Diplomacy & Crisis News

Topic: Security Blog Brand: The Buzz Region: Americas Tags: F-117, Military, Security, Stealth Fighters, and U.S. Air Force Formally Retired in 2007, the F-117 Still Flies for the Air Force January 23, 2025 By: Harrison Kass Share

• Share this link on Facebook
• Share this page on X (Twitter)
• Share this link on LinkedIn
• Email a link to this page

As an aggressor aircraft, the F-117 can teach pilots how to detect and engage with a low-radar cross-section jet.

The F-117 will forever hold a place in aviation lore as the first stealth aircraft ever flown. But despite ushering in the stealth era of military aviation, the F-117’s stealth technology became obsolete rather quickly. And once the F-22 Raptor debuted, many of the F-117’s features and functions became redundant. As a result, the Air Force, mindful of budgetary constraints, retired the F-117 in 2007—kind of.

Secret Service

While the Air Force formally retired the F-117 in 2007, about forty-five of the stealth jets remain in service—and will continue until about 2034. And yes, keeping a jet in service for twenty-six years after retiring is unorthodox. Why do such a thing?

“A portion of the remaining F-117A fleet, flown by Air Force test pilots, has been very actively used for research and development, test and evaluation, and training purposes in recent years,” The War Zonewrote. “This has included using the jets as ‘red air’ aggressors and as surrogates for stealthy cruise missiles during large-scale exercises.”

The F-117’s continued use is an example of Air Force resourcefulness. Indeed, the F-117 still has benefit in a training and/or research context. While the F-117’s stealth technology may not be best suited for evading detection behind the lines of a sophisticated adversary, the stealth is adequate for teaching purposes; as an aggressor aircraft, the F-117 can teach pilots how to detect and engage with a low-radar cross-section jet. The F-117 can also be used as a stand-in for a cruise missile. In all, despite being a generation old, the F-117 can “still offer important benefits when used in these roles given that their radar, infrared, and other signature profiles are likely to be extremely dissimilar to what pilots and air defense system operators are used to encountering in these contexts,” The War Zonereported. 

Worth Keeping the F-117 Around

The main perk of keeping the F-117 in service is likely the research and development angle; the F-117 is often used as a control variable for the testing of new stealth coatings and technology. The jet can also serve as a control when developing the technology that will be used to detect adversary stealth aircraft, like the Chinese Chengdu J-20 or the Russian Sukhoi Su-57. The F-117 could even be used to help develop forthcoming American aircraft, like the Next Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) sixth-generation fighter, which is expected to replace the F-22 sometime in the 2030s.

But the F-117 is on its way out. Production was halted in 1990; there are no new jets coming off the assembly line. Parts are certainly getting harder to come by. The Air Force is already divesting some of the remaining F-117s, all of which fly out of the Tonopah Test Range in Nevada, to museums.

For the next decade or so, however, the F-117 will fly under the cloak of relative secrecy, in the deserts of Nevada, which is quite similar to how the F-117 debuted back in the 1980s.

About the author: Harrison Kass

Harrison Kass is a senior defense and national security writer with over 1,000 total pieces on issues involving global affairs. An attorney, pilot, guitarist, and minor pro hockey player, Harrison joined the US Air Force as a Pilot Trainee but was medically discharged. Harrison holds a BA from Lake Forest College, a JD from the University of Oregon, and an MA from New York University. Harrison listens to Dokken.

Image: Peter Barrett / Shutterstock.com

The post Formally Retired in 2007, the F-117 Still Flies for the Air Force appeared first on The National Interest.

Topic: Security Blog Brand: The Buzz Region: Americas Tags: Bombers, Curtis SB2C Helldiver, Douglas SBD Dauntless, Security, and World War II Head-to-head: The Douglas SBD Dauntless vs. Curtiss SB2C Helldiver Bomber January 23, 2025 By: Christian D. Orr Share

• Share this link on Facebook
• Share this page on X (Twitter)
• Share this link on LinkedIn
• Email a link to this page

What can be said about these iconic warbirds that hasn’t already been said? Let us tell you.

As was the case with torpedo bombers, the heyday of the dive bomber did not last beyond World War II. But during its comparatively brief moment in the (literal and figurative) sun, the dive bomber concept blasted its way into the pages of military history in a big way.

On the Axis side of the ledger, there was the infamous Nazi German Junkers Ju-87 Stuka and Imperial Japanese Aichi D3A “Val.” On the Allied side, there was the Soviet Union’s Petlyakov Pe-2 “Peshka,” Great Britain’s Blackburn B-24 Skua, and America’s Douglas SBD Dauntless and Curtiss SB2C Helldiver. Yes, the United States was lucky to have not just one but two highly successful dive bombers. So that raises the question: between the Dauntless and the Helldiver, which was the better warbird?

The Case for the Douglas SBD Dauntless

What can be said about this iconic warbird that hasn’t already been said?

The Dauntless made its maiden flight on May 1, 1940, and entered into official operational service with the U.S. Navy and U.S. Marine Corps later that year. Two years later, it cemented its place in history as the game changer of the WWII Pacific Theatre.

The SBD turned the tide of that campaign by sinking the Imperial Japanese Navy’s (IJN) four aircraft carriers during the Battle of Midway, one of the most decisive naval battles in history. The “slow but deadly” warbird sank more Japanese shipping than any other Allied aircraft.

As if that wasn’t amazing enough, the Dauntless stands out as the only WWII bomber with a positive kill ratio against enemy aircraft, 138:43.

Out of 5,936 built, Fewer than thirty Dauntlesses survive today, and only one of those survivors is from the Battle of Midway. It is on display at the National Naval Aviation Museum in Pensacola, Florida (I toured it back in 2002 and can therefore personally vouch for it). Six of those surviving airframes are airworthy, and thanks to Commemorative Air Force Airbase Georgia Chapter, you can take a ride in one—an SBD-5 variant—for either $1,195, $1,650, or $2,195 (those dollar amounts cover the twenty-, thirty-, and forty-minute rides, respectively).

The Case for the Curtiss SB2C Helldiver

As beautifully as the SBD performed during WWII, its critics point out that it was already obsolescent by the start of the war, and the Navy brass concurred; the Helldiver completely supplanted the Dauntless on aircraft carrier flight decks by the Battle of Leyte Gulf in October 1944 (the Battle of the Philippine Sea was the Dauntless’s swan song in USN service, though it would remain in USMC service until the end of the war).

The Helldiver, which made its maiden flight on December 18, 1940, and officially went operational in December 1942, was indeed superior on paper to the Dauntless in terms of speed and armament: the SB2C was 40 mph (64.37 km/h) faster; packed a payload of 2,500 lbs. (1,020 kg) worth of bombs; and wielded two 20mm cannons, four Browning M2 “Ma Deuce” .50 caliber (12.7mm) machine guns, two M1919 .30 caliber machine guns, and eight 5-inch (127mm) High Velocity Aircraft Rockets. The Dauntless had a comparatively modest 2,250-lb. (1,020-kg) bomb load, two Ma Deuces, and two .30 cals.

In actual combat performance, the Helldiver made its mark by its contribution to the sinking of the IJN’s biggest battleships, the Yamato and the Musashi, scoring six bomb hits on the former battlewagon and thirteen on the latter.

Nine Helldivers survive today out of 7,140 airframes built; only one is airworthy (though a couple of others are currently in the restoration process), courtesy of the Commemorative Air Force West Texas Wing in Houston.

And the Winner Is…?

Journalistic ideals of impartiality and objectivity notwithstanding, the SBD is my favorite WWII warplane and my second favorite warbird of all time (second only to the B-52 “BUFF”); this has been the case ever since I was eleven years old when I (1) built a plastic model of one and (2) read about the plane’s Battle of Midway exploits in Gordon W. Prange’s excellent bestselling book Miracle at Midway. Accordingly, I’ve had a personal bias against the Helldiver for that same amount of time.

But putting aside personal biases, the numbers don’t lie. Yes, the Helldiver had its fair share of successes, including those aforementioned contributions to the killing of the IJN’s super-battleships, but even then, those weren’t solo performances. The Helldiver shared kill credit with the Grumman TBF Avenger torpedo bombers, and if anything, the Avengers probably contributed a greater portion to those battleships’ deaths proportionately speaking: nineteen torpedo hits on Musashi and eleven torpedo hits on Yamato, which caused major flooding far greater than that caused by the SB2Cs’ bomb strikes.

Moreover, whilst the Dauntless was beloved by the men who flew her, the Helldiver absolutely was hated. As noted by the Smithsonian’s info page:

“Some SB2Cs experienced structural failures that included the loss of wings in steep dives or tails breaking off mid-air or at landing … As a result, crews came up with new names for the Helldiver. They nicknamed it the ‘Beast’ due to its size and handling qualities. Irreverent naval aviators and air crewmen also called it an ‘S.O.B. 2nd Class,’ which was a profane play on the official Navy designation ‘SB2C’ and the Navy’s enlisted personnel ratings.”

Just how bad were the reliability issues of the so-called “S.O.B. 2nd Class?” It’s summed up in the title of a video from the Rex’s Hangar YouTube channel: “A Bomber So Bad It Took 800+ Changes To Fix.” Indeed, the narrator points out that the plane was “often considered the trigger-point for the downfall of Curtiss as an aircraft manufacturer.” That’s a pretty damning implication when you consider what an excellent reputation Curtiss-Wright had previously garnered thanks to the P-40 fighter plane that was immortalized by the Flying Tigers!

By contrast, you hear no such reliable horror stories about the Dauntless.

Winner: Dauntless!

About the Author: Christian D. Orr

Christian D. Orr is a Senior Defense Editor for National Security Journal (NSJ). He is a former Air Force Security Forces officer, Federal law enforcement officer, and private military contractor (with assignments worked in Iraq, the United Arab Emirates, Kosovo, Japan, Germany, and the Pentagon). Chris holds a B.A. in International Relations from the University of Southern California (USC) and an M.A. in Intelligence Studies (concentration in Terrorism Studies) from American Military University (AMU). He has also been published in The Daily Torch, The Journal of Intelligence and Cyber Security, and Simple Flying. Last but not least, he is a Companion of the Order of the Naval Order of the United States (NOUS). If you’d like to pick his brain further, you can ofttimes find him at the Old Virginia Tobacco Company (OVTC) lounge in Manassas, Virginia, partaking of fine stogies and good quality human camaraderie.

Image: Angel DiBilio / Shutterstock.com

The post Head-to-head: The Douglas SBD Dauntless vs. Curtiss SB2C Helldiver Bomber appeared first on The National Interest.

Topic: Politics Blog Brand: The Buzz Region: Americas Tags: COVID-19, COVID-19 Vaccine, Donald Trump, Politics, and U.S. Military Trump to Reinstate Servicemembers Expelled for Not Taking COVID Vaccine January 23, 2025 By: Harrison Kass Share

• Share this link on Facebook
• Share this page on X (Twitter)
• Share this link on LinkedIn
• Email a link to this page

The Department of Defense mandated a COVID-19 vaccine requirement for all members of the U.S. military from August 2021 to January 2023.

President Donald Trump was inaugurated for his second term on Monday, becoming just the second president in history to serve non-consecutive terms. Trump’s inauguration speech, delivered from inside the Capitol building, began on an optimistic note before pivoting to a list of grievances—and ultimately, a slew of policy proposals. Many of the policy proposals have driven the news, like immigration reforms, energy reforms, and the withdrawal from the World Health Organization. But one promise, made explicitly during his inauguration speech, and pertaining directly to U.S. military personnel, has received less media attention: the vow to reinstate troops who were dismissed from military service for refusing to take the COVID-19 vaccine—with full backpay.

“I will reinstate any service members who were unjustly expelled from our military for objecting to the COVID vaccine mandate with full back pay,” Trump said. “And I will sign an order to stop our warriors from being subjected to radical political theories and social experiments while on duty.”

The exact “radical political theories and social experiments” to which Trump was referring are unclear but can be assumed to be the same DEI/”woke” initiatives that incoming defense secretary nominee Pete Hegseth derided during his confirmation hearing. Hegseth, for his part, also promised to bring back servicemembers dismissed for refusing the COVID-19 vaccine, stating that “tens of thousands of service members were kicked out because of an experimental vaccine” before promising that those servicemembers would be “apologized to” and reinstated in the military.

Refusing the vaccine

The Department of Defense mandated a COVID-19 vaccine requirement for all members of the U.S. military from August 2021 to January 2023. During the seventeen-month mandate, roughly 8,000 troops refused to comply and were expelled from service.

“In the years since the mandate was lifted, conservative lawmakers have accused Defense Department officials of severely impacting force readiness with the dismissals, and called for those individuals to be allowed to return to the ranks,” Military Timesreported. “Pentagon leaders,” meanwhile, “have said the dismissals did not hurt readiness or morale.” Nevertheless, the Pentagon did allow dismissed troops to reapply for military service after the vaccine mandate was ended.

The vast majority of U.S. military personnel voluntarily accepted the COVID-19 vaccine. And indeed, service in the U.S. military is predicated upon the receipt of more than a dozen vaccines. But the COVID-19 vaccine sparked controversy and raised concerns that the vaccine hadn’t been properly vetted. Of course, the vaccine and the larger COVID-19 pandemic were flashpoints in the most politically polarized moment since the Vietnam War. Neither COVID nor the vaccine were singularly responsible for the polarization—but each amplified tensions that were at a generational peak, on account of the pandemic, racial tensions, and ideological fissures. Now, years after the vaccine mandate went into effect, Trump’s promises are serving as something of a last word on the issue, and a vindication to many who were skeptical of the government’s COVID response.

About the author: Harrison Kass

Harrison Kass is a senior defense and national security writer with over 1,000 total pieces on issues involving global affairs. An attorney, pilot, guitarist, and minor pro hockey player, Harrison joined the US Air Force as a Pilot Trainee but was medically discharged. Harrison holds a BA from Lake Forest College, a JD from the University of Oregon, and an MA from New York University. Harrison listens to Dokken.

Image: Shutterstock.

The post Trump to Reinstate Servicemembers Expelled for Not Taking COVID Vaccine appeared first on The National Interest.

/ Histoire, Migrations, Judaïsme - Migrations et réfugiés / Histoire, Migrations, Judaïsme - Migrations et réfugiés

Topic: Drones Blog Brand: Techland Region: Americas Tags: Aircraft, Drones, Hysteria, New Jersey, Panic, and U.S. Military Drones on the Homefront January 23, 2025 By: Brandon Valeriano, Steven Ochoa, Maximillian Otto, and Qing Leasure Share

• Share this link on Facebook
• Share this page on X (Twitter)
• Share this link on LinkedIn
• Email a link to this page

The reality is drones are here, they are common, and they are now a fact of daily life. 

It starts with the distant buzz and hum, the sense that something is above. The realization quickly comes: It is not a bee or a plane; rather, it is a drone hovering above. This is the modern reality of war, and it also comes to the homefront. Our lives are irrevocably altered by unmanned vehicles, and our general inability to process this development has led to mass hysteria over drones in New Jersey.    

Now that the excitement has died down, it’s time to reflect on drones over New Jersey. The news cycle has moved on with most focusing on the fires in Los Angeles and the inauguration. Incoming President Donald Trump himself still doubts conventional wisdom that nothing nefarious is afoot, stating, “I’m going to give you a report on drones about one day into the administration. Because I think it’s ridiculous that they are not telling you about what is going on with the drones.”  

President Trump will find nothing to report. Drones are commonly available at the corner store. As of October 2024, there are a total of 791,597 registered drones in the U.S., with 396,746 of those registered for recreational use with more going unregistered. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) requires that drones over 250g be registered and imposes strict penalties on those who operate unregistered drones over this weight. A substantial portion of recreational drones available for purchase are below 250g, with some being specifically marketed as 249g.   

Drones are easily accessible through retail stores and Amazon and available at cheaper prices on China’s e-commerce platform, Temu. They are usually simple machines made of plastic, a battery, and basic computer components but modifications are often made by hobbyists. These devices are extremely easy to operate, either through a smartphone or a remote control.   

With rudimentary technical knowledge, drones can be modified to have controllable LED lights with sound systems and be made to be controlled in a group or “swarm.” No shortage of YouTube tutorials describing the straightforward process of making these modifications, as well as how to source necessary components in bulk and as cheaply as possible. In short, anyone with the time and money can purchase and modify several drones putting them up in the night sky, in and out of warzones.     

Mass Hysteria

The U.S. government’s response before Trump’s recent inauguration and addressing the situation, has been bar none. One Congressmember states confidently it’s Iranian drones launched from a mothership hovering off the coast of New Jersey, seemingly cloaked to the entire world. Others confidently point to the sky, noting drones when they are just seeing common astrological constellations. 

The lack of trust in institutions has led us here. It is common to reject government responses stoked by the fires of partisanship. Now local municipalities want the capabilities to track and shoot down common drones, no matter that targeting these devices with physical or electronic countermeasures can have cascading effects from blinding pilots to disrupting important communications.   

Mass hysteria has started. One drone in the sky leads to others sending up their drones to investigate, including law enforcement. With everyone having access to drones, the knock-on impact begins. The United States itself is very familiar with mass hysteria events throughout its history, with examples being the Salem Witch trials, the two Red Scares, and even evil clowns.   

It is a familiar story, with the most famous example being the French dancing plague of 1518, where an estimated 400 people danced until exhaustion, and even death, for weeks. Some have attributed this event to supernatural phenomena such as the devil, just like in the modern instance of blame falling on aliens or Iranians. Sadly, the French example was more likely caused by a unique combination of social unrest, famine, and possible hallucinogenic mold.  

A modern example of a similar event in the U.S. that caused conspiracy and mass hysteria is the controversial Havana Syndrome, a mysterious condition that affected U.S. diplomats and intelligence operatives beginning in 2016. There are many theories regarding this sickness, including conspiracies that it was caused by devices that emit sonic or microwaves. Havana Syndrome has been investigated by several intelligence agencies as well as physicians, and it is “highly unlikely” that any device caused any symptoms. It is much more likely that the media inflated the phenomenon with novel fictitious ideas, inserting mass hysteria into the situation, just as it has done now with the New Jersey story. 

Drones in War and for Entertainment

Drones have become a common part of entertainment. The drone light show market size has grown to $5 billion as of 2023 and is projected to grow to about $12.5 billion by 2028. These light shows consist of the usage of drone swarms. The swarms work together towards a common goal with the guidance of algorithms, and they can be controlled in multiple ways. 

For example, a centralized control scheme involves a single control point that processes information and issues commands to each drone, a decentralized control scheme allows the drones to manage themselves through a distributed decision-making process, and a distributed control scheme sends the information to the drones but allows them to share it to collaborate and make decisions that will help accomplish their goal.   

In September 2012, the world’s first large-scale and outdoor formation drone flight was conducted over the Danube River in Linz, Austria, as part of the Klangwolke music festival. Since then, the illumination of the sky captivated millions around the world. The drone swarms used to produce these light shows have been incorporated into high-profile events such as the 2017 Super Bowl Halftime Show, the 2018 Winter Olympics, the 2023 Coachella Festival, and the 2024 Walt Disney World “Dreams that Soar” show with over 800 drones.   

Drones are also obviously used for war, having an assumed critical impact on the Russian Ukrainian War. The United States had become a chief pioneer of this during its counterterrorism efforts within Iraq and Afghanistan. Through the principle of swarm intelligence, using them for espionage collection purposes or lethal force on enemy targets. 

To this day, we see the ubiquity of drones in ongoing conflicts. Volunteer networks, including patriotic citizens for both sides, have played an important role in creating self-made drones used to perform Kamikaze attacks, which has caused both sides in the Russo-Ukraine War to also experiment with counter-drone capabilities such as electronic warfare and wire net barriers, even carrying shotguns to battle now.   

The motivation for the continuous usage of these drones is that they are cheap, abundant, and can be a substitute for an actual combatant. The reality is drones are here, they are common, and they are now a fact of daily life. Americans must wake up to this reality without freaking out at aliens, Iranians, or mysterious government programs.   

The simplest explanation is that the use of unmanned systems and the inability of general civilians to distinguish items in the night sky has led to new forms of mass hysteria. Overreacting will only enable greater government control of our lives and skies, forcing civilian police squads to monitor local air traffic, exactly the thing most people fear in the first place. 

Learn to accept our new drone overlords.   

About the Authors

Brandon Valeriano is an Assistant Professor at Seton Hall University. He directs the DiploLab, the School of Diplomacy’s student research arm, which includes Steven Ochoa, Maximillian Otto, and Qingan Leasure.   

Steven Ochoa is a graduate student at Seton Hall University’s School of Diplomacy and International Relations, where he specializes in International Security and Global Negotiation.

Maximillian Otto is an undergraduate studying International Economics and International Relations at Seton Hall University and co-founder of Zero Chains Initiative, an organization devoted to advocating for victims of human trafficking. 

Qing Leasure is a sophomore student in Seton Hall’s School of Diplomacy and part of the DiploLab, the Undergraduate research arm of the School. 

Image: Shutterstock.

The post Drones on the Homefront appeared first on The National Interest.

It’s never pleasant for anyone to be caught in the middle between two friends who don’t get along and frequently argue with each other. It’s uncomfortable when you’re a child, it’s awkward when you’re an adult, and it becomes even more problematic when you’re a country that must protect its citizens from the threats of neighboring states. Recently, Azerbaijan found itself caught in the middle between two of its most important allies—Turkey and Israel.

Turkey is Azerbaijan’s long-standing and closest ally; both nations see themselves as part of the same people living in two countries. On the other hand, Israel is also a close partner of Azerbaijan, with extensive trade relations in fields such as oil, weapons, and even mobile telecommunications (Israeli companies were responsible for founding the first mobile networks in Azerbaijan). But how did Azerbaijan end up in a position where it has to mediate between its two closest allies? Has Azerbaijan gained anything positive from this situation?

Let’s begin with some background. About a month and a half ago, the event that shook the Middle East was the fall of Bashar al-Assad’s regime in Syria, nearly 25 years after he succeeded his father as president and almost 15 years after the outbreak of the Syrian Civil War. The group that took control in Syria is the Sunni Islamist rebel organization Hayat Tahrir al-Sham, led by Abu Mohammed al-Julani, whose real name is Ahmed al-Sharaa. This group is a successor of Jabhat al-Nusra, which split from ISIS and was considered the official branch of Al-Qaeda in Syria.

According to the group, they have moderated their stance; they no longer participate in the actions of Al-Qaeda or ISIS and only want to rebuild Syria. Despite their political statements, the new regime in Syria still raises concerns among regional countries and among Syrians who do not support Islamism and jihadism—except for one country: Turkey. Under Erdogan’s leadership, Turkey has supported the Hayat Tahrir al-Sham group and other opposition Islamist groups against Assad since the beginning of the civil war. Erdogan’s decision to help these groups came from a geopolitical conflict with Assad, so Turkey’s interest was in having Assad removed from power. Now that Erdogan’s allies have finally taken control, the West expects the new Syrian regime to be completely pro-Turkish.

One of the countries most concerned about the rising Turkish influence on the new Islamist-jihadist regime in Syria is Israel, who has strained relations with the Erdogan government. However, it greatly pains Azerbaijan whenever Israel and Turkey do not get along, as they are a brother nation of Turkey, despite their close friendship with Israel. They would rather see the rising Turkish influence in the region be utilized to create a strategic front against Iran rather than used to harm Israel.

What should Azerbaijan do to ease the tensions between its two major allies? After all, both of these countries, Turkey and Israel, have supported Azerbaijan in recent years in several areas, particularly in defense and weaponry during the Second Karabakh War. The cooperation between these two countries strengthens Azerbaijan both internationally and regionally and enhances its position in the eyes of its southern enemy—Iran. A conflict between Azerbaijan’s two closest allies, not to mention a military one, would harm Azerbaijan directly.

Given this, Azerbaijan seeks to utilize all the diplomatic means at its disposal to mediate between the two conflicting nations. Such a move is important not only for Azerbaijan’s future security but also to position the country from the Caucasus in a much stronger strategic and geopolitical position. From a country relying on its allies, it will transform into a country that advises, mediates, and resolves conflicts in the Middle East, with surrounding countries viewing its status as higher than before. Moreover, mediating between Turkey and Israel will not only strengthen Azerbaijan’s security but also that of Israel and Turkey, and will boost stability in the entire region. Azerbaijan cannot miss this opportunity, because if it succeeds in its mediation, it will gain much, but if it fails, it stands to lose a great deal. But the question remains, can Azerbaijan mend Turkish-Israeli relations?

/ Israël, Migrations, Judaïsme, Religion - Migrations et réfugiés / Israël, Migrations, Judaïsme, Religion - Migrations et réfugiés

/ Monde, Minorité nationale, Judaïsme - Minorités / Monde, Minorité nationale, Judaïsme - Minorités

Institutions under assault will not deliver for Americans.

Russia seeks to change, not end, the conflict in Ukraine.

Cette fois, à la différence de ses prédécesseurs lors d'autres luttes, M. Laurent Berger, le secrétaire général de la CFDT, n'a pas lâché. Comment comprendre le regain de combativité dans lequel s'inscrit ce changement de ligne ? Sans doute en revenant à l'histoire récente du « dialogue social ». / (...) / Retraites, France, Mouvement de contestation, Syndicalisme, Politique - 2023/04

With the beginning of 2025 bringing in a new American administration, the effects of the new policy regime is eliciting reactions towards the great weight of American pressure on different parts of the world. The new test on the seriousness of America First policies may be seen as a trap by some or as empty threats by others, but in either case will have a lasting effect nonetheless.

The tariff threats to Mexico and Canada show that Mexico is likely going to work with the US in sorting out common interests as migration flows from abroad are also a detriment to Mexico. The Nearshoring of many companies from China to Mexico will bring a tremendous amount of investment into Mexico. Mexico’s manufacturing base and Agro sector’s focus towards the US market has always been a benefit to Mexico. Even when considering America First policies, many manufactured goods will still be made outside of the US due to cost considerations and benefits to the US market. Security issues are best dealt with using over the border supports as linking trade and safety is essential. Challenging negative elements like gang activity or foreign involvement that harms the US by using Mexico’s close relationship with the United States will be a common focus on both sides of the border, continuously working within that framework. Despite Mexico’s Government having a left wing orientation, the focus on promoting Mexico’s economy will be a productive approach as it involves added funding for social development and poverty reduction strategies.

The issue of security at the northern border seems to be vacant in the Canadian narrative on the upcoming tariffs. Canadian leaders touring US media to improve their personal reputation does nothing but use the tariff threat and new American administration as an election tool for local power shifts in Canada. With the exception of local leaders within Canada itself, the Federal Government of Canada chose to implode itself right before its most essential negotiation in ten years by avoiding discussions of simply securing the border. There are little to no mention of the major issues on the northern border, issues that are tied to international security threats to both Canadians and the United States. The management of expectations are that tariffs are coming, no matter what the costs, with no ability to work with the US administration on these issues. The internal personal stakes of self focused political leaders will cost Canadians greatly, a historic lose-lose scenario that should have never occurred. Canada would do well to not heavily counter-tariff the US and put Canada into an economic depression, but this has already been threatened via the energy market.

The ability to end the conflict between Russia and Ukraine comes at a time where little movement has taken place since 2014, minus the shores of the Black Sea towards Crimea and Ukraine’s recent movement into Russia itself. Considering the costs to both sides, and the depletion of weapons from both NATO allies and an almost completely diminished Soviet stockpile, preserving stable countries in the region might benefit all sides with the rise of terror attacks within Russia and Europe itself. At this point, the losses on both sides for so little gain may allow for a renewed recognition that families often have relatives on both sides of the conflict. While peace may not be the key element, the need for stability in the region is better than mutual weaknesses that collapses both nations from pressures abroad. The shared history of a united front against aggressors from abroad may be able to be re-constituted if there are willing partners who can work together to challenge a common threat. In reality, the world in 2025 abound with such threats.

Addressing conflicts in the Middle East will determine much of the security issues over the next decade. Any sign of weakness in negotiations or in response to threats to US interests and those of their allies will be exploited in the most erratic of ways. These few short weeks of January has already been characterized by chaos resulting from threats from abroad mixed with weakness in basic policy approaches towards health and safety. New methods using drones and asymmetric conflict will be pervasive if there are safety gaps within Western societies and even within the Secret Service themselves, soft targets being a focus along with using new tactics to evade security screening. Weakness in policy will encourage more instability, with Russia’s southern region, China’s sphere of influence and streets in the West being key battlegrounds for tensions. Stability vs. Chaos will determine new ties between Governments, as dashes for power come when weaknesses are momentarily exposed. Normalising these failures should be something that needs to be avoided, and allies who work against this framework should be met with tariffs or other similar policy responses.

Don’t mistake bluster and cynicism for toughness and wisdom.

Why normalization without Palestinians won’t bring stability to the Middle East.

Can Trump reach real settlements in Ukraine and Gaza?

Economic pain won’t turn the tide in Ukraine.

The “Salt Typhoon” hack revealed America’s profound vulnerability.

Tags: CHIPS Act, Defense Industrial Base, Jones Act, Shipbuilding, and South Korea From CHIPS to Ships: The Next Step in the U.S.-ROK Alliance January 20, 2025 By: Thomas Byrne, and Joseph Lim Share

• Share this link on Facebook
• Share this page on X (Twitter)
• Share this link on LinkedIn
• Email a link to this page

The Chinese Naval fleet has become the world’s largest, threatening the U.S. maritime dominance and unrestricted freedom of navigation in East Asia and the South China Sea. Although the U.S. Navy wants to build 381 ships by FY2042, public shipyards have their hands full. Delays in ship production and industrial inefficiencies have ramped up costs. Yet reforms to shore up the shipbuilding ecosystem remain insufficient. Amid this backdrop, President-elect Trump said in a post-election phone call with President Yoon that the United States seeks cooperation with South Korea, namely in the Maintenance, Repair and Overhaul (MRO).

The U.S. Naval military-industrial base needs a SHIPS Initiative with shipbuilders from close allies—namely South Korea—just as the American manufacturing base is being bolstered by South Korean firms participating in the CHIPS Act (Creating Helpful Incentives to Produce Semiconductors for America). In contrast, bilateral naval cooperation can be accomplished through deregulation supplemented with tax and supply-side incentives rather than through massive cash subsidies. Such constructive cooperation would have to surmount political hurdles in the United States. Still, industrial collaboration would avoid adding to unsustainable federal budgetary spending on subsidies—already interest payments on government debt exceed defense expenditures.

How South Korean Companies Can Help

South Korea can make world-class ships for the U.S. Navy. The Norway, Philippines, and Peru navies have relied on South Korea to manufacture their next-generation naval vessels. South Korean shipyards have already collaborated with the U.S. Navy to overhaul support ships and with U.S. private shipyards to design state-of-the-art U.S. commercial vessels. They have used high-tech production processes to churn out high-quality vessels on time without cost overruns. This is exactly the capability the U.S. Navy needs, and Secretary of the Navy Carlos Del Toro was blown away on his visits to South Korean shipyards.

South Korean firms’ capabilities in localizing production and transferring technology will improve U.S. shipyard productivity and create new local jobs. Paula Zorensky, vice president of the Shipbuilders Council of America, said that American shipyards “are willing to work with our fellow Korean shipbuilders and allied shipyards to improve our processes and increase efficiencies.” HD Hyundai Heavy Industries, the University of Michigan, and Seoul National University signed a memorandum of understanding in July 2024 to establish a shipbuilding design and engineering exchange program to train the U.S. workforce. 

Getting Around the Jones Act

The U.S. Navy is prohibited from outsourcing the construction of naval vessels to foreign shipyards under 10 USC 7309 and 10 USC 8679 (the Byrnes-Tollefson Amendment). The laws allow the president to issue a waiver to lift such prohibitions if he determines it is in the national security interest of the United States to do so. So conceivably, President Trump could issue a waiver, and Congress could amend such laws to allow the construction of naval vessels in shipyards in countries like South Korea, with which the United States has a mutual defense treaty.

The Merchant Marine Act of 1920, known as the Jones Act, requires all shipping between U.S. ports to be conducted by U.S.-built, owned, and crewed ships. The Military Cargo Preference Act extends this requirement to military cargo destined for foreign ports. These laws have the effect of jacking up the price of shipping between the American mainland, U.S. territories, and foreign ports by forcing the U.S. military to rely on a small number of Jones Act-compliant carriers to move cargo. However, repealing these acts will be politically difficult, as such action would expose American shipbuilders to superior foreign competition. 

Proposing a work-around, Senator Todd Young (R-IN), Rep. Trent Kelly (R-MS), Senator Mark Kelly (D-AZ), and Rep. John Garamendi (D-CA) introduced the bipartisan and bicameral “Shipbuilding and Harbor Infrastructure for Prosperity and Security for America Act of 2024” (SHIPS Act) in December. The draft of the bill opens opportunities for South Korean firms. Vessels constructed in foreign shipyards can be incorporated into the U.S. strategic merchant fleet as “interim vessels” through 2029. Deregulation would free U.S. and South Korean firms to develop economies of scale and deliver ship orders on time.

Finally, the Trump administration could approve South Korean firms’ acquisitions of U.S. shipyards. In what Secretary Del Toro lauded as a “game-changing milestone in [the U.S.] new Maritime Statecraft,” Hanwha Group agreed in June 2024 to acquire Philly Shipyard from its Norwegian parent company, Aker ASA, for $100 million. The acquisition received approval from the Committee on Foreign Investment in the U.S. (CFIUS) in September and was completed in December 2024. 

From CHIPS to SHIPS 

Former Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee Rep. Mac Thornberry noted the U.S. needs geographic diversity in its defense suppliers to provide better competition and sources of innovation. The advancement of U.S. security and prosperity will be far cheaper and more effective if Washington can tap into synergies with its global network of allies and partners.

However, long-term economic and geostrategic interests do not always prevail over domestic political considerations. The most recent example is that the Biden administration rejected Nippon Steel’s purchase of U.S. Steel on January 3, citing national security concerns despite no clear and direct defense rationale.

The South Korea-U.S. business relationship has blossomed into a vibrant two-way investment partnership spanning joint ventures on COVID-19 vaccines and electric vehicle batteries. Trusted and competitive foreign shipbuilders, such as those in South Korea, have also demonstrated their global comparative advantage. It’s time for the U.S. to more deeply tap into its capabilities and move into a new, robust military-industrial cooperation paradigm.

Thomas Byrne is the President and CEO of the Korea Society. Previously, he was the Asia-Pacific Regional Sovereign Risk Manager for Moody’s Investors Service. 

Joseph Lim is a graduate student at the Georgetown University School of Foreign Service.

Image: Panwasin Seemala / Shutterstock.com. 

Related Articles

• Security

Capt. John Angel Chu, the Last Flying Tiger, Passes Away at 102

On January 13, The National Interest published my story of the passing of Col. Perry Dahl (USAF, ret.), who had been one of the last living World War II fighter aces; Dahl had passed away…

• Christian D. Orr

• Security

The F-111 Aardvark: This Resilient Plane is Properly Named

While most American military aircraft are given names that connote athleticism, virility, hostility, or prowess (i.e., Lighting, Raptor, Poseidon, Thunderchief, Mustang, Apache, Talon, and Sabre), others are simply given the…

• Harrison Kass

• Security

Yoon’s Failed Coup Already Has Serious Implications for South Korea’s Security Partnerships

President Yoon Suk-yeol’s shocking coup attempt through martial law has triggered an unprecedented and historic political crisis in South Korea. For this, Yoon and Prime Minister Han Duck-soo were impeached,…

• Francis Shin

The post From CHIPS to Ships: The Next Step in the U.S.-ROK Alliance appeared first on The National Interest.

An unpredictable president could surprise Israelis and Palestinians alike.

Eight years shaped by surprising continuity—and four more to come.