Aegis Destroyer JS Kongo (DDG 173), 2007. US Navy photo. Public Domain.
The Cold War saw the carrier battle group evolve into one of – if not the primary – key instruments of power projection. The nuclear-powered USS Enterprise (CVN-65), commissioned in 1961, heralded a new era of endurance for carrier operations. However, this would be tempered with the realization that while the range of the carrier itself was now measured in decades, instead of miles, it was still restricted by the ranges of its gas-turbine engined escort vessels, and the constant need for resupply of everything from food to bombs, spare parts and fuel for its aircraft wing. The development of the Aegis combat system in the 1980s (and its associated ballistic missile defense component) would significantly enhance the group’s air defense capabilities, while continuous development of anti-submarine and anti-mine technologies further protected the carrier and its escorts. These capabilities did not come without cost, however: hard lessons were learned from the attacks on the USS Stark, the USS Samuel B. Roberts, and the bombing of the USS Cole. These lessons continue to be learned, but the takeaway is that naval warfare – like all warfare – is not a video game, despite breathlessly giddy news stories to the contrary.
In the realm of anti-submarine warfare, the US Navy pioneered the modern use of armed combat drones in warfare, when it deployed the QH-50 DASH (Drone Anti-Submarine Helicopter), built by Gyrodyne, in 1959.
In the Persian Gulf, a port quarter view of the guided missile frigate USS STARK (FFG-31) listing to port after being hit by two Iraqi Exocet missiles, 18 May 1987. Public Domain.
The Dawn of the Millennium and the GWOT
The post-Cold War period has seen carrier battle groups involved in numerous conflicts, from the 1990-91 Gulf War to operations in Afghanistan and Iraq. The groups have also played crucial roles in humanitarian assistance and disaster relief missions. Today’s carrier battle groups, while retaining their core structure developed over some fifty years, continue to evolve to meet new challenges. The integration of stealth aircraft, more advanced unmanned systems, and advanced, internet-based networking and cyberwar capabilities ensures that the carrier battle group will remain a fundamental cornerstone of naval power projection for the rest of the 21st Century.
Laying at the heart of the United States Navy’s global power projection capabilities, the carrier battle group (CVBG), also known as a carrier strike group (CSG) is a formidable assembly of warships and aircraft, centered around a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier, representing one of the most potent concentrations of military might ever to sail the world’s oceans. Usually comprising an aircraft carrier, a single guided missile cruiser for air defense, at least two LAMPS-capable warships (focusing on anti-submarine and surface warfare), and one or two anti-submarine destroyers or frigates, such battle groups frequently deploy more combat power than that possessed by most individual nations in the world.
The cornerstone of any carrier battle group is the aircraft carrier itself. As of 2024, the US Navy operates eleven nuclear-powered carriers, primarily of the Nimitz class, with the newer Gerald R. Ford class gradually being introduced into service. These floating airfields, crewed by between 4,000 and 5,000 sailors, displace approximately 100,000 tons and can carry an air wing of 60-75 aircraft.
The air wing of a 21st Century US aircraft carrier typically consists of:
EA-18G Growlers: Electronic warfare aircraft for jamming enemy radar and communications.
E-2D Hawkeyes: Airborne early warning and control aircraft.
MH-60R/S Seahawk helicopters: For anti-submarine warfare, search and rescue, and utility missions.
F-35C Lightning II: The Navy’s newest stealth multirole fighter, gradually being integrated into carrier air wings.
E-2D Advanced Hawkeye aircraft conduct a test flight near St. Augustine, FL, 2009. US Navy photo. Public Domain.
Surrounding the carrier are several Aegis-equipped guided missile cruisers and destroyers. These ships form a protective screen around the carrier and provide a wide range of capabilities:
Ticonderoga class cruisers: Usually one or two per battle group, these ships specialize in air defense but are also capable of land attack and anti-ship warfare.
Arleigh Burke class destroyers: Typically three to four per group, these versatile warships can perform anti-air, anti-surface, and anti-submarine warfare missions.
Both classes of ships are equipped with the Aegis combat system, which integrates powerful radars with various close-in and long-range weapon systems, allowing for sophisticated air and missile defense capabilities.
Although not always visible, one or two nuclear-powered attack submarines often operate in conjunction with a carrier battle group. These could be Los Angeles-, Virginia-, or Seawolf-class nuclear-powered submarines. Their primary roles include:
Gathering intelligence
Providing an unseen protective screen against enemy submarines
Hospital ships: While not typically part of the regular battle group, these can be attached for humanitarian missions or in anticipation of major combat operations.
Royal Australian Navy ship HMAS Sirius (OR-266) and amphibious transport dock USS Juneau (LPD-10) conducts a replenishment at sea (RAS), 2007. US Navy photo. Public Domain.
An entire battle group, such as that outlined above, is under the command of a Rear Admiral (lower half), who typically serves as the Commander, Carrier Strike Group (CCSG). The CCSG and their staff coordinate the activities of all ships and aircraft in the group, ensuring they work together as a cohesive fighting unit.
A fully equipped US carrier battle group is ideally positioned to:
Project power far from American shores, with the ability to strike targets hundreds of miles inland.
Establish air superiority over a wide area.
Conduct sustained air operations, launching over 100 sorties per day.
Provide a visible deterrent to potential adversaries.
Respond rapidly to crises anywhere in the world.
Conduct humanitarian assistance and disaster relief operations.
The versatility of the carrier battle group allows it to transition quickly from peacetime presence to crisis response to full-scale war fighting. This is no more true than in its mission of supporting assault landings by combat units (MAGTF’s) of the United States Marine Corps, which remains a part of the Department of the Navy. The US Navy’s ten Amphibious Ready Groups are able to quickly insert up to 6,000 US Marines quickly, at multiple points along a hostile shoreline, ranging well inland, if necessary…as long as the naval squadron can get to the area quickly enough – hence, the acceleration of the USS Abraham Lincoln and her CVBG to the Levant.
As of 2024, the US Navy continues to adapt its carrier battle groups to meet evolving threats:
Anti-ship ballistic missiles: The development of these weapons, particularly by China, has led to increased emphasis on integrated air and missile defense capabilities.
Unmanned systems: The Navy continues to explore the integration of unmanned aerial, surface, and undersea vehicles to extend the reach and capabilities of the battle group.
Cyber warfare: Increased focus on protecting the battle group’s networks and exploiting adversary vulnerabilities in the digital domain.
Distributed lethality: Spreading offensive capabilities across more platforms in the battle group to complicate enemy targeting.
Conclusion
The Navy is continuously evolving the concept of the carrier battle group. Some areas of focus include:
The integration of directed energy weapons for close-in defense.
Development of long-range anti-ship missiles to counter peer competitors.
Exploration of smaller, more numerous carriers to distribute capabilities.
Enhanced networking capabilities to better integrate with joint and allied forces.
The US carrier battle group remains a cornerstone of American military power projection, and will continue to do so well into the 21st Century, and likely beyond. Its ability to bring a flexible, sustained, and potent military presence to any region of the world makes it a unique and invaluable strategic asset. As geopolitical tensions and technological advancements continue to shape the global security landscape, and as unrest continues to disrupt the trade vital to the modern world, the carrier battle group will continue to evolve, maintaining its role as a key instrument of US national security policy, as well as protecting the civilized world at large.
Back FREEDOM for only $4.95/month and help the Freedomist to fight the ongoing war on liberty and defeat the establishment's SHILL press!!
Are you enjoying our content? Help support our mission to reach every American with a message of freedom through virtue, liberty, and independence! Support our team of dedicated freedom builders for as little as $4.95/month! Back the Freedomist now! Click here
