Diplomacy & Crisis News

Rachel Bucchino

Stimulus Check,

If a fourth stimulus payment or recurring direct checks passes, it’s likely that it would be approved by budget reconciliation, a legislative procedure that doesn’t require a single Republican vote.

Just last week, a group of House Democrats revived a party push for President Joe Biden to pass a massive relief measure that would send recurring stimulus payments to eligible Americans until the end of the pandemic.

Seven Democrats, all of which are members of the House Ways and Means Committee, wrote to Biden, urging him to implement “recurring direct payments tied to economic conditions,” since direct relief is one of the “most effective” forms of federal aid available.

The lawmakers continued, “The pandemic has served as a stark reminder that families and workers need certainty in a crisis. They deserve to know they can put food on the table and keep a roof over their heads. They should not be at the mercy of constantly shifting legislative timelines and ad hoc solutions.”

The Democrats who wrote to Biden include Reps. Jimmy Gomez (Calif.), Gwen Moore (Wis.), Earl Blumenauer (Ore.) and Judy Chu (Calif.).

A number of congressional Democrats have also written to the president in the past over providing Americans with a fourth stimulus check or recurring payments, bringing the total number of Democratic lawmakers on Capitol Hill fighting for additional direct relief to nearly 80.

So, the idea of another direct payment in the future might not be “dead,” yet.

Democrats contend that millions of Americans need more federal relief, as many individuals remain unemployed or unable to pay for essentials, like food and rent, due to decreased wages or cut hours.

Many polls have also indicated that voters generally support additional aid from the government. For example, a poll from Data for Progress found that 65 percent of voters, including 54 percent of Republicans, back a $2,000 recurring payment for every eligible American until the end of the pandemic. A petition has also been launched on Change.org, calling for $2,000 monthly checks that has over 2.2 million signatures.

Although several Democrats have called on Biden to consider implementing the measure, lawmakers behind the effort have provided little information on the specifics of it, like how large the payments should be and who would qualify.

The push is also likely a nonstarter, as moderate Democrats have expressed little interest in the provision and as congressional Republicans balk at offering Americans more direct aid. GOP lawmakers cite the labor shortages across the country that’s left businesses scrambling for people to work. Republicans argue that the stimulus money has disincentivized people from returning back to the labor market.

If a fourth stimulus payment or recurring direct checks passes, it’s likely that it would be approved by budget reconciliation, a legislative procedure that doesn’t require a single Republican vote. But even in that instance, the entire Democratic caucus in the Senate would have to unite in support of the measure, which will be an uphill battle as lawmakers like Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), a centrist, are pushing for bipartisan support on any future bill that’s part of Biden’s Build Back Better agenda. 

But Biden hasn’t even indicated whether he would support a fourth stimulus payment or recurring checks. 

Earlier this month, however, White House press secretary Jen Psaki was asked whether Americans will see additional direct relief in any future legislation and she replied, “We'll see what members of Congress propose, but those are not free.”

That comment appears to leave it up to Congress to consider the measure.

Rachel Bucchino is a reporter at the National Interest. Her work has appeared in The Washington Post, U.S. News & World Report and The Hill.

Ethen Kim Lieser

Child Tax Credit,

Biden’s stimulus bill enabled the expansion of child tax credits that generally allowed families to claim a credit of up to $2,000 for children under the age of seventeen.

Here's What You Need to Remember: “If passed, the families of tens of millions of children will continue to get regular payments,” she said. “Obviously, we’re continuing to evaluate what their needs are—to continue to get the pandemic under control, put people back to work, but we think that’s a proposal with a long-term benefit.”

In just a few weeks, nearly all of the $1,400 coronavirus stimulus checks will have been disbursed to eligible Americans under the American Rescue Plan.

But President Joe Biden’s administration is making sure that financially struggling parents will continue to get the help they need via the expanded child tax credit. 

It appears that this new benefit from the $1.9 trillion legislation could not come at a better time, as millions of Americans are still feeling the financial effects of the ongoing pandemic.

According to the latest data from the U.S. Census Bureau, it shows that about thirty-four million people live in poverty in the United States. And to lift twelve million of them out of such living conditions, a recent report by the Economic Security Project said that more rounds of stimulus checks could do just that.

It is true that the child tax credits aren’t technically stimulus checks, but the total amount sent out to Americans will easily eclipse the current third round’s $1,400 payments.

Know that Biden’s stimulus bill enabled the expansion of child tax credits that generally allowed families to claim a credit of up to $2,000 for children under the age of seventeen.

But now, they qualify to collect as much as $3,600 per year for a child under the age of six and up to $3,000 for children between ages six and seventeen. That means these parents can collect a $250 or $300 payment each month through the end of the year.

Moreover, eighteen-year-olds and full-time college students who are twenty-four and under can give parents a one-time $500 payment.

“About 90 percent of families with children will get this new tax relief automatically, starting in July,” Biden said in a statement.

“For working families with children, this tax cut sends a clear message: help is here,” he added.

Another notable perk from the American Rescue Plan is that parents who pay out of pocket for child care services now can claim those expenses in tax credits of $8,000 for one child and the maximum of $16,000 for two or more children.

Also, keep in mind that the child tax credit could be extended well beyond this year to 2025, as Biden and dozens of Democratic lawmakers are pushing for this to become a reality through the American Families Plan.

White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki in a recent press briefing touted the bill’s potential reach if it receives Congress approval.  

“If passed, the families of tens of millions of children will continue to get regular payments,” she said. “Obviously, we’re continuing to evaluate what their needs are—to continue to get the pandemic under control, put people back to work, but we think that’s a proposal with a long-term benefit.”

Ethen Kim Lieser is a Minneapolis-based Science and Tech Editor who has held posts at Google, The Korea Herald, Lincoln Journal Star, AsianWeek, and Arirang TV. Follow or contact him on LinkedIn. This article first appeared earlier this year.

Image: Reuters.

TNI Staff

F-14 Tomcat,

With the end of the Cold War and declining budgets, the Navy simply could not afford to keep the incredibly maintenance intensive and unreliable Tomcat on the carrier flight deck.

Here's What You Need to Remember: The successor to the Super Hornet could have capabilities that resemble the F-14 Tomcat in terms of speed and range. However, the similarities will likely end there. The Tomcat was an antiquated and unreliable beast in the late 1980s and it simply was not up to par during the 1990s and the early 2000s in terms of its avionics.

The United States Navy retired the venerable Grumman F-14 Tomcat in 2006 after more than three decades in service. However, the Tomcat’s demise has left gaps in the carrier air wing that are only now being felt.

With the end of the Cold War and declining budgets, the Navy simply could not afford to keep the incredibly maintenance intensive and unreliable Tomcat on the carrier flight deck. Moreover, with the demise of the Soviet threat, the Tomcat’s primary mission of fleet defense has fallen by the wayside and the venerable jet was increasingly used in the strike role. But while the F-14 proved to be a competent strike aircraft, the Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet was superior in most respects to the aging Tomcat as a strike fighter in the post-Cold War era. Particularly, the Super Hornet was far more reliable and cost effective—and with its much more modern avionics, it was mostly a more capable aircraft. However, there are still some gaps that the Super Hornet could not fill.

While the Super Hornet with its exceptional Raytheon AN/APG-79 active electronically scanned array radar, Harris AN/ALQ-214 Integrated Defensive Electronic Countermeasures (IDECM) Block IV system, advanced datalinks and other systems is a potent war machine, the F/A-18E/F has two weaknesses that the Navy has to address for the future which the service divested with the retirement of the Tomcat. Those two factors are range and speed—both of which the Super Hornet falls short on as new threats emerge in Western Pacific and the North Atlantic.

The Navy gave up the sheer speed and the range of the Tomcat because the service did not have to contend with the prospect of fending off hordes of Soviet Tupolev Tu-22M Backfire bombers and their cruise missiles in the post-Soviet era. The F-14, of course, was originally the linchpin of the Navy’s Outer Air Battle concept that was designed to prevent a Soviet bomber force from destroying a carrier battle group. While that threat more or less evaporated after 1991, it is starting to reemerge as China rises and Russia reasserts itself on the world stage.

China is building a potent air launched anti-ship cruise missiles along with aircraft to carry those weapons. Meanwhile, the once-dormant Russian bomber force is back—though not in the numbers of the Soviet era. Moreover, with the emergence of new adversary stealth aircraft—some of which have the capability to fly very high and very fast—which are also armed with cruise missiles, the Navy will need the range and speed that the Tomcat offered to fend off those threats. The F/A-18E/F can do the job—but only to an extent.

Indeed, the Navy is looking at a platform or platforms—potentially a family of systems—that will offer greatly increased speed and range compared to the Super Hornet for its Next Generation Air Dominance study to replace the F/A-18E/F after 2040. “I tend to think of it not only as range, but as reach; not only how far my airplane flies, but how far do my weapons go on top of that,” Capt. Richard Brophy, who heads the Chief of Naval Operations N98 air warfare division’s NGAD Analysis of Alternatives team, said last year during a panel at the Office of Naval Research’s science and technology expo. “Reach also gets into propulsion, and when we look at propulsion, I’m looking for efficiency. The longer I can fly without having to go get gas, the better.”

While speed and range are priorities, the Navy remains skeptical of stealth technology as it always has. “We certainly need survivability. Stealth is just one piece of the survivability equation,” Brophy said. “I kind of look at stealth as sort of like chaff and flares. It’s not going to defeat [the enemy] every time, but it will help. Stealth is part of what any future design — if you look at any country, they’re going that way. So yes, it would probably be part of it.”

Thus, the successor to the Super Hornet could have capabilities that resemble the F-14 Tomcat in terms of speed and range. However, the similarities will likely end there. The Tomcat was an antiquated and unreliable beast in the late 1980s and it simply was not up to par during the 1990s and the early 2000s in terms of its avionics. New sensor, data-link and propulsion technologies—along with developments such as artificial intelligence—means that while a future NGAD aircraft might fill some of the gaps left behind by the F-14, it will not be a Tomcat.

This piece was first featured in 2018 and is being republished due to reader's interest. 

Image: Wikimedia Commons.

Stephen Silver

No Stimulus Check,

In addition, The Washington Post reported that Biden has been criticized for dropping promises of student debt forgiveness from his likely budget proposal, among other campaign promises from 2020.

Biden budget does not include a new round of stimulus checksThe Biden Administration is preparing its first fiscal year budget, the New York Times reported Thursday, citing leaked documents. The official budget will be unveiled Friday, ahead of the holiday weekend, and will include $6 trillion in spending in the fiscal year.

The president’s proposed American Families Plan and American Jobs Plan, and the assumption that they will pass, are incorporated into the budget. However, the budget does not include another round of direct stimulus checks, indicating once again that another round of direct payments to most Americans is unlikely to take place.

“The levels of taxation and spending in Mr. Biden’s plans would expand the federal fiscal footprint to levels rarely seen in the postwar era, to fund investments that his administration says are crucial to keeping America competitive,” the Times analysis said.

“That includes money for roads, water pipes, broadband internet, electric vehicle charging stations and advanced manufacturing research. It also envisions funding for affordable child care, universal prekindergarten, a national paid leave program and a host of other initiatives. Spending on national defense would also grow, though it would decline as a share of the economy.”

The newspaper also noted that the Administration doesn’t appear worried about deficits or inflation fears, with interest rates low.

“Writ large, the budget proposal, which the White House is expected to formally lay out on Friday, is an unabashed call for a bigger role for government in the U.S. economy, bringing spending to a quarter of the nation’s annual output, larger than any level before the pandemic,” The Hill said of the reports of Biden’s budget plans. The Hill added that the budget will assume an increase in military spending.

In addition, The Washington Post reported that Biden has been criticized for dropping promises of student debt forgiveness from his likely budget proposal, among other campaign promises from 2020.

"The President’s budget will focus on advancing the historic legislative agenda he’s already put forward for this year," Rob Friedlander, spokesman for the White House budget office, told the newspaper. "The budget won’t propose other new initiatives but will put together the full picture of how these proposals would advance economic growth and shared prosperity while also putting our country on a sound fiscal course.”

The budget, the Times said, is a request to Congress, and probably won’t pass in identical form to what was proposed by the administration. Often, the presidential proposal is more of a wish list, per Politifact, one that kicks off a long process which is then kicked to Congress. While Biden is dealing with Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress, those majorities are slim, meaning the administration would likely have trouble getting everything it wants.

 Stephen Silver, a technology writer for The National Interest, is a journalist, essayist and film critic, who is also a contributor to The Philadelphia Inquirer, Philly Voice, Philadelphia Weekly, the Jewish Telegraphic Agency, Living Life Fearless, Backstage magazine, Broad Street Review and Splice Today. The co-founder of the Philadelphia Film Critics Circle, Stephen lives in suburban Philadelphia with his wife and two sons. Follow him on Twitter at @StephenSilver.

Rachel Bucchino

Politics,

President Joe Biden is expected to unveil a $6 trillion budget on Friday as the White House pursues sweeping proposals to improve the nation’s infrastructure and U.S. economy, The New York Times reported.

President Joe Biden is expected to unveil a $6 trillion budget on Friday as the White House pursues sweeping proposals to improve the nation’s infrastructure and U.S. economy, The New York Times reported.

The proposal would bring federal spending levels to their highest sustained level since World War II, according to the Times.

Documents obtained by the publication indicate that the federal government would spend $6 trillion in the 2022 fiscal year, rising to $8.2 trillion by the year 2031.

The budget comes as negotiations between congressional Republicans and the White House over an infrastructure bill have hit a brick wall in recent weeks, as GOP lawmakers balk at supporting a multi-trillion-dollar initiative that isn’t targeted toward physical infrastructure. Instead, Senate Republicans introduced a $928 billion infrastructure counteroffer Thursday morning, one that’s already received pushback from Democrats. The budget, however, highlights the scope of the administration’s spending compared to Republicans.

Biden’s two-part agenda—Americans Jobs Plan and American Families Plan—would be funded by major tax hikes on wealthy individuals and corporations, which would largely shrink the budget deficits in the 2030s. Administration officials have also noted that the president’s legislative agenda would be offset by the tax increases over the next 15 years.

The agenda would, however, largely boost deficits in the meantime as the federal government pivots to borrowing to help fund its plans. That would raise the federal budget deficit to $1.8 trillion in 2022.

The country’s total debt burden would also climb to 117 percent of gross domestic product by the end of the decade, surpassing its World War II-era record in 2025, according to the Times.

It’s unusual for presidential budgets to be passed in their exact structure, as they’ve served primarily as a move for presidents to convey the administration’s legislative priorities.

“The President’s budget will focus on advancing the historic legislative agenda he’s already put forward for this year,” Rob Friedlander, a spokesman for the White House budget office, said in a statement last week. “The budget won’t propose other new initiatives but will put together the full picture of how these proposals would advance economic growth and shared prosperity while also putting our country on a sound fiscal course.”

The budget only contains the $2.3 trillion infrastructure proposal, $1.8 trillion families plan and $1.5 trillion in proposed discretionary spending. It does not include other major proposals that Biden has stood behind, like the nation’s unemployment insurance program.

Rachel Bucchino is a reporter at the National Interest. Her work has appeared in The Washington Post, U.S. News & World Report and The Hill.

Stephen Silver

Propane Shortage,

Now, there are concerns about a different kind of gas shortage: one of propane gas.

Earlier this month, especially after the Colonial Pipeline shut down, there were concerns about gasoline shortages, that for some recalled the 1970s. The pipeline, however, was repaired within a week, making the crisis a short-lived one.

Now, there are concerns about a different kind of gas shortage: one of propane gas.

WFSB reported this week that propane has been rising in price, with the vice president of Connecticut Propane telling the news station that demand has increased to the point of prices rising. That could mean trouble either for those who use propane to heat their pools or to power their barbecue grills.

“We are swamped now with customers calling for their pool heat right now because a lot of people are still at home because of the pandemic,” that vice president, Danielle Gjonbalaj, told the station. Much like with other power, supply was affected by the Texas deep freeze earlier this year.

“We’re just trying to secure enough for our customers. We know we have enough storage for our customers and we’re trying to keep that margin low,” she said.

CBS Los Angeles had reported earlier this month of a nationwide shortage of pool supplies, including chlorine tablets and propane tanks, with the price of chlorine tablets, in particular, doubling over the course of the last year.

Not only that, but Natural Gas Intelligence reported in early May about the threat of winter shortages of propane, citing natural gas producer Antero Resources Corp.

“U.S. domestic propane buyers will need to outbid export markets this summer to build sufficient inventories for this upcoming winter,” Antero’s David Cannelongo, vice president of liquids marketing and transportation, told that publication. “That, in turn, will drive U.S. and international liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) pricing higher.”

The report added that propane supplies are “currently running about 34% below the five-year average and inventories are 30% below last year’s levels.”

LP Gas reported in late April, citing the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), that propane prices rose 30 percent during the 2020-’21 heating season (i.e., the winter) in the United States.

“U.S. average residential propane prices increased by more than 52 cents a gallon, or 30 percent, during the 2020-21 heating season, which began Oct. 1 and ended March 31,” the report said. “The increase in prices can be attributed primarily to higher crude oil prices, seasonal withdrawals from propane inventory and increased global demand for U.S. propane exports, the EIA says. The price change was the largest within-season increase in residential propane prices since the 2013-14 season when propane markets tightened because of a polar vortex and low inventories.”

Canada suffered a propane shortage in late 2019, following a strike by rail workers north of the border.

"The propane supplier yesterday, called and said, at this point the agricultural supply of propane is shut off, so we're done until we get a new supply of propane in harvesting,” a corn farmer told CTV News in Canada.

 Stephen Silver, a technology writer for The National Interest, is a journalist, essayist and film critic, who is also a contributor to The Philadelphia Inquirer, Philly Voice, Philadelphia Weekly, the Jewish Telegraphic Agency, Living Life Fearless, Backstage magazine, Broad Street Review and Splice Today. The co-founder of the Philadelphia Film Critics Circle, Stephen lives in suburban Philadelphia with his wife and two sons. Follow him on Twitter at @StephenSilver.

Rachel Bucchino

2020 Election,

A majority of Republicans do not believe that President Joe Biden’s victory in the 2020 presidential election was legitimate, according to a new poll.

A majority of Republicans do not believe that President Joe Biden’s victory in the 2020 presidential election was legitimate, according to a new poll.

The poll, released by Quinnipiac University on Wednesday, found that 66 percent of Republican participants said that Biden’s election victory was not legitimate, while 25 percent of Republicans said it was legitimate. 

Among all poll participants, 64 percent said Biden’s victory was legitimate, while 29 percent said it was not.

The poll’s results come months after former President Donald Trump’s supporters stormed the Capitol building on Jan. 6, arguing that the 2020 presidential election results were “rigged” against Trump and “stolen.”

Another poll released this week found that 56 percent of Republicans believe the election was rigged or the result of illegal voting and 53 percent think Trump is still the rightful president.

According to the Quinnipiac poll, 66 percent of Republicans would like to see Trump run again after experiencing defeat in the 2020 presidential election and 85 percent of Republicans polled said they would prefer to see candidates running for office that mostly align and agree with Trump.

“The numbers fly in the face of any predictions that Donald Trump’s political future is in decline. By a substantial majority, Republicans: (1) believe the election was stolen from him, (2) want Trump to run again, and (3), if they can’t vote for Trump, prefer someone who agrees with him,” Tim Malloy, Quinnipiac University polling analyst, said.

The poll’s findings indicate that Trump still maintains an iron-like grip over the GOP, despite his inability to digitally communicate with voters as the former president has been banned either temporarily or permanently from major social media platforms like Twitter and Facebook for his involvement in the insurrection on the Capitol.

Trump has also been committed to winning back the House and Senate in the 2022 midterm elections, as he’s endorsed a number of candidates and is expected to host several political rallies.

The former president has been reportedly working with former Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) to craft a new policy agenda and has sat down with former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows and Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) at Mar-a-Lago in recent weeks as Republicans pivot their focus on gaining seats in both congressional chambers.

The Quinnipiac University poll surveyed 1,316 adults between May 18 and 24 with a margin of error of 2.7 percent.

Rachel Bucchino is a reporter at the National Interest. Her work has appeared in The Washington Post, U.S. News & World Report and The Hill.

Eli Fuhrman

Stimulus Payments,

The IRS has announced that it has begun the process of distributing another batch of third-round federal stimulus payments.

The IRS has announced that it has begun the process of distributing another batch of third-round federal stimulus payments. With recent batches, the IRS has sought to distribute new payments on a weekly basis. The lack of an announcement last week regarding the distribution of a new batch of payments added to the speculation that the IRS’ campaign to distribute the payments is approaching its end.

In its announcement, however, the IRS indicated that the newest batch of stimulus payments includes two weeks’ worth of payments. The newest batch includes a total of 1.8 million payments worth a total of roughly $3.5 billion. This is larger than the previous two batches, which set consecutive markers for the smallest batches of third-round stimulus payments to date, although as mentioned this most recent batch is meant to include payments covering the last two weeks.

Like the other most recent batches of stimulus payments, this batch is made up primarily of payments sent out to those people whose eligibility for stimulus payments is dependent on the processing of their 2020 tax returns by the IRS. This includes more than 900,000 payments worth roughly $1.9 billion distributed to those people about whom the IRS did not have sufficient information to send payment prior to receiving their 2020 tax returns.

In addition, the most recent batch of payments includes over 900,000 of what the IRS calls “plus-up” payments. These supplemental payments are designed for those people whose initial eligibility for a third-round stimulus payment of up to $1,400 was made based on information contained in their 2019 tax returns, but whose 2020 returns indicate a loss of income or a change in dependent status that entitles them to more money. About $1.6 billion worth of supplemental plus-up payments were distributed as part of the most recent batch of payments.

About half of the payments sent out in the most recent batch were distributed as direct deposit payments, while the remaining 900,000 were sent as paper checks.

This batch of payments brings the total number of payments distributed as part of the third round of stimulus payments to almost 167 million, with a total value of roughly $391 billion. The American Rescue Plan earmarked $410 billion for use in the third round of stimulus payments.

The IRS has said that it will continue to distribute the remainder of the payments on a weekly basis.

Eli Fuhrman is a contributing writer for The National Interest.

Eli Fuhrman

PPP Loan,

Specifically, for a loan to be totally forgiven, employers must have maintained both the same number of employees and the same level of compensation for those employees – including wages, bonuses and benefits – and must have spent at least 60 percent of the loan money on payroll costs.

The Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) is a small business loan program created by the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act passed in March 2020, and subsequently reinforced by additional COVID-19 relief legislation passed in December of that year. The loan is potentially forgivable and is designed to help small businesses ensure that they can pay up to eight weeks’ worth of payroll costs as well as pay interest on mortgages, utilities, and rent. The PPP exists alongside relief measured targeted at specific industries, such as the Restaurant Revitalization Funds that are designed to support the particularly hard-hit restaurant and bar industries.

The PPP has run into some significant problems, however, with fraud, in particular, emerging as a major concern; rather than use the funds to pay and hire back workers, as they are intended for, some employers have used the money they have received from PPP loans to pay for personal expenses such as cars, housing, and other luxury items. In one such case, a New England man attempted to fake his own death to escape charges of fraud after he and an associate attempted to fraudulently claim a $500,000 PPP loan.

More recently, it was announced that the PPP program was nearly out of funds available for financing forgivable loans. This announcement came several weeks ahead of the May 31 deadline for PPP loan applications, and as a result, most new loan applications would not be considered. Now, the millions of potential applicants are scrambling in an effort to secure loans from the few overwhelmed lenders still offering them, while hundreds of thousands of people who had already submitted applications – some of them several weeks ago – are left wondering about the status of their PPP loan applications.

Under the PPP, roughly 3.3 million loans out of a total of 5.2 million loans made last year have been forgiven, while $81.5 billion worth of loans is under review with $159.1 billion available for applications for loan forgiveness.

For those with applications pending, or those hoping to submit applications for loan forgiveness, there are some important eligibility criteria that will determine whether or not an application will be approved.

Specifically, for a loan to be totally forgiven, employers must have maintained both the same number of employees and the same level of compensation for those employees – including wages, bonuses and benefits – and must have spent at least 60 percent of the loan money on payroll costs. In addition, the remainder of the money must have been spent on eligible expenses such as operating costs, mortgage payments, utilities, personal protective equipment for employees, and property damage that resulted from civil unrest and was not covered by insurance.

Important to note is that if employers spent most, but not all, of their loan money on eligible expenses they can still have the loan partially forgiven.

Eli Fuhrman is a contributing writer for The National Interest.

Eli Fuhrman

Plus-Up Payment,

The IRS is continuing to send out what it refers to as “plus-up” payments, or supplemental stimulus payments available to those people who did not receive all of the up to $1,400 that they were entitled to as part of the third round of federal stimulus payments.

The IRS is continuing to send out what it refers to as “plus-up” payments, or supplemental stimulus payments available to those people who did not receive all of the up to $1,400 that they were entitled to as part of the third round of federal stimulus payments.

When the IRS began to determine eligibility for third round stimulus payments, which were brought about as part of the American Rescue Plan passed in March, it did so based on information contained in people’s 2019 tax returns, which at the time represented the most recently available data. As people began to submit their 2020 tax returns, however, the IRS undertook a review of those returns to determine if those filers had experienced a loss of income or a change in dependent status in the last year that would entitle them to a larger stimulus payment than the one they initially received. Those who did have since become the targets of these supplemental plus-up payments.

The eligibility requirements themselves did not change: full payments of $1,400 are available to individuals making up to $75,000 and to heads of households and married couples filing jointly making up to $112,500 and $150,000, respectively. Partial payments are then available to individuals making up to $80,000, heads of households making up to $120,000, and to couples filing jointly who make up to $160,000. Those making more are not eligible for a payment.

The distribution of plus-up payments has been a major focus for the IRS in its most recent batches of stimulus payments, with the batch announced this week included 900,000 plus-up payments with a total value of roughly $1.6 billion. The IRS has so far distributed a total 7 million plus-up payments this year.

Along with plus-up payments, the IRS has also been focusing on sending payments to those people about whom it did not have sufficient information before receiving their 2020 tax returns.

Those people who are eligible for a plus-up payment but have not yet received one – along with those people who have not yet received their stimulus payment at all – will do so once the IRS finishes processing their returns. Prior to the May 17 tax day deadline, the IRS was still working through a significant backlog of unprocessed 2020 tax returns, resulting in delays to both tax refunds and stimulus payments dependent on the processing of returns.

Those people who filed for an extension on their taxes, and who believe they are eligible for a plus-up payment, can still receive their supplemental payment as long as their returns are filed and processed by August 16. For those who ultimately do not end up receiving their plus-up payments, they may be able to claim their outstanding money during next year’s tax season via a recovery rebate credit; in order to do so, it is important that they keep hold of the IRS-issued confirmation notice that they received along with their initial stimulus payment.

Eli Fuhrman is a contributing writer for The National Interest.

Kris Osborn

People's Liberation Army, China

It can't fly, but it does take some of the work off of its human wearer's muscles - which can be useful, especially at high altitudes with little oxygen.

Here's What You Need To Remember: Pictures of the Chinese exoskeleton closely resemble several U.S. systems which have been under development for several years. This is by no means surprising, as the PLA often produces platforms and technologies which bear striking similarities to U.S. systems often just a few years later. 

The Chinese military appears to have developed its own combat-specific Exoskeleton Iron Man suit intended to optimize warrior performance at high altitudes where human energy levels are compromised by atmospheric conditions. 

The Chinese government-backed Global Times newspaper announced that Chinese scientists have built a 4-kilogram exoskeleton to save up to 10 percent of the human energy typically expended during walking, climbing or carrying goods and about 80 percent of the energy needed to stand. 

“Thanks to the usage of carbon fiber materials, the exoskeleton weighs only about 4 kilograms, and it is very durable despite possible rough usages in high-altitude, mountainous regions, the developer said, noting that to counter the extreme cold and wear-and-tear issues, the equipment does not contain any plastic,” the Global Times reports. 

A Chinese scientist quoted by the paper says that certain standard kinds of equipment such as drones or robots might have trouble maneuvering in various kinds of rigorous, uneven, rocky or high-altitude terrain, necessitating a continued need for manual work and human activity. 

“But in high-altitude regions, due to the lack of oxygen, goods that weigh 1 kilogram feel like 5 kilograms, and at an elevation of 3,500 meters, a human being’s physical capabilities decay to only 70-75 percent of normal level, the Chinese expert said. 

Interestingly, pictures of the Chinese exoskeleton closely resemble several U.S. systems which have been under development for several years. This is by no means surprising, as the PLA often produces platforms and technologies which bear striking similarities to U.S. systems often just a few years later. 

However, despite the appearance of a potential “rip off,” it is by no means clear that Chinese exoskeletons could in any way mirror the fast-emerging series of U.S. iron-man-like suit technologies, many of which are already showing great promise. 

The Army is testing and prototyping self-generating “Ironman-like” soldier exoskeletons, designed to massively change combat missions by supporting soldier movement, generating electricity, powering weapons systems, and substantially lowering the weight burden of what troops carry in war.

The Army is currently exploring various configurations for exoskeletons, some of which include a suspended backpack, which can slide up and down on a spring, having little or no weight impact on the soldier.

For example, Army evaluators have been assessing a Lockheed-built FORTIS knee-stress-release-device exoskeleton with soldiers in recent years. Using independent actuators, motors and lightweight conformal structures, lithium ion battery powered FORTIS allows soldiers to carry 180 pounds up five flights of stairs while expending less energy.

FORTIS is built with a conformal upper structure that works on a belt attached to the waist. The belt connects with flexible hip sensors throughout the systems. These sensors tell the computer where the soldier is in space along with the speed and velocity of the movements.

Also, not only is the U.S. Army making fast progress toward near-term technologies, such as FORTIS, but the service is also deeply immersed in several scientific research projects intended to engineer a new generation of electrical power-generating exoskeleton technology. One system in particular, which involves experts with the Army Research Laboratory, is working on a breakthrough system able to produce electricity which can power batteries, increasing the longevity of soldier’s missions. The concept, mechanical engineers with the Army’s Communications Electronics Research, Development and Engineering Center told The National Interest earlier in the developmental process, is to design an energy-harvesting system which “can derive energy from the motion of a soldier as they are moving around.” 

An added advantage is that, while the technology harvests energy from the motion of soldiers, it also simultaneously eases the strain on their joints and muscles due to its apparatus, developers said. 

Kris Osborn is the defense editor for the National Interest. Osborn previously served at the Pentagon as a Highly Qualified Expert with the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army—Acquisition, Logistics & Technology. Osborn has also worked as an anchor and on-air military specialist at national TV networks. He has appeared as a guest military expert on Fox News, MSNBC, The Military Channel, and The History Channel. He also has a Masters Degree in Comparative Literature from Columbia University.

This article first appeared last year and is being republished due to reader interest.

Image: Reuters.

Ethen Kim Lieser

Unemployment Tax Refund,

Potentially sizeable checks might never reach some eligible Americans because they could be seized by the federal government for overdue federal and state taxes, child support, or student loans.

As the tenth batch of $1,400 coronavirus stimulus checks heads out to assist financially wounded Americans, know that there is another government-issued payment that should be a boon to millions of U.S. taxpayers.

The Internal Revenue Service recently confirmed that the tax refunds on 2020 unemployment benefits will start landing in bank accounts as early as this month. But do take note that these potentially sizeable checks might never reach some eligible Americans because they could be seized by the federal government for overdue federal and state taxes, child support, or student loans.

Then there are the third-party creditors who could legally garnish the funds for unpaid private debts, such as overdue medical bills and credit card debts. Know that as a taxpayer, there is little one can do to challenge this court order that allows for money to be removed from an individual’s bank account.

Be aware that the same holds true for the current round of $1,400 stimulus checks, as Congress frustrated many Americans when it failed to exempt the payments from garnishment. There were, however, garnishment protection measures for the $600 stimulus checks that were green-lighted in December.

According to the IRS, data indicate that as many as ten million people likely overpaid on their unemployment taxes and could be in line for these tax refunds. And a recent Treasury report confirmed that more than seven million tax returns already processed by the agency are eligible for the cash payment.

“Of the 7.4 million tax returns, nearly 7.3 million—or 98.6 percent—had modified adjusted gross income of less than $150,000 and would likely qualify for the exclusion,” the report stated.

Another direct payment that cash-strapped Americans can look forward to is from the expanded child tax credit, which will give a $250 or a $300 check each month to eligible parents through the end of the year. Moreover, eighteen-year-olds and full-time college students who are twenty-four and under will make parents eligible for a one-time $500 payment.

For these particular payments, however, keep in mind that they will be protected from both federal and state debts, such as back taxes—but they can indeed still be garnished for unpaid private debts.

Recipients of the child tax credit should also know that an overpayment of these funds could potentially make them responsible for paying back at least a portion of these benefits during tax season next year.

This is due to how the money will be disbursed starting on July 15—which is largely based off the IRS’ estimates on available data, such as overall income, marital status, and number and age of qualifying dependent children. Thus, if there are any outdated or inaccurate data, it could trigger an overpayment of the credit.

Ethen Kim Lieser is a Minneapolis-based Science and Tech Editor who has held posts at Google, The Korea Herald, Lincoln Journal Star, AsianWeek, and Arirang TV. Follow or contact him on LinkedIn.

Kris Osborn

military, The Americas

Emerging from years of scientific research and innovation, the first-of-its-kind Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System is changing the paradigm for fighter-jet take-off.

The Navy’s first-of-its-kind Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System (EMALS), installed on the USS Ford carriers over a period of many years, has now launched fighter jets from the ship’s deck as many as 8,000 times, a milestone marking the progressive emergence of a new kind of aircraft propulsion system for carrier-jet take off to replace existing steam catapults. 

The 8,000 take-offs and landings have involved F/A-18 Super Hornet jets, E-2D Hawkeye aircraft, C-2 Greyhound carrier transports, and EA-18G Growlers, among others. Emerging from years of scientific research and innovation, EMALS is changing the paradigm for fighter-jet take-off with a smoother kind of ship-deck propulsion system designed to enable an improved continuous launch of growing electromagnetic force and reduce wear and tear on aircraft. 

The development of the EMALS goes back more than a decade, as General Atomics was awarded a deal to develop the system in 2009. As a breakthrough technology, the system evolved through a series of adaptations and improvements as Navy and industry developers worked to integrate a previously unprecedented technology. Component deliveries of EMALS were underway as long as ten years ago.  

Several key components of EMALS needed to be installed and integrated early in the building process of the Navy’s USS Gerald Ford because several essential components, such as motor-generators needed to be installed in the lower portions of the ship, a Navy program manager told me several years ago during an earlier phase of EMALS development. 

The integration of EMALS into the USS Gerald Ford was a complex, detailed, and lengthy process. Metal decking had to be placed over the trough of the flight deck and cabling and linear induction motors were also installed onboard the ship. 

The purpose of these linear induction motors, a Navy weapons developer said, is to generate a “sequentially activated rolling magnetic field or wave” able to thrust and propel the aircraft forward.  The Navy program manager said the electromagnetic field acts on a 22-foot long aluminum plate, running in between stationary sections of twelve-foot linear motors. 

“Electricity runs through the two sides of the motors, creating an electromagnetic wave. The aircraft motors are kicked in at the beginning. There’s a hydraulic piston that pushes a shuttle forward. The shuttle is what connects to the aircraft launch bar,” the Navy Program Manager told The National Interest several years ago during an earlier portion of the construction of the USS Gerald Ford. 

One Navy developer, years ago, explained EMALS in terms of a steady progressive smooth process, as opposed to what he described as more of a “shotgun” type thrust coming from traditional steam propulsion. 

EMALS is engineered to be both steady and tailorable, meaning it can adjust to different aircraft weights and configurations.  This is particularly useful because the amount of thrust needed to launch an aircraft depends upon a range of interwoven factors to include size, shape, and weight of the aircraft, wind speed on the carrier deck, and the speed of the aircraft carrier in the water, Navy engineers explained. 

Kris Osborn is the defense editor for the National Interest. Osborn previously served at the Pentagon as a Highly Qualified Expert with the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army—Acquisition, Logistics & Technology. Osborn has also worked as an anchor and on-air military specialist at national TV networks. He has appeared as a guest military expert on Fox News, MSNBC, The Military Channel, and The History Channel. He also has a Master's Degree in Comparative Literature from Columbia University.

Image: Flickr

Michael Peck

F-35, Asia Pacific

China’s navy is deploying longer-range anti-aircraft missiles, which means Japanese aircraft will have to launch their anti-ship weapons from longer range or risk being shot down.

Here's What You Need To Remember: The situation would be reminiscent of the Cold War, when missile-equipped Soviet bombers such as the Tu-22M Backfire, equipped with long-range anti-ship missiles, faced U.S. carrier-based aircraft such as the F-14 Tomcat, which would have endeavored to intercept the bombers before they could reach launch range.

Japan is developing a longer-range, air-launched anti-ship cruise missile.

The reason? China’s navy is deploying longer-range anti-aircraft missiles, which means Japanese aircraft will have to launch their anti-ship weapons from longer range or risk being shot down.

Defense Minister Takeshi Iwaya cited longer-range air defenses on warships belonging to “some countries,” though there could be little doubt that he was referring to one nation in particular.  

“The plan involves extending the range of Japan's supersonic ASM-3 air-to-ship missiles, which are said to have a range of less than 200 kilometers [124 miles], to over 400 km [249 miles], with the aim of beefing up Tokyo's ability to defend a chain of outlying islands in the southwest,” according to Japan’s Mainichi newspaper.

“The F-2s are expected to retire in the 2030s and Iwaya said Japan is considering loading their successor fighter jets with the longer-range missiles,” Mainichi noted. Japan is developing the F-3, an indigenous stealth fighter.

What’s interesting is that the new missile is being developed even though Japan only finished developing its predecessor, the ASM-3, last year (for a graphic of the ASM-3, go here). The ASM-3 was designed to be launched by the F-2, Japan’s version of the U.S. F-16. The missile can either travel straight at the target ship from low altitude, or be launched low and “pop up” to high altitude before diving down on its target.

Japan is already opting for long-range ship-killers with a purchase of Norway’s Joint Strike Missile, with a range of up to 350 miles, for its F-35 stealth fighters.

As for the ASM-3, a Mach 3 missile with a range of just over a hundred miles might have proved quite devastating against China’s navy a decade ago. But the People’s Liberation Army Navy has a new generation of warships, such as the Type 052D guided missile destroyer armed with the HHQ-9 anti-aircraft missile, derived from the land-based HQ-9. The HQ-9 has a range of about 75 to 125 miles depending on the version, which would bring ASM-3-equipped Japanese fighters uncomfortably close to Chinese air defenses.

But there may be another reason for Japan’s desire for a longer-ranged anti-ship missile. China is building a fleet of aircraft carriers, whose jet fighters would extend the air defense perimeter of a Chinese naval task force beyond surface-to-air missile range.  

The situation would be reminiscent of the Cold War, when missile-equipped Soviet bombers such as the Tu-22M Backfire, equipped with long-range anti-ship missiles, faced U.S. carrier-based aircraft such as the F-14 Tomcat, which would have endeavored to intercept the bombers before they could reach launch range. Had the Cold War turned hot, the question is whether the Backfires would have been downed before they could saturate American carrier groups with missiles.

What’s also interesting is that Japan is extending the range of its weapons. Haunted by the disaster of World War II, a fiercely pacifistic Japan, despite having a fairly large and sophisticated military, had no appetite for long-distance operations outside Japan.  

That pacifism appears to be fading.  

“Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution renounces war as a sovereign right of the state and bans the possession of military forces and other ‘war potential,’ but Prime Minister Shinzo Abe said in the Diet in January last year that he believes long-range cruise missiles are not banned under the supreme law,” Mainichi pointed out.

Japan already plans to deploy F-35B stealth fighters on carrier-like “helicopter-destroyers.” A new air warfare strategy would incorporate American-made standoff air-to-surface missiles. A long-range anti-ship missile would just be a continuation of that trend.

Michael Peck is a contributing writer for the National Interest. He can be found on Twitter and Facebook. This article is being republished due to reader interest.

Image: Reuters.

Stephen Silver

YF-12,

During its nine years of existence, the YF-12 had slightly less than 300 flights, of a total of about 450 flight hours. And it was thought to be one of the fastest jets ever to fly.

Before the famous SR-71, there was the YF-12, which emerged from Lockheed Martin in the 1960s. It had a short life and was never actually used operationally by the military, but it did form the basis for the SR-71, which had a much longer life.

Only three of the planes were built. Two of the YF-12s were flown as part of a joint Air Force-NASA research program throughout the 1970s, while a third one was lost in a fire in 1971, according to NASA’s website.

The jet was developed under  Clarence "Kelly" Johnson, Lockheed Martin's vice president for Advanced Development Projects, as part of the company’s famous Skunkworks.

“The project didn't begin entirely from scratch, however,” we wrote of the plane earlier this year. “In actuality, the YF-12 was the twin-seat version of the top-secret single-seat Lockheed Martin A-12, and its design became the forerunner of the highly sophisticated SR-71 Blackbird strategic reconnaissance aircraft. Unlike the unarmed Blackbird, which used speed in its defense, the YF-12 was armed with three air-to-air missiles.

“The YF-12 allowed NASA researchers at all four of the agency's aeronautical centers (Langley, Lewis [now Glenn], and Ames as well as the Flight Research Center) to study the thermal, structural, and aerodynamic effects of sustained, high-altitude, Mach 3 flight,” the site said.

“Painted flat black, the YF-12 was fabricated primarily from titanium alloy, which enabled it to withstand skin temperatures of over 500º F.

During its nine years of existence, the YF-12 had slightly less than 300 flights, of a total of about 450 flight hours. And it was thought to be one of the fastest jets ever to fly. The plane claims a speed record of 2,070.101 mph and an altitude record of 80,257.65 feet, both of which were surpassed by the SR-71 later.

“NASA and the Air Force announced joint involvement in a YF-12 research program. The agendas differed, with the Air Force focusing on combat research and NASA engineers initially focusing on a study of flight loads and structural heating,” NASA said on its website. “Much of the NASA research was concerned with the viability and development of supersonic cruise aircraft. Two YF-12As (tail numbers 935 and 936) were removed from Air Force storage for the program. On December 11, 1969, 935 successfully made its first flight as a NASA-USAF research plane and inaugurated the program. On June 24, 1971, 936 experienced the fuel line failure described above.”

The only surviving YF-12 is housed at the U.S. Air Force Museum at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base.

Stephen Silver, a technology writer for The National Interest, is a journalist, essayist, and film critic, who is also a contributor to The Philadelphia Inquirer, Philly Voice, Philadelphia Weekly, the Jewish Telegraphic Agency, Living Life Fearless, Backstage magazine, Broad Street Review and Splice Today. The co-founder of the Philadelphia Film Critics Circle, Stephen lives in suburban Philadelphia with his wife and two sons. Follow him on Twitter at @StephenSilver.

Image: Wikimedia Commons

Michael Peck

Pilots, Asia

What good is an aircraft carrier without carrier-trained pilots?

Here's What You Need to Remember: The fact that China is looking for a specialized training jet is evidence that Beijing’s carrier plans are maturing. A single aircraft carrier, like Russia has, is a novelty. But China may build four or more carriers, which will require infrastructure and equipment such as carrier training jets.

What good is an aircraft carrier without carrier-trained pilots?

For the U.S. Navy, that’s no big deal. For nearly a century, it has been teaching fledgling aviators how to land on a little floating airfield on a dark night in the middle of the ocean. But for China’s navy, it’s a different story. The aircraft of the People’s Liberation Army Navy Air Force have been almost a totally land-based force, as befits a navy that only got its first carrier—a decrepit ex-Soviet model—a few years ago.

But China’s second carrier—an indigenously produced one—has just joined the fleet, and more carriers are on the way. This means there’s a need to train many more naval aviators—and find the right aircraft to train them.

China is modifying its JL-9 Mountain Eagle trainer for carrier training, according to Chinese state-controlled media. The supersonic, two-seat JL-9 has been used by the Chinese air force and navy since 2014 to train pilots for operating advanced jets such as the Su-27, Su-30MKK and J-10 fighters. It is descended from the earlier JJ-7, itself descended from the Soviet MiG-21 fighter. The JL-9 is also exported as the FTC-200G light attack aircraft.

“Multiple promotional materials released by JL-9's developer, Guizhou Aviation Industry Corporation under the state-owned Aviation Industry Corporation of China (AVIC), involved the JL-9 and an aircraft carrier operating together in edited pictures, leading to speculation that the JL-9 could eventually be modified into a carrier-based jet trainer,” reported China’s Global Times.

“Having been already delivered to the Chinese Navy, the naval version of the JL-9 is now training aircraft carrier jet pilots on land-based airfields, but China still does not have an aircraft carrier-based trainer aircraft that can take off and land on an actual carrier,” Global Times noted.

While carrier- and land-based jets are broadly similar—which is why the U.S. Air Force and Navy can fly tailored versions of the F-35 fighter—carrier planes do have specific requirements, such as more robust landing gear for abrupt touchdowns on flight decks. The Mountain Eagle might require substantial modifications to its airframe and engine, Chinese media noted.

Chinese media also took care to point out that the JL-9 might have competition for carrier training. “A powerful competitor to the single-engined JL-9 Mountain Eagle is the twin-engined JL-10 Falcon, which has a more advanced avionics system and better aerodynamic performance,” Global Times said. “But the JL-10 advanced trainer jet, developed by AVIC Hongdu Aviation Industry Group, is more expensive.”

The U.S. Navy and Marine Corps trainer since 1991 is the T-45 Goshawk, a carrier-capable variant of the popular 1970s British Hawk trainer. It’s a small, subsonic jet with two seats and a single-engine.

The fact that China is looking for a specialized training jet is evidence that Beijing’s carrier plans are maturing. A single aircraft carrier, like Russia has, is a novelty. But China may build four or more carriers, which will require infrastructure and equipment such as carrier training jets.

Michael Peck is a contributing writer for the National Interest. He can be found on Twitter, Facebook, or on his website. This article first appeared last April and is being republished due to reader interest.

Image: Reuters

Maya Carlin

Iran, Turkey, Qatar, Middle East

According to Libyan intelligence officials, radical militant groups in Libya funded by Iran, Turkey, and Qatar are responsible for smuggling arms into Gaza. 

Hamas and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) fired over 4,000 rockets into Israeli cities during the latest outbreak of violence between Israel and Gaza. The magnitude of missiles and rocket launchers that were used indicate the Palestinian militants were able to circumvent Israel’s blockade on the strip. According to Libyan intelligence officials, radical militant groups in Libya funded by Iran, Turkey, and Qatar—using the relative lawlessness of the adjacent Sinai Peninsula—are responsible for smuggling arms into Gaza.

The Libyan civil conflict has evolved into a full-blown proxy war in recent years, with multiple foreign actors joining in to achieve economic gains or to uphold ideological convictions. Turkey and Qatar, both of whom considered Egypt under President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi to be among their most bitter strategic rivals, entered the conflict to back the Tripoli-based Government of National Accord (GNA), led by Prime Minister Fayez al-Sarraj. Both Ankara and Doha have sent thousands of Syrian and Somali mercenaries to Libya, ultimately shifting the tide of war in the country against the Egyptian-backed (and last-elected) Libyan government ruled by general Khalifa Haftar. Among the militias sent to fight in Libya are radical Islamist groups with ties to Hamas, a designated terror group by the United States and European Union. Libyan officials have accused Turkey and Qatar of exploiting the conflict in Libya to use as a platform to fund Hamas’ terror platform in Gaza.

Iran, an effective user of proxy warfare across the region, has also deployed militias to Libya to support Hamas’ cause in Gaza. The link connecting Tehran to Gaza’s arsenal is well documented. Both Hamas and PIJ leaders are on record stating that the weapons used to attack Israel in the latest round of fighting were provided by Iran. In a translated video published by the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI), a Hamas official disclosed that the terror group’s weapons are bought with Iranian money, their activities are supervised by Iranian experts, and their weapons all have the Iranian signatures. Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh outright thanked Iran for its money and weapons.

Turkish involvement in Hamas’ weapons depot buildup also extends past militia use in Libya. In October 2020, a U.S. district court ruled an Istanbul-based bank, Kuveyt Turk, knowingly provided financial services to Hamas operatives in Gaza. Four months later, Israel confiscated over $120,000 along with shipping containers full of merchandise sent to Hamas operatives in Gaza from Turkey. Ankara’s longstanding support for Hamas is often overshadowed in the media by Iran’s assistance to the militant group.

Turkey’s support for radical Palestinians acquired a novel and chillingly threatening dimension in this recent round of fighting. Turkey has spent years and much money to fund leaders, organizations, foundations, and land purchases in order to weaken Israel’s control of the situation within Israel itself, among Israeli Arabs, and in particular, over events in Jerusalem, the liberation of which from non-Muslim rule the Turkish president has often stated is a prime objective. The most dangerous development in the recent round of conflict was Hamas’ ability to implement Turkey’s efforts. The missiles were difficult for Israel, but they were also expected. In contrast, it was shocking for Israelis to see Hamas not only to appeal emotively but to even command operationally some Israeli-Arabs, let alone Palestinians, and through that, to dictate the pace of events on the Temple Mount and devastate Israel’s control over and the security within its cities with mixed populations, and on the highways across the country. Iran had never managed to achieve that through its Hamas factions; this was a Turkish accomplishment.

Qatar also contributes mightily to Hamas’ terror enterprise. In addition to financing the training of mercenaries deployed to Libya by Iran and Turkey, Doha is responsible for spreading misinformation and dangerous propaganda in its widely circulated state-sanctioned textbooks. Despite Qatar’s formal diplomatic position with Israel and the United States, its textbooks celebrate Hamas rocket attacks targeting civilians and eradicating Israeli from maps. Doha also is the source for the large finances Turkey needs to fund its interference.

These foreign actors have been largely excluded from the cooperative axis established in the region in recent months, including the Gulf Cooperation Council and the Abraham Accords. For years, Qatar was isolated from its Gulf neighbors due to its unremitting support for Iran and the Muslim Brotherhood. Although Qatar was welcomed back into the Gulf Cooperation Council in early 2021, regional clout in the Middle East has shifted following the inauguration of U.S. President Joe Biden. The Biden administration has prioritized a recalibration of ties with Saudi Arabia and Iran, distancing itself from the former and trying to reach a nuclear agreement with the latter. Qatar and Turkey could be hedging their bets by warming up to Iran’s ambitions as it appears Tehran has achieved major leverage in the region.

Maya Carlin is an analyst at the Center for Security Policy in Washington D.C. and a former Anna Sobol Levy Fellow at IDC Herzliya in Israel.

Image: Reuters.

Michael Peck

Aircraft Carriers, The Americas

Sorry, folks. It’s time to say goodbye to the world’s first nuclear-powered aircraft carrier.

Here's What You Need To Remember: What’s fascinating is what happened to the U.S. Navy’s nuclear surface fleet. In addition to carriers, the Cold War Navy had nuclear-powered cruisers (the USS Long Beach, history’s first nuclear-powered surface ship, was commissioned just two months before the Enterprise).

It’s time to say goodbye to the world’s first nuclear-powered aircraft carrier.

The USS Enterprise, hull number CVN-65, was officially decommissioned earlier this month, which means it is no longer officially on the Navy’s register (the ship was actually transferred to inactive status in 2012, when preparations began to dispose of its nuclear reactor).

The Enterprise, or “Big E,” was commissioned on November 25, 1961. The ship’s subsequent twenty-five deployments read like a history of the Cold War and modern U.S. foreign policy: the Big E participated in the blockade of Cuba during the Cuban Missile Crisis, deployed six times to Vietnam, sailed to the Bay of Bengal during the 1971 India-Pakistan War, flew missions in Bosnia and supported the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Where there was trouble, the Enterprise was there.

But what was really remarkable about the Enterprise was that it marked the debut of nuclear-powered aircraft carriers, which are the backbone of U.S. naval power. Any warship is only as capable as the logistics that sustain it. Sail-powered vessels relied on the wind, which was a renewable resource but wasn’t always available when you needed to get moving. The switch to coal propulsion by World War I offered more reliable power, but coal was bulky and required large crews to shovel it into the engines, as well as nearby bases for replenishment. By World War II, ships ran on oil, but this still meant returning to port to refuel, or performing cumbersome refueling at sea from vulnerable tankers.

However, the nuclear reactors on U.S. aircraft carriers are designed to be refueled every twenty-five years. That doesn’t spare carriers from the need to dock for maintenance, and they still need ammunition, food and rest for the crew. But at least it gives nuclear-powered ships more time to stay at sea. Plus, nuclear fuel generates tremendous energy relative to the small amount of space it takes up. As the Heritage Foundation puts it, “the high density of nuclear power, i.e., the amount of volume required to store a given amount of energy, frees storage capacity for high value/high impact assets such as jet fuel, small craft, remote-operated and autonomous vehicles, and weapons. When compared to its conventional counterpart, a nuclear aircraft carrier can carry twice the amount of aircraft fuel, 30 percent more weapons, and 300,000 cubic feet of additional space (which would be taken up by air intakes and exhaust trunks in gas turbine-powered carriers).”

For another comparison between nuclear and conventional ships, see here.

What’s fascinating is what happened to the U.S. Navy’s nuclear surface fleet. In addition to carriers, the Cold War Navy had nuclear-powered cruisers (the USS Long Beach, history’s first nuclear-powered surface ship, was commissioned just two months before the Enterprise). But no more: by the late 1990s, the Navy’s only nuclear-powered warships were aircraft carriers and submarines. Russia has nuclear-powered warships such as the Kirov-class battlecruiser Pyotr Veliky, while France’s nuclear-powered aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle has experienced reactor problems.

Will nuclear power ever come back for other surface ships? A 2010 Congressional Research Service study points out a few advantages, were the Navy to again embrace nuclear surface ships such as cruisers. On the plus side, nuclear-powered ships can remain on station longer, need to devote less space to carrying fuel and, while more expensive to build, they are cheaper to maintain relative to oil-fueled ships depending on the price of oil.

However, on the negative side, there is the additional cost of building a nuclear surface ship, including finding manufacturers and shipyards capable of building and assembling components. Some nations may not allow nuclear-propelled vessels to dock in their ports, which complicates logistics and diplomacy. And, of course, there is the specter of the atom. Despite the U.S. Navy’s remarkable safety record with nuclear propulsion, there is always the chance of terrorism or accident.

Michael Peck is a contributing writer for the National Interest. He can be found on Twitter and Facebook.

Image: Flickr

Kris Osborn

Arctic, arctic

Given the concerning pace of melting ice identified by Arctic and climate experts, the Pentagon is concerned.

Here's What You Need To Remember: As water warms, and ice melts, new waterways open up within the Arctic, creating new strategic options for many countries now increasing their interest in exerting influence from or within the Arctic.

While surely nobody wishes to open small arms fire in the vicinity of polar bears and penguins, many militaries around the world are massively increasing training and preparations for warfare in the Arctic.

It has been, and continues to be, a highly prioritized focus for the Pentagon which has in recent years stepped up Arctic training and studies and re-written, revised and added Arctic combat strategy documents.  Not surprisingly, U.S. Marine Corps units recently finished up an ambitious Arctic combat training operation with the Norwegian military called Exercise Reindeer II. The Marines forward-deployed forces along with Norway’s Brigade North to improve interoperability and refine collaborative cold-weather warfare tactics.

“For the Marines and Sailors, they have learned how to survive, thrive, and fight in the beginning of the arctic winter,” Lt. Col. Ryan Gordinier, commander of 3rd Battalion, 6th Marine Regiment, noted in a Marine Corps report.

In January 2021, the 3rd Battalion, 6th Marine Regiment will return to Norway as part of MRF-E to conduct a follow-on deployment consisting of approximately one thousand Marines and Sailors, according to the report.

A U.S.-Norwegian Arctic combat alliance could be of great significance regarding the Pentagon’s interest in countering Russia’s visible and well-known Arctic advances. Russia not only owns a large number of icebreakers but operates along the Northern Sea Route, a series of water passageways bordering Russia and the Arctic.

Russia has built military bases in the Arctic and also conducted a large number of patrol and training operations in the region, a series of maneuvers which has only increased U.S. preparations for greatly stepped up Arctic activity to counterbalance the strategic influence.

The U.S. Navy has, for instance, updated its Arctic Road Map and called for new levels of scientific and technological inquiry into the prospect of engineering weather-resilient weapons systems. The Office of Naval Research (ONR) and other service entities have been looking intently at ways to create weapons, sensors and ship hulls able to function effectively at extremely dangerous temperatures.

The ONR has also been immersed in using networked undersea drones to study the Arctic water column for the purpose of better understanding temperature fluctuations and their impact upon military operations.

All of this has been increasing in urgency for the Pentagon in recent years, given the concerning pace of melting ice identified by Arctic and climate experts. It had been thought that the U.S. military would need to operate much more extensively in the Arctic by the 2030s, however, the pace at which new waterways are opening up due to warming waters and melting ice has generated a need for the U.S. Navy to massively move-up its plans to operate much more significantly in the region. As water warms, and ice melts, new waterways open up within the Arctic, creating new strategic options for many countries now increasing their interest in exerting influence from or within the Arctic.

Kris Osborn is the defense editor for the National Interest. Osborn previously served at the Pentagon as a Highly Qualified Expert with the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army—Acquisition, Logistics & Technology. Osborn has also worked as an anchor and on-air military specialist at national TV networks. He has appeared as a guest military expert on Fox News, MSNBC, The Military Channel, and The History Channel. He also has a Masters Degree in Comparative Literature from Columbia University.

This piece first appeared last year and is being republished due to reader interest.

Image: U.S. Army Flickr.

Michael Peck

World War I, Europe

Massed armor, short, surprise artillery barrages and air support. It was an early form of blitzkrieg.

Here's What You Need To Remember: It wasn't the first time that tanks had seen combat. The dismal British offensive at the Somme in July 1916 had seen the advent of the newfangled "landships." They were designed to break the deadlock of trench warfare by knocking down the barbed wire and knocking out the machine gun nests before the infantry they supported could be massacred. But it was the first tank offensive. 

Recommended:  Why North Korea's Air Force is Total Junk 

Recommended:  Why Doesn't America Kill Kim Jong Un? 

At dawn on November 20, 1917, it was business as usual on the Western Front. Snug in their Hindenburg Line fortifications near the northern French city of Cambrai, three German divisions held a formidable maze of multiple trench lines, dugouts, machine guns nests and barbed wire.

Their plan was do what had worked for them so far. If the British troops opposite them attacked, they would be impaled on barbed wire or machine-gunned into oblivion. While the enemy struggled to regroup, the Germans would mass reserves for a quick, savage counterattack to retake any lost ground.

That had been the grim, futile script of the first half of the First World War, played out at Verdun, the Somme, Passchendaele and the other notorious bloodbaths of the Western Front. But this autumn morning would be different. Onward, on usual, trudged the British infantrymen grunting under their heavy packs as they crossed No Man's Land toward the German lines. But in front of them clanked hundreds of fire-spitting metal rhomboids deflecting machine gun bullets like Wonder Woman's bracelets.

It wasn't the first time that tanks had seen combat. The dismal British offensive at the Somme in July 1916 had seen the advent of the newfangled "landships." They were designed to break the deadlock of trench warfare by knocking down the barbed wire and knocking out the machine gun nests before the infantry they supported could be massacred. But at the Somme, a mere thirty-two Mark I tanks, unreliable and prone to breakdown, were neither enough to force a breakthrough or alarm the German high command. The Kaiser's resolute riflemen, backed by artillery, could handle a few clumsy metal monsters.

Recommended:  The F-22 Is Getting a New Job: Sniper

Not this time. Cambrai wasn't history's first tank attack. It was history's first tank offensive. The tanks would not be a mechanical freak show. Instead, they would be an integral part of the attack. Some 476 Mark IV tanks—including special tanks to function as armored resupply trucks—would be concentrated on a narrow front.

Nor was it just the use of armor that made Cambrai a first. Instead of weeks of preparatory artillery barrages that failed to kill the Germans in their underground dugouts—but did alert them that an offensive was coming—the assault would begin with a short barrage. The British had harnessed maps and mathematics to devise new predictive fire techniques that allowed the big guns to accurately shell their targets without first firing aiming shots to tip off the Germans that new batteries had arrived in their sector. Even airpower would be a factor, with the Royal Flying Corps providing low-altitude air support.

Massed armor, short, surprise artillery barrages and air support. It was an early form of blitzkrieg. To a veteran of Normandy 1944 or Desert Storm 1991, the tactics and technology of Cambrai might have seemed primitive, but not unfamiliar.

For their attack, the British assembled seven infantry divisions, three tank brigades, a thousand guns—and five cavalry divisions. That last part seems a bit of an anachronism and reflected a certain ambiguity in the British plans. Was this operation a full-scale breakthrough or just a raid? The tanks and infantry, backed by artillery, would aim for limited objectives: seize Bourlon ridge at the north end of the sector, cross the St. Quentin Canal in the south and repel the inevitable German counterattacks. Given past offensives against the Germans, that sort of shallow bite-and-hold attack was the best that could be achieved without taking heavy losses for little gain. But what if—just what if—every First World War general's dream came true, and there was a genuine, complete breakthrough? Then might not the cavalry, those dashing upper-class darlings made obsolete by those working-class machine gunners, burst through the breach and reach "the green fields beyond?"

For a moment, the prize seemed within reach. From the smoke and morning mist, the British tanks emerged to trample the barbed wire and pulverize the machine gun nests. There were the inevitable holdups, such as the 51st Scottish Highland Division's attack at Flesquieres, where German artillery ambushed their supporting tanks. Yet the German defenses had been breached.

"At first glance it had been a stunning success: three to four miles' penetration on a six-mile front at unprecedented speed," write historians Alexander Turner and Peter Dennis in their book Cambrai 1917: The Birth of Armored Warfare. “German reaction swung from incredulity to helpless despondency; that morning Rupprecht [the German commander] had considered ordering a general retirement.”

The British had suffered just 4,000 casualties the first day. On the first day of the Battle of the Somme, they had suffered 57,000 casualties to capture just three square miles."Reaction in Britain was euphoric," Turner and Dennis write. "Church bells were rung; a great victory had been achieved."

But it hadn't. Some objectives hadn't been captured, the assault troops were exhausted and the cavalry hadn't been exploited. After three years of trench deadlock, armies were unaccustomed to mobile warfare. Communications had also broken down, and so had nearly half the British armor. Though specialized anti-tank guns were not to make their debut until the next world war, ordinary German artillery pieces firing point-blank knocked out dozens of Mark IV tanks waddling across the battlefield at four miles per hour.

"In the minds of the [British] field commanders, it had fallen short of what needed to be achieved on the first day, write Turner and Dennis. "Now surprise had been lost they would be in a race against German reserves.”

Those fears were well-founded. With their customary efficiency, the Germans rushed seventeen divisions to the battlefield, including battalions of specially trained stosstruppen assault troops that would almost win the war for the Kaiser in 1918. Like the panzers of 1940, the stosstruppen infiltrated British lines, surrounding front-line units and overrunning command posts and artillery batteries. On November 30, the German counteroffensive swept forward, even reaching two miles beyond the British start line. Then the Germans, too, ran out of steam.

After the battle ended in early December, and both sides had suffered about 45,000 casualties each, the opposing lines ended up more or less as they had been two weeks before. Perhaps no more could have been expected. Even if the cavalry had exploited the breach, sooner or later human and horse flesh would have run into the ubiquitous German machine guns. The internal combustion engine had produced the tank, but in 1917, infantry moved on foot and supplies by wagons. And there were just a few hundred tanks. In the 1918 offensives that finally induced Imperial Germany to sue for peace, the Allies would deploy not hundreds but thousands.

But the wheel—or the tank track—would turn full circle. Some thirty-three years later, it would be the turn of the Germans to show how much they had learned. In 1940, it was the French who dispersed their tanks in small packets across the front. And it was the Germans who massed their armor to wage a blitzkrieg offensive that smashed a hole in the enemy defenses and compelled France to surrender in six weeks.

Further reading:

- Cambrai 1917: The Birth of Armored Warfare by Alexander Turner and Peter Dennis.

- A superb board game of the battle: To the Green Fields Beyond, designed by David Isby.

Michael Peck is a contributing writer for the National Interest. He can be found on Twitter and Facebook.

Image: Wikipedia.